Steroids

This is a swimming site. Most of the ideas expressed about third world health are very wrong. The spread of HIV and AIDS into Africa has very little to do with anything other than the destruction of traditional social structure by imprerialist governments and western corporations that forced males out of their traditional life-style and into factory towns where prostitutes and drugs were made easily available. Also, if mothers believe tht their children are very likely to survive, they will have fewer. If your child is likely to die, you are more likley to have more children. Oddly, there are some studied that suggest vacination rates do not clearly ensure that children in third world countries will reach adulthood. Also, when you look at HIV/AIDS rates in many countries (like South Korea which has a large Baptist and Mehtodist population) where birth controll is very expensive and illegal to some unmarried people, the infection rate is much higher tham in simular countries that have sex education and readily available birth controll. Here in the US, HIV/AIDS is still very much an illness of gay white men. It must be stressed that this situation is only true in industrial countries. A true oddity. Overall, when E. E. Evands pritchard was correct, and we have made every mistake he advised us not to make. Steroids have entered into many high schools. We can't assume that they haven't enterred swimming. There is not enough money to test effectively and everyone knows tht. For that reason, steroids have had an effect on many young atheletes.

I'll take the unpopular choice and ask "who cares if an adult athlete takes steroids?" Ignoring the bad example it sets for the kids (the whole 'do it for the kids argument') and potentially the unsportsmanlike concerns it raises, I do have to admit I'd be curious to see just how well we could engineer the human body and what it's capable of. I'd pay good money, or the money of a good neighbor, to see some hopped up juice head swim a 50 free in 9 seconds. I watch some of these body building shows (gull80 can attest to my adonis-like build) and do marvel in those men/women. It's a little gross, to be sure, but still to see that kind of physique is either scary or mesmerizing. Body building does have a natural division, maybe other sports could adopt that strategy. Baseball already has done this, it's call the whole league (juiced) versus the Cincinnati Reds (juiceless).

Originally posted by Matt S Consider, we have many USMS participants with serious medical problems who have valid medical reasons to take the medications they receive. Even if we devoted the resources on the level of World Anti-Doping Agency (or whatever the new Olympic drug testers call themselves) to catch "drug cheats," what is the urinalysis gonna tell us? "Yup, I take steroids for my asthma/ lupus/whatever. Want to see my prescription?" Are we really prepared to tell these folks they have to choose between competing at USMS and getting appropriate treatment for their condition? I think not. I'm not proposing that we institute drug testing, but your post is inaccurate. Not all steroids are banned. Asthmatics may use prednisolone, for example, which is a corticosteroid, a steroid hormone without androgenic (performance-enhancing) properties. Consequently, swimmers would not have to choose between competing or taking medications that are needed to treat a legitimate medical condition. Drug testing methods have become very sophisticated and can detect the banned steroids.

I have to admit, Geek, I was mesmerized by your physique. But juiced or not, I'll still take you in a 500.

If I understand the issue correctly, people with medical situations can have their use of banned drugs okayed with a written letter from the doctor stating the medical reasons. I think this is true at all levels of competition and for almost all drugs except anobolics.

Some drugs are banned under all circumstances, others are prohibited only during competition, still others are permitted with a statement of medical necessity ("therapeutic use exemption"). www.usantidoping.org/.../

In a naive attempt to drag the conversation back the mission statement of this web site... How hard should USMS try to define banned substances for performance enhancing effects and enforce those bans? Let me print up a few copies of my manifesto and distribute them in the streets, well OK, the virtual streets. I think we shouldn't do a darn thing. Don't get me wrong. I'd never touch the roids, and I'd hold in contempt and pity anyone who uses them in USMS events, just to perform better. But, I think the solution is an honor system among the USMS members, bolstered with a reward structure intended to deemphasize winning, and reward participation. Consider, we have many USMS participants with serious medical problems who have valid medical reasons to take the medications they receive. Even if we devoted the resources on the level of World Anti-Doping Agency (or whatever the new Olympic drug testers call themselves) to catch "drug cheats," what is the urinalysis gonna tell us? "Yup, I take steroids for my asthma/ lupus/whatever. Want to see my prescription?" Are we really prepared to tell these folks they have to chose between competing at USMS and getting appropriate treatment for their condition? I think not. The real solution is not to go down the road of overemphasizing, and lavishly rewarding, the "winners" of USMS events. Yeah, get your name in our magazine, and few medals, big ego stroke. Terrific. I can't imagine any sane person who would go on the juice for that. But, let's be sure we all keep a sense of proportionality, and as much as we'd like to grow USMS and draw attention to our sport, let's remember our roots and why the USMS founders started the organization in the first place. End of soapbox speech. Matt

Matt I agree we should get back on topic. As I said I never used steroids or other drugs, and have never even tried pot. I believe that anyone who wants to take any drug he/she wants it is OK with me. I guess being a Canadian I have very Liberal ideas. George www.swimdownhill.com

Originally posted by gull80 Some drugs are banned under all circumstances, others are prohibited only during competition, still others are permitted with a statement of medical necessity ("therapeutic use exemption"). www.usantidoping.org/.../ I looked into this in some detail awhile back. Here is a short summary of the situation: 1) Some substances are totally banned. 2) Some substances are banned in certain quantities. 3) Exceptions are made to all of this when there is a medical need for a substance to be taken, but the athlete must disclose the fact that he/she is taking the said substance (not wait until this is discovered through testing), and the use of the substance in the said quantities must be approved by a review committee. 4) There are some situations that have already been generically reviewed, and for which the use of "banned" substances is allowed. (It is recognized, e.g., that diabetics are going to need to take insulin.) So all that needs to be done in such cases is to submit proof that the athlete has a condition for which use of the substance has been preapproved. 5) In other cases, a more detailed review is required, in which the committee will consider whether the substance is really required in the said amounts to treat the athlete's condition, whether there are alternative therapies that don't use banned substances, etc. 6) Substances whose use is illegal, even by prescription, will obviously never be approved.

Originally posted by aquageek I'll take the unpopular choice and ask "who cares if an adult athlete takes steroids?" Ignoring the bad example it sets for the kids (the whole 'do it for the kids argument') and potentially the unsportsmanlike concerns it raises, I do have to admit I'd be curious to see just how well we could engineer the human body and what it's capable of. I'd pay good money, or the money of a good neighbor, to see some hopped up juice head swim a 50 free in 9 seconds. I actually don't disagree with this if the only issue is performance enhancement. Bodybuilders, e.g., have for decades used nutritional supplements that help them to build their muscles. This isn't a problem because every bodybuilder can use the same supplements. The real problem arises when you have substances that enhance performance, but have negative long term health effects. Allowing the use of such substances places athletes in the situation where they must choose between endangering their long term health or being at a competitive disadvantage. It's certainly reasonable that anyone who sets a new record in an event should have to submit to testing for harmful substances before the new record is accepted as valid. But globally testing USMS swimmers for such use is not called for, IMO, and the cost of having a review board to review all of the substances that USMS members are using for medical purposes would, I believe, be prohibitive.