By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Steroids, why are they outlawed from sport?

Brutalyst on 15 March 2014
pokoko said:
I've never heard of a coach pushing a teenager to have a hip replacement as a competitive advantage.

Really, though, the negative side effects of abusing anabolic steroids can be pretty nasty. They can ultimately destroy the human body over a long period of time. It's even worse if it's a teenager taking them and you know that would happen if professionals are allowed to use.

If that's not enough, I've got one name for you: Chris Benoit.


I appreciate the travesty of Chris Benoit, and if they had evidence that suggests the cause of that was steroids I wouldnt have even started this thread. But there is no evidence, he was on steroids and did a heinous act, but there is no hard link to it being driven by the steroids he was on. Some not on steroids could have done the same thing, if he had asthma and was taking an inhaler, should inhalers be outlawed too?



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

Around the Network
pokoko on 15 March 2014
Brutalyst said:
pokoko said:
I've never heard of a coach pushing a teenager to have a hip replacement as a competitive advantage.

Really, though, the negative side effects of abusing anabolic steroids can be pretty nasty. They can ultimately destroy the human body over a long period of time. It's even worse if it's a teenager taking them and you know that would happen if professionals are allowed to use.

If that's not enough, I've got one name for you: Chris Benoit.


I appreciate the travesty of Chris Benoit, and if they had evidence that suggests the cause of that was steroids I wouldnt have even started this thread. But there is no evidence, he was on steroids and did a heinous act, but there is no hard link to it being driven by the steroids he was on. Some not on steroids could have done the same thing, if he had asthma and was taking an inhaler, should inhalers be outlawed too?

The Chris Benoit part was mostly a joke.  However, suggesting someone who uses an inhaler to LIVE is the same as someone who uses steroids to get bigger muscles makes no sense.

Regarldess, the rest of what I said is true.  Steroid abuse can cause heart, liver, and kidney damage.  They can also lead to tendon damage.  Now, I'm sure some athletes want to take their chances but what about those who want to do well in sports WITHOUT suffering this kind of damage?  Should we just say, "too bad, you've got to take steroids to keep up"?  Is that really a positive thing?  I don't think so.



Brutalyst on 15 March 2014
pokoko said:
Brutalyst said:
pokoko said:
I've never heard of a coach pushing a teenager to have a hip replacement as a competitive advantage.

Really, though, the negative side effects of abusing anabolic steroids can be pretty nasty. They can ultimately destroy the human body over a long period of time. It's even worse if it's a teenager taking them and you know that would happen if professionals are allowed to use.

If that's not enough, I've got one name for you: Chris Benoit.


I appreciate the travesty of Chris Benoit, and if they had evidence that suggests the cause of that was steroids I wouldnt have even started this thread. But there is no evidence, he was on steroids and did a heinous act, but there is no hard link to it being driven by the steroids he was on. Some not on steroids could have done the same thing, if he had asthma and was taking an inhaler, should inhalers be outlawed too?

The Chris Benoit part was mostly a joke.  However, suggesting someone who uses an inhaler to LIVE is the same as someone who uses steroids to get bigger muscles makes no sense.

Regarldess, the rest of what I said is true.  Steroid abuse can cause heart, liver, and kidney damage.  They can also lead to tendon damage.  Now, I'm sure some athletes want to take their chances but what about those who want to do well in sports WITHOUT suffering this kind of damage?  Should we just say, "too bad, you've got to take steroids to keep up"?  Is that really a positive thing?  I don't think so.

I do actually agree with everything you said but still, sometimes someone has to agrue the cuase of others (to try and play Devils advocate). 

 

I dont suppose anyone is saying you HAVE to take steroids to keep up with those who do, but on the same level. You could say to another you dont HAVE to train at being a <insert sport here> player to be as good as those who do, plus those who do train to be that against those who dont, arent they doing just as much damage to themselves, people who have knee/back/neck/even head problems that stem from the sport they did without steroids. You dont have to do it, but if you want to beat them, then you do. If we looked back through history and could do a retrospective check on those probably 1992 and prior to see if they took something to enhance their ability they probably took something.

If they discovered a way to improve performance, such as removing a rib, or replacing a hip, would it still be illegal in sport? and then what of those who genuinely needed those operations?



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

Mr Khan on 15 March 2014

Because the guys with steroids win, and the ones that don't, don't, all other things being equal (which they often are when we're talking about top-level athletes).

It's like Snaking in Mario Kart. It's not as if Snaking is "one way to win" it is THE way to win, unless the snaker is otherwise significantly less skilled than the non-snaker. An athlete who's good enough for the top level in terms of skill will always then be superior when he/she takes steroids.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Brutalyst on 15 March 2014
Mr Khan said:
Because the guys with steroids win, and the ones that don't, don't, all other things being equal (which they often are when we're talking about top-level athletes).

It's like Snaking in Mario Kart. It's not as if Snaking is "one way to win" it is THE way to win, unless the snaker is otherwise significantly less skilled than the non-snaker. An athlete who's good enough for the top level in terms of skill will always then be superior when he/she takes steroids.


But down to genetics he or she will always have an advantage over others anyway, even down to the most basic of things such as someone being born with longer legs than someone else who particpates in the 100 metre sprint.

The Mario Kart example seems like a bad comparison as if both players of equal skill play as Mario then fine, but humans arent built that way and what if people of equal skill played as Mario and Kooper?



The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.

Ernest Hemmingway

Around the Network
Mr Khan on 15 March 2014
Brutalyst said:
Mr Khan said:
Because the guys with steroids win, and the ones that don't, don't, all other things being equal (which they often are when we're talking about top-level athletes).

It's like Snaking in Mario Kart. It's not as if Snaking is "one way to win" it is THE way to win, unless the snaker is otherwise significantly less skilled than the non-snaker. An athlete who's good enough for the top level in terms of skill will always then be superior when he/she takes steroids.


But down to genetics he or she will always have an advantage over others anyway, even down to the most basic of things such as someone being born with longer legs than someone else who particpates in the 100 metre sprint.

The Mario Kart example seems like a bad comparison as if both players of equal skill play as Mario then fine, but humans arent built that way and what if people of equal skill played as Mario and Kooper?

One could compare it to playing as an unbalanced character, then. If the winners all play as Funky Kong, Daisy, or Rosalina (hello, Mario Kart Wii), then why wouldn't anyone choose to play as them? Then it degrades the spirit of the game as you have a field of Funky, Daisy, and Rosalina instead of the diversity that's supposed to be there.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kasz216 on 16 March 2014
Brutalyst said:

Was watching a documentary about steroids and it made me wonder why they are so frowned upon in a sports enviroment.

A few facts about steroids.

 

There is no evidence they are harmful to user, an easy example would be deaths related to steroids. By year to year basis a person who dies from smoking out numbers those who die from steroids by hundreds of thousands to one, but those who smoke arent outlawed from a sport. In 2007 only 3 people died from steroid use where as over 400,000 died from smoking, almost 100,000 from alchohol.

If steroids arent dangerous (they are just hormones) why are they illegal from sport? 

Shouldnt a person who had a hip replacement be accused of cheating? or any who had a body augmentation or 'fix' so to speak. How many take some kind of supplement when competing in there sport, im betting close to 100% of participants.

Im not advocating the use of steroids, one way or the other, just interested in pereption. 

The Smoking vs Steroids comparrison falls flat.


People don't smoke to be better at sports.

People do use steroids to be better at sports.


Thefore Football doesn't contribute to smoking by smoking being legal.

It would however contribute to steroids use.

Pretty much everyone in a proffessional sport, and even in college sports would be abusing the hell out of them.

Hell, considering how scary highschool football culture is in some parts of the south, steroid use would probaby essentially be mandatory there.

Considering that a LOT of pro-atheletes more or less are getting coached up from Late Grade school/JR high level, even there it's not a stretch to imagine some pretty big steroid abuse to get the best field agents and training.

 

So in general the real worry is that basically to get into a pro sport one would need to agree to take steroids long before their brain can comprhend all the consquences of that choice.