Steroids

I think it's been said before in this thread that studies have shown that steroids are harmful to both children AND grown women, while no studies have conclusively shown anything regarding adult males.

That article also shows the dangers in unknowingly and inappropriately taking steroids. Adminstering steroids, or any drug, to others without their knowledge and consent, should ALWAYS be illegal, regardless of the legality of the drug.

while no studies have conclusively shown anything regarding adult males.

and for years smoking was ok in hospitals.
lead was used in paint,
and asbestos was used , like everywhere.

at the time,
no study conclusively proved any harmful effects.

which of the above has there never been any litigation over ?
none , because theyre all harmful.

In the 50'd or 60's someone made an
"atomic play kit" for kids
that YES , included ONLY low level radioctive particles.:eek:

cuz at the time,
no study conclusively proved any harmful effects.

when you think about it,
no matter how many studies have done in the last FEW years,
clearly we need to learn to extend the period of examination
to account for "potential long term" effects.

"save the orphans, ah ah ah ah"

We're not talking about smoking, led, or radiation. More importantly, we know a lot more about steroids and medicine now than we did in the 50's and 60's. There have been a ton of studies on the effects of steroids though and, as HGM points out above, the effects are known for women, children, and adult men. As stated, properly administered, steroids are safe for adult men. There are plenty of drugs that are safe for men and not for women, and just about any drug is harmful for children (generally, those under 20).

That article, and these posts, are nothing more than FUD. I'm kind of surprised that some of you seem to fall for this sort of thing so easily, since you guys seem so intelligent otherwise. It's disappointing really, especially since there are good arguments that can be made without resorting to "save the children!" or "the criminals will take over!" nonsense.

Sorry, but if you look about a bit,
you'll notice that every coupla years the gov't flip flops on whether or not
1 glass of alcohol a day will help you or hurt you.

So lets ask Lyle Alzado or Ken Caminiti how they feel about the safety of roids.

oh gee theyre dead :(

Yes sounds like a perfect thing to promote as being a good thing to kids.
Give em some crack while youre at it ohms.

I think the attitude towards steroids and doping in general, is way too relaxed. This doesn't just go for baseball, but other sports too, like football for example. But back to my point, I think I read somewhere (don't know if it was a credible source or not) that 5% of baseball players were caught with performance-enhancing substances in their blood. This was in spring training this year. And to be frank, I think the number is higher than that too. In the steroid era, the number was up too, if not surpassed, 50% of all major league players. I highly doubt that all today's players are clean. Testing has come a long way since then, but let's be real, they aren't nearly doing enough.

Football has an even worse attitude toward it than baseball does now.

I get a bit aggravated when I see things like, "In the steroid era, the number was up too, if not surpassed, 50% of all major league players" stated as fact. While it might be correct, it's just conjecture.

On the other hand, I'd go way beyond, "I highly doubt that all today's players are clean" 'cause frankly, I'd be shocked if ALL of today's players are clean. But then, I'd be surprised if there's not some accountant at an accounting firm somewhere taking steroids because he thinks it'll help him add up columns of figures faster or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

Football has an even worse attitude toward it than baseball does now.

I get a bit aggravated when I see things like, "In the steroid era, the number was up too, if not surpassed, 50% of all major league players" stated as fact. While it might be correct, it's just conjecture.

On the other hand, I'd go way beyond, "I highly doubt that all today's players are clean" 'cause frankly, I'd be shocked if ALL of today's players are clean. But then, I'd be surprised if there's not some accountant at an accounting firm somewhere taking steroids because he thinks it'll help him add up columns of figures faster or something.

---

I agree with you when you say that football has an even worse attitude towards it.

:eek: Let me go on record....before this turns into 15 pages about steroid use.......and someone says something stupid.....and gets banned......

Steroid threads are not a good idea!

:D I agree that the baseball policy towards drugs is not tough enough.....not enough looks like it's being done to make baseball seem like a game of integrity.

Tough, extremely tough rules would put people at ease and make more fans feel good about the game today!

Quote:

---

So lets ask Lyle Alzado or Ken Caminiti how they feel about the safety of roids.

oh gee theyre dead

---

They also self-administered. I knew that would come up eventually though. The easy cop out argument, holding up the dead guy(s).

Quote:

---

Yes sounds like a perfect thing to promote as being a good thing to kids.

---

You and dickay appear to be the only ones promoting anything to kids, here.

ohms come on...

just be cause you dont say "hey kids try steroids" doesnt mean you arent promoting it to them.

I grew up idolizing griffey... If I had known then that he might have been taking steroids (and im not even implying he did) I may have done the same thing to try and get to"the big show"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

They also self-administered. I knew that would come up eventually though. The easy cop out argument, holding up the dead guy(s).

---

It's also funny when those dead guys' deaths have no relation to steroids. One guy had a brain tumor, which may or may not be related to his steroid use, but there isn't even a sliver of evidence that it was.

The other guy died because he gave himself a heart attack by overdosing on cocaine and opiates. Clearly, it was the steroids made him do it. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

ohms come on...

just be cause you dont say "hey kids try steroids" doesnt mean you arent promoting it to them.

---

Just because you say "Adults should be allowed to use steroids if they want" doesn't mean you're promoting it to kids. In fact, it's specifically not promoting it to kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

Well...B*nds lived in a different era than Ruth. Training techniques have vastly improved since then. In general, everyone is a better player than in Ruth's day. So, yes, B*nds would have crushed the pitchign from that era.

But, Ruth was more better than his contemporaries than B*nds was his. Ruth hit over two times the home runs as the next best guy in his day. B*nds never did that.

---

ruth never hit twice the homers of Gehrig, his teammate:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Just curious, but if you replaced the words alcohol and drugs with the word guns and the related deaths attributed to them, would you feel the same way about legalization or making them illegal?? Or do you subscribe to the theory that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." While at the same time claiming "People don't kill people, illegal drugs kill people?" Because of course those are conflicting and hypocritical views to claim at the same time.

And, its nice when I hear folks admit loud and clear that they don not believe in the idea of personal freedom and responsibility. And usually, they are the ones that are the first to point at others actions and judge their patriotism or lack thereof. If one doesn't believe in the idea of individual freedom and responsibility, at least it is refreshing when they admit it.

A person who does believe in freedom will say that that an adult, in the privacy of his/her own home should be able to do with/to his/her own body whatever they choose as long they don't endanger others lives or property. A person who DOESN'T believe in freedom, believes they have the superior knowledge and judgement that they should tell others how and what they can and can't do with thier own bodies. This is not only anit-freedom, but its arrogant, as it implies they know better what's better for you or I than we do.

And BTW, FWIW, there has never been a single CREDIBLE study, NOT ONE, that shows steroid use in adult males is dangerous. Not one. They have shown dangers to children, and to adult women, but not to adult males.

I also wonder how you would feel if suddenly drug companies were able to get the government to pass laws that said you HAD to consume such and such a drug on a daily basis. For example, if some drug company designed a drug that made every employees productivity TRIPLE while at work, I can guarantee you that within months of its inception there would be this clamor for employers to have the right to force their employees to take this drug if they wanted to keep their jobs. Guarantee it.

And having the government FORCE an adult to take a drug he/she might not want is no better/worse than having the government PREVENT an adult from taking a drug he/she might want to take. In both cases, freedom and responsibility of the individual is taken away, while the government is allowed to micromanage these individual's lives and choices. I simply can't think of anything more Un-American than that, as this sounds just like the stories we heard about in police states like North Korea, China, the former Soviet Union, and such.

Me, I believe in personal freedom and responsibility. You want to drink a gallon of coffee (a drug), smoke a pack of cigarettes (a drug), down a fifth of whiskey (a drug), pop some sort of pill (a drug), smoke a joint (a drug), or inject something (a drug), fine. You do so with the understanding that with that choice comes responsibility. Once you do so and get behind the wheel of a car, you are a criminal. If you lose your ability to maintain your self-control and judgement and do something bad, tough, you are still responsible for your actions because you knew this was a possibility when you made the choice to consume whatever drug you chose.

In fact, any crime committed while under the influence of any drug should automatically have some sort minimum number of months or years added on to the normal penalty of that crime because if you can't be responsible with the choices you make, then you do lose your right to freedom. But those who ARE responsible, should NOT lose their right to freedom because of the actions of others.

Guess our streak of agreeing with each other came to an end. :D

---

well said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

ruth never hit twice the homers of Gehrig, his teammate:rolleyes:

---

May I introduce you to 1926 and 1928 ;)
Ruth
Gehrig


and
1919
1920
1921

Wow, talk about a necro.