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
Well Craig, just because you or I say something is true doesn't make it true. We both need a little more than assertions. I do say the argument against anabolic steroids is too weak, but I am also explaining why. I have heard three arguments against them: 1) they are dangerous, 2) they are cheating, and 3) they are illegal. Of course, there are really two reasons, because presumably steroids are illegal because they are hazardous and/or cheating.
The current enforcement regime is failing, either because the athletes do not believe in the policy, or the enforcers do not really believe in the policy. I think a little of both. If we want these people to buy into it, we have to make a coherent and rational justification for it (the policy.) The problem is that
1) If anabolic steroids are so dangerous that they should be outlawed, they should be more dangerous than sports-related activities that are allowed. Otherwise steroids will not appear, to the athlete, as dangerous (enough). In some cases I think it can be argued that a sport itself is more dangerous than steroids. In this category I include american football and boxing. I think a systematic scientific analysis would show more injuries and damage, when all injuries are included, with participants in these sports than with steroid users. Just because a destroyed knee is less freaky than shriveled gonads does not make it less serious. Of course a football player will not be that concerned about the effects of steroids, when the next game could put them in the hospital.
Other sports have things happening that most people agree are wrong, but are accepted nonetheless. My least favorite example of this is delayed menarch for girl gymnasts. What are the long-term consequences of that?
2) If anabolic steroids are cheating, why? Is it because they are performance enhancing? (thus my parsing, see below.) Certainly some athletes are fortunate enough to get advantages that other athletes don't get - growing up in a wealthy country is one. But is it cheating? In a sense steroids are the everyman's equalizer - they are relatively cheap and easy to get, thus nullifying some of the advantages of genes, wealth, or olympic training camps that the more fortunate athletes get. Athletes are expected to find whatever legal performance enhancing things they can. Otherwise they are considered lazy.
Yes I agree that taking steroids is cheating because they are illegal, and the law-abiding athlete would not take them. That begs the question as to why they are illegal. If the reasons for the illegallity seems arbitrary, people are going to break the rules.
The definition of performance enhancing is important, because evidently a substance can be placed on the proscribed list only because it is performance enhancing. I parsed the meaning of that term because of these two quotes from Craig:
To argue that it (or drugs like Advil) are "performance enhancing" is just a rationalization to justify the use of anabolic steroids.
and
The more pertinent question is what exactly defines "performance-enhancing."
So I tried to find out, and I suggested a meaning. If my definition is different from that of most people in the world, please tell me how most people define it. Then convince me that it is a better definition than mine. Then tell me what makes anabolic steroids so uniquely 'performance enhancing' that they should be banned.
Craig, evidently you understood the arguments in this thread pretty well. What was irritating was your response that "anabolic steroids are dangerous, despite what people on this thread say." But no one said they weren't dangerous; you were pretending that others made such a simplistic argument. This simplistic argument is much easier to argue against than the one actually made.
Well Craig, just because you or I say something is true doesn't make it true. We both need a little more than assertions. I do say the argument against anabolic steroids is too weak, but I am also explaining why. I have heard three arguments against them: 1) they are dangerous, 2) they are cheating, and 3) they are illegal. Of course, there are really two reasons, because presumably steroids are illegal because they are hazardous and/or cheating.
The current enforcement regime is failing, either because the athletes do not believe in the policy, or the enforcers do not really believe in the policy. I think a little of both. If we want these people to buy into it, we have to make a coherent and rational justification for it (the policy.) The problem is that
1) If anabolic steroids are so dangerous that they should be outlawed, they should be more dangerous than sports-related activities that are allowed. Otherwise steroids will not appear, to the athlete, as dangerous (enough). In some cases I think it can be argued that a sport itself is more dangerous than steroids. In this category I include american football and boxing. I think a systematic scientific analysis would show more injuries and damage, when all injuries are included, with participants in these sports than with steroid users. Just because a destroyed knee is less freaky than shriveled gonads does not make it less serious. Of course a football player will not be that concerned about the effects of steroids, when the next game could put them in the hospital.
Other sports have things happening that most people agree are wrong, but are accepted nonetheless. My least favorite example of this is delayed menarch for girl gymnasts. What are the long-term consequences of that?
2) If anabolic steroids are cheating, why? Is it because they are performance enhancing? (thus my parsing, see below.) Certainly some athletes are fortunate enough to get advantages that other athletes don't get - growing up in a wealthy country is one. But is it cheating? In a sense steroids are the everyman's equalizer - they are relatively cheap and easy to get, thus nullifying some of the advantages of genes, wealth, or olympic training camps that the more fortunate athletes get. Athletes are expected to find whatever legal performance enhancing things they can. Otherwise they are considered lazy.
Yes I agree that taking steroids is cheating because they are illegal, and the law-abiding athlete would not take them. That begs the question as to why they are illegal. If the reasons for the illegallity seems arbitrary, people are going to break the rules.
The definition of performance enhancing is important, because evidently a substance can be placed on the proscribed list only because it is performance enhancing. I parsed the meaning of that term because of these two quotes from Craig:
To argue that it (or drugs like Advil) are "performance enhancing" is just a rationalization to justify the use of anabolic steroids.
and
The more pertinent question is what exactly defines "performance-enhancing."
So I tried to find out, and I suggested a meaning. If my definition is different from that of most people in the world, please tell me how most people define it. Then convince me that it is a better definition than mine. Then tell me what makes anabolic steroids so uniquely 'performance enhancing' that they should be banned.
Craig, evidently you understood the arguments in this thread pretty well. What was irritating was your response that "anabolic steroids are dangerous, despite what people on this thread say." But no one said they weren't dangerous; you were pretending that others made such a simplistic argument. This simplistic argument is much easier to argue against than the one actually made.
