Biggest threat

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. New Member
    asap nutrition's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    387
    Rep Power
    309
    Level
    16
    Lv. Percent
    73.44%

    Biggest threat


    Are bodybuilders the biggest threat to your access to perfomance enhancing substances and will they influence congress to create even more stiffer penalties?

    Many former IFFB bodybuiders are considerably smaller now such as Kevin Leverone, Dorian Yates and even former mass monster Paul Dillet( have you guys seem him recently). Many have even stated that they are smaller due to desire to be much more healthy. You also have many former bodybuilders who have suffered some pretty serious health issues. Former bodybuilders like Tom Prince, Flex Wheeler, Mike Matarozza, and Don Long have had interviews in prominent online sites and in magazines where they have discussed their health issues and what may have contributed to them. Shoot even the Governor of California villifies the use of sports enhancing substances even though he was an adamant user in his time.

    Flex Wheeler admits in Muscluar Development that AAS didn't cause his kidney condition( Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis) but says that the bodybuilding lifestyle (including drug, diet and weight training) may have contributed to it or accellerated it. Tom Prince and Mike Matarozza both criticizes the whole "drug use" in bodybuilding and how it contributed to their serious health issues in Flex Magazine.

    So you can bet your best dollar that congress is reviewing and following all the comments made by these bodybuilders and will supoena them as soon as possible to testify in front of a congressional hearing. Imagine many of them admitting that none of the elite athletes in their sport could get that massive, that stirated and vascular with the aid of performance enhancing drugs. Imagine further bodybuilders both current and former discussing other drug usuage that many members of the media and congress aren't very familar about (aromatase inhibitors, IGF-1, Myostatin inhibitors and ect).
    Can you just imagine how a congressman and the media will twist and miscontrued the words of many of those that would testify?
    "You can't get to 220lbs of muscle mass with a 5% or lower bodyfat percentage without the aid of drugs" would many in the media and congress may contray. Many wouldn't even mention of the diets that these athletes would testify too, or demanding weight and cardio training they subscribe too. Nor would they mention the usuage of over the counter legal supplements that many are implying into their bodybuilding lifestyle.
    They would only report and focus on the drug use. Bodybuilding as a sport may be banned or severly crippled if some of the negative or perceived negatives that are associate with this sport.

    What if one bodybuilder mentions that some use fellow athletes use "recreational drugs"? Congress would cry that bodybuilding is a terrible influence on todays youth and that it should be shut down. If you wasn't a follower of professional bodybuilding or a fan then you would just think this is sport riddled with over usuage of dangerous drugs and that these athletes are at deaths door and don't even know it.

    I bet you another thing as well. Arnold will be invited to speak in front of congress on this sport, bodybuilders lifestyle in general, athletes that participate at his annual event and his personal thoughts on what should be done. Congress will ask him of his past usuage and Arnold will be honest and then he will announce that he doesnt believe in "performance enhancing drugs", that they should be banned, and he would love to be the head of government panel that would look into ways to safeguard America's youth from "drugs" and how to rid sports of these "evils".
    THen President Bush will appoint him as head of a new government panel which will help bolster his poll numbers in his state and assist him in getting re-elected as governor of California.

    Gloom and doom awaits many of us.

  2. New Member
    davisville64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    26
    Posts
    187
    Rep Power
    208
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    57.75%

    I think congress has a war to worry about before they tell people they cant use performance enhancing "drugs." And oh yeah, why dont they make a big deal about heroin or crack use, you dont see that on TV every 20 minutes.
    Me-> <- fattys in congress.
  3. New Member
    asap nutrition's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    387
    Rep Power
    309
    Level
    16
    Lv. Percent
    73.44%

    Quote Originally Posted by davisville64
    I think congress has a war to worry about before they tell people they cant use performance enhancing "drugs." And oh yeah, why dont they make a big deal about heroin or crack use, you dont see that on TV every 20 minutes.
    Me-> <- fattys in congress.
    I absolutely agree. How about job security and providing more jobs to Citizens of this country as well? Or improving the public education system? Tution at both private and public education institutions are riduculous in many cases and most of times out pace annual inflation rates. Our public k-12 school system is a joke but our sitting president is the one that spear headed the Federal Governments "No child left behind act". I could go on and on but the fact of the matter is that the federal government prefers to go after things that are easy and produce the least amount of consequences.
    •   
       

  4. New Member
    builtolast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    27
    Posts
    169
    Rep Power
    219
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    23.47%

    "Democracy demands that little men should not take big ones too seriously; it dies when it is full of little men who think they are big themselves." - C.S. Lewis

    Democracy has died.

    (This is slightly off topic, but I felt like a little rant. Continue...)
  5. Senior Member
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    677
    Level
    26
    Lv. Percent
    63.25%
    Achievements Posting Pro

    we never were a democracy... we just do some things in a "democratic" way...
  6. Elite Member
    BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2683
    Level
    49
    Lv. Percent
    26.66%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    "Democracy demands that little men should not take big ones too seriously; it dies when it is full of little men who think they are big themselves." - C.S. Lewis

    Democracy has died.
    Ain't that the truth!

    BV
  7. New Member
    davisville64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    26
    Posts
    187
    Rep Power
    208
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    57.75%

    Exclamation cowards


    We are lead by a bunch of cowards.

    Do you remember when some democrats wanted to appeal the 2000 election in florida? They had a lot of petitions, buy NOT ONE was sighned by a SINGLE senator. My dad explained this to me as they "didnt want to put themself on an island" by signing one of the petitions. Do you want a person like that in senate? A coward who wont even support his own party by just signing a petition.

    Well I'm a bush fan, so it turned out in my favor I guess . Sadly, cowards like these are still in our government.


    PS- Thanks for taking my first post seriously. Over on the muscleandfitness messageboards, they would throw out whatever I said because I am 17.
  8. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    46
    Lv. Percent
    99.21%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Well we don't do that.. unless you act like an ass, then I will be leading the charge..
  9. New Member
    Pushofabutton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    28
    Posts
    66
    Rep Power
    149
    Level
    8
    Lv. Percent
    62.08%

    The way i see it the gov brings up bull**** like this to hide whats realy going on. Its just crap that bb's become targets because of others are unable to understand the science behind aas.

    I feel if the media stopped pushing the "AAS make you crazy huge without working at all" and told the truth about how its just one piece of a puzle to good body, then alot of this crap would die down.

    As far a protecting the "kid". The media needs to tell the truth about AAS and stop using scare tech's. As Rick Collins says, Education about AAS and how they work will keep kids away from them at a young age.
  10. Registered User
    kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2847
    Level
    52
    Lv. Percent
    88.66%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Yeah, I've considered all of this as well...Good post.

    All of these guys with major health issues abuse NSAIDs, etc and develope kidney problems. Tom Prince preaches about it all the time.

    This is why we don't see a massive epidemic of health problems for those BBers of Arnolds era, despite their lack of knowledge of 17aa toxicity and PCT.

    Be careful of what you put into your body
  11. New Member
    davisville64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    26
    Posts
    187
    Rep Power
    208
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    57.75%

    No offence intended but all bodybuilding site/boards/mag's tend to have a republican majority. This is because the republican party, as well as bodybuilding, is 99% HARD WORK. I mean, Michael Moore has an award winning physeaque, doesn't he (and oh yeah, Farenheight 9/11 didnt prove anything except that the Saudi's indirectly baught us tanks. I dont know what he is complaining about )

    Again no offence to anyone. There are some very wise democrats on other boards, and I am new to this board and dont know everyones "political standing" yet.

    I will say this though, both parties could spend there millions of millions of dollars better than cracking down on "muscle heads" They all have small man syndrome, they basically just do this all day....
  12. New Member
    davisville64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    26
    Posts
    187
    Rep Power
    208
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    57.75%

    Quote Originally Posted by Pushofabutton
    As far a protecting the "kid". The media needs to tell the truth about AAS and stop using scare tech's. As Rick Collins says, Education about AAS and how they work will keep kids away from them at a young age.
    Before anyone says steroids are a problem with teens, crunch these #'s

    Of teens in Rhode Island high schools...

    75% drink alcohol (dont really know how to spell it, but hey thats a good thing)
    56% smoke weed (my school was the highest)
    40% smoke cigurettes (2nd hand smoke is real, ever heard of 2nd hand steroids???) neither did I
    13% used "hard" drugs (includes heroin, crack, lsd)
    38% had sexual intercourse within the past 6 months

    And then a WHOPPING TOTAL of 2.9%! of students used steroids. Oh no, lets put it on the FRONT PAGE and put the above stats on page A 12. Yup, they had 11 pages of stuff more important to say in Rhode Island alone than that the future of the country is wasting themselves.
  13. Board Supporter
    cable626's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    28
    Posts
    711
    Rep Power
    12838
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    35.89%

    well, steroids are a problem with teens, obviously not as much as alcohol and other drugs.
    My problem with teens that do use steroids are that they have emotional and psychological problems that need to be addressed. I mean, except for the select few kids that are fully grown and mature at 19 years old, there is no reason for a kid to be using. They have issues with insecurity that they need to deal with, and they need to become responsible and mature (learning the dangers/consequences of gear/making sure they have proper diet and training).

    Alcohol is a much bigger problem though, I think lawmakers should bust down on that first. It's so easy to get alcohol, and so many bars allow 18 year olds to drink. A lot of these kids drink and drive too.
  14. New Member
    bigman420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    244
    Rep Power
    247
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    27.49%

    Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
    we never were a democracy... we just do some things in a "democratic" way...
    i completely ****ing agree
  15. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    We are a representative Republic. Not a democracy.
  16. Elite Member
    BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2683
    Level
    49
    Lv. Percent
    26.66%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Yeah, I've considered all of this as well...Good post.

    All of these guys with major health issues abuse NSAIDs, etc and develope kidney problems. Tom Prince preaches about it all the time.

    This is why we don't see a massive epidemic of health problems for those BBers of Arnolds era, despite their lack of knowledge of 17aa toxicity and PCT.

    Be careful of what you put into your body
    I also think that those guys used a lot less gear than the pros of today. Imagine Arnold or Lou Ferrigno on the kind of drugs Ronnie Coleman is on...

    No offence intended but all bodybuilding site/boards/mag's tend to have a republican majority. This is because the republican party, as well as bodybuilding, is 99% HARD WORK. I mean, Michael Moore has an award winning physeaque, doesn't he
    The Democrats and the Republicans have a monopoly on power in the US government, and between them both, they're going to run this country right into the ground...

    BV
  17. Elite Member
    jmh80's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    8,110
    Rep Power
    9662
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    88.38%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    I think that this all started because star athletes were fingered after THG was synthesized. If it were 3rd string OL's, we wouldn't see the major pub. this issue is receiving.

    It all started w/ THG...
  18. Registered User
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    63
    Posts
    2,373
    Rep Power
    1310
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    93.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    We are a representative Republic. Not a democracy.
    not all *that* representative, if you ask me...or the word "mandate" would never have passed W's lips.
  19. New Member
    Rhyalus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    47
    Posts
    285
    Rep Power
    260
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    63.15%

    Maybe it is too early


    Hi Guys,

    I am brand new on the board, so maybe it is too early to get into trouble, but here it goes;

    1) I did not understand the need for the ban on steroids until I came to this board. The issue is
    ease of access - how sick do you get when a 16 year old posts that he is on his third cycle of "this",
    and "oh by the way, what is PCT?". Laws are put into place to protect us from ourselves. I am not
    a fool- there are plenty of problems with "how" and "why" the goverment operates, and I know that
    there is too much "self interest" going on, but this issue is not hard to control, and there are a lot of
    emotions involved, so it is good for "politics". They can't stop kids from drinking alcohol, but they
    can make it much harder to obtain performance enhancing supplements.

    2) To all the young guys that posted on this board how evil the government is and how we do not live in a
    democracy ; you best be voting and getting involved, or you have no right to criticize because I
    am sure that you don't know the real issues. Many of us just regurgitate what our parents think.

    3) We have a prescription drug process in the US. I can name hundreds of drugs that have far less toxicity
    with far more health benefits than steroids, and they are controlled substances, requiring the administration
    by a licensed physician. How can performance enhancing drugs exist outside of this structure?

    Now all this being said, I believe that there should be Doctor run clinics that allow unfettered access
    (without health insurance support) for performance enhancing supplements - although they should be
    controlled substances.

    Rigorous guidelines should be followed and I think it would be great if the medical industry could break through its arrogance and be willing to accept the reality of the world.

    Regards,
    R
  20. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    46
    Lv. Percent
    99.21%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    On your 3rd point R, the ban that was put into place was not done for toxicity reasons, it was done due to sport, IMO. I am against the ban but I am not for having AAS completely unfettered in access. I think it needs to be prescription. As for the drug process, I think that the FDA has been taken over by Big Pharm and that system is total corrupted. Look at the pain killer problems from earlier this year.
    As for point 2, you will find that this group of gentlemen and ladies seem to be well informed, and do vote, I know I do every election on all levels. Also you will find that we have an older membership for the most part, we are not bb.com here.
    Finally, welcome to the board
  21. New Member
    AgnosticFront's Avatar
    Stats
    6'5"  235 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    65
    Rep Power
    153
    Level
    8
    Lv. Percent
    70.13%

    "DEMOCRATS ARE ****IN IDIOTS. REPUBLICANS ARE ****ING IDIOTS.

    ANYONE WHO MAKES UP THEIR MIND ABOUT AN ISSUE BEFORE THEY HEAR THE ISSUE IS A ****IN IDIOT."

    - CHRIS ROCK
  22. New Member
    Brooklyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182
    Rep Power
    207
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    36.53%

    The problem


    1) I did not understand the need for the ban on steroids until I came to this board. The issue is
    ease of access - how sick do you get when a 16 year old posts that he is on his third cycle of "this",
    and "oh by the way, what is PCT?". Laws are put into place to protect us from ourselves. I am not
    a fool- there are plenty of problems with "how" and "why" the goverment operates, and I know that
    there is too much "self interest" going on, but this issue is not hard to control, and there are a lot of
    emotions involved, so it is good for "politics". They can't stop kids from drinking alcohol, but they
    can make it much harder to obtain performance enhancing supplements.
    The problem with thinking of this kind is that it is simply unrealistic. The reality is that our prisons are filled with minor drug offenders. The DEA argues that those arrested for simple possession are roughly 27% of all (state) drug offenders, but that is an attempt to slant the facts. The reality is that in many states possessing a small amount of certain drugs will enable zealous prosecutors to charge someone with intent to sell. This is especially true in the case of performance-enhancing drugs such as anabolic steroids. Say you have 10 vials of a particular steroid, or a small amount of orals for personal use. Now if you are found to possess this some states can charge you with intent to sell based on quantity or weight and treat you as if you were attempting to deal cocaine to schoolchildren. In reality all you were trying to do was enhance your physique and be a stronger, more capable person.

    If some 17 year old is caught with steroids, do you think the solution is to send him to jail for 10 years? Note that if a Federal prosecution is involved, there is no chance of parole. You just sentenced a 17 year old boy to 10 years or more of hard time as a felon drug dealer because he was trying to live up to peer pressure to be a better athlete. Meanwhile, it's perfectly legal once he turns 18 for him to purchase cigarettes, which have NO redeeming social or medical value, and once he is 21 he can legally drink himself to death, should he like. Not to mention the government has no problem letting people eat food filled with hormones, "flavor enhancers," artificial sweeteners, excess sugars, trans fats, cheap fillers, pesticides and anything short of bleach. That same government has no problem then letting your doctors fill you up with medications to treat the symptoms of all the ailments that were caused by the lack of restrictions on what companies can do to your body.

    If you believe that the FDA or the DEA or any branch of government is looking out for your safety you are sadly mistaken. The FDA has assumed the role of protector of big pharmaceutical companies. The DEA, it seems, spends most of its time busting kids for long jail sentences because they had some marijuana or LSD on them. It's the police mentality. The mentality that enforcement of laws will prevent crime. What happens if those laws which are being enforced, are wrong, "cruel or unusual"? Education is key in this situation, not excessive enforcement. Some 75 year old senator probably doesn't have much of a clue, or care much about that reality. All he cares about is that he keeps getting re-elected, and since most voters are unfortunately the similarly uninformed elderly and upper middle class parents, appealing to youth issues is not typically a priority. "Make it look good" is all that seems to count.
  23. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew D
    On your 3rd point R, the ban that was put into place was not done for toxicity reasons, it was done due to sport, IMO. I am against the ban but I am not for having AAS completely unfettered in access. I think it needs to be prescription. As for the drug process, I think that the FDA has been taken over by Big Pharm and that system is total corrupted. Look at the pain killer problems from earlier this year.
    As for point 2, you will find that this group of gentlemen and ladies seem to be well informed, and do vote, I know I do every election on all levels. Also you will find that we have an older membership for the most part, we are not bb.com here.
    Finally, welcome to the board
    Matt D, I respect your opinions on many things but people really need to stop the cinspiracy theory bull**** about Pharma "owning" the FDA. Pharma is the FDA's bitch. They bend us over a table and rape us repeatedly on a regular basis. You know whose pocket the FDA is in? THE MEDIA. The media has caused more bull**** rulings from the FDA than anything else. For example:

    Elidel, a SHORT TERM excema treatment recently had a label revision. During clinical trials it was found that various adverse events can occur for some people when they take it for several years. Thus Elidel was only approved for use a few weeks at a time. It is explicitly put on the label that it is only for short term usage.

    The media decided to run a story about one of the clinical trials that showed those adverse events about Elidel. They demanded the FDA respond and so the FDA forced Novartis to put a black box warning on Elidel. Do you know what that's like? That's like putting a huge black box warning on a box of Tylenol saying "INGESTING ENTIRE BOTTLE MAY CAUSE LIVER FAILURE". The thing is though even though no one will ever be using Elidel in the way that causes skin cancer, people will now still be afraid of it because of the big black box that warns them of skin cancer. Thus, Elidel sales have dropped into the ****ter when previously it was a blockbuster. Oh and guess what: NO ONE outside of those clinical trials has ever gotten those adverse events from using Elidel.


    Did you know that only 2% of all doctors actually read drug labels? Did you know that pharmacists no longer check for conflicts in concurrent medications?


    You want to know how the FDA rapes Pharma? $500 million consent decree against Schering. $600 million consent decree against GSK. You know why the FDA fined GSK? Because their documentation was deemed insufficient. A small drug company by the name of Able Laboratories recently had a similar thing happen. The FDA said their documentation of manufacturing processes wasn't thorough enough and their formatting wasn't consistant (i.e. different font sizes used etc.). So the FDA forced a recall of ALL of their products. Yes, each and every last one of them. Nothing was wrong with any of the products, but the FDA decided that because they weren't anal enough with their documentation their drugs were getting yanked.
  24. New Member
    asap nutrition's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    387
    Rep Power
    309
    Level
    16
    Lv. Percent
    73.44%

    [QUOTE=Rhyalus] They can't stop kids from drinking alcohol, but they
    can make it much harder to obtain performance enhancing supplements.

    3) We have a prescription drug process in the US. I can name hundreds of drugs that have far less toxicity
    with far more health benefits than steroids, and they are controlled substances, requiring the administration
    by a licensed physician. How can performance enhancing drugs exist outside of this structure?


    Hmmm..... Interesting post. Allow me to make a rebuttal to some of your comments. First let's remember that some drugs that are used as "performance enhancing drugs" were actually created for medical treatments. HGH was used to help children with stunted growth. Anavar was used to help create more red blood cells, and many other AAS were used in treatments for burned victims and recovery after surgery.

    So to say that you can name a hundred drugs that are less toxic and offer more benefits to me is irrelevant. Ofcourse there are more than a hundred drugs that are less toxic and causes less side effects but there are thousand drugs that are more toxic and causes more side effects then AAS. Every pharmacuetical causes side-effects and can become severe side-effects if you abuse them. That goes for aspirin,tylenol, alcohol and assortment of other drugs.

    To say that the government can't stop kids from getting alcohol but can make it more difficult for them to obtain "sports enhancing supplements" is an asinine statement. So because they can't stop them that seems to make alcohol safer? Or does that give them the excuse to spend more of my and your tax dollars to prevent teens from obtaining and using AAS then preventing alcohol use? Have you sir seen the statistics for alcohol related deaths in the United States alone? Steriod related death will never reach that level. Cigerette related deaths will kill over 400,000 people in the US alone. I guarantee more teens smoke than they use "sports enhancing supplements. I don't believe a teen will not become imcapacitated from steriod usuage but a teen will likely die driving under the influence of alcohol.

    Yes there are procedural steps, processes that should keep certain pharmacueticals out of the hands of those that shouldn't use them. But with the U.S governments recent passage of a 700+ billion dollar medicare bill, many critics are afraid of future abuses by congress members, prescribing doctors and pharmacuetical companies.

    There are many drugs available now that are extremely more dangerous than AAS. Have you heard of Valtrex? There are many drugs that the FDA, HHS and other government bodies are aware that are dangerous but still approve them because the FDA and HHS is still a government body- that means it is corrupted by special interest groups.
    Many pharmaceutical companies release drugs that they aren't completely sure are safe for the public due to lack of clinical studies and data or actually have data that suggest the drug is dangerous but must put on the market anyway because (if you spent over 4billion dollars in research for a drug you would do everything to put it on the market as well).

    So is AAS really all that more dangerous then many drugs that available via a prescription? Viagra and Cialis is now reported to cause some serious vision problems in many patients that were prescribed the drug. I never heard of AAS causing this problem. Phen fen a couple of years ago killed many people before being removed from the market do to heart failure and other issues, but there isn't any conclusive clinical study that can point to fatalities caused by AAS.

    I can go on and on about this subject but the fact of the matter is this and your comment is actually a bit off base from my original thread.
  25. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    There are many drugs available now that are extremely more dangerous than AAS. Have you heard of Valtrex? There are many drugs that the FDA, HHS and other government bodies are aware that are dangerous but still approve them because the FDA and HHS is still a government body- that means it is corrupted by special interest groups.
    Many pharmaceutical companies release drugs that they aren't completely sure are safe for the public due to lack of clinical studies and data or actually have data that suggest the drug is dangerous but must put on the market anyway because (if you spent over 4billion dollars in research for a drug you would do everything to put it on the market as well).

    So is AAS really all that more dangerous then many drugs that available via a prescription? Viagra and Cialis is now reported to cause some serious vision problems in many patients that were prescribed the drug. I never heard of AAS causing this problem. Phen fen a couple of years ago killed many people before being removed from the market do to heart failure and other issues, but there isn't any conclusive clinical study that can point to fatalities caused by AAS.
    Pharma companies aren't capable of releasing a drug with insufficient data because the FDA decides if a drug is approved or not, NOT drug companies. The FDA is NOT in Pharm's pocket, would supplement company reps please FFS stop trying to make this friggin retarded claim?!

    There are 39 reported cases of blindness from Viagra. Do you know how many people use Viagra? Over 24 MILLION. 39/24,000,000 is what is called "Clinically insignificant." The chance was already listed, and it is the furthest end of rare you can possibly get. Did you know that aspirin has a higher spontaneous death rate?
  26. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    602
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    23.79%

    One point I'd like to make, because people love to compare teen use of alcohol and tobacco to steroids.

    Light to moderate drinking for a few years is highly unlikely to cause long term damage to a person. Any damage that does occur would likely occur whether the person is 16 or 46.

    Light to moderate smoking for a few years is highly unlikely to cause long term damage to a person. Again, any damage that does occur would likely occur no matter what the person't age.

    Even trying crack, cocaine, and other hard drugs a few times will not cause permanent damage to the vast majority of people.

    One cycle of steroids (particularly a high dose cycle) can cause permanent, irreversible damage to a teenage male. Growth plates can close and the HPTA can be permanently affected.

    So is AAS really all that more dangerous then many drugs that available via a prescription? Viagra and Cialis is now reported to cause some serious vision problems in many patients that were prescribed the drug.
    Not many patients. Patients with vascular problems, such as men with diabetes. Since these drugs are vasodilators, this is not surprising.

    One other thing. I'm sick of this "there's a war going on and they're worried about steroids" bull****. Senators, congressmen, and presidents are elected to deal with any and all issues that arise. They can't just focus their attention on a few key issues. And they also can't magically fix problems overnight, like the state of our schools.

    If you all want someone to blame, blame the media. The politicians are just responding to the outcry by the public that was created by the media by sensationalizing the steroid "problem." It's not Bush, McCain, or anybody else that need be blamed. It's the whores in the media who play off people's fears. What do you expect these congressmen to do when 20/20 runs some kind of expose' and their office gets a couple thousand calls the next day and ten thousand letters the next week? Can you blame them?

    /karp
  27. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Pharma companies aren't capable of releasing a drug with insufficient data because the FDA decides if a drug is approved or not, NOT drug companies. The FDA is NOT in Pharm's pocket, would supplement company reps please FFS stop trying to make this friggin retarded claim?!
    You and I have disagreed on this in the past, and what you say is largely true. The FDA is just a government agency and like all others wants more and more power with fewer and fewer resources and ends up exercising that power in generally cocked up ways a lot of the time, basically just because they can. Like another poster said, they have the mentality that all you need do to make the world perfect is pass a whole bunch of laws and regulations banning imperfection and enforce them.

    But will you honestly say the pharmacutical companies don't like the fact that the cost of entry into their industry is so high that they can expect virtually zero competition that isn't already on the market? Can you honestly say they would be perfectly happy to give up the hinderance of the FDA if it also meant giving up the protection of government granted patents for their drugs? How much medicare and medicaid money ends up in their pockets, and would they like to see the end of that nifty government wealth transfer program? How much tax money gets funneled into the research and development of medications for politcally correct diseases, and would they like to see an end to that? Would they like to see a free market in health care, which would seriously change the structure and workings of health insurance and make it much harder to charge such high amounts for their drugs? A lot of currently covered costs would end up being paid out of pocket if that happened, and not a lot of people can afford $1500 a month medications. Would they like to see a shift of focus in the medical industry from alleopathy to homeopathy, which could lead to fewer people needing their products because they're leading overall more healthy lives?

    Like any alliance between the government and private industry, the pharmacutical companies often get ****ed in the ass, but they also get a reach around every now and then. It's the nature of the game. The rest of us just have sore asses.
  28. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    If you all want someone to blame, blame the media. The politicians are just responding to the outcry by the public that was created by the media by sensationalizing the steroid "problem." It's not Bush, McCain, or anybody else that need be blamed. It's the whores in the media who play off people's fears. What do you expect these congressmen to do when 20/20 runs some kind of expose' and their office gets a couple thousand calls the next day and ten thousand letters the next week? Can you blame them?
    I expect them to realize there are more important things they could be spending their time on. I expect them to realize that a few people self destructing because of this or that substance is not cause for banning it and trying to throw all users in prison. In short I expect them to be intelligent. If the public is in an uproar I expect them to educate themselves and then try to explain to the public that they should calm the hell down. For me, blame always falls on the person who acted. The media didn't enact prohibition, the people who passed and keep passing such laws did. As such, I hold them responsible.

    And I think in general when people say "Don't they have anything better to do" or "isn't there a war they should be worrying about," what they mean is "Shouldn't they stay the hell out of my business and actually spend their time and money hunting down people who are causing problems for other people, not people who they have some asthetic disagreement with, or who lead lifestyles they don't agree with, or who use substances they don't like?"
  29. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    602
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    23.79%

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    I expect them to realize there are more important things they could be spending their time on. I expect them to realize that a few people self destructing because of this or that substance is not cause for banning it and trying to throw all users in prison. In short I expect them to be intelligent. If the public is in an uproar I expect them to educate themselves and then try to explain to the public that they should calm the hell down. For me, blame always falls on the person who acted. The media didn't enact prohibition, the people who passed and keep passing such laws did. As such, I hold them responsible.
    Educate themselves? Most doctors will tell you how bad steroids are for you. It takes some digging to find out the truth. Tell the public to calm down? Politics doesn't work that way. When the media is united in voice telling people how evil steroids are, if a congressman says, "No, they're actually safe if used properly," who is the public going to believe? And further, even if the public believes the congressman, half of them are going to be pissed because they think that will encourage their kids to use them. In a perfect world, what you suggest would be the right thing to do. But it doesn't work that way because we don't live in a perfect world.

    And I think in general when people say "Don't they have anything better to do" or "isn't there a war they should be worrying about," what they mean is "Shouldn't they stay the hell out of my business and actually spend their time and money hunting down people who are causing problems for other people, not people who they have some asthetic disagreement with, or who lead lifestyles they don't agree with, or who use substances they don't like?"
    Once again, they are elected to respond to all kinds of perceived problems, whether we think they are problems or not. Frankly, there is serious potential for teens to screw themselves up by using steroids. I don't think that more regulation is the answer, I think that education is the answer. Unfortunately, regulation is much quicker and cheaper. I don't agree with what the government did, but I understand why.

    /karp
  30. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2675
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.18%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    Educate themselves? Most doctors will tell you how bad steroids are for you. It takes some digging to find out the truth. Tell the public to calm down? Politics doesn't work that way. When the media is united in voice telling people how evil steroids are, if a congressman says, "No, they're actually safe if used properly," who is the public going to believe? And further, even if the public believes the congressman, half of them are going to be pissed because they think that will encourage their kids to use them. In a perfect world, what you suggest would be the right thing to do. But it doesn't work that way because we don't live in a perfect world.


    Once again, they are elected to respond to all kinds of perceived problems, whether we think they are problems or not. Frankly, there is serious potential for teens to screw themselves up by using steroids. I don't think that more regulation is the answer, I think that education is the answer. Unfortunately, regulation is much quicker and cheaper. I don't agree with what the government did, but I understand why.

    /karp
    Understand where you're coming from, but I just either don't agree or expect more or different. I understand why some people decide a life of crime is their only option, I still want them caught and in prison for doing it though.
  31. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    950
    Rep Power
    602
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    23.79%

    I'd love to expect more from my elected officials, I really would. It's just unfortunate that we don't get from them what we deserve.

    /karp
  32. New Member
    davisville64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    26
    Posts
    187
    Rep Power
    208
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    57.75%

    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp

    If you all want someone to blame, blame the media. The politicians are just responding to the outcry by the public that was created by the media by sensationalizing the steroid "problem." It's not Bush, McCain, or anybody else that need be blamed. It's the whores in the media who play off people's fears. What do you expect these congressmen to do when 20/20 runs some kind of expose' and their office gets a couple thousand calls the next day and ten thousand letters the next week? Can you blame them?

    /karp
    Gone are the days when politicians stood up for what is right, not what is popular.
  33. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by davisville64
    Gone are the days when politicians stood up for what is right, not what is popular.
    When was that???

    FDR? Truman?
  34. New Member
    davisville64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    26
    Posts
    187
    Rep Power
    208
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    57.75%

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    When was that???

    FDR? Truman?
    Washington
  35. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by davisville64
    Washington
    Truth. The people wanted Washington to be king, not president and would have re-elected him until he died. He refused to run after his second term because he firmly believed in the Republic.
  36. New Member
    Brooklyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182
    Rep Power
    207
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    36.53%

    When was that???

    FDR? Truman?
    FDR? You must be kidding. That guy was the biggest scumbag one can imagine to become president. He almost did a better job of instituting Marxist principles (New Deal) into America than Lenin in Russia. And that's without mentioning all the FDR "conspiracy theories" such as his involvement in Pearl Harbor or his public promise to keep America out of WW2 while secretly doing everything he could to force us into war.

    "You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does. I'm perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths..." - FDR, May 1941
  37. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    FDR was our nation's greatest president since Washington. Criticize him as a person all you want, he brought us out of a depression and through a war. He most certainly did do what was unpopular on many occasions because for that situation it was the right thing to do.

    You may not like some of the institutions put in place, like welfare and social security. Yet during his Presidency they saved tens of thousands of lives if not millions. Unless you speak to people who were alive and poor during the depression, you will never have any clue as to how bad it was. Without welfare and soup kitchens a large percentage of our nation would have starved to death or died from overexposure (too cold in the winter with no heat, etc.) Now adays there is always a job, even if it is just minimum wage, there is always a job. Back then there weren't jobs. Not even for the lowest positions possible. There simply was no possible way for the vast majority of the lower class to get ANY money at all except through welfare.


    Welfare is not needed anymore. This much is clear. Yet during that time period where the number of people outnumbered the jobs 4 to 1 or worse, it was positively necessary.
  38. New Member
    Brooklyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182
    Rep Power
    207
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    36.53%

    FDR was our nation's greatest president since Washington. Criticize him as a person all you want, he brought us out of a depression and through a war.
    That is the most absurd assertion I think I have ever heard. FDR did more to help communism than Stalin. In fact, he was good friends with Stalin. The New Deal was a communist document and failed miserably. FDR's policies not only extended the great Depression, they made it worse. This man did not care about America, he did not care about who starved. He sought to make war with Hitler at any cost and made major concessions with Russia when a time when we could have crushed Russia, thus causing the ensuing Cold War. He kept stories of the Holocaust out of U.S. media and interned thousands of Japanese in camps here in the U.S. His complete lack of a moral compass, combined with his attempts to bankrupt and destroy the solvency of the United States- even his "alleged" involvement in the planning of Pearl Harbor alone- make him a traitor, not a great man. Perhaps you have not studied him closely enough. Extremely popular, extremely charismatic, extremely anti-American. Teddy Roosevelt was a great president. FDR was not.
  39. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    That is the most absurd assertion I think I have ever heard. FDR did more to help communism than Stalin. In fact, he was good friends with Stalin. The New Deal was a communist document and failed miserably. FDR's policies not only extended the great Depression, they made it worse. This man did not care about America, he did not care about who starved. He sought to make war with Hitler at any cost and made major concessions with Russia when a time when we could have crushed Russia, thus causing the ensuing Cold War. He kept stories of the Holocaust out of U.S. media and interned thousands of Japanese in camps here in the U.S. His complete lack of a moral compass, combined with his attempts to bankrupt and destroy the solvency of the United States- even his "alleged" involvement in the planning of Pearl Harbor alone- make him a traitor, not a great man. Perhaps you have not studied him closely enough. Extremely popular, extremely charismatic, extremely anti-American. Teddy Roosevelt was a great president. FDR was not.
    The opinions you just expressed can be explained in one word: "brainwashing."

    I think you've been reading too many of CDB's posts. Claiming that FDR's policies extended the Depression is beyond ridiculous. He put millions of people to work. If not for projects like the Lincoln Tunnels, the GWB, and the Empire State Building, millions would have not only been out of work but dead from starvation. What good is an economic recovery if that effort results in millions of people dead from starvation? You have a warped sense of morals if you think that it is worth a few million lives to starvation just to shave a year or two off of a recession. Plus to top it off, you have absolutely positive NO evidence whatsoever supporting your claim. None. Zero. Goose egg.

    The biggest contributing factor to ending the Depression was WWII. It created and spurred on new industries which then required new jobs. Those new jobs put people to work. Once people were working they had income and fewer people were out on the street with no way to survive. I would argue that no policy that could ever be put into place would have ended the Great Depression any earlier because of that. It took NEW industries with never-before-seen product demand. This would not have happened for anything other than WWII.


    As for your arguments about forcing us into WWII, that is the only war in all of history that even peacenicks admit was necessary. It was the only time where we were fighting something truly evil: the nazis. While there was a large anti-semitic sentiment in the USA, the human rights violations of the Nazis and their genecidal policies were something matched only by Stalin and his regime. All I would argue against the US in WWII is that they didn't continue on afterwards and push into the Soviet Union. Patton wanted to, but they didn't let him. Stalin was as great an evil in his treatment of his people and in his push world conquest. We had greater industrial might than the Soviet Union, AND we had the atomic bomb when no one else did. It would have cost probably double the lives to go into the Soviet Union, but it would have saved countless more (plus avoiding Korea, Vietnam, and a host of smaller Cold War incidents). But that point isn't even relavent to FDR since he was dead by then.

    I think a lot of people fail to understand that there isn't one economic policy that will fit all situations. That's what gives this country its strength; its ability to change its own policies and economic structure at the will of its legislature. In some times of desperate need, liberal policies do actually work better. In most situations I would argue that fiscal conservative policies TEND to work better (obviously there are some limits you want to put on how conservative). Private markets do not regulate themselves, they only do what is in the best interests of making money. Monopolies are in businesses best interests but against the people's. Monopolies allow businesses to set whatever price they want and people are forced to pay it; you wind up with the situation you had in coal mining towns before Unions: people were OWNED by the company; it was just slavery. So the idea that business will regulate itself in the best interests of the people is patently absurd. We have mountains of historical PROOF that such extremes in capitalist policies fail as miserably as feudalism and in may cases worse.
  40. New Member
    davisville64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Age
    26
    Posts
    187
    Rep Power
    208
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    57.75%

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    FDR was our nation's greatest president since Washington.
    I think lincoln was better than him. Freed slaves and won civil war.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Biggest threat to BJ at 155?
    By robdog in forum MMA
    Replies: 134
    Last Post: 04-14-2008, 01:14 AM
  2. OT: The Biggest Lies in the Gym
    By Luke530 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-09-2005, 08:33 PM
  3. What is your biggest problem area when it comes to training?
    By Dwight Schrute in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 08-02-2005, 10:29 AM
  4. Who Is The Biggest
    By G.E.SUPERHUMAN in forum General Chat
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 05-18-2004, 12:06 AM
  5. What is your biggest pleasure?
    By Rhinoman in forum General Chat
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-24-2002, 03:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in