[Davis26]

Another important part of the argument against steroids is that young (high-school) athletes don't give full weight to the potential long-term consequences of many PEDs and would choose to take the risk.

I'm a libertarian kind of guy at heart but I side with the authorities on this one.

[wmrklemm78]

Joe - very well stated. You make some good points and have conveyed them well.

steroids have a much larger effect on human capabilities than caffeine or meat.

This statement was interesting to me. First of all, I completely agree with the statement.

As I stated in the original post, steroids+working out+eating = an advantage. By themselves, steroids only alter the way that the body metabolizes amino acids and proteins in connection with muscle growth and healing. Think of it this way... if you took steroids, ate only celery and failed to move for a month, you would not get bigger... to the contrary, you would probably suffer muscle atrophy.

It seems that physical exertion of some kind has as much to do with the muscle growth associated with steroid use as taking the steroids... so is MLB going to ban players that work out? Of course not... but I can't reconcile that point.

---

Another important part of the argument against steroids is that young (high-school) athletes don't give full weight to the potential long-term consequences of many PEDs and would choose to take the risk.

I'm a libertarian kind of guy at heart but I side with the authorities on this one.

Agreed... it's sad that steroid use has trickled down to those under 18. Unfortunately, I can't say I'm surprised by it. In all honesty, if I had more natural ability when I was 15, I would have done it. At that point, even if you do consider the future health risks, those are things that MAY happen 25+ years down the road. In the mean time, there is money, fame and notoriety in each tablet. I am glad I didn't do it in the past, but I can understand why others did/do.

[jmc316]

Several points...

1. "We all know that taking steroids (along with working out, eating and lots of reps) can help enhance your performance, but they also have negative side effects on your health. Basically, taking steroids is a trade-off.... you trade your health in the future for a physical edge in the present. "...what medical study is this based upon? Please do not say Lyle Alzado or Ken Caminitti...there hasnt been any long term medical study done as to controlled use of anabolic steroids and its side effects...all we have are the extreme cases which will always result in negative effects.

2. the problem I have is everybody lumps all steroids together into one group...the image is singular...an over muscled, over veined guy walking around with a needle sticking out of his hind quarter injecting an oil substance from Mexico with a horse label on the bottle. Steroids, prescribed and non-prescribed, comes in all types of styles depending upon the effect you're trying to get

3. the other problem is baseball itself...the banning of steriods, in and of itself, isnt problematic (many companies ban nicotine use and will test for it even though its a legal substance), but its the WAY baseball did it. When baseball needed a boost (no pun intended) in exposure, attendance, etc. it had no problem with its players using them...but once an outcry was made, baseball suddenly pretended to care about the health of its athletes and the competitive balance of the game...Really a load of holier than thou sanctimonious garbage if you ask me!

4. the not showing high school athletes it, to me, is nothing but a red herring. Any destructive behavior will lead to no good...it should be up to coaches and parents to champion that message. Its funny but, I dont remember there being an outrage when pics of Dave Parker or Jim Leyland chain smoking in the dugout came out that kids would think its ok to be an athlete and chain smoke.

[ceocards]

Below is a list of players who were prescribed HGH and/or steroids, and yet, they were named in the Mitchell report, banned and/or suspended

Being named in the Mitchell report is not in any way equivalent to being suspended or banned under baseball's policy. The Mitchell Report basically compiled evidence from various sources and named people suspected of having taken PEDs. It made no differentiation between prescribed or non-prescribed medications.

I also note that several of the players listed had foreign prescriptions, which obviously have much different ramifications in terms of US law than having a prescription from a doctor licensed to practice in the US. The ones that had US prescriptions (Byrd, Guillen, etc) were from a DENTIST who had lost his license to practice. So again, not exactly a strong argument.

[wmrklemm78]

Being named in the Mitchell report is not in any way equivalent to being suspended or banned under baseball's policy. The Mitchell Report basically compiled evidence from various sources and named people suspected of having taken PEDs. It made no differentiation between prescribed or non-prescribed medications.

I also note that several of the players listed had foreign prescriptions, which obviously have much different ramifications in terms of US law than having a prescription from a doctor licensed to practice in the US. The ones that had US prescriptions (Byrd, Guillen, etc) were from a DENTIST who had lost his license to practice. So again, not exactly a strong argument.

No arguments... only discussion

I also noted that the prescriptions I noted were faulty for one reason or another... however, in our first exchange, the word "prescribed" was not qualified by either of us. I was just pointing out that those people were in the Mitchell report AND had been prescribed steroids (whether legally or not).

Dentists are doctors... unless you are an anti-dentite... LOL

Volquez WAS suspended by MLB for using a drug that was PRESCRIBED to him in the Dominican Republic.

---

JMC - well said and all good points!

I didn't base my statement about the negative effects of steroids on any study - in fact, I did just as you said and based it on the extreme cases that we know (Alzado, Caminiti, etc...). While I agree that they are extreme cases, they are still factual cases and can be used as viable examples as to the effects of steroids.

Consider this - about three years ago, a medical doctor told a mentally-ill patient that the best thing she could do for her health was to drink "a lot of water." The woman consumed so much water that she died of water intoxication (hyper - hydration... the same thing that the kids who took to much Xtasy (sp?) died from). Her family sued and won millions in a wrongful death suit because the doctor failed to qualify his statement about drinking "a lot of water" and provide her with the medical advice that drinking too much water could be fatal.

[jmc316]

---

JMC - well said and all good points!

I didn't base my statement about the negative effects of steroids on any study - in fact, I did just as you said and based it on the extreme cases that we know (Alzado, Caminiti, etc...). While I agree that they are extreme cases, they are still factual cases and can be used as viable examples as to the effects of steroids.

But one cant use the extreme to point out the dangers...its no different than when they feed a lab rat 17,000 xs the amount Splenda vs its bodyweight and then wonder why its heart exploded...How about John McEnroe? He admitted to using steroids (unknowingly to him he says, LOL!!) for 6, yes SIX, years...Unless he has said to the contrary recently, he seems fine healthwise and he's in his mid-50s and still plays "competitive" or charity tennis...My #1 point is that we, nobody, including the medical community, know what long term effects controlled use of steroids causes. Steriods used correctly are used in "cycles", guys like Alzado and Caminitti used them nonstop for years on end...you cant hold your hand in the flame and not expect some burn.

[joe callahan13]

The problem is not saying that steroids have long term, permanent effects. That is a medical fact. The hard part is attributing future heart related issues, mania, etc. specifically to the steroids. Who's to say you weren't going to have heart issues anyway?

@jmc- it's not fair to use the extreme to warn of dangers, but be careful you don't use the other extreme to trivialize the potential risks! (RE: McEnroe) Just because he seems fine, doesn't mean there isn't something going on. Not to mention he is a pretty healthy example of possible "roid rage"! Haha

@wmrklemm78- be glad you DIDN'T do those things when you were younger. I guarantee the odds were higher for you to end up with unwanted side effects than the odds that they would have made you a professional athlete. :-)

One last point, you mentioned (in jest) about banning working out. I think you are looking at this from the competition side- who is getting the "edge" and is it unfair? I think this is less of a question of advantages as it is of SAFETY! No one will ban working out because it IMPROVES your health. Banning steroids is for the players' safety. That way, there will be consequences for putting your own safety at risk, jeopardizing the integrity of the game, and getting that "edge" that may actually encourage other players to put their safety at risk in order to keep up!

[jmc316]

The problem is not saying that steroids have long term, permanent effects. That is a medical fact. The hard part is attributing future heart related issues, mania, etc. specifically to the steroids. Who's to say you weren't going to have heart issues anyway?

Yes, it is a problem...post me a link of a medical study that has been done on the long term effects of controlled anabolic steroid use...To do any accurate study of steroids you are talking about effects on people 10, 15, 20 years down the road. To date I have seen no study. Medical fact is not Caminitti having greater financial means to do steroids than most and doing uncycled use for over 3 years until the point his body only produced 33% the natural amount of testosterone a 36 year old man normally produces...See this IS the problem...Because we see Alzado and Caminitti we see ANY use of steroids as abhorrent and grotesque. You are playing perfectly into the stereotype I described earlier.

[joe callahan13]

Yes, it is a problem...post me a link of a medical study that has been done on the long term effects of controlled anabolic steroid use...To do any accurate study of steroids you are talking about effects on people 10, 15, 20 years down the road. To date I have seen no study. Medical fact is not Caminitti having greater financial means to do steroids than most and doing uncycled use for over 3 years until the point his body only produced 33% the natural amount of testosterone a 36 year old man normally produces...See this IS the problem...Because we see Alzado and Caminitti we see ANY use of steroids as abhorrent and grotesque. You are playing perfectly into the stereotype I described earlier.

Beside the fact that John Bosley Ziegler HIMSELF, the guy that invented anabolic steroids, blamed them in part for the heart disease that killed him, there are studies that have been done.

From: http://www.steroidabuse.com/steroid-statistics.html

This passage is related to the heart, but there are obviously many others. The site is pretty interesting and also contains citations from 49 sources listed on that page, many of which are studies.

Cardiomegaly (an enlarged heart) has been reported in the preclinical studies of AAS (19, 20), and electron microscopy (an imaging technique that makes the picture larger and brighter) shows disintegration and swelling of heart tissue when AAS are given in conjunction with physical training (21). The risk of arteriosclerosis (a progressive narrowing and hardening of the arteries) may also be increased with AAS use, as shown by an increase in aortic elastin and collagen content (additional and potentially obstructive materials within heart valves) with T administration to male rats. Another study of male athletes found statistically significant greater cardiovascular risk factors in AAS users than nonusers (22). Similar to my earlier citation, AAS users in this study also had high total cholesterol/HDL ratio, higher low density lipoprotein levels, and lower HDL levels compared to nonusers.

[0mattinglyalexander0]

Winners never cheat. Cheaters never win.

A temporary prescription for healing purposes is fine and are >generally< not the same steroids used to become a McBonds.

I kept getting rashes behind my knees and underarms, turned out I was allergic to sulfur and I worked in pyrotechnics ... I could have eaten 10 jars of the steroid cream and gained no muscle.

Fans of cheaters keep trying to justify it.... find some really terrible moral equivalent.
Caffeine, nicotine..... meat? MEAT!? OMG.

Mickey Mantle played drunk.

Anyway, sorry for coming off grouchy... but everyone knows it is/was wrong and cheating.
They just want other people to back them up and make them feel better. I won't.

I can forgive those that admit to cheating though... and I want their numbers adjusted.