Are Steroids close to being socially accepted?
07-06-2013 05:39 PM
Who's to say that .240 hitter could only put a ball out 410ft on a prefect pitch/hit off juice. Then said hitter goes on and can put them out 450+ in the perfect scenario. He still hits like **** but when he does he knocks it the **** out of the park.
Originally Posted by chris223
07-06-2013 05:42 PM
Carl Lewis, the man Ben Johnson supposedly "robbed", tested positive for amphetamines in the same games and I believe the same event. No one cared. No one remembers.
Originally Posted by Zac Speed
No one is debating that they make you stronger and faster. The question is why you and others consider that to be unacceptable. As you said, a user still has to be in the work. And the successful users usually outwork just about everyone, because steroids enable them to do so.
And just because the world at large labeled Ben Johnson as a cheater doesn't mean that he is, nor does it affirm your idea that steroid use in sport is cheating. The world has not thought critically about this subject. It has made snap judgments based on emotion and preconceived notions, as it often does.
07-06-2013 05:45 PM
Its cheating when the rules in the sport say so. Tell me what pro sports don't have rules against PEDs.
07-06-2013 05:50 PM
This thinking is too narrow, but that's a different discussion.
Originally Posted by Zac Speed
07-06-2013 05:59 PM
If your pursuit to life, liberty and happiness is to do large amounts of steroids, or alcohol, or pain killers then so be it.
What's narrow about that?
The fact you may effect a family member per say? As long as its not physical or jeopardizing the life of your child or your ability to care for said child its your right. Now you cross that line and there's things in place to punish you. Which is acceptable under our constitutional republic.
07-06-2013 06:07 PM
This is correct. But why do the rules disallow them? Simply because of the advantage they offer? Cyclists don't ride bikes with old-fashioned, heavy steel frames. They ride bikes built from the newest, lightest alloys and composite materials that offer the most ideal strength-to-weight ratio for their pursuit. If Bob beats Bill in the Tour de Hillbilly, but Bob's bike is lighter, did Bob cheat? If you apply the logic that is used to keep steroids out of sport, then yes, Bob cheated and a level playing field is only maintained when everyone uses the same equipment and the same training regimens and eat the same food and go to sleep at the time and et cetera et cetera. Only then does pure genetic ability win out. Although we still haven't talked about the psychological aspects of sports and how mental toughness and that innate "winner's attitude" factor in. How about athletes that utilize sports psychologists to achieve that winner's mentality or to get past emotional blocks that prevent them from fully tapping their abilities? They're trying to overcome genetic deficiency, just like the steroid user. Are they cheating?
Originally Posted by Zac Speed
You just made the point that we should be allowed to do as we please with our bodies; why does that thinking not extend to sport? Why not allow EVERYTHING, and say Okay, it's up to you, the competitor, to choose what you are and aren't willing to do in order to compete at the highest level. And for those athletes who fear steroids and the misguided masses who abhor them, drug-free leagues would pop up for all sports. But the example provided by bodybuilding has already showed us how those drug-free leagues would fare.
Speaking of which, you still haven't explained why you feel that steroids in bodybuilding are justified and should be allowed.
07-06-2013 06:29 PM
Well, since you started the conversation...
Originally Posted by Zac Speed
The pursuits you list not only make you a danger to others but to your own health. And when one wrecks his health in such a manner, the general public picks up the tab, either because the individual expects his insurance to pay for treating his self-inflicted wounds, which raises all of our healthcare costs, or because said individual has no insurance, and the hospital system increase costs to help offset their losses, which increases costs to insurers, who pass that cost on to the consumer. This is perhaps best illustrated by the backlash created by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg's recent crusade against massive-sized sodas. The same fat ****s who have gathered to battle against his efforts to protect them and their children from themselves will expect the rest of us to pay for the care that they will receive for their type II adult-onset diabetes and the host of other serious and expensive ailments that will come with it. Liberty does not endow the right to complete recklessness and irresponsibility; a society has a responsibility to itself, and its members to each other.
And how about those who fear no consequence? We see this in the mass shootings that happen with ever greater frequency in the US. The perpetrators of these crimes often commence their acts ready and willing to die. They fear no reprisal, and when the threat of punishment is not enough to deter one from thoughts of mass murder, mass murder will occur. And yet, still we fight not just for the right to bear firearms, but for completely unfettered access to them, even when such availability ensures that they will end up in the hands of those who should not possess them. I say this not to initiate a debate on gun control, but to illustrate the point that the threat of punishment is not enough to protect those in a society who exists peaceably and responsibly.
These are the reasons I say your thinking is too narrow. You haven't thought deep enough on such topics.
07-06-2013 09:15 PM
I often wonder if I'm the only one that thinks that all pro sports should require their players to take PEDs? lol. I mean if your supposed to strive to be the best and destroy everyone then why not use them?
07-06-2013 09:43 PM
I feel like people still associate steroids use with "roid rage" and cheating in sports. But I wish people would see it's much more than that for the rest of us. We can just blame the media.
07-06-2013 09:48 PM
I think these laws against steroids are against our own constitution. Any overdosed substance can cause damage.
07-06-2013 09:49 PM
It's all Ben Johnsons fault
07-06-2013 09:55 PM
Lol they do cause increase in aggression. And with someone that's already got a nasty temper then "roid rage" can happen, so the violent outbursts associated with roids aren't cause specifically by them they really just amplify said persons temper. that's the way I see it any way
Originally Posted by hawks21
07-07-2013 01:50 AM
Originally Posted by Swanson52
07-09-2013 12:58 PM
Nope. Not gaining any traction in society...the only people that accept them are the people that use them, or date the people that use them, or actually understand their benefits...which is a small, small fraction of society.
07-09-2013 02:40 PM
I agree in the regard that personal use isn't and shouldn't be a concern of the government. A lot of guys I grew up with used with a lot of success. Everybody knew. Nobody ratted on them.
It's laughable to think that PEDs can or should have a place in sports. The risk of litigation is far too high to give anything less than 100% *appearance* of testing and control.
A .240 hitter doesn't stay a .240 hitter with the help of 'roids. Look @ Melky Cabrera - the guy was garbage in 2 cities and he ends up in SF leading the league in batting. There are a million examples as we all saw with Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, et all.
That being said, lets not kid ourselves into believing Adrian Peterson didn't use HGH to recover from surgery and nearly beat the single-season rushing record. That was NFL-sanctioned. "Hey AP- do whatever you have to do to get back to the game. We don't test IR guys..." They wanted their star back & protected their investment.
I'd love to see a league that sanctions guys to dose themselves into absolute monsters, but professional sports will always keep gear illegal to protect their own interests. And because the sports (that kids look up to) say they're against the rule the stigma will always exist.
07-09-2013 02:58 PM
I disagree. I feel that with the recent jump in men going on testosterone replacement therapy these last few years. That it's becoming more and more mainstream. And I believe that when the men and the women that are with them start to see the many benefits that trt gives, more men will go on trt, and society will slowly start to accept it .
Originally Posted by TruthWalker
07-09-2013 03:18 PM
I thought I would pop into this thread to see if anyone has brought it up yet.
A rumour on the internet about one of the world's most famous fitness models being stripped of his title due to testing positive.
Despite there being nothing conclusive to show it was steroid use (only speculation about it being anavar but I can't see any legitimate reason for this theory) it has caused quite a stir.
Sign up for the PES Insider for exclusive flash sales and brand new product launches.
07-09-2013 03:25 PM
I definitely see your point, and I thought about that, but I don't think your average person goes to get trt because he knows its the same thing as steroids. I think we have to differentiate between the medical use of trt and recreational use of steroids. Is TRT gaining more public traction? Absolutely! But as far as the mainstream knows, it is used medicinally and not for recreational purposes. Maybe in the future public acceptance of TRT will translate into public acceptance of recreational steroid use, but I don't think that is happening now, or will happen in the near future.
Originally Posted by Vinnyboombots
Similar Forum Threads
By ReaperX in forum Anabolics
Last Post: 06-06-2008, 03:43 PM
By spitboy in forum General Chat
Last Post: 05-12-2005, 01:55 PM
By Zim in forum Anabolics
Last Post: 07-19-2004, 05:13 PM
By Campeon in forum Anabolics
Last Post: 12-08-2003, 08:53 PM