Urban Cohorts wrote:My question here would be, which side effect are you talking about? Long term side effects I assume? It's going to be years before they have conclusive evidence about the long term side effect profile of anabolic steroids. Post marketing data is still being accumulated, as part of this is the final stage of FDA approval.
Yes, long term side effects. The compete lack of evidence regarding any of this has not stopped the MSM from exaggerating its effects and changing the minds of the many sheep that don't know any better.
And for the record, I'm not advocating that people should or should not use them. Just be smart about it. Don't overdose, don't use them if you are still growing (child/teenager) or a woman (where massive side effects have been proven).
Agreed. That would be the point of having it all medically monitored. To limit or prevent those men from being able to abuse the drug.
bayside wrote:The evidence is certainly out there, but you wont find a trial proving those outcomes.
No, the evidence is not out there to make many of the claims that people do about anabolic steroid use. That's kind of the point.
Last edited by mweir145 on Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Informative interview with Dr. Norman Fost on the issue (who is in that video, IIRC). He addresses the health risks associated with anabolic steroids, talks about their bizarre placement under the Controlled Substances Act, the benefits of having their use be medically-monitored and suggests that unknown risks are not a reason to prohibit them (we don't, after all, prohibit many other drugs with risks, unknown or otherwise): http://www.steroidlaw.com/steroid-law-45.html
RC: The outcry over steroids in sports has always had two components. One is the potential health danger and the other is the "unfair advantage' issue. Let's start with the health risks.
NF: First, I think we need to separate children and adults. I think absolutely they should be banned for children. Steroids can have permanent effects on growth and other metabolic effects, and children are in no position to be making choices about risks. Of course, there are also risks to competent adults. Many of them are reversible or cosmetic such as hair growth, hair loss, or voice changes. Infertility is an extremely common phenomenon in men and women, usually reversible. Certain oral steroids were associated with liver cancer, but to the best of my knowledge that has not been shown with contemporary injectable steroids. Steroid use does change blood lipids undesirably, and if sustained over many years or decades could increase one's risk for heart disease, but I'm not aware of any studies showing an increase in heart disease among athletes who use them.
RC: So, there isn't any scientific proof that the short-term changes that are common with intermittent steroid cycles are connected to heart disease?
NF: Correct, and the cardiologists that I have talked with think that it's unlikely that it would be. Many steroid risks have been wildly exaggerated or misstated in the press. Take the famous interview with Lyle Alzado, the NFL player who developed a brain tumor and claimed, "See? This is what happens when you use anabolic steroids for too long." Nowhere in the article was there a single reference or scientific source for any connection between steroids and brain tumors, because there is none. These stories appear in the leading journalistic media, creating the false impression that the claims are somehow supported by scientific studies.
RC: Have the media fairly put the risks in perspective of other risks that athletes voluntarily assume?
NF: No, not at all. For example, playing in the NFL for three years or more risks an extremely high rate, 80 to 90% in one study, of permanent disability. That's unfortunate, but it goes with the territory and nobody says this is a reason to ban professional football. It's something that competent adults decide to do in exchange for the money, glory and pleasure that they get out of it. We don't think, in America, that people's liberty to take risks like that should be interfered with, just so long as they are not harming anyone else. Whatever the risks of steroids, even the most extravagant view of the risks isn't remotely in that category in terms of potential for permanent disability or even death. There have been dozens of deaths attributed to playing football. I'm not aware of any football players who have died because of steroid use.
RC: Steroid use for athletic performance is banned as "doping" in many sports, so somebody who breaks the rule should be punished, right?
NF: First, this whole idea of calling it "doping" bothers me. The noun "dope" typically refers to illicit narcotics. There's a pejorative tone that is too widely accepted by constantly using the word "anti-doping". It pre-judges the issue, and I think it ought not to be used. Regardless, sports have rules and you have to play by them. If you don't, there are penalties and you suffer the consequences.
RC: Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson seems like the original poster child for that.
NF: To me, the moral issue that is most troubling about the Ben Johnson affair is the way that the press and the public treated this, not just as a breaking of the rule, but as a fundamental moral problem of enormous proportions. We don't make moral judgments about people who commit fouls on the basketball court. It's the claim that Ben Johnson was doing something immoral just because he broke the rule that astonishes me. On the same day that he was discovered to be steroid positive and had his medal taken away from him, American swimmer Janet Evans was holding a press conference about her greasy swimsuit which American technology had developed and kept secret from the East Germans, and which had unequivocally, in her view, shaved seconds off her time and contributed to her victory. Here you have a very clear case of unfair competition and yet this is hailed as a great triumph of American ingenuity. And on the other side you have Ben Johnson, who used something that while banned is universally accessible, being condemned as some sort of moral moron. It's the disconnect between those two events that first got me interested in this and struck me as the most incoherent.
RC: If in a particular sport the rules are silent, you don't see anything inherently unethical in using steroids? You don't see it as an unfair advantage?
NF: It would strike me as one of a thousand things that athletes do to try to gain an advantage over competitors. It is not considered immoral to try to gain a competitive advantage. I would put steroids in the long list of things that athletes do to try to win. Better shoes, better equipment, better training, better coaching than the opponent has. If such advantages were not available to all competitors, then the advantage would be unfair. The usual solution to that is to equalize access. It is remarkable how people brag about manifestly unfair advantages, such as better training facilities, greasy swimsuits, or even superior coaches, and then express outrage about a drug that is generally available to anyone who wants it.
RC: But, doesn't there have to be a line drawn somewhere, however subjective and arbitrary?
NF: Yes, but I don't think steroids are anywhere near it.
RC: What about the claim that steroid use in sports coerces other athletes to use?
NF: "Coercion" is another one of those inflammatory scare words. Coercion in the dictionary means "the use or threat of force." There is no claim that anyone in the United States is being forced into using steroids. You don't have to use them to be successful in the NFL or Track and Field. There are users and non-users. But even if it were true that you couldn't win at the elite level without them, that's part of the cost of playing at that level. There are many risks and deprivations you have to undergo to be a football player, most of them involving far more risk than steroids, or a track star or a gymnast. And if you don't want to do it because it's just too risky, then don't do it. No one is forcing you to do anything, at least not in this country. If they were, that would be wrong.
RC: You're a pediatrician. What about the argument that condoning athletic steroid use among adults sends the "wrong message" to the children?
NF: Again, children should not be using these drugs. I am in favor of whatever it takes, including education and involuntary testing, to make sure children don't use them. There's very disturbing data about middle school children, boys mainly, using anabolic steroids as part of weight lifting programs. According to one study, it's not football players for the most part, but boys who are doing it to make themselves more attractive to girls. The role models aren't athletes. I am more worried about other role modeling in athletics, which I know occurs on a widespread basis and causes much more harm.
RC: What role modeling are you referring to?
NF: The role modeling of hurting people; causing injury; getting the quarterback out of the game; injuring the wide receiver. Look at hockey, where mayhem is mimicked at a very young age. There are articles about the development of youth hockey programs in Canada, in which it's an explicit part of the youth league to teach violence, intimidating and hurting people, because it's viewed that this sort of pit bull training is what it takes to succeed.
RC: If that sort of thing occurs here in the United States, President Bush isn't taking time out of the State of the Union address to talk about it, and Government officials aren't conducting any grand jury investigations into it, as they are into steroid use.
NF: Nor is it even criticized. Or generally reported in the sports pages the way steroids are. Yet I see it all around me. Even the coaches talk about it, "You got to take that guy out of the game". It is widespread and pernicious. As far as I can tell, the use of steroids as role modeling in sports is miniscule compared to that.
RC: What are your thoughts about non-competing adult bodybuilders who elect to use steroids purely for cosmetic reasons?
NF: Whatever ethical issues there are in the use of steroids in competitive sports, which, as I've said, I don't think are worth the attention they receive, they disappear with non-competing personal use. We are not talking about unfair competition, we're not talking about coercion, and we're not talking about undermining the integrity of sport. This is pure personal choice, right up there with smoking, drinking, bungee jumping; that is, choices people make in life which they should be free to make.
RC: Anabolic steroids were placed under the Controlled Substances Act in 1990, limiting the scope of physician prescribing with the threat of criminal penalties. Do steroids belong there?
NF: Whatever the arguments about our regulatory system for narcotics and marijuana and so on, they simply don't apply to steroids. This is not a source of violent criminal activity, school dropouts and all the social problems of illicit drugs. So putting this in that category strikes me as bizarre. If the government is really concerned about safety, if that is really the issue, the steroid situation screams for regulating the drugs through the FDA, and facilitating supervision by doctors. By driving this behavior underground, we have increased whatever risks exist by ensuring that safety studies are not performed, either short or long term. We have also lost control of manufacturing processes, so the user has no way of knowing what, in fact, he is using. The policy of a ban, coupled with criminal penalties, is even more incoherent if safety is the argument.
RC: You've hit on a key theme explored in Legal Muscle. But do you think that steroid administration for the purpose of building muscle in healthy adults could be safely accomplished under the supervision of physicians?
NF: There's no drug in the world that has zero risks. The issues are whether the risks are manageable, whether they are in the same ballpark as other drugs that are widely prescribed, and I think they are, and whether the risks can be reduced to an acceptable level. I think the risks are most reduced under a knowledgeable doctor's supervision. No question, there will always be adverse effects, but the life-threatening or irreversible and disabling adverse effects are likely to be low, and risks a competent adult may choose to take on even if properly informed. If the risks are greater than present evidence shows, the most efficient way to learn about that is through well-designed studies, as we do for other regulated drugs.
RC: Critics would argue that if physicians could prescribe steroids for non-medical reasons, some might begin catering to overly ambitious bodybuilders, pushing the envelope further into more dangerous territory.
NF: Generally most doctors practice medicine in a rational, sensible way and we do have corrective measures for people who practice medicine irresponsibly. We have lawsuits and licensing boards to limit, though not prevent, the possibility of that. Besides, slippery slope arguments are not a reason for prohibiting a technology. All technologies have unanticipated harmful effects, but the possibility of that or even the certainty of that has never before been thought to be a reason for prohibition.
RC: What about critics who argue that the adverse effects of steroids won't be seen or known for years, decades, or even generations?
NF: That's an argument that can be made about any drug, any food, or any device that uses a new technology. It's a reason why we have regulations; why we have an FDA that requires careful testing, and NIH funding for long-term studies. It's a reason to do continuous monitoring of drugs' effects, for having an adverse event reporting system, and for having people using these drugs under medical supervision. Everything has unknown risks. Steroids are no different. The mere fact that there are unknown risks is not a reason to prohibit something.
According to the New York Daily News, Ryan Braun's PED suspension appeal was heard on Thursday. The Daily News' sources say Braun "pleaded his case" in front of a "three-member panel," who will come to a decision on the matter at some point soon. The 2011 National League MVP is strongly denying that he has ever used performance-enhancing drugs, but a test in October came back positive for synthetic testosterone. The 50-game suspension seems likely to be upheld.
"There was a lot of information - there were stories, there were whispers - that this was a personal issue, medical issue, that he was taking something for that may have spiked his test," Patrick said. "I since found out (Sunday) that that is not the case, from somebody involved in the process. Ryan Braun may be exonerated here. He may be found innocent. And judging from all the information I was told, there's a good chance that he should be.
"Now Major League Baseball is pretty cut and dried when they look at your drug test. If you have a spike, like Manny Ramirez when he had a spike, they said all right, you are a busted dude. What did you take? And we eventually found out he was taking a masking agent. With what Ryan Braun is accused of having in his system, it wasn't a masking agent. I think the bigger issue here is the testing and was Ryan Braun a victim of testing (by) Major League Baseball. But let's see how this plays out. . . . The feeling I got (Sunday) from somebody involved in this, it's not as cut and dried as people would think. And Ryan Braun may be an innocent man."
In the second hour of the program, Patrick revisited the Braun issue and added a detail - that two other Brewers players tested at the time had high levels.
"I was talking to someone (Sunday) who was involved in this appeal process and they told me don't jump to conclusions about Ryan Braun, that there is a chance there actually is a legitimate excuse and that he will not be suspended for 50 games," Patrick said. "National League MVP. They had his drug test right before the playoffs and it was spiked with testosterone. He took the test with two other teammates who also had drug tests that were higher than normal. They were a little bit more out of whack."
rotoworld had last night that it could take weeks.
CBS Sports' Jon Heyman is hearing that a ruling on Ryan Braun's 50-game PED suspension could take "weeks." Braun made his appeal to a three-person panel on Thursday, claiming innocence despite testing positive for synthetic testosterone in early October. No positive test has been overturned since baseball implemented its PED policy, but the long time frame between Braun's appeal and MLB's decision suggests that the 2011 National League MVP's case will be diligently reviewed. We'd expect some sort of resolution by spring training.
"There was a lot of information - there were stories, there were whispers - that this was a personal issue, medical issue, that he was taking something for that may have spiked his test," Patrick said. "I since found out (Sunday) that that is not the case, from somebody involved in the process. Ryan Braun may be exonerated here. He may be found innocent. And judging from all the information I was told, there's a good chance that he should be.
"Now Major League Baseball is pretty cut and dried when they look at your drug test. If you have a spike, like Manny Ramirez when he had a spike, they said all right, you are a busted dude. What did you take? And we eventually found out he was taking a masking agent. With what Ryan Braun is accused of having in his system, it wasn't a masking agent. I think the bigger issue here is the testing and was Ryan Braun a victim of testing (by) Major League Baseball. But let's see how this plays out. . . . The feeling I got (Sunday) from somebody involved in this, it's not as cut and dried as people would think. And Ryan Braun may be an innocent man."
In the second hour of the program, Patrick revisited the Braun issue and added a detail - that two other Brewers players tested at the time had high levels.
"I was talking to someone (Sunday) who was involved in this appeal process and they told me don't jump to conclusions about Ryan Braun, that there is a chance there actually is a legitimate excuse and that he will not be suspended for 50 games," Patrick said. "National League MVP. They had his drug test right before the playoffs and it was spiked with testosterone. He took the test with two other teammates who also had drug tests that were higher than normal. They were a little bit more out of whack."
That article concludes with a statement that MLB's testing process takes a credibility hit if Braun is exonerated. I don't know that I agree with that. MLB obviously has a problem with an inability to keep private information private. That much is obvious, and not just from this episode. But if the system identifies a testosterone spike and then exonerates that player through an appropriate appeals process, then I would say the process is working exactly as it should. Maybe the testing protocols get tweaked from a scenario like that, but I don't think it puts a black mark on the system whatsoever. It's not like a judicial system with anything less than a 100% conviction rate is bad. Unless...
StlSluggers wrote:That article concludes with a statement that MLB's testing process takes a credibility hit if Braun is exonerated. I don't know that I agree with that. MLB obviously has a problem with an inability to keep private information private. That much is obvious, and not just from this episode. But if the system identifies a testosterone spike and then exonerates that player through an appropriate appeals process, then I would say the process is working exactly as it should. Maybe the testing protocols get tweaked from a scenario like that, but I don't think it puts a black mark on the system whatsoever. It's not like a judicial system with anything less than a 100% conviction rate is bad. ]
They take a hit no matter what. Maybe it is less if they are completely transparent with why he was exonerated but knowing MLB that isn't going to happen. Most people are only going to know his test was positive and either think he got off on a technicality or that MLB let him off because they don't want another black eye. The damage was already done once the test result was leaked.
What a fckn waste of time - he either tested positive or he didn't. No excuse for this going on so long. MLB screwed up by leaking it in the first place and is now screwing it up again taking so long to resolve the issue. Now we get to hear exposes from Dan Patrick that just add grist to the rumor mill.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by mweir145 » Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:37 pm 
