|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
|
In the current day, the use of steroids has gained quite a bit of publicity in many popular sporting events. While being "outed" as a steroid user generally leads to career death and ostracization by the general public, the prolific use of anabolic substances is well known and generally accepted by those in inner circles of many popular athletic competitions. (Olympics, UFC, MLB...etc)
Ben Johnson tested positive for anabolic steroids in the Seoul Olympics in 1988 and had his gold medal stripped, along with becoming one of the most notorious sport-related pariahs in history. Carl Lewis then was awarded the gold, despite the fact that he was known to be taking steroids as well (along with every other 100m sprinter from that time until now).
Should we continue with this charade, as doctors and testing methods continue their seemingly enternal "arms race" type struggle in order to try and constantly outdo each other. Or should we open the flood gates and get it all out in the open?
|
|
Rank: Lurker
Joined: 11/30/2006
Posts: 332,008
|
From my personal experience - my first husband was on that Canadian Olympic Track Team with Ben Johnson. (and having met Ben ... a bit lacking in the smarts category)
What a complete Farce and Disgrace to the Olympic community (a community that had always prided itself on the Amateur against Amateur status). Where some of these athletes compete against each other; and then to find that some use Steroids and other have such incredible monetary backing in order to focus 100% on their sport and perform for their Country.
Oh, and let me not get into the professional athletes partaking in an amateur event as the Olympics grrr
My husband was #3 in the country in his event. He qualified for the Canadian team in Seoul. He was the ONLY person on the T&F team that held down a full-time job (as a special titanium welder) and was sponsored by the government to perform for Canada at a payment of $250 a month! wow!!
ooops .... that was a bit of a tangent.
Back to Ben and the Juice - what ever happened to sports for the organic athlete??
I am so not interested in watching sports where the Juice makes you nuts and aggressive and is a lie.
So not interested.
To the athlete that astounds us with his dedication and determination and performs with grace and agility - Show us what you have, without enhancements. That's the guy I would rather cheer on and support ....
Van
|
|
 
Rank: Alpha Blonde
Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 4,456
Location: In your dirty fantasies
|
I can see the arguments for both sides to this. In an ideal world, I think competition should be on a level playing field. Steroids tilt the favour to one athlete over the other. But who could argue that athletes such as Lance Armstrong and Michael Phelps aren't already at an advantage just based on biology alone? Certain athletes process lactic acid faster, have larger lung capacities, faster arm rotations, and longer than average arm-spans for propelling through water. I think it can be argued that in order to be a sports superstar, you have to have at least one freak of nature that will put you at an advantage. So automatically, even without steroid use, it's not "just" about the training/dedication that leads to success. Genetics/biology already creates a non-level playing field. On the other hand, I don't think everyone should just accept steroid use and open things up where people can take whatever they want. We all know this kind of system will lead to extreme abuses and probably more deaths as athletes are encouraged to push beyond even the norm of what steroid use was intended for. I hate roids personally. I think they have very negative effects on those that use/abuse them. I think that keeping them "formally banned" is still the only answer. Even if they are still being used, I assume it forces people to jump through more hoops to access/use them and avoid getting flagged with testing... and I think that's probably still preferable to openly accepting them. I do think it's a shame for those that get crucified when they get busted for steroid use. The media loves to make an example of them, and we are supposed to believe that these are the only "villains" in the game. No, they were just dumb enough to get caught. And Van, having also met Ben Johnson... I totally agree with your assessment! LOL Definitely a bit uhmm.. "lacking". 
 The complete 50,000+ word novel, inspired by the original short story, is now available for instant download on Amazon.com *Forum Announcement and More Dirty Details* *** Click here to read my NEW Hardcore rough sex story. Now a Lush Editor's Pick selection! ***
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
|
I tend to agree. I think completely allowing steroid use will open up a whole can of worms and lead to mass abuses and possible negative health effects. I just find it a bit dumb that some offenders are crucified while other offenders are ignored simply because they haven't been "outed" yet.
And where do we draw the line? What substances are deemed "performance-enhancing" enough to be illegal? I mean, pseudoephedrine (a common component of sinus medication) is banned in the olympics since it is a mild stimulant. Should we bann caffeine as well? What about creatine or protein supplementation? EPO and blood doping are disallowed, but athletes can train at high altitudes to increase hemoglobin levels in their blood, which has similar effects. Where do we draw the line? Don't we all want to see people hit home runs and run the 100m in 9 seconds?
Some people are misguided and think that doing steroids will turn a shitty athlete into a great athlete, but that is not the case. It just gives the great athletes a chance to be a little bit better.
And the over-popularized negative effects of roids have also been greatly exagerated. Things like "roid rage", "bitch tits" and testicular atrophy are actually quite rare. With most anabolic steroid users, the worst side effect they encounter is back acne.
We can keep the regulations, but don't get bent out of shape when your favorite superstar makes a minor mistake, takes the wrong masking agent on the wrong day, and then gets nabbed for using "illegal substances."
|
|
Rank: Forum Guru
Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,030
|
I had heard a story that Ben Johnson was asking for a rematch of the 1988 100m race, arguing that since that time, every single runner from that finals race has tested positive for a performance enhancing drug. We all know it's a publicity stunt idea to make a little money, but when you can look back and say that every single runner did it, then it is a little unfair that Ben Johnson is hated so much more than the rest.
As for whether steroids, blood doping, and any other performance enhancing drug should be used in sports, I would say yes, because it is really just entertainment, and if someone wants to risk their long term health for millions of dollars, they should be welcome to do so.
The problem is kids. And I'm not saying it in the bullshit "athletes are role models" way. I'm saying it in the sense that there are millions of kids who grow up with aspirations of being a professional athlete. And since a lot of professional sports careers start at 18, if you are going to show you have what it takes, you have to be at that level at least a year before, therefore be using steroids at the age of 17, or even 16. That's too young, and there are too many kids that age that think they have a shot, but don't.
When I tore my rotator cuff at the age of 15, my dreams of playing pro baseball died. But I still played with and against players who thought they had a shot, and would have done anything to make it. That's too young to decide whether your shot is realistic enough to risk your health for it. Better to ban them completely, than to have to try and decide when the kids trying to get in to these sports are old enough to take the drugs.
|
|
|
Guest |