Should PED's be allowed in sports? - Topic of the Week
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
cubsfan815
Well-known member
I would say sure, but it sets bad example for younger kids. Then even more will try PEDs at high school age.
I still think Kerry Wood and Mark Prior ran something very early, that's why their baseball careers fizzled out so fast.
I still think Kerry Wood and Mark Prior ran something very early, that's why their baseball careers fizzled out so fast.
But is the example based on stigma of "cheating"? I would agree for health based reasons they shouldn't touch it, but it seems many of the opinions of why it shouldn't be allowed in the majors is based solely off an inaccurate stigma.
cubsfan815
Well-known member
I agree with inaccuracies. Also these same people who are sooo against, are the same owners etc, who profited majorly from steroid era.
This is really great question btw.
This is really great question btw.
jbryand101b
Banned
Yes!
jbryand101b
Banned
Kids are gonna want to use steroids regardless.
Dirty Dan
Board Sponsor
I have no problem with steroids or any form of PED, personally. However, to answer the question I would say no I don't believe they should be allowed in sports.
I feel as if many people get into sports for various reasons, whether it be love for the game, fame, money, glory, competition, whatever it be.
We know when used in moderation and not abused, steroids and some PEDs are fairly safe, however everyone's body reacts to them differently. I don't think it's fair to the guy who has no intentions of using PEDs to have to compete against someone who is using them and may have the upper hand in whatever the respected sport may be.
I could care less if it sets a bad example for the youth, or goes against the old fashion values of America. I just don't think it's fair from a competitive standpoint.
Whether it's most home runs, slam dunks, tackles, fastest pitch, or whatever else. I think it should be solely based on the skill of the individual, not the skill plus whatever PED they are taking to help them go the extra mile.
I feel as if many people get into sports for various reasons, whether it be love for the game, fame, money, glory, competition, whatever it be.
We know when used in moderation and not abused, steroids and some PEDs are fairly safe, however everyone's body reacts to them differently. I don't think it's fair to the guy who has no intentions of using PEDs to have to compete against someone who is using them and may have the upper hand in whatever the respected sport may be.
I could care less if it sets a bad example for the youth, or goes against the old fashion values of America. I just don't think it's fair from a competitive standpoint.
Whether it's most home runs, slam dunks, tackles, fastest pitch, or whatever else. I think it should be solely based on the skill of the individual, not the skill plus whatever PED they are taking to help them go the extra mile.
StatePlan1425
Member
Ah, but there's the rub. For this discussion we're talking PEDs but philosophically no athlete is ever just skill and hardwork. They (and their coaches and trainers) are always looking for an any and every advantage and some push the limit of what is legal in their sport. I think it is the very essence of competition that drives us to this...
jbryand101b
Banned
I don't think any top elite level athletes are ped free.
But there should be two pro level leagues, tested and untested just like in bbing
But there should be two pro level leagues, tested and untested just like in bbing
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
Allowed 100% - they're being used anyway - "testing" is a joke, I hear. 'Bigger, Stronger, Faster' was pretty good on this topic - going back to the 60's US Olympic Team getting its butt handed to it, so they jumped on the train. As far as kids go, professional athletes can also drink alcohol - sorry kiddoes, gotta wait, parents better get to "parenting". Not a fan of govt sticking its nose in peoples personal lives anyway (the only "victim" can be the user, and even that's a stretch - PEDs were what, 147th on the Emergency Room Visit list - behind multi-vitamins). The stigma is a joke (and hypocritical), and the legislation purely political.
Good point. Considering the amount of athletes that would use them, if legal, it would almost certainly force everything to use them to "keep up"
jbryand101b
Banned
Npc or opc! Body builders choice! No shortage of glory!
Should be the same for all our favorite sports.
I think it would also enhance the level of playing and in turn, the viewers enjoyment
Should be the same for all our favorite sports.
I think it would also enhance the level of playing and in turn, the viewers enjoyment
cubsfan815
Well-known member
At least the WWE, doesn't use them. 
Tiocfaidh
Active member
At least the WWE, doesn't use them.
The older ones are dropping like flies because of it.
cubsfan815
Well-known member
Yeah, some really good legends have died too soon.
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
And even if it was, I think there needs to be a distinction between "Sane" and "Olympia Contender" dosages as far as safety goes. "They" have one golden boy - Lyle Alzado - and that's been debunked by quite a few impartial medical professionals. No Shortstop wants to be Phil Heath.
The number of bb'ers dying from the 90's is troubling as well. Lots of heart issues.
jbryand101b
Banned
I agree, the amount used for athletic performance enhancement is less than what's used to grow larger than life.
Dirty Dan
Board Sponsor
Naturally this conversation has shifted to steroid use, but what about other PEDs? Both Amphetamines and Erythropoietin (blood boosting) are widely used amongst sports players. Should those be allowed as well?
What if a player takes all three types, where do we draw the line? What if a death happens due to the mixtures of PEDs?
I don't agree with the logic that most are doing them anyways, so we should just allow it. As exciting as it would be to watch people perform beyond their genetic limit, I just don't see it as a good idea.
What if a player takes all three types, where do we draw the line? What if a death happens due to the mixtures of PEDs?
I don't agree with the logic that most are doing them anyways, so we should just allow it. As exciting as it would be to watch people perform beyond their genetic limit, I just don't see it as a good idea.
MidwestBeast
Legend
I love this question and am so glad it got brought up.
The simple, clear answer is a resounding yes.
We keep hearing talk of "leveling the playing field." Okay, that's great in theory, but let's look deeper. Many of the athletes we see being busted for PEDs are being busted for what? AAS and HGH. Sure we have amphetamines and other things, but we'll talk about those later. With AAS, let's look simply at testosterone. What does it do? It provides an exogenous source of a hormone already in the body. So that person is obviously at an unfair advantage to those not using it, right? Well yes, but it's not that simple. What about TRT/HRT? What about 40 year old guys hanging onto the game vs. the 19 year old fresh out of 1 year of college? And even two individuals of the exact same age -- not every one person is exactly the same! At the highest level it's unlikely that you're some schlub with low-T and hanging with the big dogs, but it's not impossible.
So what does (MLB, for example) base this PED testing on? A threshold. Are they using the same labs that most of us see with a range of something like 300-1,100 being the "normal" range for total testosterone? If someone hits 1,150 does he get flagged? I don't know what their specific testing methods are for compounds that are naturally occurring (I know obviously they have steroid tests for anything that's synthesized and wouldn't normally exist in the body). But what if we have Player A and Player B and each is PED-free, but Player A has a total test of over 1,000 and Player B is barely on the "normal" side at 400? Is that a level playing field? No, it's not. But it's not wrong, either. Theoretically if you take the D off of PED, we're looking at anything performance-enhancing and why should we draw the line here? What if someone has a rich family and more access to trainers and medical labs to ensure he is at 100% top of the line whereas a Cuban refugee player has nothing?
The point of all of this is it's murky. There is no way to ensure that everything is 100% even. And there shouldn't be!
So when it comes to sports, here's the deal -- if something is still federally illegal, then you certainly shouldn't be encouraging its use. But it also doesn't need to be your place to do the testing. The whole MLB steroid debacle with congress was an absolute joke. You want to know the only reason they did it? Because congress wanted to be involved with superstars and athletes. There are WAY bigger problems like human and drug trafficking, our economy, etc., but no, they'll have a government stoppage before dealing with any of those and they'll certainly find a way to poke their nose into MLB and NFL.
And, if leagues really wanted to test players, it should be a weekly, monthly, whatever increment testing that absolutely ensures every player is tested. Not some "we're going to strike fear in them by randomly testing some people a couple times a year and that way they'll all stay clean but we really know they won't" system.
And lastly (for now lol -- I could talk about this forever), the whole role model to children thing is out the window. A.) PEDs are not the devil. So that shouldn't be a concern. That's part of the problem! That's why most of the general public if you were to tell them you took Superdrol, which is now a banned substance, even though it was legal at the time, they'd be all "OMG STEROIDS YOUR BALLS ARE GONNA SHRINK AND YOU'RE GOING TO BEAT YOUR CHILDREN!" So yeah, let's move past using a substance (in a responsible way) is a bad example to kids when utilized by an adult. B.) These players are setting far more bad examples out there. We've got players killing people, beating women, punching teenagers over beach chairs (and that was a coach!), cheating by altering game equipment, and plenty of other stuff. Let's not overlook the guys who cuss out umpires or swear when the parabolic mic picks it up and walk up to rap songs that are often so explicit the sound tech. has a hard time finding a 12 second snippet he can actually use. The crimes are obviously crimes, but the other things are just personal preference -- not what I'd want my kids to be seeing/modeling, but that's up to each individual to decide. Point is, there are plenty of other things at play when it comes to being examples to children. And finally C.) we need to find role models for children who aren't just athletes or movie stars. In any category in life, there are good people and not so good people; we can't make a sweeping generalization that everyone from any particular group is the same. But I've heard this argument a long time and probably made it myself. As I've grown older and get ready to have kids of my own, I know I'll be looking at it from the standpoint that we're all human beings and if there's a good one who is an athlete, then good for them and my kids should respect him or her. But I want my future kids to care about other things, like the doctor who builds a hospital in Sudan so that children who are dying can receive medical treatment; the scientist who develops a way for blind children to have sight. I've learned that I put way too much care into sports than I ever should have. Sports are great for so many reasons, but there are other things that are very important that we neglect giving attention to and I want to do a better job of that. So yeah, as far as the role model excuse, I don't care about it.
Also -- people are out there doing it already anyway; don't you just want to see the biggest monsters out there? If you didn't, you'd only watch the WNBA and youth level sports and not much at the pros. I say juice them all up and let them compete for all of our enjoyment.
The simple, clear answer is a resounding yes.
We keep hearing talk of "leveling the playing field." Okay, that's great in theory, but let's look deeper. Many of the athletes we see being busted for PEDs are being busted for what? AAS and HGH. Sure we have amphetamines and other things, but we'll talk about those later. With AAS, let's look simply at testosterone. What does it do? It provides an exogenous source of a hormone already in the body. So that person is obviously at an unfair advantage to those not using it, right? Well yes, but it's not that simple. What about TRT/HRT? What about 40 year old guys hanging onto the game vs. the 19 year old fresh out of 1 year of college? And even two individuals of the exact same age -- not every one person is exactly the same! At the highest level it's unlikely that you're some schlub with low-T and hanging with the big dogs, but it's not impossible.
So what does (MLB, for example) base this PED testing on? A threshold. Are they using the same labs that most of us see with a range of something like 300-1,100 being the "normal" range for total testosterone? If someone hits 1,150 does he get flagged? I don't know what their specific testing methods are for compounds that are naturally occurring (I know obviously they have steroid tests for anything that's synthesized and wouldn't normally exist in the body). But what if we have Player A and Player B and each is PED-free, but Player A has a total test of over 1,000 and Player B is barely on the "normal" side at 400? Is that a level playing field? No, it's not. But it's not wrong, either. Theoretically if you take the D off of PED, we're looking at anything performance-enhancing and why should we draw the line here? What if someone has a rich family and more access to trainers and medical labs to ensure he is at 100% top of the line whereas a Cuban refugee player has nothing?
The point of all of this is it's murky. There is no way to ensure that everything is 100% even. And there shouldn't be!
So when it comes to sports, here's the deal -- if something is still federally illegal, then you certainly shouldn't be encouraging its use. But it also doesn't need to be your place to do the testing. The whole MLB steroid debacle with congress was an absolute joke. You want to know the only reason they did it? Because congress wanted to be involved with superstars and athletes. There are WAY bigger problems like human and drug trafficking, our economy, etc., but no, they'll have a government stoppage before dealing with any of those and they'll certainly find a way to poke their nose into MLB and NFL.
And, if leagues really wanted to test players, it should be a weekly, monthly, whatever increment testing that absolutely ensures every player is tested. Not some "we're going to strike fear in them by randomly testing some people a couple times a year and that way they'll all stay clean but we really know they won't" system.
And lastly (for now lol -- I could talk about this forever), the whole role model to children thing is out the window. A.) PEDs are not the devil. So that shouldn't be a concern. That's part of the problem! That's why most of the general public if you were to tell them you took Superdrol, which is now a banned substance, even though it was legal at the time, they'd be all "OMG STEROIDS YOUR BALLS ARE GONNA SHRINK AND YOU'RE GOING TO BEAT YOUR CHILDREN!" So yeah, let's move past using a substance (in a responsible way) is a bad example to kids when utilized by an adult. B.) These players are setting far more bad examples out there. We've got players killing people, beating women, punching teenagers over beach chairs (and that was a coach!), cheating by altering game equipment, and plenty of other stuff. Let's not overlook the guys who cuss out umpires or swear when the parabolic mic picks it up and walk up to rap songs that are often so explicit the sound tech. has a hard time finding a 12 second snippet he can actually use. The crimes are obviously crimes, but the other things are just personal preference -- not what I'd want my kids to be seeing/modeling, but that's up to each individual to decide. Point is, there are plenty of other things at play when it comes to being examples to children. And finally C.) we need to find role models for children who aren't just athletes or movie stars. In any category in life, there are good people and not so good people; we can't make a sweeping generalization that everyone from any particular group is the same. But I've heard this argument a long time and probably made it myself. As I've grown older and get ready to have kids of my own, I know I'll be looking at it from the standpoint that we're all human beings and if there's a good one who is an athlete, then good for them and my kids should respect him or her. But I want my future kids to care about other things, like the doctor who builds a hospital in Sudan so that children who are dying can receive medical treatment; the scientist who develops a way for blind children to have sight. I've learned that I put way too much care into sports than I ever should have. Sports are great for so many reasons, but there are other things that are very important that we neglect giving attention to and I want to do a better job of that. So yeah, as far as the role model excuse, I don't care about it.
Also -- people are out there doing it already anyway; don't you just want to see the biggest monsters out there? If you didn't, you'd only watch the WNBA and youth level sports and not much at the pros. I say juice them all up and let them compete for all of our enjoyment.
thorsdad31
Well-known member
Everything we eat is injected with something so it's already in sports lol
MidwestBeast
Legend
If that's the case would you agree then that the leagues and organizations should do a more thorough job to ensure no one is using, then? Because right now, plenty of guys are. Only a tiny fraction ever get caught.
MidwestBeast
Legend
And FWIW, AAS weren't a controlled substance til 1994 wasn't it? So plenty of guys in the 80s were rocking the same stuff guys are being busted for now.
AllaboutGains
New member
You have all talked mostly about baseball, football, and basketball. But I pose the question, what about the bloodsports? MMA and Boxing? We all want to see people beating the **** out each other anyways, and the majority of the fighters use something or another as is. The volume of training they do and the sheer number of injuries so many train and fight thru just to get a payday, they have to have something to help them keep going even a few years. And as far as the example for kids, thats up to the parents. Society has all but thrown aside good examples for kids, just watch a couple hours of most TV and that is obvious. I think that it should be monitored, but allowed. While that seems contradictory I just don't think they should be able to just take anything and everything. Like they say, everything in moderation right? I don't want to see them killing themselves early with PEDs, but I hate seeing good fighters forced out early due to injuries.
Dirty Dan
Board Sponsor
I think this statement nails it, why would it be fair for a professional sports player to use AAS or any other PEDs, but everyone else couldn't?
Why couldn't an iron worker use AAS to help with his/her job, or why can't a firefighter use amphetamines to help him/her stay awake and alert during their 24-36 hour shift?
The same argument has been made about allowing law enforcement to use AAS. Why can they use it, but not the rest of society.
If sports organization had an open door policy where they said "use whatever you want, but the risk is still on you" is the same as states here in the U.S. who have legalized Marijuana for medical use, but still face punishment from the federal government. I don't think owners of teams would want to take that risk of investing all this money and time into star players, and run the risk of them getting arrested and dealing with possible jail time and expensive legal fees.
Lastly, money comes into play. A lot of revenue comes in from sponsorships. Certain companies sponsor entire sports organizations, teams, and individual players. They may not feel comfortable sponsoring a team or person who is openly using AAS when it is still federally illegal resulting in them backing out of their sponsorship.
You can still argue that if all players were on PEDs it may result in more exciting games which would cause more people to watch and more advertisement/attention drawn to the sponsors, but I don't think most companies would feel comfortable with that
Woody
Well-known member
Absolutely. However, how do you do that? Drug test before every game? In the NFL, there's 32 teams with 53 players. That's a lot of drug tests. I'd imagine from a cost perspective, even though football is a billion dollar enterprise, it isn't feasible.
In MMA/Boxing, IMO it shifts focus away from who has the better train, skill. Cyborg got busted a few years back for doing massive amounts of roids. When she gets in the ring and destroys some chick, how is that anywhere near fair. Clearly, her steroid use gave her an advantage that she didn't have with skill alone.
As far as integrity, if sports allow PEDs, then sports aren't near as interesting. There's not that awe factor. The natural talent. The Lawrence Taylor type of skill (even though he was a coke head). The Michael Jordan. It's just a bunch of grown men on roids. That's cool - but couldn't that be anybody? It's no longer a select group of athletes with remarkable skill.
*I just woke up so if this doesn't make a lot of sense I'll try again later.*
MidwestBeast
Legend
As for how to ensure everyone is clean -- mandatory drug testing every ____. Whatever that window is, it has to make sure there isn't enough time to take something and have it clear the system. And in the off-season, too -- not just during the season. Would it be expensive? YEP! Sure would be! But if that's what you want to present to the public, then go ahead and do it. If I have to pay $150 for an "authentic" jersey and $25 just to get a drink and a burger at your game, then I don't want to hear you whine about costs when we've all seen the numbers that owners bring in especially with the new tv deals the leagues and teams keep getting.
That said, I'd rather just have them say to heck with it, let them do what they want at their own risk only to federal laws and sit back and watch the monsters form. But that's just me.
What irritates me is the leagues want to seem like they're so anti-drug/PED, so they wait for one guy to get busted, suspend him, and pretend like they're standing on their soapbox wagging their fingers. If they actually cared, everyone would be tested. There is a reason it's set up the way it is. They want the general public to be stupid and think they're taking a harsh stance on PED/drug use when in reality they're just leaving it wide open and then throwing 1 out of every 100? 1,000? under the bus when he just so happens to be unlucky enough to be caught.
I've never understood how there is this argument from player's unions that "No, you can't drug test us whenever you want! That's against our rights!" Well, I'd love to see that collective bargaining, because I can get drug tested whenever and I don't care about it because I willingly decided to work for my employer. And I'm certainly not making millions of dollars, either.
But to me, nothing in life is equal though it can still be fair. When it comes to "performance-enhancing" it just gets on my nerves because where do you draw the line? Things that are legal now and being used will one day be illegal to the guys in 5 years. There are compounds that haven't been discovered or at least available to athletes yet that one day will be and the new generation will use them when our athletes of now won't have; and then they'll inevitably be determined to be illegal or banned, also. It's cyclical. So maybe the playing field can be a little more level for the athlete's all at the same time in that one season, but across decades or even several years, it will be vastly different each time. Guys can't even use ephedrine to cut weight anymore without risking getting caught and popped for it, but I can still go buy it behind the counter. How is it that that's not okay for them to use, but slamming caffeine like crazy is and up until not too long ago 1,3 dmaa was?
It's just hard for me to see it in a way where there's not someone making judgment calls for a whole group of athletes and shifting the whole game in a snap and the swipe of a pen on paper.
MidwestBeast
Legend
IIRC, I thought something improved vision slightly (though I'm blanked at the moment).
But what I can say is that what about the guy who does have excellent hand eye coordination and then adds 20 pounds of muscle over a couple years? You telling me he's not going to add an extra 50 feet to his line drives that turns at least a handful of line outs and doubles into HRs? Let's say that guy bats .298 over his career, but his slash lines for HR and RBI are something like:
12 HR, 58 RBI
14 HR, 65 RBI
15 HR, 66 RBI
9 HR, 62 RBI
And then:
19 HR, 74 RBI
21 HR, 78 RBI
22 HR, 85 RBI
That guy is getting a bigger paycheck. Still hitting for average, but just turning a few of those lineouts and long doubles and singles into HRs.
rascal14
Well-known member
Well as far as I know, yes. Lol
Most top level athletes have or still are using PEDs and it's never going to end. Especially with new SARMs and things like that coming out all the time now. Everyone has the opportunity to use them and everyone knows going into the MLB, NFL, MMA, and things like that know their competitors are going to be using or have used some kind of PED. If you don't like it, don't compete in the organization. No one is forcing you to.
But I do think it should be allowed. They're going to do it no matter what. Honestly I think it makes it more interesting.
cubsfan815
Well-known member
If you are at the major league level, you already have the hand eye coordination.
It's the extra strength and mass they gain. Sosa, McGuire, Bonds, Etc.
It's the extra strength and mass they gain. Sosa, McGuire, Bonds, Etc.
Yes but I did read evidence that it does sharpen your skills/coordination even further.
This also was the argument when the tiger woods rumors were going around of steroid use.
AllaboutGains
New member
Cyborg tho was a case of a woman using hormones to make herself more manlike as far as musculature and strength/power goes. Thats a whole new equation when she gets in the ring and fights women who don't have that. Its like Fallon Fox getting in the ring with women when she developed and matured completely as a man. Her entire physiology is different from the other women. So when a woman uses something similar to testosterone that in my opinion is 2x as unfair as a man doing so because all men have much higher levels of test then women do. So when Cyborg got popped for stanozolol, her opponents were essentially stepping in the ring with a man. And there is a reason there is not a major organization that would sanction a man vs woman fight, it just would not be fair on any level. Unless she was like Cyborg.
But if the PEDs were somehow monitored as to what they were using so as to not allow them to make themselves superhuman like Overreem did, but to increase their ability to heal and recover from their battle wounds, I think that would be beneficial. Not to say other sports don't cause a lot of injuries but I can't think of a single one that causes as many injuries as MMA and those that have long careers are beat to hell and back from years of training and competing. Anderson Silva got busted and I would like to believe he was only using PEDs to come back from his busted leg. He could have been on something during his champion term as well, but it'd be nice to believe he wasn't.
I will say that some need to know when its time to step away, but that is neither here nor there, because there are cases of that in all sports.
cubsfan815
Well-known member
Tiger Woods obviously was on something that didn't lower libido lol.
rascal14
Well-known member
I'm sure it dose some. But I don't think it does to the degree of making someone go from nothing to something.
You can't give someone who can't hit the ball to save their life steroids and turn them into Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron.
It definitely can turn some hits into doubles instead of singles and things like that, like the guy mentioned above.
Woody
Well-known member
I wasn't able to read all of this and I apologize but I'm in class.
But, it's okay for a man to take PEDs and not women? Or is it okay for men to take them bc a lot of them do but women don't?
Regarding the "let them do it at their own risk" ideology... That puts the league and team at risk. If you turn a blind eye and allow your unionized players to break federal law, that's going to be a nightmare. Further, if you allow them to do PED, why not let them do crack or snort cocaine without punishment.
Are you only going to discipline someone if the DEA/FBI/etc. catches them? That's also nightmare.
The_Old_Guy
Well-known member
Well, I don't know what everyone else is thinking, but I took the question as "Let's get rid of some of these ridiculous laws", like some states are doing with MJ. Schedule III.... gimme a god da*n break! I'd change my answer if it just applied to some "protected class". Screw that, illegal for me, then illegal for you.
AllaboutGains
New member
No thats not what I meant by that at all. All I was saying was that in my opinion it is 2x as unfair for a woman to use testosterone or other testosterone like substances as it is for a man to use test like substances in the realm of combat sports. Had she been on GH or something that doesn't in essence turn her into a man while she is on it, then it would be different in my eyes. Still cheating as the current rules are but not to the extent I see a woman on test like substances. Its hard to convey my thoughts on that one via typed words. But to me looking at the physiological levels of testosterone in women naturally, even those with high levels of natural testosterone, are not going to have as much as even a man with low testosterone (provided he doesn't have extremely low levels). So elevating a womans androgen levels to that of a male, makes her as powerful as a man in the short term. And since women don't have the bone structure that men do, it makes her increased power that much more effective.
When compared to a man on said steroids fights a natural man, yes there is an unfair advantage, but just not to the extreme that I perceive when a juiced up woman beats up a natural woman.
And thats why I said if the PEDs they were allowed to use were monitored somehow, as in a select few of them as well as how much, such as those to help keep the fighters healthy as far as injuries go and increase the recovery rate when they are injured, I personally think that would be acceptable and beneficial to the sport. I am by no means any sort of expert of PEDs so I wouldn't know which ones would fall into that category but I know there are some out there that would.