Should PED's be allowed in sports? - Topic of the Week

An odd thought is all the Hall of Famers currently existing will have to get grouped separately or the AAS generation will make them look not-so-great lol.
 
Many of them were using something! lol
 
Driven2lift said:
I know lol
Just sucks for the greats who weren't, to get their records buried in comparison
Click to expand...

True, but it also kind of brings us to a point of a realization -- only those individuals and God really know what they did.

We had way too many guys who did the whole "No, I'm 100% clean" speeches only to be busted later and then cry in front of congress (I'm looking at you, McGwire!).

That's kind of like the bodybuilders of today. There are plenty of guys who are natural who will always be ripped for lying. We're all entitled to our own thoughts on that, but only they truly know that answer. And maybe that's how it's supposed to be.

Because for all we know, Ted Williams was on some crazy steroids that no one else was at the time lol. Plenty of guys were using substances that were prohibited at the time and we just didn't know about it.

The other thing about now is look at the knowledge we have access to regarding training, rest, and nutrition. That wasn't readily available or known back 50+ years ago. So you've got guys now who are living healthier and training smarter for longer and they may be less naturally gifted than many of the old greats, but they out-train them like crazy because they have that edge today.

We can always find some way to make a distinction between generations or individuals.
 
Add the fact that steroids were legal to purchase and use before 1990 clouds past players even more if you really get down to who's records are legit or not.
 
Admin said:
Add the fact that steroids were legal to purchase and use before 1990 clouds past players even more if you really get down to who's records are legit or not.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

People don't think about that at all, but that's the deal.

The funny thing is when I think back to any athletes getting busted for it, you wanna know the only thing that actually bothered me? That they lied. I should care that they cheated (simply for the fact that they broke rules, not because of the compounds being bad), but what irks me is them flat-out saying "No, I didn't take anything." Only to be in front of a podium, crying and apologizing later.
 
Remember that bottle of androstenedione sitting in Mcquires locker? Everyone said it had steroid like effects....when it did nothing. :lol:
 
There is so much I want to say but I have to read for class....... I'll be back tomorrow.


MidwestBeast its always the cover up that gets you in trouble. I mean, unless its like murder, but generally speaking for stuff like getting a blowie in the oval office, blood doping, using steroids, etc, the cover up > the crime.

Edit: Since I brought it up: Just because 'everyone' does it, doesn't mean its okay. I'm 95% sure every president has gotten some action in the oval office. However, just because Clinton did it, doesn't mean its okay for Bush, Obama, and whatever president is next.
Similarly, just because A and B use roids or PEDs does not mean C-Z should be able to use them. I'm actually more comfortable with players smoking weed or snorting lines than doing steroids. Thats more of their personal life. I don't see weed or cocaine as unfair advantage. I do see using steroids in professional sports as an unfair advantage. I think Admin said it - if the competition is close, even a marginal advantage is huge.
 
I say no. A huge draw factor with spectator sports is that people assume they are the freaks of the genetic world. Pure talent and phenomenal genetics. Nothing artificial.

Allowing something as taboo as PEDs takes away the magic of it all. The general public believes most athletes to be clean given the amount of testing organisations out there - even though its easy to dodge the system, the public doesn't understand this. The teams with the smartest strategies for hiding doping generally come out on top.

Its too taboo to allow it and it will detract from the medals and accomplishments someone makes from that point on. However, I definitely am not oblivious to the fact most athletes will use something in their careers.
 
I would say yes or no. But since they are and always have been - it should be legalized. The worst part about steroids is the fact that they've been put in black market culture.
 
xR1pp3Rx said:
I say yes, and make it manditory at the pro level.
Click to expand...

LOL...not sure about that. You can't mandate something that could pose a health hazard.
 
Admin said:
LOL...not sure about that. You can't mandate something that could pose a health hazard.
Click to expand...

lol thought it but didn't say it. Especially in the bodybuilding world - I assume that athletes take way less gear than bodybuilding athletes.
 
Admin said:
LOL...not sure about that. You can't mandate something that could pose a health hazard.
Click to expand...

Right but people pay to see the very best athletes compete against the other very best, and this one thing is a hurdle to a level playing field.
I say monitor their health and give them ths very beztgear and care, which would be way different than say what goes on in bbing.
 
rascal14 said:
Regardless, unless you turn into a robot nothing can make you put the bat to ball except for your own skill. Until someone convinces me otherwise of a PED that can help you do that.
Click to expand...

These are people that already have skill and are getting more athletic and improved recovery with the juice.

Admin said:
Ha! Very true. There were other guys in baseball who better averages as well who weren't exactly power hitters. I personally think it does help hand eye coordination.
Click to expand...

Slightly extra running speed can go a long way with batting average.

rascal14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just image if you gave Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron the juice, just like you gave it to the already hall of famer Barry B.? What would their stats have looked like?
 
Well I'm not sure. But I know that for combat sports it should not be allowed. I think it is dangerous if you would have 1 guy with a 8:1 ratio and the other guy with a 3:1. Then another thing to consider if allowed is would they monitor how much is being used.
 
Well if they would monitor what is being used then I would think they would also have to monitor how much.

Also I think that if they knew they had something to help them heal and be more resilient, maybe more would actually be more willing to go in there and actually bang it out instead of playing it safe and going for point strikes. While that does take skill and technique, it is still a spectator sport and some of the fights nowadays can get a little boring when compared to the OGs of MMA and how they all tried to finish every time. I miss that old school style of fighting. Whether it is balls to the walls stand up, or excellent ground game beyond just wrestle and control.
 
I think we have to consider that everything a pro athlete achieves is in comparison to the competition. If PEDs are permitted and suddenly everyone is using them (as if nobody does now lol), nobody has gained an advantage in relation to the rest of the field, essentially resulting in a zero-sum effect. IMHO, it just pushes drug usage to more extreme amounts to *try* and gain another leg on the competition.

Of course an issue of fairness comes into discussion in a topic like this; some athletes have much different hormonal profiles and other physiological variables that provide performance advantages. This is probably a grey area that will exist as long as doping methods stay ahead of the tests used to detect them, since biological passports aren't available for every athlete out there.

I really only briefly skimmed the thread, but I think some pretty good points brought up before are the ethical implications of allowing PEDs in contact or combat sports, where usage increases the risk of injuries to others, and producing role models which more openly encourages PED use.
 
Depends on how you define a PED. To me, anything that is synthetic and allows you to perform at a higher level or heal faster is a PED. That includes opiates, NSAIDs, etc.
 
Rodja said:
Depends on how you define a PED. To me, anything that is synthetic and allows you to perform at a higher level or heal faster is a PED. That includes opiates, NSAIDs, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

And 1.) where do you draw the line? and 2.) how do you actively ensure to uphold your rules?




So either just let it be a free for all or test harder and ensure no cheating takes place (which would be a total pain).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top