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.
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.
Something to remember that everything on the banned list is not a 'performance enhancer' - some items are banned because they are masking agents (capable of concealing/hiding the presence of a banned performane enhancer - can't remember the US swimmer from several years ago who was banned because her drug test, not because of a performance enhancer, but because of an abnormally high amount of a birth control drug, commonly used to mask the presence of other drugs).
The athletes who are taking the drugs could rationalize it in so many ways;
All the other athletes are taking it, so I'm not really doing it to get ahead I'm just trying to stay even.
or
The drugs I'm taking aren't on the banned list.
or
It's only cheating if you get caught.
So the question is how overbearing and expensive do we want the Masters governing body to be ? Frankly I don't see our level of sport being overthrown by a bunch of scientifically, medically, genetically engineered swimmers to warrant such concern.
I think we keep flipping back and forth between testing for "drugs" in elite athletes, and testing for "drugs" in Masters swimmers. Just to clarify:
(1) I believe we need to prohibit the of use of certain substances, and effective enforcement, for elite athletics. The fact that many of these substances are hazardous to the health of the athlete, even if only in large dosages or taken long term, is relevant. Because we are talking "elite" competition, there is big time fame and fortune at stake in winning the event. If you let them, there are some people who will take the drugs at dangerous levels, and force the rest of the field to endanger their health as well to stay competitive. To those who argue that at some lower level these substances are safe, my response is that if you think it is difficult to test for any amount of a substance, imagine how hard it would be to test for a substance above a certain prescribed level. Anabolic steroids, HGH, high dose stimulants before competition are dangerous, and don't use them if you want to swim in the Olympics.
(2) I believe we do NOT need drug testing in USMS. First, the stakes are so small the cost of any meaningful testing program would exceed the value of the entire competition. As many posters have said, if someone is so keen to medal at USMS Nationals that they want to mess around with steroids, or some of the even crazier stuff from the "nutrition" industry, they are welcome to move ahead of me in the standings. Second, we would exclude people who have a legitimate need to take certain medications for a health issue. Although I do not think it's asking too much for an Olympic participant to forgoe using certain meds, I DO think it is asking too much to ask a USMS participant to forgoe the most effective treatment regime for a debilitating disease, just because his meds are on a banned list for elite athletes. We're all grown-ups looking for an excuse to stay in shape (or at least, I am). The honor system/self-enforcement makes sense. (On this score, I agree with Aquageek.)
Matt
I've been waiting for gull to finally admit what he has danced around this whole ludicrous post, namely that he is a doctor.
I find it comical when doctors stand up an tout ethics, do no harm, protect us from each other like some godlike entities, when no group of people is more beholden to the pharmaceutical companices, including the ones that market and sell steroids.
Our medical institutions and establishments have long lagged behind society in the realm of non-traditonal or non-institutional treatments. It doesn't surprise me at all a doctor would discount any benefit from supplements (Note to gull, I did not say steroids).
I really don't need to be protected from myself. I am capable of decisions, as are most Masters swimmers, I suspect.
Now, this is truly a joke, relying on state medical boards to enforce anything. Bad doctors float from state to state with entries against the NPDB and the boards take no action until after another instance of malpractice. Gov't beurocrats aren't traditionally the most responsive group around.
To me, as a physician, the distinction between what is and isn't banned seems intuitive. I believe that drugs are to be used in the treatment or prevention of specific symptons and disease processes. All of the drugs in question have specific FDA approved indications for use. Athletes use the banned substances to gain an advantage, not for the treatment of a medical condition. The decision to allow nonnarcotic pain relievers is reasonable in my mind, as they are being used to treat real symptoms and injuries.
There are several issues here. One is that of fair play as determined by sports' governing bodies. Another is the legal issue, e.g. illegally obtaining a controlled substance (in the case of anabolic steroids). A third is public safety, where our institutions sometimes have to protect us from ourselves. And finally there is the issue of medical ethics (first, do no harm) where drugs are given to healthy athletes for the sole purpose of enhancing performance.
Gosh, I am sorry my post irritated you Phil.
Perhaps I should have posted, “You can lead a horse to water, (as long as he/she is not using illegal performance enhancing drugs), but you can’t make him/her drink, (as long as the horse has not made arguments that are considered inflammatory by fellow posters).
Of course, when I refer to horses here in, I am ONLY referring to horses that are drug free and have never used performance enhancing drugs. Thus, they qualify as a reference point to make my point. Which is, cut the quarter anyway you like, say it anyway you like, dissect it anyway you like, but the facts are still just that, FACTS, steroid use to enhance performance in athletics is illegal and proven to be a health hazard. That was and IS my point. Another point I have attempted to make is one of punishment if caught. I believe anyone caught using anabolic steroids to enhance performance in athletics should be lifetime banned!
I do not know what horse trainers give horses with respect to steroids. I do know that the horse racing industry is one of the most regulated industries in the world. Every horse is tested many, many times to ensure the playing field is equal and abiding by the rules set forth in horse racing. In short, the governing bodies that control this industry are extremely dedicated to ensuring everything is on the up and up regarding the use of illegal drugs in horse racing. TRUST ME, you get caught cheating in this industry and you will not like the program!
