Are Steroids close to being socially accepted?
- Thread starter Zac Speed
- Start date
Vinnyboombots
Active member
I accept them socially.
srblan
Active member
As long as there are idiots who jump into anabolics without having any clue how to do it safely, and football players who claim that they were using Adderall when they fail a drug test (the collective bargaining agreement does not allow disclosure of which drug they tested positive for, so lots of players say Adderall), even though they were very likely using anabolics, the public is going to assume that anyone using anabolics is cheating.
What has made a lot of things become more mainstream is the sense of "everybody's doing it." With the stigma that only cheaters do it, it's going to be tough to create that mindset.
Zac Speed
Member
Also was talking to my step dad yesterday about it. I've let my parents know they've become a part of my life and will continue to be in my pursuit of success in the world of bodybuilding.
My dad surprised me because he told me he had done some research about them and read that they don't make everybody roid rage. More like intensify your personality. And I knew that but was just glad to hear him with some real knowledge about a highly misconceived theory of them.
My dad surprised me because he told me he had done some research about them and read that they don't make everybody roid rage. More like intensify your personality. And I knew that but was just glad to hear him with some real knowledge about a highly misconceived theory of them.
jbryand101b
Banned
Invalid Link Removed
ucmuscle
New member
Boom!
srblan
Active member
The media turns a (willfully or otherwise) blind eye to football PED use.
TheSwanks
Well-known member
Whaaaat? You mean they use more than deer antler spray??
Zac Speed
Member
lol, I've had one of my guys ask about that.. smh
TheSwanks
Well-known member
Friggin funny stuff
srblan
Active member
Lol, yes. They also use creatine.
TheSwanks
Well-known member
I thought that was banned???
srblan
Active member
You're thinking of dat dere celltech.
TheSwanks
Well-known member
Wow. Do they let them use whey protein and rolled oats too?
smshannon001
Well-known member
i think MAYBE in 2 generations time... for example in my life, most of the people around my grandparents age are 100% against it...
the middle aged people in my life (parents, uncles, older friends, etc) are split but still more on the side of "not understanding" or "not approving"
however, most of my friends between the age of 20-30 say they may not want to use them or may not understand their use, but agree that if the "drug" is not hurting others and is not being used for financial gain or competitive advantage (ie in pro sports) then why should someone not be allowed to use them
a similar argument to the already mentioned "marijuana" debate
there will always be people on both sides of the spectrum, but i think they will become MORE socially accepted, i do not think there will ever be a majority that socially accepts them though
just my experience!
the middle aged people in my life (parents, uncles, older friends, etc) are split but still more on the side of "not understanding" or "not approving"
however, most of my friends between the age of 20-30 say they may not want to use them or may not understand their use, but agree that if the "drug" is not hurting others and is not being used for financial gain or competitive advantage (ie in pro sports) then why should someone not be allowed to use them
a similar argument to the already mentioned "marijuana" debate
there will always be people on both sides of the spectrum, but i think they will become MORE socially accepted, i do not think there will ever be a majority that socially accepts them though
just my experience!
chris223
Active member
Why is it cheating in other sports? Athletes use every advantage they can get: Cutting-edge equipment, training programs, and nutritional regimens; leading-edge strength and conditioning coaches, hitting coaches, etc.; and even comprehensive supplement plans. Why is this particular advantage cheating while others are not? And why is it okay in bodybuilding but not other sports? The bodybuilder on steroids has the same advantage over a natural bodybuilder as a baseball player on steroids has over one who isn't. In fact, I'd argue that steroids offer an even greater advantage in bodybuilding than other sports. And what about the other strength pursuits: powerlifting, Olympic lifting, strongman. Is it okay there, or is it cheating?
OnionKnight
Well-known member
well theres the part where steroids can and do make athletes stronger and faster than naturally possible. all those other advantages are still limited to genetics, steroids arnt
Zac Speed
Member
Zac Speed
Member
Who was that Canadian Olympic sprinter that set the world record 100m that got caught? He came back a few years later and was slower. That was kind of the worlds acknowledgement to them making a person stronger and faster.
And talk about socially unaccepted at the time but Canada also banned him..
And talk about socially unaccepted at the time but Canada also banned him..
srblan
Active member
Ben Johnson. He's basically the reason steroids were made illegal in the US.
Swanson52
Well-known member
Part of the reason they won't be accepted is due to RAMPANT irresponsible (and oftentimes dangerous) use by impatient and inexperienced trainees.
We can all read studies that show PEDs can and are used safely, but those are countered by the endless stream of jackassery that comes with novice steroid use. All one has to do is spend 10 minutes perusing the Anabolics section to see what I'm talking about.
Additionally, you won't hear stories about successful use. Guys that get blood panels before/during/after, practice responsible use and quietly grow aren't who we hear from. We hear from the idiots who think TRT is a legal cycle, idiots whose endocrine system is irreparably incapacitated from banging a gram of test/week for 6 months, idiots who beat the shyt out of someone in a fit of rage and blame "the juice".
The negative connotations are, at this point (IMHO), insurmountable.
We can all read studies that show PEDs can and are used safely, but those are countered by the endless stream of jackassery that comes with novice steroid use. All one has to do is spend 10 minutes perusing the Anabolics section to see what I'm talking about.
Additionally, you won't hear stories about successful use. Guys that get blood panels before/during/after, practice responsible use and quietly grow aren't who we hear from. We hear from the idiots who think TRT is a legal cycle, idiots whose endocrine system is irreparably incapacitated from banging a gram of test/week for 6 months, idiots who beat the shyt out of someone in a fit of rage and blame "the juice".
The negative connotations are, at this point (IMHO), insurmountable.
Vinnyboombots
Active member
How old is you're father or your uncles because if they are in their 50's there's a chance that they might have even used steroids. They were pretty big in the 80's and 90's. They didn't become a controlled substance until 1991 if I remember correctly.
smshannon001
Well-known member
One uncle could have (stalky sicilian side of the family and was always strong) but father and my other uncles haven't or wouldn't
Vinnyboombots
Active member
That's what i mean. Now on the other hand unless your grandfather was in the olympics or something then i doubt he ever took steroids.
EatMoar
Well-known member
This is 100% truth. Especially with the news, they won't report on someone who uses steroids quietly and correctly, hell its the idiots who use synthol and end up with a blood clot and dying that get on the news. And synthol isn't even steroids -___- but of course people don't know the difference.
Use them correctly, and we'd have 0 issues. However people are imperfect therefore we need rules and regulations. But I do agree they go too far with those.
Zac Speed
Member
The way I see it is. It is your body, your temple. No man has the right to dictate what you do with it. If you wanna run 150mg of tren a day so be it. When you go into a coma and **** don't blame the roids, blame yourself for being an idiot.
That is your Liberty. Something that has been forgotten in this country of rules and regulation.
That is your Liberty. Something that has been forgotten in this country of rules and regulation.
bigt405
Member
I could not have said it better.....
chris223
Active member
A .240 hitter who goes on juice will still be a .240 hitter. A linebacker who can't tackle and goes on juice will run faster and hit harder, but he still can't tackle. Steroids won't help you catch the ball or shoot a jumper or pot a goal on a breakaway. And then there's still the question of why the OP considers usage of hormones to be justified in bodybuilding.
Zac Speed
Member
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.
chris223
Active member
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.
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.
chris223
Active member
This thinking is too narrow, but that's a different discussion.
Zac Speed
Member
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.
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.
chris223
Active member
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?
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.
chris223
Active member
Well, since you started the conversation...
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.
