How bad are Steroids?

by Angel Hawker on Dec 17, 2007 11:37 AM PST Comment 31 comments

Just curious after reading all about the Mitchell Report and all the players who used steroids/HGH if this stuff is really as bad as they say it is.
It seems the media truly distorts the adverse health affects of steroids, because the message I get from them is that one would fall apart like a statue if they took them. However, I don't see players dying and having heart attacks, liver problems, etc from steroids. Hey, even the Governator used roids--and he seems to be doing ok (though I heard he had some sort of heart problem). Hulk Hogan isn't dying--but he did lose his hair.
Some youtube videos on the other side of steroids:

Oh...so you know, I have never taken steroids, nor do I necessarily condone there use--but it seems that these drugs can do amazing things to people without causing a bunch of health problems. Just curious as to what everyone thinks about this.

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

At the core of this

is the timeless debate of whether one has the right to do what thou wilt with one's own body.

by Rev Halofan on Dec 17, 2007 11:35 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

As long as

you do it in a way that fucks up fairness and competition in my sport, you can spend your days with all the hookers, coke, and heroin you want for all I care.

But you mess with baseball, and I come kicking the door in, SWAT style.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 17, 2007 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah

You and how many of your balding buddies?

Hey everyone, check out Lyle Spencer's Mailsack...

by Bilko 420 on Dec 17, 2007 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Everything is relative....

...a snowflake is harmless but enough of 'em land on you and you're toast from an avalanche.

It's the old use vs. abuse debate.

Even one line of coke is harmless. So is a beer or two or a pizza. Everything in moderation.

DarkAngel hath spoken....

by darkangel01 on Dec 17, 2007 5:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Wait

we can only eat pizza in moderation? fuck.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 17, 2007 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

does bold make it count twice?

or just once and making sure you get the most out of it? haha

Get M-Cab, try to save the Howie.

by 101halo on Dec 19, 2007 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There's a lot that's left out of this piece

He never asks why there was opposition to steroids being declared a controlled substance. Was the DEA concerned about not having enough resources to police another drug? Was NIH concerned that it would stigmatize the drug and discourage people who needed it from using it as treatment? Perhaps insurance companies would begin to refuse coverage for it? The piece implies that it was merely a political decision driven by our love for Carl Lewis. That's just ridiculously bad journalism.

How are 2 body builders illustrative of the argument that steroids are benign but Lyle Alzado is not illustrative of the position that they are dangerous? Perhaps they're a powerful catalyst. If you're already at risk for cancer or heart disease then steroids are going to exacerbate that. The doctor said they raise bad cholesteral and lower good so that tells me right there that I shouldn't go anywhere near them. That 70-yr-old bodybuilder looked like some genetic-lottery winner who could eat paint everyday and still look great, not like some typical adult male.

Ultimately, though, they are performance-ENHANCING and thats why, IMHO, they should be kept out of sports. Pro-wrestling, sure, but legitimate sports? No way.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Dec 17, 2007 9:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It's the difference between science...

...and junk science.

If you want to determine whether some substance is harmful you have to do empirical studies that measure the frequency and severity of various diseases and ailments in people exposed to said substance against those same diseases and ailments in the general public.

There is little such evidence when it comes to steroids and all of the alleged physical maladies to which it is assigned blame of causation.

The steroid hysteria is just another media-promulgated fallacy akin to that of silicone breast implants. Any woman who had fake tits and then complained of any of a laundry list of medical problems was immediately branded as silicone poisoning. The numbers disprove that. After years of being banned and nearly bankrupting Dow Corning they are back on the market because they are completely harmless.

Oh, and MSG is perfectly safe too...

DarkAngel hath spoken....

by darkangel01 on Dec 17, 2007 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

for the sorely-needed reality check here.

To say nothing of the fact that weight lifting, studying video (Babe Ruth didn't have the latter option), and taking advantage of advanced nutritional science are all performance-enhancing as well.

by jjackflash on Dec 17, 2007 11:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Steroids

are just the easy way around all these things. They take the "sport" out of it. You're welcome to advocate that there is nothing wrong with them and that they should be legal but baseball and all the other sports will no longer be the billion dollar pastimes that they've become. They will become novelties: worshipped by some hardcore devotees and ignored by the remaining 90% of the world.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Dec 18, 2007 5:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely False

They will become novelties: worshipped by some hardcore devotees and ignored by the remaining 90% of the world.

Baseball soared to unprecedented heights of popularity during the so-called "Steroid Era," when the use of PEDs became prevalent.

It's a trite oversimplification, but it's true at its core: chicks dig the long ball.

Not just "chicks," really. Most people enjoy today's game, and they don't really care how the players get there.

by jjackflash on Dec 18, 2007 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

I forgot that all the players would line up on the baselines before the game to get shot up. Weren't those commercials for steroids hilarious?!? Remember the one where...oh, no, that's not right. That never happened. Everyone was happy because they could plausibly believe that everyone was NOT on steroids. Respected journalists tried to make the case that the BALL was juiced.

Football is 10 times more popular than baseball and they've been fighting to keep out steroids for decades. Baseball better do the same.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Dec 18, 2007 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

whoa

let me catch my breath; I'm laughing so hard at the utter absurdity of your post.

Everyone knew that players were on something. People were ballooning up to previously-unknown sizes; strange stuff started appearing in people's lockers; players openly joked about their "vitamins"; give me a break.

And don't believe for a second that it isn't just as common in the NFL and NBA. Or are you also naive enough to think that they're all clean, and it's only baseball?

How sad.

Football's popularity has nothing whatsoever to do with its drug testing program. Nothing. It's about marketing and the fact that there was only one major labor stoppage.

by jjackflash on Dec 18, 2007 7:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Perception.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with what the players are actually doing. The ONLY factor is what people THINK they are doing.

The steroid speculations came in the very late 90s, well after McGwire and Bonds had erased any memories of the strike. By then, the Yankees were dominant and apart from of few confused rumors about Giambi, no one was talking steroids. That didn't happen until 2005(!!!) when Canseco's book came out. Until 2005, no one KNEW anything. Sure, the rumors were there, many journalists and clubhouse people were covering it up, and the savier fans could see through the denials, but to say that "Everyone knew" is simply ridiculous and unfair.

Other sports recognize that what you SAY you do is infinitely more important than what you do. That is why these sports are more popular and more culturally relevant. Baseball is learning this lesson very late. If they don't give the APPEARANCE of strongly standing against steroids, it won't matter if they learn this lesson.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Dec 19, 2007 6:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bullshit

The number of people who actually care about whether athletes are on PEDs is incredibly small. Nobody is going to stop watching. Maybe you will, but millions of people won't.

Football's popularity has not increased because of a drug testing program. Show me one valid marketing survey that shows otherwise.

People might not have been talking much about PEDs in the late 90s (McGwire hit his 70 in 1998; during that chase, someone asked him about the Androstenedione in his locker). Bonds started using that winter.

But front offices knew. Beat writers knew. They just didn't care. It really wasn't until a few grandstanding buffoons with small penises in Congress decided to get on their high holy horses and make names for themselves on TV that all of the hand-wringing started.

It's bullshit.

People may prefer the idea that the players are "clean," but ultimately most don't care. They'll go to the games & buy the merchandise regardless.

And if PEDs mean more home runs...like I said, chicks dig the long ball.

by jjackflash on Dec 19, 2007 8:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I donn't know what to say to this.

"And if PEDs mean more home runs...like I said, chicks dig the long ball."

If you actually believe this, how can you call yourself a fan? It's almost disgusting to think that this could be all baseball means to someone.

I sorry you've only understood my arguments to be 'drug-testing made football popular therefore drug-testing will make baseball popular.' I assure you, that's not what I said. If it helps, I will simplify my position:

To the extent that we can be as certain of their use as possible, there is no place for steroids in genuine, athletic competitions. They belong in fringe entertainments such as pro-wrestling, American Gladiators, body-building, etc. Feel free to disagree.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Dec 19, 2007 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Homeruns

play on SportsCenter.

For my own personal enjoyment, in fact, there's nothing better than a 2-1 or 3-2 contest, with each pitcher at the top of his game. Maybe a solo HR, a double & a couple of sacrifices (i.e., the Angels' offense). Personally speaking, that's the kind of game I enjoy. I'm not into slugfests.

The reality is, though, that I'm an exception. Most people prefer the prolific offenses we've seen over the past 15 years or so. People want to see home runs. ESPN televises the home run contest, not the bunting contest, before the all-star game.

You're naive if you think otherwise.

A significant percentage of the viewing public doesn't really care how the players are getting there; they like the results.

Your analogy to pro wrestling, a staged competition in which the outcome has been scripted, is entirely inapt.

by jjackflash on Dec 19, 2007 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And NO ONE watches the HR Derby!

It's a complete joke. That kind of mindless baseball coverage is exactly what created the environment where steroid use would be ignored. We spend a lot of time is this blog complaining about ESPN's faults and this is simply one of there major ones. The "highlight mentality" that they've fostered exists all over the place.

I don't believe that fans prefer results. I believe that results are the only thing that can be reported in an hour-long highlight show where half the time is spent gushing over how great Brett Favre or Lance Armstrong are.

The pro-wrestling reference is entirely appropriate because, just like steroids, wrestling is all about exhibition not competition.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Dec 19, 2007 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong

Scripted, staged events are not apt comparisons to competition.

What in the world is the meaning of this sentence: "Steroids are about exhibition." How is a medication "about" anything?

by jjackflash on Dec 19, 2007 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ugghh...

CONTEXT!! It has meaning because the people we're talking about, athletes, take them to show off. The MLB steroid scandal has not and will not have anything to do with the legitimate medical use of steroids. You are the first person I've seen bring it up. Please stick with the argument at hand.

American Gladiators and body building are not scripted and would be much more entertaining if the participants were juiced beyond belief. As would the acrobatics of the WWE. I don't believe sports fans want any legitimate sport to stoop to these levels. They will not support it.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Dec 19, 2007 6:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What?

American Gladiators, a television program, not scripted? How in the world do they come up with it in the first place if it isn't scripted?

Body-building has nothing to do with skill, whereas competitive sports are still all about the skills involved. Sure, it helps to be bigger, stronger & faster, but no amount of medication will teach you how to hit a curveball.

Most sports fans really don't care what the athletes are on. They'll watch if they enjoy the game, and watch Lifetime if they don't.

by jjackflash on Dec 19, 2007 11:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

All I can say, then,

is that I'm sorry you feel this way. You really have a 'glass half full' mentality.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Dec 20, 2007 5:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you oversimplify this

People don't just want to see home runs. They want to see greatness, things that have never been done before.

Heroes and heroic/historic moments (not home runs) are good for the game -- and there were numerous examples of such in the late 90s and early part of this decade. That is what revitalized baseball.

Remember that the first catalyzing event had nothing to do with home runs. Would the public's perception have been different if it was known that Cal Ripken had used illegal drugs to allow him to play through pain and thus break the iron-man record?

Would fans have been so awestruck by the great chase of '98 if they knew that both players were obtaining a competitive advantage through steroids?

Would fans have marveled over Barry Bonds's unprecedented statistics if they knew then what they know now?

Fans did not watch these events to see just another home run. They watched because truly great things were happening all the time and it appeared as if some of the truly great players ever to play this sport (Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens) were playing during our era.

The backlash of today results from fans feeling cheated out of those great accomplishments and moments and uncertain as to what is legitimate and what is not ... and that is not good for the game or fair to the players who are clean.

by DChalofan on Dec 20, 2007 4:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well said.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Dec 20, 2007 5:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not well said

By and large, people would answer "yes" to those questions.

What you deem "legitimate" is completely arbitrary.

Records achieved prior to integration carry a far darker cloud on their legitimacy than anything done during the so-called steroid era. Science and medicine are simply elements of an overall training regimen.

by jjackflash on Dec 20, 2007 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

How is obtaining illegal prescriptions

part of an "overall training regimen"?

Also, I don't think throwing a syringe is an example of fan having a positive reaction to Bonds achieving a milestone. You're just wrong on that.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Dec 20, 2007 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank God

I've been on the East Coast for a while now, and I've avoided going to a Knicks game because of all the shit I'd heard about MSG.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Dec 18, 2007 1:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

God forbid GloboChem goes out of business!

The problem is that the media wants there to be 2 sides, one yelling Bad-Bad-Bad and the yelling Good-Good-Good. Nothing will ever be determined, evaluated, or rationalized in that environment. I've been using steroids in my asthma medication since I was a kid but they never helped me become a better athlete. If were interviewed for this story, I would be portrayed as saying steroids DON'T enhance performance. Until the media allows Objectivity to sit at the table, no progress will be made.

This is the question we should consider: If there were 2 leagues, one that allowed juicing and one that didn't, which do you think would be more interesting?

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Dec 18, 2007 5:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs