In 1988, after Carl Lewis was awarded the gold medal in the 100M dash when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids, (I believe it was) Lewis stated that he was not really that surprised because he just didn't think that it was humanly possible to run the 100m in 9.79 (Johnson's winning time).
In the past 3 years, 2 american’s have euqaled or surpassed that time.
In today’s Houston Chronicle there is a tiny article (which is a true disappointment considering the magnitude of the accusations) that reads as follows:
According to Terry Madden, the chief executive of the US anti-doping agency: "What we have unconverted appears to be intentional doping of the worst sort (...) this is a conspiracy involving chemists, coaches and certain athletes using what they developed to be undetectable designer steroids to defraud their fellow competitors and the American and world public"
The drug in question is known as THG and though no athletes were named, it appears that several prominent athletes are a party to this.
I also know for a FACT, that some elite swimmers know of the drug, and believe it is undetectable.
*** This is in no way intimating that any specific athlete has or is using the substance.
Parents
Former Member
No one here is using "rationalization to justify the use of anabolic steroids." No justification here. Also, no one here claims that steroids are safe or that they do not cause ill effects. I was going to let my posts on this subject rest, but establishments of straw men always gets me upset. Please read what's posted and respond to it.
I am interested in keeping high-level athletes off of steroids and other drugs - my post was a concern that the arguments need to be better if the effort is to succeed. If the arguments *can't* be made better, perhaps it is a lost cause.
There are many drugs on the prohibited list that are not anabolic steroids. These include amphetamines, barbituates, antihistamines, stimulants like caffeine (in excess amounts), drugs used for asthma control, and probably drugs used for high blood pressure and diabetes control, for all I know, and many other drugs that most people use all of the time. Athletes have trouble keeping these drugs out of their system, and I suspect a large fraction of Masters swimmers would fail drug tests, if they were taken.
Just because a drug has made it to everyday use does not mean it is not performance enhancing, or that it can't be taken in excess and cause damage. Advil is an example of that. How is it not performance enhancing? How will it not damage someone who takes, say, 10,000 mg a day? What is the fundamental difference? (for the record, I do not take Advil or other aspirin derivatives (except when I broke my ribs), because, honestly, I think it would be cheating. I do not hold others to the same standard that I hold myself.)
My point was that if you want to prohibit performance enhancing drugs you need better arguments. There is no evidence that the "proper" use of steroids is unusually dangerous, when compared to dangerous activities that athletes do all of the time. I think we should be carefull about excessive claims for a subject. They only, in the end, make the case weaker. For example, the extreme claims made about the dangers of marijuana (for those of you that remember the 50's) made it seem less dangerous than it really is, when it was realized that it was not as dangerous as the propaganda made it seem. A tempted athlete can look around and see other cheaters doing perfectly well, with none of the physical dangers that we read about. It invalidates the whole argument because the statements were too extreme.
I have been told many times that "some things are true whether you believe them or not." It is a near automatic sign that the thing discussed either is wrong, or can't be proven. I hope that we can do better than try to end discussions that way.
No one here is using "rationalization to justify the use of anabolic steroids." No justification here. Also, no one here claims that steroids are safe or that they do not cause ill effects. I was going to let my posts on this subject rest, but establishments of straw men always gets me upset. Please read what's posted and respond to it.
I am interested in keeping high-level athletes off of steroids and other drugs - my post was a concern that the arguments need to be better if the effort is to succeed. If the arguments *can't* be made better, perhaps it is a lost cause.
There are many drugs on the prohibited list that are not anabolic steroids. These include amphetamines, barbituates, antihistamines, stimulants like caffeine (in excess amounts), drugs used for asthma control, and probably drugs used for high blood pressure and diabetes control, for all I know, and many other drugs that most people use all of the time. Athletes have trouble keeping these drugs out of their system, and I suspect a large fraction of Masters swimmers would fail drug tests, if they were taken.
Just because a drug has made it to everyday use does not mean it is not performance enhancing, or that it can't be taken in excess and cause damage. Advil is an example of that. How is it not performance enhancing? How will it not damage someone who takes, say, 10,000 mg a day? What is the fundamental difference? (for the record, I do not take Advil or other aspirin derivatives (except when I broke my ribs), because, honestly, I think it would be cheating. I do not hold others to the same standard that I hold myself.)
My point was that if you want to prohibit performance enhancing drugs you need better arguments. There is no evidence that the "proper" use of steroids is unusually dangerous, when compared to dangerous activities that athletes do all of the time. I think we should be carefull about excessive claims for a subject. They only, in the end, make the case weaker. For example, the extreme claims made about the dangers of marijuana (for those of you that remember the 50's) made it seem less dangerous than it really is, when it was realized that it was not as dangerous as the propaganda made it seem. A tempted athlete can look around and see other cheaters doing perfectly well, with none of the physical dangers that we read about. It invalidates the whole argument because the statements were too extreme.
I have been told many times that "some things are true whether you believe them or not." It is a near automatic sign that the thing discussed either is wrong, or can't be proven. I hope that we can do better than try to end discussions that way.
