Am I the only dude on the planet that is pro-steroids?

Why should I give a flying **** what these high paid athletes do to themselves to succeed in their chosen sprot? I WANT them to juice, god dammit. It makes for a much moar entertaining product on the field/court/rink/etc...

I was going to post this in Nordy's bike race thread, but then decided that this topic could be a thread all on it's own.

Anyway, I would love to see all banned PFD's authorized for use by all professional leagues. Would I ever put that shit in my body? Prolly not. I don't work out. I haven't ran on purpose since the '80s. And generally, I really like sitting on my couch or in a boat doing nothing. But I would still love to see an NFL football game with 11 roided up lunatics playing against 11 other roided up lunatics. If I am going to tune into a bike race, I want to see some mother fucker have to change his bike tires because he is super hepped up on horse jizz extract. If I am going to watch a baseball game, I want to see some knuckle dragging manbeast crank the fucker onto or over the upper deck.

Is that so wrong?

Steroids are the only reason MSU went 13-1.

-UM fans

+1 for "haven't ran on purpose since the 80s"   

I agree with your post though, let them juice all they want. Many of the NFL athletes just switched to HGH when steroid testing began anyway.

More than that though, I think the ban on anabolic steroids causes a disadvantage to the guy who hasn't made it big yet. Barry Bonds had the money to pay a few hundred thousand a year to buy a synthetic steroid created by chemists. MLB had no idea how to test for it until a disgruntled employee ratted them out. That means Barry Bonds was able to juice without worry, while the kid from the Dominican Republic who lives in a hut with a dirt floor has to be good enough to break into the league while clean.

As for amphetamines, what's wrong with the players being hyper alert?

Steroids don't make a pro athlete out of a regular guy, they just keep a pro athlete performing at his optimal level. Nothing wrong with that. As for health concerns, there's a significant number of people who think a steroid regime can be done safely if under the direction of a physician.

I'm pro choice on this subject...and until science can say definitively without any doubt that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs that athletes use is bad for my health, I say that athletes should be able to do what they want to their bodies.

I think there's something to be said about the athlete that has a natural ability for various reasons.

1. Some guys are built like tanks from day 1. It's their advantage. They can exploit it. Ex: A sizeable 3rd baseman that hits for power. He's a a piece to put in the lineup. Maybe not great at 3rd but a nice hitter.

Steroids makes it so a smaller guy that isn't built like a tank can catch up to the other guy. Now that 3rd basement with the size that has developed his strenghts over time is not being rewarded because some other guy took a shortcut. Maybe if the other 3rd baseman takes steroids he can become bigger but it doesn't necessarily improve his game. He went from hitting homeruns to just hitting homeruns further. Or maybe it does and his long fly balls are now also homeruns and he's superior. Either way it's synthetic. It's not real. It's manufactured in a lab and not on the field. Sure, he hit the ball but it's given a boost form a guy in a lab coat.

2. Take a player with great speed. He's developed his speed over the years because that's his advantage. Like a Keyshon Martin type. (I realize I probably spelled his name wrong, blow me). Anyhow, that's his ability he was given and he developed. Throw in steroids (many different kinds) and say now a guy that was slower than K-Mart is now faster than him. To adjust, K-Mart is now juicing. Again, synthetic. It takes away from the hard work and raw athleticism developed by athletes over their lifetime.

These are just two very raw examples but why do people want to see something manufactured in part in a lab and not naturally?

I think it helps the borderline players more than the stars. You'll have extreme examples like Bonds going from superstar to freak but mostly it's the guy that's 5'11 180 naturally that hits 10 HR's but with roids, he's 5'11 200 and hits 20 HR's or the guy that's 6'0 190 that isn't quite big enough to be a star safety but with roids, he's 6'0 210 and can move up to SS or FS. To me... meh. I don't get anything out of it.

With that said. I think MLB cleaned itself up a lot and has the strictest standards. What we see in the NFL is not only the raw talent and training but juice. New forms of steroids and HGH. Guys aren't supposed to be 6'4 250 with 8% body fat slamming into other guys of similar size. Your head can only protect agains so much and while muscle develops, the rest of the body doesn't and these guys are rendered useless after 30. Hell, if Barry Sanders was born 15 years later, he would be a good back but he wouldn't be able to gain the edge in today's game. He'd be more like a slower MJD with more agility than a superstar.

Imagine taking a guy like David Boston (look him up in his steroid days) and put a baseball uniform on that guy. People would suddenly be like... wtf? Instead, he's got on pads and we just think, oh yeah he's lifting a lot. Yeahhhhhhhh right. For tTy, you're already seeing what it's like to see a bunch of guys juiced up playing on the same field. Just watch the NFL on any given Sunday. It's not that the speed of the game from college to the NFL changes because zomg, it's the NFL. The speed changes because of rampant HGH and ever changing forms of steroids. It's a big reason why I prefer college to the NFL where you have more strategy because not every guy can sprint full speed like a RB but be 250 lbs. To me, that's boring and manufactured.

I would also throw in another example.

You take Barry Sanders and his crazy runs. Him running up the middle on a designed play that goes wrong. Now he cuts to the outside and does a shake, runs up 5 yards and spins, heads to the sideline and gets the first. A 15 yard run that is spectacular. Out of this world to watch.

In 2014, that play ends up like this. Barry heads up the middle but nothing there so he cuts to the outside. He meets the first defender, the outside lineback that was once 6'4 240 with 16% bodyfat. Now that guy is 6'4 240 with 8% bodyfat. Barry can't gain the edge to do his shimmy and a shake. He's instead met with the defender that can at the very least just stagnate the run and barry gets maybe 3 yards before being pushed out of bounds or tackled.

That is why I think the NFL has gone downhill and why I prefer college and why I think steroids/HGH are bad for the game. Less specialties. Think of these backs we once used to see. Barry Sanders, Jerome Bettis, Ricky Waters, Marshall Faulk, Emmit Smith, Marcus Allen, and many, many more. That era is gone and it's gone because everybody just flys all over the field with insane speed and strength. No thanks. I'd rather see the old NFL with "cleaner" athletes than today.

I'm against it. While making it legal for the pros sounds good, it also means that the lower levels of competing will feel even more need to start taking them and they won't have access to the expertise needed to do it safely. Since the vast majority of lower level athletes will never get to the pro level to cash in, we'll have a bunch of people with God knows what kind of steroid induced medical issues. It's just not worth it IMO.

Code_Warrior wrote:I'm against it.  While making it legal for the pros sounds good, it also means that the lower levels of competing will feel even more need to start taking them and they won't have access to the expertise needed to do it safely.  Since the vast majority of lower level athletes will never get to the pro level to cash in, we'll have a bunch of people with God knows what kind of steroid induced medical issues.  It's just not worth it IMO.

Agree, I don't want a bunch of high school kids feel they have to do HGH, or steroids to keep up with the school down the road.

I hate PED use in baseball but don't mind it in football.

One thing I wondered -- is it prevalent in MMA?

JEK wrote:I hate PED use in baseball but don't mind it in football.

One thing I wondered -- is it prevalent in MMA?

Highly debatable in the "old" UFC. Most likely it was fairly prevalent. But testing was crappy so we'll never know for sure.

New UFC. No. The penalties are pretty damn stiff. They'll strip titles. Some guys have tested positive but it's less pure juicing and more bending rules to gain a competitive edge with any and all legal supplements that might tip the scales.

A lot of those guys don't touch anabolic stuff but will use weight cutters and such. Different type of PED than say the NFL. It's also much more of a "black eye" on the individual using PED's than other sports.

What % of college and pro football players are on steroids. I honestly have no idea.

WBill wrote:

Agree, I don't want a bunch of high school kids feel they have to do HGH, or steroids to keep up with the school down the road.

There's already (and has been for decades) a bunch of high school kids who feel they need to juice. They're young and dumb enough to think that it will: a.) make them a stand out HS player and, b.) turn them into a college player.

The amount of athleticism needed is so under-estimated by most people. They see a guy who is their same height and weight, but much stronger (due to natural athleticism). They think if they juiced and could lift the same, it would make them a similar player. It just doesn't work that way. A natural athlete is literally built for his own body/strength/speed. That's why body builders never play sports, and never get near what Olympic weight lifters can lift.

Herbie Green wrote:What % of college and pro football players are on steroids.   I honestly have no idea.

I don't know about college, especially these days, but I think it's more prevalent in HS than college. Just a guess.

I can tell you the general sentiment from a guy I spoke with (and sort of know) who was borderline MLB. He asked me why someone wouldn't do it if they were on the cusp of getting a MLB contract. He had teammates (from 20 years ago) who eventually signed 8 figure contracts. This guy, prior to a devastating injury, had out played them every step of the way in the minors.

The juice wouldn't have helped him, but he has no issue with it, because he said it's so prevalent among guys who are injury prone. (He was a guy who never got old enough to get nagging injuries, and his game was built on skill and batting average, so juicing wasn't attractive to him. The juice also wouldn't negate his injury, so he just moved on with his life). He is also adamant that the skill level is what differentiates HS, college, minor league and MLB players...nothing to do with muscles. It just keeps the minor injuries from lingering.

JEK wrote:I hate PED use in baseball but don't mind it in football.

One thing I wondered -- is it prevalent in MMA?

The ufc fighters train with testosterone supplements that get their T levels sky high, then get off the before they test. Heard Dana white talk about it in an interview once, that was the problem with Alistair overeem, he tested way too high and lied about why, so he was black balled from fighting for a while

Ass Dan wrote:

The ufc fighters train with testosterone supplements that get their T levels sky high, then get off the before they test. Heard Dana white talk about it in an interview once, that was the problem with Alistair overeem, he tested way too high and lied about why, so he was black balled from fighting for a while

That's why the NFLPA has fought so hard against getting baseline HGH testing. It occurs naturally in all humans, but the levels can vary by quite a bit. It's not hard to imagine that guys that make the NFL would have naturally higher HGH levels than an average person, but some have tested 12 times higher than has ever been seen in any other non-NFL player, ever.

The NFL also used to have scheduled steroid tests, so they'd cycle on/cycle off in such a way that they were off the juice when the test rolled around. Only the guys who failed a test were subject to random testing in the old days.

WCS wrote:I'm pro choice on this subject...and until science can say definitively without any doubt that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs that athletes use is bad for my health, I say that athletes should be able to do what they want to their bodies.

Assuming they are not bad for you ( doubtful ) when should kids start using . High school ?

Edit: I see others have raised the same question. HGH for 10th graders that feel they need to keep up. Great.

duffy munn wrote:

Assuming they are not bad for you ( doubtful ) when should kids start using . High school ?

Edit: I see others have raised the same question. HGH for 10th graders that feel they need to keep up. Great.

People need to realize that physicians prescribe steroids all the time, mostly because they work. A Cortisone shot in a broken ankle is done because it's a strong, useful thing than will heal you much faster. No one expects an old lady to "be clean" when she's hurt.

I do agree that too many young kids (meaning, more than zero) use steroids, but you can't stop them, just like you can't stop them from using tobacco, alcohol or drugs. So what? They don't listen to their parents, teachers or coaches. Let them grow chick tits without becoming a better athlete, and they'll learn soon enough. Nine times out of ten, they'll just get fatter than they would have...much fatter.

Teenagers do stupid stuff all the time, let's not pretend that steroids is some curse.

I have never used roiuads, but I was close before kid #1 came. Kid #1 meant 3 less days in the gym. Kid #2 meant no catchup days.

I wouldn't mind seeing it in pro sports but it's too difficult to implement. In order to allow it in sports, you'd have to decriminalize it. So then what's the rule about using them in the NCAAs? High Schools? Youth Leagues? How do you regulate it? If you put an age limit on it (like say 21) then do coaches and kids in the NCAA manipulate the system so they can have a team full of 21 and 22 year old roided up guys? If you make it 18, do competitive HS teams and kids do the same thing?

You can't do it because of kids, plain and simple, until it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not harmful. It's not like booze or weed. It's performance enhancing.

I'm pro-freedom (from a legalization standpoint).... so yes, I believe people should be able to determine what is best for their own bodies.

I understand, though, that most people feel it is their right to tell everyone else what they can and can't do, however. I think that's called an entitlement attitude. (this is not related to sanctioning bodies that determine rules for MLB, NFL, etc. that's their own products and they can make rules as they see fit.... although I would love to see some roided NFL assholes collide with each other... MLB, not so much...)

xsanguine wrote:I'm pro-freedom (from a legalization standpoint).... so yes, I believe people should be able to determine what is best for their own bodies.

I understand, though, that most people feel it is their right to tell everyone else what they can and can't do, however. I think that's called an entitlement attitude.

The only real form of freedom is anarchy where everyone is allowed to do anything they want and there are no rules. That situation can't last though because the strong will eventually start imposing their will on the weak and the strong will then start making rules and tell the weak what they can and can't do and the rules will apply to everyone but the leader. So, even anarchy requires cooperation and at least one rule that nobody is allowed to make any rules.

I'm not in favor of anarchy. If you're in favor of anarchy, then you have to agree not to make any rules, so, even in anarchy, society is telling you at least one thing that you can't do. If you're not in favor of anarchy, then there have to be rules about what people can and can't do, so, who gets to make the rules? Understand though, the moment you agree to some means of making rules, then it becomes problematic to define an unassailable line that the rule makers aren't allowed to cross.

Steroids take what you have and make it more. If you're fast they will make you faster, if you're strong they will make you stronger, if you're a jerk they will make you a raging asshole.

They also are very safe when taken responsibly. However, in professional sports there are so many athletes that would abuse them allowing them would not be safe.

Code_Warrior wrote:we'll have a bunch of people with God knows what kind of steroid induced medical issues.  It's just not worth it IMO.

If only God knows what medical issues that steroids is alleged to have induced, maybe steroids isn't as unhealthy as we think it is...our medical science community here in this country is excellent. If there were obvious health risks, we'd know about them already.

Izzo Court wrote:Steroids take what you have and make it more.  If you're fast they will make you faster, if you're strong they will make you stronger, if you're a jerk they will make you a raging asshole.

They also are very safe when taken responsibly.  However, in professional sports there are so many athletes that would abuse them allowing them would not be safe.

Maybe we just trust that athletes are not abusing them...and if they are, that's on them.

WCS wrote:

If only God knows what medical issues that steroids is alleged to have induced, maybe steroids isn't as unhealthy as we think it is...our medical science community here in this country is excellent. If there were obvious health risks, we'd know about them already.

We do have some information:
http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20050316/why-steroids-are-bad-for-you.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/anabolic-steroid-abuse/what-are-health-consequences-steroid-abuse

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/fitness/in-depth/performance-enhancing-drugs/art-20046134

To quote from a couple of them:

1. From the NIH article: "Most data on the long-term effects of anabolic steroids in humans come from case reports rather than formal epidemiological studies. From the case reports, the incidence of lifethreatening effects appears to be low, but serious adverse effects may be underrecognized or underreported, especially since they may occur many years later. Data from animal studies seem to support this possibility. One study found that exposing male mice for one-fifth of their lifespan to steroid doses comparable to those taken by human athletes caused a high frequency of early deaths."
   
2. From the Mayo Clinic Article: "Many athletes take anabolic steroids at doses that are much higher than those prescribed for medical reasons, and most of what is known about the drugs' effects on athletes comes from observing users. It is impossible for researchers to design studies that would accurately test the effects of large doses of steroids on athletes, because giving participants such high doses would be unethical. This means that the effects of taking anabolic steroids at very high doses haven't been well studied."
   

So, I'm no expert, but it seems like, at this time, God only knows the long term impacts because they haven't been studied in a rigorous way.

Code_Warrior wrote:
We do have some information:
http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20050316/why-steroids-are-bad-for-you.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/anabolic-steroid-abuse/what-are-health-consequences-steroid-abuse

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/fitness/in-depth/performance-enhancing-drugs/art-20046134

To quote from a couple of them:

1. From the NIH article: "Most data on the long-term effects of anabolic steroids in humans come from case reports rather than formal epidemiological studies. From the case reports, the incidence of lifethreatening effects appears to be low, but serious adverse effects may be underrecognized or underreported, especially since they may occur many years later. Data from animal studies seem to support this possibility. One study found that exposing male mice for one-fifth of their lifespan to steroid doses comparable to those taken by human athletes caused a high frequency of early deaths."
   
2. From the Mayo Clinic Article: "Many athletes take anabolic steroids at doses that are much higher than those prescribed for medical reasons, and most of what is known about the drugs' effects on athletes comes from observing users. It is impossible for researchers to design studies that would accurately test the effects of large doses of steroids on athletes, because giving participants such high doses would be unethical. This means that the effects of taking anabolic steroids at very high doses haven't been well studied."
   

So, I'm no expert, but it seems like, at this time, God only knows the long term impacts because they haven't been studied in a rigorous way.

Then for the sake of science, we need to flood the research with data points and the only way to do that is to allow athletes to use performance enhancing material.

Code_Warrior wrote:I'm against it.  While making it legal for the pros sounds good, it also means that the lower levels of competing will feel even more need to start taking them and they won't have access to the expertise needed to do it safely.  Since the vast majority of lower level athletes will never get to the pro level to cash in, we'll have a bunch of people with God knows what kind of steroid induced medical issues.  It's just not worth it IMO.

I lean this way as well.

And hasn't it already been proven that PEDs increase risk of injury?

WCS wrote:

Then for the sake of science, we need to flood the research with data points and the only way to do that is to allow athletes to use performance enhancing material.

  

I'm not opposed to chicks who get fake tits - so why should I care if some athlete uses roids?

No pictures posted - like you don't know what I'm talking about

Bigger Stronger Faster

Great...Another homo thread

I have started this thread topic no less than 3 times on tCock.

Jor El wrote:I have started this thread topic no less than 3 times on tCock.

Then go over there if you love that place so much....no one is forcing you to be here.