|
Introduction:
I
swore that I'd never get involved in the steroid controversy again. After
writing a book on the subject back in 1980, I got so much flak from both
the Feds and colleagues that I said, "That's it! I quit!" Apparently, they
got the idea that I was condoning the use of steroids. They obviously
never read the book.
I took a "neutral" stance on the subject of
steroid use back then, and did so because 1) so many medical doctors were
still prescribing steroids to their athletic "patients," and 2) those
doing legitimate research into effects of steroids continually reported
that, while long-term side effects remained unknown, in the short-term
there were nothing other than mild, reversible side effects in everyone
but young kids and women. Who was I to say they were wrong?
In
retrospect, they were. And so was I.
But I'll get to that in a
minute. First, let me tell you what prompted this article that I swore I'd
never write. I hear kids talking about “juice.” What kind to take and how
much to take. Stack this, stagger that. I'm hearing it from an awful lot
of youngsters just getting into the iron game. The kids, you see, BELIEVE
damned near everything they read in the muscle mags!
Am I on a
crusade to get rid of steroids? Hardly. The Crusades, in historical
retrospect, were a failure, and I'm not into failure, fellow iron freaks!
No indeed! But let's get to the meat of the issue. Kids and juice. Let's
look at some down-to-earth philosophical issues as well as some
research.
The use of anabolic steroids among high school and junior
high school boys is well documented. Two studies published by the Health
and Human Services Department estimated that at least 260,000 students in
grades 7 to 12 either use or have used steroids. The American Heart
Association has estimated that at least half of all Division I college
football players have used steroids over substantial periods of time.
However, these and many similar studies are estimates. The full extent of
the problem remains unclear.
What is clear, however, is that it's
a GROWING problem. It's NOT subsiding, as some of the drug testing
advocates like to claim (they're merely trying to justify their own
existence).
Some of the potential health risks to kids, according
to numerous authors, include temporary sterility, premature ossification
of the growth plates in long bones, increased aggressiveness, acne,
predisposition to connective tissue injury, and (among girls) irreversible
masculinization. Some of the social risks include being accused of
cheating and breaking the law.
The potential risks, whether real
or merely hypothetical, short- or long-term in nature, and whether
physiological, psychological or social in nature, are apparently perceived
as acceptable by the young users. One important reason for this widespread
acceptance of the potential risks is believed to be the belief in the
greater consequences of abstinence.
Whoa! Time out! The greater
consequences of abstinence? Yes. Yes indeed. Let me explain! This stuff is
too important to ignore. Some of the oft-quoted reasons for youngsters
using steroids include:
1) fear of not making the team or getting
noticed by the pro scouts,
2) fear that your peers will not accept you
unless you take the challenge or dare,
3) fear that you'll lose in the
competition for girls,
4) fear that you won't be able to compete since
all the other guys are using them,
5) fear that your appearance or
performance won't be as good as it could be, and that your own self-esteem
will be diminished as a result.
And the justifications proposed
often include arguments such as these:
· The fact that so many of
the highly paid, highly publicized and highly talented athletes have been
caught using or admitted using anabolics;
· Athletes since sports
history was first recorded have sought for and used all manner of
performance enhancing aids, some safe or dangerous, some legal or illegal,
but always for the purpose of gaining the elusive competitive edge;
·
Young athletes feel invincible and therefore immune to the reported ill
effects of the drugs; and
· The kids do not believe the medical
community's dire warnings of POTENTIAL risks (they've been lied to too
many times, and not just by the docs and coaches, but by morally corrupt
drug pushers).
Kids don't know from POTENTIAL! They want to hear
the bottom line! What's really REAL! What's PROVEN! No lies. No false
promises of fame and riches, and no false admonitions of doom). NOW do you
understand what I mean by the greater risks in abstinence? Hey, I was a
kid once! If significant others in my life back then told me that unless I
used steroids I'd never make the team and that I'd never get a girlfriend
better looking than Olive Oyl or Sad Sacks' sis, why hell! I'd juice up
too! Wouldn't you?
Well, MAYBE some of these oft-quoted reasons why
kids are juicing up have validity. On the surface. But I believe that
there are more insidious reasons which, by virtue of the adult
populations' reticence to accept blame, have been totally buried. Perhaps
the most insidious factors are how parents, coaches, the media and society
in general:
1) thrust the talented young athletes into daunting
early sports development programs,
2) glorify youngsters willing to
risk their bodies (and in some cases their morals) in order to win,
3)
demand that the young athlete (or non-athlete for that matter) aspire to
greatness at any cost,
4) live, eat, sleep and breathe -- and pass on
to their progeny or readership -- the Lombardi-esque vision that winning
isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing, and
5) view the concept of
adolescent (or pre-adolescent) behavioral deviancy.
OK, at least
SOME personal responsibility has to be accepted by the youthful users.
Acknowledged. So, let's go through some of these socio-cultural factors
item-by-item, beginning with some (very) common interpersonal
dynamics.
Factor One:
Steroids are a frequent topic of
discussion among all youngsters, especially athletes, and much
misinformation is passed on during such bull sessions. Here's what
happens. Permutations of the facts, ultimately for the purpose of
self-justification, inevitably creep in as steroid discussions go from one
bull session to the next (e.g., "I think he got them from his doctor" soon
becomes "His doctor feels that steroids are OK," and then, "My doctor says
I need them -- I must have a deficiency or something.")
Factor
Two:
Group consensus regarding the "need" for steroids most often take
a "risky shift" as compared to independent judgment. Ever notice how a
group of guys will almost always turn to the riskier alternative as
opposed to the most conservative one? Thrill seekers? Perhaps. But the
social dynamics, supported by years of social-psychological research, say
otherwise.
These youngsters have made their decision to use
steroids because of conformity pressure (pressure to make personal
decisions in deference to either group consensus or the opinion(s) of
significant others). Where does their info come from? Not the docs,
because the docs aren't to be trusted. How many times have you heard,
"They've lied before, and they're probably lying this time too." Just
witness the billboards everywhere saying, "Drugs don't work." I beg your
pardon!
So, from whom? How about the coach? Older brothers? Older
teammates? The magazine photos of 'roided-up bodybuilders? Almost daily in
the sports news? And, how 'bout the oft’ quoted (drum roll, please)
"Steroid Guru?"
Factor Three:
Society demands (and rewards)
greater and greater feats of athletic prowess. READ THE SPORTS PAGES!
Athletes are constantly told that taking risks in sports is essential to
success. And they're constantly informed that if you only get good -- REAL
good -- then, the pros will draft you and give you millions. (Or, you'll
get the girl, you'll make the team, you'll succeed, etc.). Are they wrong
in their observation? No indeed. But, it really doesn't matter if it's
right or wrong since it is the common PERCEPTION.
Factor
Four:
An often-used definition of deviant behavior is "behavior
which violates institutional expectations recognized as legitimate within
a social system." Therefore, even in the young minds of our adolescents,
the message is clear. Deviant behavior is seen as a reflection not only of
the personality of the youngster, but the structure of the group in which
the behavior was enacted.
Deviance cannot be considered merely as
a violation of accepted standards of behavior by individual youngsters,
but has to be seen rather in the context of the social system of sport in
general, and -- in a more direct sense -- the athlete's teammates,
students, teachers and coaches.
Using steroids is not, within this
definitional approach to deviant behavior, regarded as deviant. In fact,
it's regarded as not only normal but desirable! This is particularly true
of you get away with it.
So, returning to the opening point of this
article, herein lay the greater consequences of abstinence. The risk of
NOT using steroids is seen, in a collective (social) sense, as being
greater than using them.
Combative Strategies Used To
Date:
Social-systemic forces notwithstanding, the prevailing mood of
the public (certainly at least in part prompted by widespread media
coverage) is to combat steroid use in sports. "After all," it's often
argued, "the sacrosanctity of mans' last bastion of purity is at stake."
Aside from this heartfelt rationale, there are other ethical and
moral issues (Yesalis, 1993):
*The athlete may suffer physical or
psychological harm;
*One athlete's use may coerce others to do so in
the interest of parity;
*Drug use is unnatural and any success results
from external factors;
*Users have an unfair advantage over non
users.
Yesalis, in his very excellent and comprehensive book on the
subject of anabolic steroid use in sports (1993), contends that each of
these issues has inconsistencies despite their intuitive appeal. Many
times in the book, the contributors objectively point out discrepancies
and ambiguities in the research literature as well as its value. Yesalis
does this with the four points above.
I believe that steroid use
among youth must be combated. There are just too many biochemical,
psychological and physiological reasons, and too many unanswered
questions, to condone it. Certainly we cannot ignore the issue.
Neither punitive testing nor providing medical rationale which
include "scare tactics" have proven sufficiently effective to warrant
reliance on them (Ferstle, 1993; Yesalis & Wright, 1993). And neither
has educating our youth (Yesalis & Wright, 1993). Further, no
organization has come up with a solution to the problems of the excessive
costs of drug testing nor the persistently higher than acceptable
incidence of false-negatives (primarily from the ever-increasing
sophistication of athletes' detection circumvention techniques) and false
positives.
Ferstle (1993) and Kammerer (1993) both make the point
that drug testing is still in its infancy, and that the complexity, cost,
training and legal factors involved mitigate against total reliance on the
practice. They both contend, however, that it has been partially effective
(at least in some sports), and that it will only be effective when more
money, training, research and planning are forthcoming, and providing the
incentives for drug abuse decrease.
That is a very big
"if."
There are several strategies that have been applied during
the past decade to combat anabolic steroid use among adolescents and
pre-adolescents. Chief among them are four strategies frequently proposed
(Yesalis & Wright, 1993). Yesalis and Wright offered the following
alternatives and comments:
ALTERNATIVE COMMENTS
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Legalization: An End to Hypocrisy? Not acceptable. Athletes would either
expose themselves to further harm or
compete at a disadvantage
Interdiction Through Law Not completely viable and fraught with Enforcement
& Testing? problems. Open to debate.
Education: Anybody Listening? No panacea, but holds promise.
Noncompliance, distrust and lack of
scientific evidence present major problems.
Our Values Must Change If we cannot control our narcissistic or
competitive natures, then we must resign
ourselves to AAS use, even among our
children. We're not likely to change.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
To date, no organization
has adequately addressed the issue of how to effectively manipulate the
way children are drawn into sport in a way that will discourage drug
abuse. Media, the prevalence of drug abuse among parents and others of
significance in our youths' lives, and societal inertia mitigate against
the development or implementation of such a plan.
Feeble attempts
on the part of marketeers in the sports nutrition industry have been made,
but most have been either laughable owing to false claims related to
efficacy or similarity to steroids, or downright dangerous and
subsequently pulled by the FDA. This is not surprising in light of the
"drugs are good" mentality operative in that industry.
Still, in
my view, finding viable alternatives to steroids may well be worth the
effort. If such alternatives exist, youthful steroid users may opt for the
less risky alternative. I do not believe any other strategy has the power
to make this happen. I believe that the use of steroids is not regarded as
so risky that kids -- or adults -- won't use them.
What can we do?
What SHOULD we do?
The prevailing mood of the public, largely
attributable to the story-mongering media, is to combat steroid use in
sports. "After all," it's argued, "the sacrosanctity of humanity’s last
bastion of purity is at stake."
Has sport EVER been "pure?"
Hell, has MAN?
What about the substance abuse of the
ancient Olympians? Was the demise of ancient sport due to the increase in
professionalism back then? Was the "win-at-all-costs' mentality to blame
for whatever substance abuse was prevalent then? Is anything different
nowadays?
In another century, in the true spirit of Gladiatorial
Rome, will it not be MANDATORY for athletes (and aspiring ones) to use
drugs? Then, will it be "right?"
This is an argument which could
go on and on without resolution. But, I sincerely believe that steroid use
among YOUNGSTERS must be combated for sure. Morals aside, among
adolescents and pre-adolescents there are just too many biochemical,
psychological and physiological reasons (including too many unanswered
questions) for avoiding steroid use to ignore the problem.
There
are several strategies that have been applied during the past decade to
combat anabolic steroid use among adolescents and pre-adolescents. Chief
among them are two strategies with either unproved or limited
effectiveness, but acknowledged potential:
1) Providing a
viable alternative that will deliver (at least) similar results, and
2) Building viable religious, humanistic, moral and
socio-psychological cases (readily understandable and acceptable to our
youth) against using the drugs.
In my opinion, neither
punitive testing nor providing medical rationale which include "scare
tactics" have ever proven sufficiently effective to warrant their
continuance. And neither has educating our youth. Further, no organization
I know of has come up with a solution to the problems of the excessive
costs of drug testing nor the persistently higher than acceptable
incidence of false-negatives (primarily from the ever-increasing
sophistication of athletes' detection circumvention techniques) and false
positives.
Most of us have already "written off" the current and
older generations of athletes with respect to their former or current drug
use habits. On the one hand, a great majority of them are beyond
redemption, reclamation and caring; and on the other hand, they don't
think they're doing anything wrong at all. There is NO guilt in their
hearts. Further, when you look at the history of steroid use around the
globe (particularly in the USA), there was indeed a time when many family
doctor freely dispensed them to athletes young and old.
To date, no
organization has addressed the issue of how to effectively manipulate the
way children are drawn into sport (or society in general) in a way that
will discourage drug abuse. Media, the prevalence of drug abuse among
parents and others of significance in our youths' lives, and societal
inertia mitigate against the development or implementation of such a plan.
I leave you with these abominable thoughts: 1) let the steroid
pushers have their way, 2) let the medical comunity control and monitor
steroid use, or 3) recall that the Nazis and the ancient Spartans both had
a pretty good handle on how to control their youth which (I’m confident)
included techniques that may still work in this modern
age.
References:
Allport, F.H. (1924). Social
Psychology. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
American College of Sports
Medicine. (1984). Position stand on the use of anaboolic-androgenic
steroids in sports. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 19,
13-18.
Buckley, W., Yesalis, C., Friedl, K., Anderson, W., Streit,
A., Wright, J. (1988). Estimated prevalence of anabolic steroid use among
male high school seniors, JAMA, 260, 3442-3445.
Budner, S. (1962).
Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. J. Pers. 30:
29-50.
Cohen, A.K. (1959). The study of social disorganization and
deviant behavior. In Sociology Today, R.K. Merton, et. al., eds., New
York: Basic Books.
Dentler, R.A. & Kai, T.E. (1959). The
functions and deviance in groups. Social Problems, 7:Fall.
DiVesta,
A. (1959). Effects of connfidence and motivation in susceptibility to
informational social influence. J. Ab. & Soc. Psych. 59:
204-209.
English, G. (1987). A theoretical explanation of why
athletes choose to use steroids, and the role of the coach in influencing
behavior. NSCA Journal, 9:4, 53-56.
Fagen, S.A. (1963). Conformity
and the relationship between others' competence and own competence. Diss.
Abs. 24(4): 1729-1730.
Ferstle (1993). In Yesalis, C. (Ed., 1993).
Anabolic Steroids in Sports & Exercise. Champaign/Urbana: Human
Kinetics Publishers.
Hartshorne, H, & May, M. (1929). Studies
in character. New York: Macmillan.
Hatfield, F.C. Effect of
Interpersonal Attraction and Tolerance-Intolerance of Ambiguity on
Athletic Team Productivity. NASPSPA Proceedings, 1976.
Hatfield,
F.C Effect of prior experience, access to information and level of
performance on individual and group performance rating. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 1972, 35, 19-26.
Hoffman, A. (1988). Quoted in: Use
of Steroids Widespread (by Scott, J.). Los Angeles Times, Dec.16, p. 1.
Hoffman, M.L. (1963). Childrearing practices and moral development
-- Generalizations from empirical research. (In Contemporary issues in
social psychology, (Wrightsman, L.S., Ed., Brooks/Cole, pp.
40-57..
Hollander, E.P. (1960). Competence and conformity in
acceptance of influence. J. Ab. & Soc. Psych., 1:
365-369.
Jessor, R. (1982). Problem behavior and developmental
transition in adolescence. J. School Health, 12, 295-300.
Kammerer
(1993). In Yesalis, C. (Ed., 1993). Anabolic Steroids in Sports &
Exercise. Champaign/Urbana: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Kelley, H.H.
(1952). Two functions of reference groups. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb
and E.L. Hartley (eds.) Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 2nd Ed..
Kiesler, C..A. & Kiesler, S.B.
(1969). Conformity. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Montemayor, R. (1994).
Report of research appearing in J. Early Adol. and in J. Interpers. Rel.,
written by D. Baurac. Chicago Tribune, June 14.
Office of
Inspector General. (1990). Adolescents and Steroids: A User Perspective
(OEI-06-90-01081). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services.
Ogilvie, B. (1985). Sports and Risk. In Sports Fitness,
Weider Publications, 4: pp. 42-44.
Pope, H.G. & Katz, D.L.
(1988). Affective and psychotic symptoms associated with anabolic steroid
use. Am.es, Public Health Service.
Pope, H.G. & Katz, D.L.
(1988). Affective and psychotic symptoms associated with anabolic steroid
use. Am. J. Psychiatry, 145:4, 487-490.
Porter, K. (1990). The
Visual Athlete. W.C.Brown.
Rosenberg, L. (1961). Group size, prior
experience and conformity. J. Abn. & Soc. Psych. 63: 436-437.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (1987). Health
United States 1986 and prevention profile (DHHS Publication No. PHS
87-1232). Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Walder,
G. & Hainline, B. (1989). Drugs and the Athlete. Philadelphia: Davis.
Wheeler, L. & Arrowood, A.J. (1966). Restraint against
imitation and its reeduction. J. Exper. Soc. Psych. 2(3):
288-300.
Yesalis, C. (Ed., 1993). Anabolic Steroids in Sports &
Exercise. Champaign/Urbana: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Yesalis, C.,
Buckley, W.A., Anderson, W.A., Wang, M.O. Norwig, J.A., Ott, G., Puffer,
J.C., & Strauss, R.H. (1990). Athletes' projections of anabolic
steroid use. Clnical Sports Medicine, 2, 155-171.
Yesalis, C. &
Wright, J. (1993). In Yesalis, C. (Ed., 1993). Anabolic Steroids in Sports
& Exercise. Champaign/Urbana: Human Kinetics
Publishers.
Yesalis, C. Wright, J. & Lombardo, J.A. (1989).
Anabolic-androgenic steroids: A sysntesis of existing data and
recommendations for future research. Clinical Sports Medicine, 1,
109-134.
Yesalis, C., Anderson, W.A., Buckley, W..E., & Wright,
J. E. (1990). Incidence of nonmedical use of anabolic-androgenic steroids.
In G. Lin & Erinoff (Eds.), Anabolic Steroid abuse. (National
Institute on Drug Abuse Research, Monograph 102, DHHS Publication No. ADM
90-1720). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,
Public Health Service. |
Frederick C. Hatfield, Ph.D.,
MSS