OT: Can we all agree to just be cool with PEDs?

[All4SU]

No, because if its okay for a 25 year old, then it's okay for a 20 year old. And if its okay for a 20 year old, then it's okay, for a 15 year old. And if its okay for a 15 year old, then it's okay for a 12 year old...where does it stop? They're harmful. They're cheating. They're wrong. Pretty much a black and white issue to me in an age when there are too few B&W issues.

 

[texascpa]

No, because if its okay for a 25 year old, then it's okay for a 20 year old. And if its okay for a 20 year old, then it's okay, for a 15 year old. And if its okay for a 15 year old, then it's okay for a 12 year old...where does it stop? They're harmful. They're cheating. They're wrong. Pretty much a black and white issue to me in an age when there are too few B&W issues.

Sorry, that is a not a good argument. There are plenty of things that we say "okay, you have reached the age of maturation. You are no longer banned from using or doing these things." Treating adults like children is part of our issues in society. It's the reason why people feel entitled, it's the reason why people don't take responsibility or blame others. Those are behaviors of children.

 

[All4SU]

Sorry, that is a not a good argument. There are plenty of things that we say "okay, you have reached the age of maturation. You are no longer banned from using or doing these things." Treating adults like children is part of our issues in society. It's the reason why people feel entitled, it's the reason why people don't take responsibility or blame others. Those are behaviors of children.

Disagree. If you tell a 15 year old kid "Son, when you're 18 you can make your own decisions about PEDs. Of course, they're bad for you, and they will shrink your gonads to acorns. But don't worry about it. They will allow you to compete at the highest level an make a ton of dough..." Those 15 year olds will do everything they can to start taking them too. I'm 100% in favor of personal responsibility. But the message about PEDs would be clear. IMF you want to compete, you HAVE to do them.

 

[sufandu]

I think an incorrect notion here is that PED's are unhealthy. HGH, when used correctly, helps extend life. To think athletes are using these unhealthy is not really the case. These guys are more regimented then anyone.

Your example of HGH being used correctly concerns the elderly population when they are wasting away and are showing severe signs of muscle atrophy, not professional/college athletes whose bodies are still in peak production of it. That's reason it's regulated by the government in the first place. Athletes that obtain it do so through illegal channels because no doctor would find a legitimate need for an athlete, already a superior physical specimen, to use it. Natural HGH production by the human body doesn't even begin to dip until someone is into their 30's and doesn't show a significant decline until decades later. HGH doesn't just stimulate muscle growth, but growth of internal organs as well. Is it healthy to have a larger than normal liver?

 

[sufandu]

Encouraging them to use them versus allowing them to use them are two different things.

Is it the synthetic PEDs that you have a problem with? What about natural PEDs? A lot of banned PEDs are natural substances. What if there are no long-term side effects? A lot of people seem to think all of these athletes are roiding up on dangerous levels of Dianabol like in the 70s and 80s. For a lot of athletes, its a lot more subtle and the long-term effects are fairly minimal and less detrimental than prolonged use of NSAIDs given to athletes without any thought of the long-term effects. It's not as black and white as you make it seem. The main danger is the use of PEDs among younger athletes whose bodies haven't fully developed.

What about vaso-dilators for erectile dysfunction? Are you against those as well or just those that allow improved "athletic" performance?

I think PEDs should be allowed in professional sports.

First, I'm against PED's that are controlled substances that can only be obtained illegally. No, I'm not against natural supplements. I think NSAID's are over used. Are you actually comparing drugs for erectile dysfunction to PED's? One is prescribed by an MD after a physical is given and other conditions are ruled out, the other is something a perfectly healthy person is using to enhance performance, apples to oranges.

 

[sufandu]

I used to be anti-PEDS, I thought it ruined the integrity of the game and considered it cheating. I was 18 and wrote an English paper on it . Today I think we should allow whatever they want to do. That's the trade off , hurt yourself physically for lots of money. I would do it if I had the ability and it meant millions of dollars.

Firefighters make good money but put themselves at serious risk. Isn't the risk vs reward here much a higher reward. And if usage was allowed wouldn't capitalism in theory be a driving force to weed out harmful products until all that was left were supplements that weren't as dangerous

Firefighters try to minimize risk as much as possible while trying to save lives.

 

[sufandu]

Federal Regulation doesn't always mean it's the right thing.

You're right it doesn't. But in regards to job safety, it usually means your boss can't take advantage of you while disregarding it. If PED's were legal, is it not possible some coach somewhere would be telling a guy to take something or your cut? Would that be ethical?

 

[sufandu]

But do we know what those PEDs are actually doing to the human body down the road? Everyone acts like it's killing people and they point to Lyle Alzado or something, but if you were really that concerned with the decision-making of 20-year-olds, wouldn't you steer them away from football to begin with -- PEDs or not? And if you let them play, are you letting them use the "legal" supplements they can get over the counter at GNC? Is there long-term testing on that garbage? No, it's all just a complete crapshoot and if some dude wants to take a few cycles of HGH so he can be Sammy Sosa Home Run King instead of, well, Sammy Sosa Strikeout King, why not? I actually think you could make the argument that it's not only not a terrible decision, but that it's a really good one.

There's a huge difference between taking sythetic HGH and drinking a protein shake or a taking multivitamin. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to say.

 

[billsin01]

Disagree. If you tell a 15 year old kid "Son, when you're 18 you can make your own decisions about PEDs. Of course, they're bad for you, and they will shrink your gonads to acorns. But don't worry about it. They will allow you to compete at the highest level an make a ton of dough..." Those 15 year olds will do everything they can to start taking them too. I'm 100% in favor of personal responsibility. But the message about PEDs would be clear. IMF you want to compete, you HAVE to do them.

I get what you're saying but a couple counter-points to this:

1) Do we actually know how bad these things are, particularly when compared to legal supplements kids have access to? I mean, we all know the Alzedo (sp?) story and the stuff about steroids but we don't really know about HGH right? And didn't that Orioles pitcher actually die from an over-the-counter supplement with ephedrine in it? And let's make no mistake about this -- if you have a kid who is a pretty good high school athlete, he's going to encounter opportunity, if not pressure to take the GNC crap which, if I understand correctly, is not FDA tested long-term nor regulated in any way, shape or form. In other words, we flip out about HGH but you could put a powder in a blue jar, call it MUSCLETENE and sell it at GNC, and no one would bat an eye.

2) Unfair -- life is unfair. There are plenty of unfair advantages in sports. I LOVED baseball as a kid but, alas, unfairly I couldn't throw 90 mpg or hit 400-foot home runs. I LOVED hoops, but alas I'm not quick, coordinated or super tall. Professional athletics -- and even college and varsity high school athletics -- weeds the vast majority of kids/adults out. I could go on about unfairness all over the place but the reality is the notion of a "level playing field" isn't all that realistic.

3) Even if I grant you all your points -- and you make a good one that the subtle, or not-so-subtle message would be that you have to use PEDs to compete -- I still come back to this troubling hypocrisy that exists: Namely how can we toss all these dudes out of the Garden of Eden for doing exactly what we all indirectly encourage them to do? Athletes are bred to "be the best" and constantly be bigger, faster, stronger ... You don't think that's true? That they aren't directly rewarded for being stronger and faster? I mean, we all scream at Lance Armstrong but cycling has been a dirty sport forever. None of us worried about that when he was winning his tour de france titles. We scoff at the accomplishments of Sammy Sosa, but he's at home counting his millions after enjoying a long MLB career and all the perks that come with that. And the NFL -- seriously, everyone will enjoy the Super Bowl Sunday, right? You mean to tell me those dudes aren't all using some sort of PED? Seriously?

-- Finally, if we were sooooo concerned about the children then why are we still allowing traditional youth and high school football to exist? Seriously, with all this head injury stuff coming out, parents are signing up kids for pop warner and getting ready to go out to the field and spend all day watching kids running into each other while simultaneously talking about how terrible PEDs are for your health. Just odd.

 

[Moontan]

Other sports/competitions have different classes of competition to attempt to level the playing field. Boxing, wrestling, weightlifting use weight classes. Motor sports use engine, tire, weight, track type and wing size specifications to differentiate the classes.

Perhaps MLB should have "clean" and "dirty" leagues to provide such differentiation. The NL could be designated as "clean" or "pure", and the AL (since they already butchered the game with the designated hitter rule) could be the "dirty"/"drug" league. The league championships take on more meaning and the World Series becomes an exhibition.

 

[timkay99]

Is it healthy to have a larger than normal liver?

Is that the argument?

Because there are numerous things that are both legal and illegal in this country that cause damage to the human body.

But, this country wants to focus on what the top 1 % body/health wise are doing and then vilify them for doing something that can increase their income from 400,000 a year to 9 million a year (as it relates to baseball)?

I have no problem with leagues having rules against them and testing for them.

But, you are aware that amphetamines are legal in the real world, but are considered PED's in the baseball world? If you are, just remember that your baseball HOF voter doesn't judging by how prevalent "greenies" were in the 80's and 90's and the double standard they have employed.

 

[timkay99]

Other sports/competitions have different classes of competition to attempt to level the playing field. Boxing, wrestling, weightlifting use weight classes. Motor sports use engine, tire, weight, track type and wing size specifications to differentiate the classes.

Perhaps MLB should have "clean" and "dirty" leagues to provide such differentiation. The NL could be designated as "clean" or "pure", and the AL (since they already butchered the game with the designated hitter rule) could be the "dirty"/"drug" league. The league championships take on more meaning and the World Series becomes an exhibition.

This is unreal. You probably think the NFL is clean.

 

[dollarbill44]

First, I'm against PED's that are controlled substances that can only be obtained illegally. No, I'm not against natural supplements. I think NSAID's are over used. Are you actually comparing drugs for erectile dysfunction to PED's? One is prescribed by an MD after a physical is given and other conditions are ruled out, the other is something a perfectly healthy person is using to enhance performance, apples to oranges.

First, many PEDs are natural substances, certain anabolic steroids included
As for the ED drugs and PEDs - yes, I am comparing the two. Both are for enhancing recreational activities. And it's quite easy to find an MD to prescribe ED drugs for you with very little screening. You can also obtain them illegally if you can't get a doctor to write you a scrip. There are also other alternatives to the drugs, such as improving your health and circulation naturally, the same way they degraded in the first place. And contrary to your assertion, a lot of college and professional athletes are indeed getting their drugs from MDs either by prescription or otherwise and after full physical screens.

Like I said, it's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

 

[Moontan]

You probably think the NFL is clean.

You mean it isn't?

MLB and those that vote on HoF induction have made the statement that baseball should be clean.

Will some of the recent "cheaters" ever make it to Cooperstown? Probably. When they do, however, they should either go in a separate wing or be denoted by lots of asterisks. The same goes for their records. I have no problem having 2 sets of records. One set for "Best Ever*" and one set that only contains records for those believed to have been clean their entire careers.

Hank Aaron and Roger Maris are still recognized as HR record holders by most that I've spoken to about the subject.

 

[billsin01]

There's a huge difference between taking sythetic HGH and drinking a protein shake or a taking multivitamin. If you don't understand that, I don't know what to say.

I beg to differ. Steve Bechler died from an over-the-counter dietary supplement -- it doesn't really get worse for you than death (if you don't understand that I don't know what to say). And ephedra was, of course, not illegal at the time. Link

And did you ever see the 60 Minutes piece about how little regulation their is of supplements -- they could literally contain anything? You can thank Orrin Hatch for that, as this link shows. I can't find the video but IIRC they literally had a guy make up a supplement and he had it packaged and selling in like 3 months. It was unreal.

 

[billsin01]

You're right it doesn't. But in regards to job safety, it usually means your boss can't take advantage of you while disregarding it. If PED's were legal, is it not possible some coach somewhere would be telling a guy to take something or your cut? Would that be ethical?

Who's to say there aren't coaches saying that now?

 

[cuseincincy]

Yes.

 

[timkay99]

You mean it isn't?

MLB and those that vote on HoF induction have made the statement that baseball should be clean.

Will some of the recent "cheaters" ever make it to Cooperstown? Probably. When they do, however, they should either go in a separate wing or be denoted by lots of asterisks. The same goes for their records. I have no problem having 2 sets of records. One set for "Best Ever*" and one set that only contains records for those believed to have been clean their entire careers.

Hank Aaron and Roger Maris are still recognized as HR record holders by most that I've spoken to about the subject.

Really? I work in baseball. The Hall of Fame has been surprisingly mum on the candidacy of people in the PED Era and are leaving that to the decision of individual voters with the "character clause" being the reason they aren't voted for. Hall of Fame is voted on by sportswriters who were fine making money because of this and now feel "cheated" because of the things they ignored during the 98 run.

They will not make it into Cooperstown unless the Hall of Fame decides to take a leadership role on this (which they won't). McGwire, Palmeiro and Sosa have no shot. Clemens has minimal shot.

But, you think it is okay for writers to not vote for guys like Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell b/c of PED suspicion?

Ummmmm, Hank Aaron and Roger Maris faced about 2 pitchers that threw over 90 miles per hour. Nowadays, every pitcher throws 90. Babe Ruth got his number without playing against a massive segment of the population.

 

[billsin01]

MLB and those that vote on HoF induction have made the statement that baseball should be clean.

Will some of the recent "cheaters" ever make it to Cooperstown? Probably. When they do, however, they should either go in a separate wing or be denoted by lots of asterisks. The same goes for their records. I have no problem having 2 sets of records. One set for "Best Ever*" and one set that only contains records for those believed to have been clean their entire careers.

Hank Aaron and Roger Maris are still recognized as HR record holders by most that I've spoken to about the subject.

Here's what's funny about that -- guys that were supposedly "clean" (and I'd love to hear how you're going to make these judgments) got no love either. How about the fact that Fred McGriff and Bernie Williams were great guys (by most accounts), clean, multiple-time all-stars and key players on teams that won a ton of games ... yet not only do they not get in, Bernie Williams won't even be on the ballot anymore (less than 5%). So I guess we don't like cheaters, but we don't give much credit to those dudes who not only didn't cheat (supposedly), but didn't cheat in an era when everyone around them did. HOw does that make any sense?

 

[texascpa]

You're right it doesn't. But in regards to job safety, it usually means your boss can't take advantage of you while disregarding it. If PED's were legal, is it not possible some coach somewhere would be telling a guy to take something or your cut? Would that be ethical?

There's something else that will remedy that boss situation - find a new job.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Here's what's funny about that -- guys that were supposedly "clean" (and I'd love to hear how you're going to make these judgments) got no love either. How about the fact that Fred McGriff and Bernie Williams were great guys (by most accounts), clean, multiple-time all-stars and key players on teams that won a ton of games ... yet not only do they not get in, Bernie Williams won't even be on the ballot anymore (less than 5%). So I guess we don't like cheaters, but we don't give much credit to those dudes who not only didn't cheat (supposedly), but didn't cheat in an era when everyone around them did. HOw does that make any sense?

Bernie Williams is not a H of player, by any stretch, unless its in he dead ball era. Very good, not great.

 

[baggerbob]

Looks like Alabama has some explaining to do, their players have been accused of using the same substance as Ray Lewis, and others noted in the report. ESPN story said other SEC schools might have been involved. If grades cause games to be forfeited when Bobby Bowden didn't know about it , how about banned substances? Between the problem with Miami, now Alabama this has been a bad week for the NCAA.

 

[jekelish]

All I could think when seeing this thread title was:


And yes, let's please just get over this crap, and NOT pretend whole eras never took place simply because players were using substances that, most of the time, weren't even banned by their respective sports.

 

[Moontan]

And yes, let's please just get over this crap, and NOT pretend whole eras never took place simply because players were using substances that, most of the time, weren't even banned by their respective sports.

I don't think anyone's pretending that things didn't take place.

People are still trying to put things into perspective and then figure out how to deal with them (records, HoF, etc.). There's no need to rush things. It's hard to remove people from a HoF. Methinks MLB HoF voters are being careful and don't want to make a mistake. 25-33% of the voters are in the "I don't give a " category and a similar number are in the "Hell no, they don't deserve to be inducted" category. The other 33-50% are unsure and are being careful. Time will allow things to settle... maybe.

In a similar fashion to Pete Rose, those that explicitly denied/lied about PED usage may not get in until they either admit the error of their ways or they die.

 

[jekelish]

I don't think anyone's pretending that things didn't take place.

People are still trying to put things into perspective and then figure out how to deal with them (records, HoF, etc.). There's no need to rush things. It's hard to remove people from a HoF. Methinks MLB HoF voters are being careful and don't want to make a mistake. 25-33% of the voters are in the "I don't give a " category and a similar number are in the "Hell no, they don't deserve to be inducted" category. The other 33-50% are unsure and are being careful. Time will allow things to settle... maybe.

In a similar fashion to Pete Rose, those that explicitly denied/lied about PED usage may not get in until they either admit the error of their ways or they die.

I get all that, but the thing is, we will NEVER know who did or didn't use...so why exclude guys like Bonds and Clemens, for instance, despite the fact that they were CLEAR Hall of Famers even before any of their PED use? That's what I don't get, and why I think they are ignoring an era. Some of the greatest players of all-time, whether we like them or not, have been linked to PEDs. We are not going to include them. What happens if news comes out that, say, Mickey Mantle used steroids? Are they going to take his plaque down and pretend he never actually played? Of course not. And that's why they shouldn't exclude these guys. Put an asterisk on them if you need to, but the fact is they are a HUGE part of baseball history and need to be in the Hall.