ProPower
Trainer Locator
Find a Trainer
Nationwide Trainer Locator
Workout Calendar
Weights-Plates
For the best prices on all Troy Products call DrSquat.com for quote 800 732-2004
YouTube VCut
Navigation
Bit on steroids
Sun, 12/23/2007 - 11:46pm — The 9th Time
I never saw this until it was on YouTube
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0LEj8IPHGU&feature=related
I especially like the posts below arguing about why pro wrestling is "for real."
Wish I had enough money fer them stee-roids.
Proudly Sponsors
ISSA Certifications
Privacy/Return Policy
Newsletters
Sign up for Free Newsletters
Re: Bit on steroids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0LEj8IPHGU&feature=related
I especially like the posts below arguing about why pro wrestling is "for real."
Wish I had enough money fer them stee-roids.
As Bryant Gumble presents in sports news segment on "Real Sports," anabolics are an emotionally charged issue. The public has been "brain washed" in this are much like they were in the 1935 documentary, "Reefer Madness.
The majority have been swayed by a minority of individuals, to promote their cause with use of propaganda.
As some of you may remember from some of my previous post, I spend 18 years in advertising. There is not much difference between advertising and propaganda.
Before beginning, let me state that I neither endorse or disapprove of their use. One of the masters of this was Adolph Hitler.
Adolph Hitler once said something to the effect of, "If you scream something long enough and lound enough, people will believe it." And that is just what has happened in this incident.
Before moving on, let me state that I neither endorsing nor desent from their use. Each individual need to live their own life and make their own decisions.
What I am averse to is the deliberate dissemination incorect information.
With that said, anabolics are not a toy. As John Romono notes in this interview, "you can get youself in trouble" if you don't know what you are doing with this "sfuff."
Dr Norm Fost, a medical doctor, has written and presented the facts at medical seminars on this subject.
Anabolics certainly enhance the performance of athletes, persenting an UNLEVEL playing field. However, there never has been nor will there ever be an level playing field.
As one football coach once stated, "Winning is all about luck. The team lucky enough to have the best players, wins."
That can be paraphrased to, "The athlete lucky enogh to have the best genetics, wins."
Do you howe work, educate youself and come to you own conclusions.
Kenny Croxdale
Bit on steroids
That's about how I feel about it. My opinions have changed over time. The issue is pretty straight forward with me in sports the rules say you're not supposed to take them. So if you're taking them, then you are, in fact, according to the rules, cheating. That's just sport. If everyone's cheating, is the playing field level? Technically, yes. Is everyone cheating? Dunno. I've assumed so for the past decade.
I'm with you in that the thing that really bugs me is misinformation from supposed authorities. Especially in government. Especially considering the oppposition from other organizations. I can see how it'd be embarassing for doctors from these organizations to have to enforce these laws despite the lack of evidence just because some politicians were uneasy about having their arses handed to them by a Canadian in sprinting. )
Bit on steroids
Steroids are only as dangerous as the user makes them.
If a user is smart about what they do very benifical things can come from them, If a user is dumb then they will likely cause themselves some harm.
Bit on steroids
I would LOVE to hear from the guys and gals who have used steroids over the years…was it worth it? What were the consequences? Who really cares? Did you get lied to? And, didja LIKE the effects?
Stop and listen…who wouldn’t like the idea of going from an 18 foot pole vault to 19? From a 9.9 hundred to a 9.7? From a 900 squat to a 1000?
But especially (more contemporaneously) from a 250 to a 300 batting average?
THAT is what steroids can do, Bro! LEARN it! ACCEPT it! And it will always be that way. “I will fight no more forever” is what Geronimo said. He didn’t have steroids. Had he, he would have ruled this continent!
Then, consider his fate.
Bit on steroids
It depends on the person, some have no negative side effeects some have many. I decided to wait untill I was older to take them medically because you young guys have plenty of testosterone that your body needs.
Actually, it wasn't Geronimo, it was Chief Joseph
of the Nez Perce tribe. Good site and good links.
http://www2.gsu.edu/~eslmlm/chiefjoseph.html
Fred, Please Clarify your Comment...
What exactly did you mean by 'Consider his Fate?'
Could almost be taken as an 'ends justify the means' argument for doing just about anything to win - is this what you meant??
Vaughn
Bit on steroids
Fred, first of all, I appreiate you allowing this discussion to take place.
Like the majority of powerlifters from the 1970s, I cycled on and off of them for 10 years. I've never suffered from any health problems from their use. Nor in that 10 year period have any of the individuals that I know or those that I lifted with had any health problems.
Most of the outstanding powerlifters, Olympic lifters, bodybuilders, etc of that era used them. That is no secret.
Louie Simmon stated in a interview a few yeara ago, "The dangers are way overrated. ...Personally, I've done anabolic steroids straight for the last 28 years." http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=460703
In the "Real Sports" interview John Romano stated that he's used them for about 23 years with no serious side effects.
In the updated verison of movie, "Pumping Iron," Arnold Schwarzenegger confirmed his use of them. Arnold went on to state that back then they were not illegal.
Their legality is more an issue today rather than the health risk. The question becomes are they worth doing time in jail for."
Another issues, as John Romano stated in the the "Real Sports" interview. is that these are powerful drugs that require intelligent, knowledgeable use. And as with any medication, some health risk may occur. However, not to the extent that general public has been lead to believe.
The lies are from those who spouted out incorrect information that they would kill or predispose one to major health risk later in life.
Yea, I liked the effects. With that said, I like smoking marijuana when I was younger. I never went crazy from smoking marijuana nor went on to any heavier drug. I am a responsible, productive memember of society.
My primary concern revolves around the legality of steriods as well as marijuana. Are they worth going to jail over?
Also as I noted above, those uneducated in steriods use should have concerns about their use. They are a very powerful drug.
Kenny Croxdale
Arnold and Steroids...
Actually, I believe that Arnold admitted at the time in an inteview with Barbara Walters that he used steroids, claiming they gave him 'the extra 5% necessary to win' or something to that effect. Yes, they were legal then and he was doing it under a doctors supervision. I don't have specific references anymore but have read that some of those same guys are shocked by the facts that in todays world:
1. They were doing it as professional athletes at the top of their game, now they are being used by high school athletes.
2. They were professional men taking male hormones, now you have amateur females taking them.
3. They are now illegal, generally NOT used under a doctors supervision, and not bought through a controlled channel where you know you are actually getting what you think you are.
4. The doses being used, even among the aforementioned High School athletes, are many times higher that was was being used by the Pros back in the day.
Do they work, of course they do. Should they be used by amateur and pre-amateur athletes who have not yet achieved their 'natural' potential, I don't think so. Is the Genie out of the bottle no matter what - no doubt about it.
Good Lifting!
Vaughn
Re: Arnold and Steroids...
Vaughn, they provide much more than an "extra 5%."
Let me correct/add to my previous post. They are legal today if being prescribed by a medical physician.
1. They were doing it as professional athletes at the top of their game, now they are being used by high school athletes.
2. They were professional men taking male hormones, now you have amateur females taking them.
They were used by amateur as well as high school athletes back then. More today than yesterday? That would be hard to say. Any statistics on this would be speculation.
It would be similar to asking someone if they were racist. Rather and being bashed, the majority of individuals would lie rather than disclose the truth.
I would agree. That is another problem. There is no way to know what you are getting from the purchase of Black Market drugs.
And how would you or anyone else know precisely the dosage of what high school athletes are taking? What facts or data do you have to back up this statement? Again, this is not an area the the majority of those take them will admit to.
With that said, this doseage issue addresses the education problem. I suspect many of the individuals "using," don't know what they are doing.
Well put. In my view, one should squeeze out as much of their natual potential as they can prior to considering their use. Like you, "I don't think so."
Kenny Croxdale
re: 5% and other comments...
Back in Arnolds day, I believe that he was saying the difference on the bodybuilding podium at the time between steroid and non-steroid users was 5%. I didn't make the quote, just repeating it and apparently that was his opinion. There is no question that in today's arena, they provide more than 5% boost to Most athletes when comparing Natural and Steroid using individuals. However, I would still argue that there are certain 'elite among elite' athletes who can compete against the average steroid user without the drugs. Rickey Crain, the Doc and Bill Kazmaier all come to mind as individuals who,in their prime and without steroids, could likely have beaten most steroid users.
re: Dosages: Again, I don't have the source but it was one of the 70's era champions, possibly Mike Katz. His comment was that when he spoke with some of the 80's era High School football players about steroids, the dosages they reported taking were many times what he was taking in the 70's as a professional bodybuilder. Granted, the kids might have lied or Mike could have been making it up, but in the context it was reported it seemed plausible to me. And I tend to believe the 'More is better' trend among athletes is more often true than not so again it seems plausible.
re: Legal today: yes, but not if you are a competitive athlete they aren't! Even in cases of steroid inhalers and such for athletes with documented medical conditions, steroid use can get you disqualified and banned depending upon the sport.
re: They were used back then: With all due respect, your blanket claim that they WERE used is as impossible to prove as mine that they weren't unless you have access to those statistics you used to criticize my assertion!
No, there is no proof I guess but through the 1970's there wasn't the kind of money in professional sports that there is now. I find it hard to believe that at the high school level you would have found kids spending money on the stuff because it might land them a $50k a year job in professional sports. And I also find it hard to conceive that coaches would have given FEMALE athletes the male hormones, just on principle. The coaches in the field now have gotten used to it, I like to think that to the coaches actually coaching at that time would have typically found it a little more distasteful. Again, could just be my rose colored glasses I guess.
Excellent discussion question though and some good posts to be sure.
Vaughn
Re: re: 5% and other comments...
Vaughn, I would like to see the quote on that. And I would question the validity of his statement.
Elite athletes are certainly gifted individuals. These individuals are capable of out performing average to above average athletes, who "use." Thus, the reason they are termed "Elite."
With that said, in a contest of equal elite athletes, the "user" will usually win.
I lifted in that era. I was a International Referee and privy to some of the back stage discussion on this topic by the top names in the game.
It is not my place to provide the names of these individuals. That is up to them to or not to disclose. I respect these individuals and their decision in this area. Espcially, since this is a hot politically charged topic.
I can state that it would be easier and the list would be shorter if I provided you with the names of who were not using them. However in doing so, I incriminate those who were "using."
I totally agree.
re: They were used back then: With all due respect, your blanket claim that they WERE used is as impossible to prove as mine that they weren't unless you have access to those statistics you used to criticize my assertion!
Point make, point taken...
I suspect they were used but not to the extent they are today...ah, progress.
I would agree.
I believe back then, a minority of individual coaches supported their use. At a seminar back the 1980, one PhD at a nationally ranked university address the fact that at one time, at that university, steriods were part of the "vitamin" pacakage provided to the football platers. I cannot confirm nor deny that information.
Another part of the problem is the athletes. Some of these individuals are going to be "users," regardless of their coaches beliefs.
This creates another caveat.
Excellent discussion question though and some good posts to be sure.
I agree. And again, let me express my appreaciation of Fred in allowing this discussion to take place.
Kenny Croxdale
Bit on steroids
Then, consider his fate.
First of all, Doc, I hope you'll pardon this "walking encyclopedia" for correcting you here. It was Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, and not Geronimo of the Apache who made that famous speech. Your point is still valid, though.
I flirted with Dianabol waaayyy back when it was legal, and found the short-term results startling. Never pursued steroids long-term however. I was very cautious about them.
I did find that the opinions and stances that were taken regarding steroids mirrored the views and positions on all sorts of illicit drugs. Lots of over-the-top scare stories were bandied about on all sorts of drug use. These exagerrations only caused people who were users of (name your drug) and would-be users to become cynical about the warnings. It would be nice if the "powers that be" in any given arena treated their audiences like adults (and emerging adults) when they discuss the pros and cons of drugs of all kinds, as well as all performance-enhancement products.
Bit on steroids
This is a good point. The current anti marajuana tv commercials are a good example of the right way to warn people about the dangers of drugs. The current message is more or less, "don't smoke weed because it will make you a boring couch potatao" . . .which has a good deal of truth to it. On the other end of the spectrum, when I was a kid in the Regan years, the message was if you smoke a joint you will instantly die or kill someone else . . .which obviously was not true and negated the anti drug message all together.
When it comes to steriods, I don't see the any major dangers if the user is an adult male, educated about how to properly cycle, uses in moderation, and lives a healthy lifestyle. Probably OK for adult females if it is not a high androgenic steriod (like var or primo).
The problems with steroids happen when there is improper use, poor/unhealthy lifestyles, and users that are not yet adults.
I think the pendulam in regards to the view on steriods will probably swing back to a more sane perception over time. None of these athletes named have dropped dead, and in fact appear very healthy . . .eventually that reality will be too obvious for people to overlook.
Bit on steroids
Aaron, this is a very POOR message. It has nothing to do with the truth.
It is a propoganda statement, a scare tactic.
As I stated in one of my previous post, I used marijuana when I was in my 20s. It never turned me into a "boring couch potato."
One of our part time told me he uses marijuana. He and I have discussed it. He's used it since he was 16. He is now 22 and a pre-med student in college. So, it didn't burn him into a "boring couch potato."
The individuals it does turn into a "boring couch potato" had problems to begin with. In all likelihood, if they weren't smoking dope they'd have turned to alcohol or some other drug.
These individuals usually have some type of psychological problem. While eliminating the use of drugs may help them, it does not solve their problem.
Unless their psychological problem is resolved, they will probably end up as a drug free "boring couch potato."
The Regan message is obviously not true...but the message that you'll end up as "a boring couch potato" if you smoke is also untrue.
This statement could also be applied to marijuana.
Good point. The American public tends to, at times, have large swings in their views. they overreact.
Good point. However, it falls on deaf ears. Like John Romano said, "Where are the bodies?"
I disagree. The public has been inundated with all of the negative of steriod use.
In the world of news, "If it bleeds, it leads." The American public has been blizted with bias information, very little of the good information has or will ever become obvious to the general public. So, they will continue to believe the incorrect information on this topic.
A simple example is that the majority of individuals still believe that they can reduce thier waist size by doing sit ups. And that myth should have died long ago...but it sill alive and well.
Kenny Croxdale
Bit on steroids
It's the hybriud of pot that counts. Hemp or raw marijuanna uncultured will cause problems. I do not smoke it, but know many who hae. Some doctors, professors in other countries and others.
Coke, horoin is problems, dope or marijuanna can be for the wrong person.
Bit on steroids
Coke, horoin is problems, dope or marijuanna can be for the wrong person.
Eating sugar can be a problem for the wrong person...like diabetics.
Kenny Croxdale
Bit on steroids
Why did I allow this thread to continue? I just had a flash, I guess. Thought people would have read the article on "Kids and Juice" in the knowledge section of this site, and respond to it.
My flash was that someone would've understood that sport is seen as a literal RELIGEON by many in this country (mostly couch potatos, but some of us purists too). As a religion, you see, sport must be pure.
Were it only possible that their ideal of purity were also held up in their spiritual religeon, that being their Christian faith! Point is, people hold sport up to a higher standard than they do Jesus Christ! You wouldn't BELIEVE the stuff people blithely accept as "gospel!"
Ugh! 'Nuff said!
Bit on steroids
j/c and this is a serious question not sarcasm: Why do you think the Government felt the need to ban them if their wasn't bad effects showing up? Was it because kids were getting them? Or was it that one in a hundred that was abusing them?
Bit on steroids
Its because most of them are uninformed jackasses.
Bit on steroids
Honeslty, it wouldn't surprise me if it had to do with Ben Johnson's win. I've heard a lot of stories about people being really put out that the U.S. got beat by a Canadian. The fact that he was black may have had some of the wrong people PO'd, too. So, if you're all ahamed that you got beat out, then some dude turns out testing positive, condemn him to save face. Then it snowballs from there.
The other side of it is that, regardless of the origin of the attitudes, most people really, really don't understand the in's and out's of it and aren't willing to discuss it because of stigma. We all tend to think of ourselves as pretty defiant or resistant to outside influence. But it's been shown in history and research as well that most people prefer to follow than to lead because of the social risks of leading or sticking out. Same problem with talking about stigmatized issues.
Bit on steroids
Its honestly a win-win situation when it comes to the government. With all banned substances the higher powers know that these things are bad for you... maybe not so much regulated testosterone, but the other shit. There is a crap ton of money out there... and they would lose A LOT if they legalized it. That is the other win, they make a shit ton of money off them being illegal by seizing and using for other things.
The same problem presents its self when it comes to making distilled spirits. It is considerably cheaper to produce, and since there is no way to control it, they would lose a ton of money.
I agree with Doc, sports are just a game... even though being the best is is very important to me, its still just a sport. Being an ex-bodybuilder the pressure to juice was huge... like way bigger than any kid should ever have to thing about. Which is very sad that my generation has that to deal with.
I dunno yall... esp. my generation has no set of values any more. I feel like I'm the only god damn intelligent one out of all of em. Oh well... what can ya do. I guess all ya can do is say a prayer and keep on trucking.
Bit on steroids
I am no fan of the government, and i can be just as conspiracy minded as the next guy, but it is illogical that they make more money on drug seizures than they would on taxation of the sale of any controlled substance. There is no motivation for the government to make steroids illegal other than the potential health risks to the general population when these drugs are used inappropriately (and by inappropriately i mean using them for performance enhancement rather than to correct a testosterone deficiency in an adult male).
There are definate risks that lead directly to death. There are other potential risks that have not been adequately researched to be proven or disproven. The definate risks lie in steroids being improperly administered ("shot" directly into the blood stream, shared needles leading to the spread of aids) and by making them more accessible (legal) you increase access to the group most likely to make these mistakes, high school age male athletes.
There is also evidence that suggests they can either create or magnify problems with the heart, liver and kidneys. Possibly even increase the speed with which cancerous cells grow. There isn't enough research imo to either fully prove or disprove these connections.
Where are the bodies? I won't list the famous names i was able to google up as suspected steroid related deaths out of respect for their families, but the information is out there. Lyle Alzado stronlgy asserted that steroids were the reason his brain tumor was so aggressive, and campaigned strongly against steroid use before he passed.
When a strongman or wrestler who uses steroids openly dies of an enlarged heart or liver failure in their late 20s or into their 30s, the cause iof death is "enlarged heart" or "liver failure" it won't list steroids as a cause of death. just like if you die of lung cancer after smoking for 30 years, you died of cancer, not a cigarrette, but it was the cigarrettes that got you there. To say there are no bodies is to stick your head in the sand. Personally, I believe many people use without seeing early consequences and possibly never do, others pour gasoline on a smouldering health problem and see the consequences much sooner.
The controversy in baseball is a pivotal moment. In theory i would not have a problem with elite adult athletes making an educated choice to face the risks, except the reality is that children will seek to emulate their sports heros. And they are not sufficiently mature to weigh the risk against the benefit.
Unrestricted over the counter availability of steroids is a genuine health concern that is correctly being controlled by our government. At 16, I was a mediocre high school athlete. If I had had access to steroids, I would have gone off the deep end. The more they had worked the more i would've taken. I had no sense of mortality, and a tremendous desire to make it to the NFL. I do not think that the kids of today are any different.
So why are they illegal? Because we don't fully undertstand the health implications of long term use in healthy adults, there is definate risks associated with improper administration, and there is a great potential for abuse, especially among teenage male athletes.
Bit on steroids
I agree with this point. I doubt that the government is seizing then selling them.
Herein lies one of the problems, the health risk are minimal. Their use by athletes is a moral issue, rather than a health issue.
And what is moral to one individual may be immoral to another. Thus, as the saying goes, "You cannot legislate morality."
Yukon, I have an aversion for illogical statement, like this one. You state there are definite risk. You then state the there has "not been adaequate research" to prove it... Thiis statement is an oxymoron, such as "bitter sweet"...how can it be both at the same time.
Those risk are there. However, plesae provide the research that shows how many individuals died from injections make directly into the blood stream.
How many individuals have died from shared needles? No matter your education level, that is one no-no that every one pretty much understands. Also, needles are easily obtained and cost next to nothing. So, I doubt that that happens.
By making them legal, you are more in control than if you allow them to be purchased on the black market.
Who would be better qualified to provide you with informative information on how to use them, a physsician or some guy selling them to you in a dark alley?
Where would you be more likely to sell bogus anabolic, a recognized pharmacy or the guy selling them in a dark alley?
Your on a hunt expeditdion.
Here again you say there is evidence and then you state there "isn't enough research to fully prove"...it.
With that said, some research does indicated that growth hormone may contribute to the the growth of cancer.
And Lyle Alzado was a reputed scientist in biocheistry, capable of analysing such facts, right? As the information in the video posted, there is NO evidence to support the fact that Alzado's death resulted from steriods.
And why won't you list the names? Inquiring minds want to know...
Some levity is needed here.
You bought into the propadanda that has been distributed. It easier to doing research. That is one of the problems, people want one simple answer to a complex situation.
Review that video that was posted. Then review some of the articles from Dr Norm Fost on this.
It sounds like many of the items you've read were written more from an emotional stand point rather than a scientific one.
Kenny Croxdale
Bit on steroids
Kenny, I have the utmost respect for you, and am not in the same league with you in researching scientific issues. Nevertheless, I believe you are mis-interpreting some of what I said, and using the lack of research in the area as confirmatuion of your opinion. Let me clarify some of my statements.
The difference between the definate risks and what I call suspected risks are thus: If you inject steroids directly into the blood stream you face the very real possibility of death. Common sense tells us that if you are injecting anything into your body it should be done by a qualified medical professional. I do not believe this is how most steroid users recieve their injections. I believe self-injection or injection by girlfriend is much more common. I love my girl, however, i do not trust her to tap ou thte air bubble and miss the artery. Admittedly, no data on this point. I am not a research specialist. Another definate risk would be in needle sharing. needles are not easily obtainable, I believe you need a prescription fo rthem, and in the only situation where I viewed steroid use, it was in the apartment of the dealer, and he was injecting his customers with the same needle. Heroine use contributes to the spread of aids through needle sharing. The addiction is undoubtedly different, so statistics wouldn't necessarily be analagous, but the risk is there if you share needles. How frequently it happens is unavailable to both of us, as it is not a factor conducive to tracking.
The suspected risks (liver, heart, kidney, cancer, etc) have not imo been researched enough to either prove or disprove, but there is data to suggest that research is warranted. I can offer you this, as anecdotal as it may be:
http://arpa.allenpress.com/arpaonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1043%2F0003-9985(2001)125%3C0253:ASAACS%3E2.0.CO%3B2
so my statement that there are definate risks in improper administration and suspected though not thoroughly researched risks in non-medical use of steroids is niether illogical or an oxymoron. They are two seperate categories of risk. I stated it poorly, I hope this clarifies.
I also disagree that by making them legal without prescription that you somehow gain more control. if you can pick them up at GNC with your protein powder, how are you going to keep it out of the hands of teenagers? How will you monitor how much of a dosage they use? You may not have control either way, legal or otherwise, but I beleive you can at least make access more difficult.
And my statement , repeated oft, about there being evidence but not enough to be conclusive one way or the other is not contradictory, again, perhaps i express myself poorly. The above autopsy shows that cardiac arrest occurred in two cases when the only known contributing factor was steroid use. This is evidence. It is inconclusive. if it were conclusive, I would refer to it as proof.
And as for the bodies...I googled "death steroids" and found a long list of noted people who died prematurely AND used steroids. Some of them were heros of mine. The most recent notable case involves a prominent strongman competitior who died of an enlarged heart condition. Were steroids a factor? My point is that there isn't enough research available to say for sure either way. I have my opinion, and you have yours, but while niether of us have data to support our opinions, don't you think the substance should be controlled rather than made readily available to the public?
As for it being a moral issue, i agree, for an ADULT i think we have the right to do with our bodies as we will. heroine, pot, steroids, gun to your head, its your life, you are an adult, make your choice. But I do not belive that a 15/16 year old boy is mature enough to make those kinds of decisions.
i do not buy into the propaganda of EITHER side of the question. I do not believe that with the evidence available, poor though it is, steroids should be made more readily available to the demographic most likely to make poor decisions around abuse and administration, teenage boys. Illiminating the need for a prescription to obtain steroids would make them more accessible.
As for lyle Alzado's qualifications in the field of biochemistry, well....I'll concede the point. Drs in fact did not correlate his tumor to his steroid use. Since he was an anti-steroid advocate i was comfortable throwing his name out there. i would not be comfortable naming others who died early for conditions sometimes suspected to stem from steroid use. others have, and you can find those lists very easily. One of the names I saw was a noted pioneer in steroid use, died at the age of 48 I believe. Not my place to call him out.
Bottom line, if you want to use, and you are a mature adult, have at it. but i cannot support making them more readily available to our youth by removing the government controls.
Bit on steroids
Yokon, a couple of points on this. First of all, if any injection into you body requried a physician, many diebetics would have to live a the doctors office. Education is the key.
Exactly. This has to do with the legality issue. By making them illegal, those taking them are left with the "earn while you learn" program. And as with all jobs are endvors. And the school of hard knocks not the best methof of learning.
I just putting for logical answers here, nothing more.
This is incorrect. You can order them over the internet.
So, everyone used this method of passing n eedles around? I doubt that is the case.
And what were you doing there?
There is no physical addiction to anabolics. This is more incorrect information.
There are a lof of IF in the world. Again, I doubt many if any or sharing needles.
I was unable to go to this site. And while there is anecdotal evidence to the help problems there is also empirical evidence that counter it. Add to that that science shows not problem...which make the health issue problem a problem.
You read more into my post than was there. Precisely, when did I state that they should be sold at GNC?
They should be prescribed by medical doctors. A medical prescription would be needed. And they would only be available at pharmacies.
That is what is happening to day with the hormone replacement therapy that is going on with older men.
That is exaclty what black marketers like. It supply and demand economy. The harder it is the more they can charge.
And along with that comes the another ciminal element of not knowing what you are buying.
"Snap shots" of situations like this are dangerous. They often provide you with the wrong answer. It reminds me of the story of the aliens from another plantet who watched a basketball game. They tne reported back to their leaders that playing basketball make you tall and sitting in the stands make you short.
Yea, I believe it should be controlled via a medical prescription.
I agree. That information was presented in the video. Dr Norm Fost has make the same statement.
The video is avilable in this thread and either I can send you Ds Norm Fost research articles or you can find them yourself.
I don't mean to be hard here. But in knowingly using Alzado, you became part of the propadana machine. The inference was use what you can to win...regardless of the truth.
My interest lies in putting the fact on the table and then letting others decide for themselves as to the morality of their use.
Also, once you basically knowing incorrectly provide information, how can you be trusted? How much value does one place on their integrity?
And precisely where did I state or anyone else on this board that they should be sold to youth? You are reading more into this than there is.
Kenny Croxdale
Bit on steroids
I really don't think race was the issue here as I believe ALL the competitors in the 100m final were black. See the attached video: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cCh5QswxQ6k&feature=related
I also don't think that the US government's stance on steroids was because an American was beaten by a Canadian. (If this is the way the 'American mind' worked then the US would have demilitarized after the War of 1812!!
In any case, thankfully that didn't happen.)
The fact that Ben Johnson (i.e. the World Champion, Olympic Champion, and World & Olympic Record Holder of what is arguably the most prestigeous event in the Summer Games) got caught on such a public stage created a shock-wave throughout the athletic world. Race or nationality had little if anything to do with it. As a result good ole Ben became the world's whipping boy for all that was wrong with sport.
In Canada it was a major kick in the jewels to our national pride, a source of embarrassment and there were even some public calls to deport him back to Jamaica. The athletic organizations here also really clamped down on supplimentation practices that could possibly lead to a positive drug test. The current head of the IOC's anti-doping wing (Richard "Dick" Pound) was the man who led this charge.
In some countries (most notably the US) governments got involved (likely due to public/political pressure) to enact legislation to protect the more impressionable members of society from the 'dangers of steriods'. I suspect this is where it started evolving into the issue of morality, which now spans professional sports.
Like Doc suggested, athletes in Western society are revered and therefore held to a higher moral standard than others - particularly in the US. Thus, it's advantageous for politicians to be seen as defending the morality of society, whether it means investigating steroid use, gambling, or whatever.
If only society held politicians up to the same level of scrutiny... but that's a whole other discussion and NOT for this forum.
cab
Bit on steroids
so... why would it be morally wrong for me, a guy in his mid-twenties with no aspirations of competing, ever, to take steroids in a sensible manner in order to increase my own performance?
I have nothing to gain from this except personal happiness with a stronger, bigger, and leaner physique, unlike professional athletes that could have a serious monetary gain they could make if they performed better.
I'm really having a hard time understanding why it should be illegal for me to take steroids. What making them illegal has done for me is to make it harder to get objective information on administering and potential side effects of taking them, let alone obtaining them.
Thoughts?
Bit on steroids
Kenny, steroids are currently obtainable for medical needs with a prescription, and illegal if obtained without a prescription. My argument is that with insufficent research, and possible serious health risks associated, and the potential for abuse, what is the case for changing the status quo?
Some responses to your comments...sorry i cannot figure out the quote feature, I'll do my best..
-Your point about diabetics is a good one, but untrained injections undoubtedly take place in the steroid world, I think you agree.
-The school of hard knocks is no place to learn injections, we seem to agree there too.
-Just because you can obtain needles over the internet does not make them legal, you can obtain steroids as well. I believe to legally obtain them, you must have a prescription. We disagree here.
-At the steroid dealers house, i was buying pot. Its a guy from my gym. I didn't go back because the whole needle thing freaked me right out. There were dirty needles all over the place. Not my scene.
The guy administered to four or five people there for that purpose with the same needle, your doubt is irrelevant. Needle sharing does exist. because of the nature of the activity, no research data exists on the extent to which it exists.
-There are two (at least) types of addiction. One is physical. the other is mental. Anabolic steroids can be both. Using anabolics is phsically addicting in that it replaces your bodies natural production of testosterone. If you stop without taking post cycle medication, you will be adversely affected because your body will not immediately begin to produce the same levels of test that it did before you started the cycle. it is psychologically addicting because inflated test levels create a sense of well being, and the progress you make you will want to continue to make.
-The article I linked, or tried to link is the autopsy report for two cardiac arrest deaths. You should be able to copy and paste, the address was apparently too long to post as a link.
-Propaganda is the spreading of an idea or information to either further or damage a cause. By speaking our mind, we are both propagandizing, you as much as me. Propaganda is niether true nor false by definaition, it is merely public expression.
-Ultimately, i am not sure what you are saying, at some points you seem to be indicating that there is a conspiracy (propaganda machine) to misrepresent possible risks with steroids and keep them a controlled substance, at others you seem to support the status quo (i.e. requiring them to be prescribed by a physician for medicval needs)
The bottom line here is that there is not enough research on the long term effects of use, the effects of short term abuse, etc...The absence of this research does not "prove" that it is risk free.
Now its back to the training logs for me, where i can propagandize my limited progress through disjointed workouts, without having my integrity questioned. Adieu.
-
Bit on steroids
I personally feel that all drugs should be legal . . .drugs have their own natural consequences, no need to add to what is already there. Plus the combined processes of the anti drug establishments (enforcement, judicial, correctional, etc) ammount to billions of tax payer dollars that could be used for better purposes (health care, education, homeland security, you name it). Even with all that money spent for anti drug purposes, how effective is it really . . .pretty much anyone that wants drugs, if they spend a little time looking, can find them fairly easily. So, what are we [tax payers] paying for then . . .pretty much nothing except keeping a large group of non-violent drug offenders in jail. Our government (talking USA here) needs to start seeing drug abuse as a health care issue and not a criminal issue.
Bit on steroids
I agree the law needs to be loser. But we already know that legalization doesn't work on a smaller, city-wide scale. It's been tried before. It simply eliminated the crime-related issues you're talking about and proliferated all the other problems associated with addiction.
Holland is an interesting case. Weed is "sort of" illegal in that it's on the books as against the law, but they only bust people with very large amounts on them for distribution and they let people sell the stuff in non-corporate retail environments. It's very weird, from my American point of view, in that I don't understand how they really pull it off.
Bit on steroids
Good point. I didn't clairfy that. My mistake.
So, exactly how many pieces of research are needed to insure that we are 100% sure that they will casue health problems or not.
The news report on the "Real Sports" video posted, as well as research from Dr Norm Fost as well as other tell us the hyped risk just aren't there.
As I agree with that contingency, that all drugs have some risk. However, the serious side effects just aren't there.
There is alwasy a potential for abuse in drugs, sex, money, you name it.
-Your point about diabetics is a good one, but untrained injections undoubtedly take place in the steroid world, I think you agree.
Please name individuals who have died from not knowing how to admister an injection. The risk in this area are minimal.
That is one of the reason for allowing physicians to prescribe them to adults, not kids. You are better able to regulate their use as well as educate the individual along the way.
Other wise, the individual is on their own. And if someone want to get them there they will. The black market thrives on this, no matter what the commodity...drugs, guns, prostitutes, etc.
Speaking os which. Which do you believe has killed more people. Guns or steriods? Car (car wrecks) or steroids?
There are a ton of bodies from those who have died from guns an from car wrecks. Why not make them illegal?
By the way, I am for legilizing prostitution nation wide, as well in Nevada. It appears to work well there.
Yukon, you are incorrect. No prescription is needed. Simply go on line an order them.
After you call them, call the police, FDA, DEA, or whoever. Tell them you have them.
Even better, take the needles into them. And see if you get busted. I guarantte that nothing will happen to you.
Now do the same with steriods. Take them into the one of the above agencies and tell them that you bought them. Now see what happens.
What you find out is that you can buy needles or steriods on line. However, the legaility is completely different.
Needle sharing rarely exhist. You took one "snap shot" and believed that's the way it all goes down.
Yukon, you have just illustrated the need for allowing medical doctors to prescribe them more freely. You knowledge in this area is definitely limited by who and what you read.
You have no first hand expericence. You knowledge is build on what other tell you.
With athat said,I would agree that one does enjoy the well being one get from taking them. Even John Romono stated that. But that doesn't make one an addict any more than the enjoying the buzz one get from drinking a cup of coffee, make them a coffee addict.
In regard to them becoming a physical addiction, that is non-sense. You body does take some time to start reproducing homones. But it returns.
The educated invidual will take something like HCG or some other drug. HCG jump starts you hormonal system, allowing it to get back on track.
Even if you don't take HGH to jump start you hormonal sysmem, it returns to normal, just a bit slower. I am speaking from my 10 year of experience with their use back in the 1970s, as well what I have read and been education from medical physicians.
Back then, you could go to a medical doctor and learn. Do you think that might be an advantage over solely self education?
I tried that but it didn't work.
Ok, how what if we call it lying...defined as "deliberate act of deviating from the truth."
So, when you used Lyle Alzado (as other have) as the poster child of steriod abuse, you were lying. You, youself acknowledged that it was untrue.
The information dthat I present is scientific information like that of Dr Norm Fost or based on first hand knowledge.
Let me calirify that. The governemnt and other have lied to us regarding the health risk of them. It the same thing as what they did with marijuana in "Reefer Madness."
They are legal but only if one is old and has horomonal problems.
Yukon, you are entertaining...
When did I ever state they were risk free? Who on the board ever stated they were riks free? Where do you get this stuff?
There are research articles that go into the fact that there are minimal risk. So, how many reseach articles do you want? How many years of research need to be done? Can you give me a definitive number?
Yukon, placed your integrigy in question by deliverately providing false and misleading information when you stated that Lyle Alzado had died from steriods.
You then recanted, stating that you knew that was untrue but presented anyway. By definition, isn't that lying?
If someone did that to you, wouldn't that make you more leary of any other information they presented?
Anther thing is that at least we know who I am. I give you my name.
With Yukon or other internat names it hard to know who anyone is addressing these days.
One thing I like about the Supertraining Message biard us that all repsonse must have the name of the individual listed at the bottom. As least there, we are pretty sure of who we are talking to.
Kenny Croxdale
Bit on steroids
Aaron...Great post!
Kenny Croxdale
Bit on steroids
I have nothing to gain from this except personal happiness with a stronger, bigger, and leaner physique, unlike professional athletes that could have a serious monetary gain they could make if they performed better.
I'm really having a hard time understanding why it should be illegal for me to take steroids. What making them illegal has done for me is to make it harder to get objective information on administering and potential side effects of taking them, let alone obtaining them.
Thoughts?
Before you decide to use them you must learn about them first. You must understand how to work pct in, what doses are right and all that fun stuff.(note this is what has been told to me by some people who have used and I asked about it because I like to learn about stuff like that).
Moderators, step in...thanks.
OK, thanks folks. Please, moderators, archive this thread. We have heard enough.
Bit on steroids
Kenny, I believe you reside in CA? You may want to brush up on the legality of hypodermic needles, here is the CA code concerning them.
California Codes
California Business and Professions Code
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 4140-4149
4140. No person shall possess or have under his or her control any
hypodermic needle or syringe except when acquired in accordance with
this article.
4141. No person shall furnish hypodermic needles or syringes, by
sale or otherwise, without a license issued by the board, except as
otherwise provided by this article.
4142. Except as otherwise provided by this article, no hypodermic
needle or syringe shall be sold at retail except upon the
prescription of a physician, dentist, veterinarian, podiatrist, or
naturopathic doctor pursuant to Section 3640.7.
4143. This article shall not apply to the sale of hypodermic
syringes and needles at wholesale by pharmacies, drug wholesalers,
drug manufacturers or manufacturers and dealers in surgical
instruments to pharmacies, physicians, dentists, podiatrists,
veterinarians, or persons to whom a license has been issued under
this article.
4144. A person may sell or obtain hypodermic needles and hypodermic
syringes without a prescription or permit, for uses that the board
determines are industrial, and that person shall not be required to
comply with Section 4145 or 4146.
4145. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a pharmacist
or physician may, without a prescription or a permit, furnish
hypodermic needles and syringes for human use, and a person may,
without a prescription or license, obtain hypodermic needles and
syringes from a pharmacist or physician for human use, if one of the
following requirements is met:
(1) The person is known to the furnisher and the furnisher has
previously been provided a prescription or other proof of a
legitimate medical need requiring a hypodermic needle or syringe to
administer a medicine or treatment.
(2) Pursuant to authorization by a county, with respect to all of
the territory within the county, or a city, with respect to the
territory within the city, for the period commencing January 1, 2005,
and ending December 31, 2010, a pharmacist may furnish or sell 10 or
fewer hypodermic needles or syringes at any one time to a person 18
years of age or older if the pharmacist works for a pharmacy that is
registered for the Disease Prevention Demonstration Project pursuant
to Chapter 13.5 (commencing with Section 121285) of Part 4 of
Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code and the pharmacy complies
with the provisions of that chapter.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a pharmacist,
veterinarian, or person licensed pursuant to Section 4141 may,
without a prescription or license, furnish hypodermic needles and
syringes for use on animals, and a person may, without a prescription
or license, obtain hypodermic needles and syringes from a
pharmacist, veterinarian, or person licensed pursuant to Section 4141
for use on animals, providing that no needle or syringe shall be
furnished to a person who is unknown to the furnisher and unable to
properly establish his or her identity.
Additionally, there was nothing untrue or even mislesading about the statements I made concerning Lyle Alzado. Lyle Alzado did in fact blame steroids for the aggressive tumor that took his life. That was my assertion. I take his opinion into consideration and believe it warrants expression. To be as thoroughly objective as possible, I added that his doctor's disagreed. Does intentionally misrepresenting my statements make you a liar? A man's honor is sacred. Be careful before calling someone's integrity into question to aggrandize yourself.
Bit on steroids
Yukon,
Good job. You did your home work. We now know what the law states in CA. Now can you provide me what the law is on the other 49 states?
You-con...
You used Alzado statement as a means of positioning you point. You implied that Alzado died from their use.
Here is you statement, "As for lyle Alzado's qualifications in the field of biochemistry, well....I'll concede the point."
You concession indicates your implication....Alzado died from sterioids.
You then confess that you knew this point wasn't valid with, "Drs in fact did not correlate his tumor to his steroid use."
Yukon, you statement is a bit like Bill Clinton saying that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky...semantics.
Buddy, you knowlingly mislead and misused of information brought your integrity into question.
If you presented the information unknowingly, it you'd have fallen into the uneducated area...but that was not the case, was it?
So, what does one call another who knowingly misleads or misuses the information? A Politician? Ok buddy, your a politician. Is that better?
However, since we don't know who a Youkon is (a nameless mask man, so to speak), could your integrity ever be placed into question? Nah, probably not.
Kenny Croxdale
Bit on steroids
Kenny, the name calling doesn't add to the intellectual discussion of the question at hand. My name would niether add nor detract from my points, my degree is in psychology, my profession banking, I am not in the field as a Doctor, Research specialist, scientist, or possess any special credentials that would back up my points. I choose to remain anonymous. I am not wanting midnight calls to argue about steroids or the benefit of doing good mornings and stiff legged dead lifts in the same micro cycle. Maybe that risk is minimal, but for me there is no benefit to posting my name, I am not seeking notoriety or acclaim, simply trying to learn more about increasing my strength levels safely and to discourse the same with like minded individuals.
I agree with Lyle Alzado. I believe that his tumor likely was influenced by steroid abuse. I am also aware that his doctor disagreed. To make a fair and accurate point I related both sides.
I can understand one's motivation in misrepresenting another's argument, the name calling and trying to bluff through inaccuracies (such as the legality of obtaining hypodermic needles without prescription) only in the context of one who is desperately rationalizing a life decision in direct contradiction to their core values. Resorting to these tactics is natural under those conditions. One wants to be right to validate their past accomplishments and decisions.
I do not morally condemn anyone who has used steroids, it isn't my place. I do not assert that steroids will kill everyone who uses them. I believe they are effective. I also believe that they have led to premature death from cardiac, liver, and possibly other reasons. But for an adult thiose are risks they can take if they choose, as far as I am concerned. I have not been impacted competitively by people using steroids, so i don't care about a level playing field.
I do however feel strongly that any relaxation of control around accessing these drugs will make them more readily available to underage athletes, and that the burning drive for athletic success in high school and college will lead many high school and college age athletes to use these drugs. The demand is out there. Unfortunately to a degree the supply is as well. I oppose any legislative action that would increase that supply. I know that myself, at 17, would have signed away decades of my life for the opportunity to play football professionally. Now, more mature, I am glad i didn't have that option.
Bit on steroids
I thouht it would make a point as well as adding some levity. Evidently, you missed the point as well as the levity.
But by the same token, it hard to take any individual serious who is not is not willing to sign off on it.
You are a bit dilusional if you think anyone is going to be searching out your phone number to call you at midnight to discuss this informational. You a bit paranoid.
Not posting you name is a bit not not having enough confidence to stand behind you convictions.
As am I. However, you single incident of going to some steriod dealer house, sound illegal. Perhaps that is only in CA and not where you live.
You make one judgement based on that incident...everyone pretty much shares needles. Maybe you should visit a hospital and see if they do the same.
You coughed up the information, later.
You-con...as I stated above it was in regard to you knowlingly misrepresentation of facts...and for levity...we've been through this.
My statement regarding needles being legal in CA was from a lack of knowledge. You statement about Alzado was a knowing misuse of information. Think about.
I do however feel strongly that any relaxation of control around accessing these drugs will make them more readily available to underage athletes, and that the burning drive for athletic success in high school and college will lead many high school and college age athletes to use these drugs. The demand is out there. Unfortunately to a degree the supply is as well. I oppose any legislative action that would increase that supply. I know that myself, at 17, would have signed away decades of my life for the opportunity to play football professionally. Now, more mature, I am glad i didn't have that option.
As you basically stated, they are out there for those who want to find them.
You found them at some steriod dealer house. And how old were you when you did that, 17?
The most effective method of controling their use is to put them under the control of a physician.
Other wise, like you, those who use them are going to end up in some steriod dealers house. The individuals will use them as per the instructions of those with a limited amount of education.
Those buying them on the black market will not have access to physicians who can have administer blood profiles, as a means of monitoring the effects.
By outlawing them, you condemn those who use them to even more health risk.
As someone once said, "Keep you friends close, and your enemys even closer.
That meaning that you have and maintain better control if you keep things under your thumb, so to speak.
Once any thing or person breaks away...your control is diminished or disolves.
Kenny Croxdale
Bit on steroids
I am beginning to question your reading comprehension skills. But not your tenacity or desire to be right. Reading back over the posts, I commend you on your levity. Your comedic use of "liar" "politician" "you-con" are hilarious. Sorry I misconstrued it as an immature, desperate attack on my character when faced with a view counter to your own .
Bit on steroids
My tenacity is in presenting the correct facts. If you'll noted, when you have presented the correct information, I have acknowledged it.
We are making progress...
Anabolics need to be taken out the Dark Ages as well as the Dark Alleys.
I think we pretty much killed this subject, haven't we?
Kenny Croxdale
Yep, starting to decompose...
Oh yeah, thought it should have been buried when Fred said 'Enough, archive it!'
Kind of fun when a topic hits a nerve like this one did though! I'm still trying to find the sources of the quotes I offered up but I've pruned my library down to just the 'essentials' as of late and am not having much luck. The Arnold/Barbara Walters thing really bugs me though because I've read it a few times and know I had the source, although it may have been another author reporting on what was said in the interview, but apparently it no longer resides on my bookshelf. Possibly "Muscle: Confessions of an Unlikely Bodybuilder" although I thought it was from an older source than that.
Good Lifting!
Vaughn
Bit on steroids
See? I can start good threads!
Who wants to piss n' moan about bench shirts?
Can someone just post a link
Can someone just post a link to the movie, "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" so we can this argument? Kenny 1 Yukon 0
Just a joke