steroids - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-08-2004, 08:00 AM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,211
Local Time: 11:53 PM
steroids

okay, so, just for the sake of argument, amids all this Giambi confession and the need of an asterix by all of Barry Bonds' records, just how much of a problem are steroids? consider: we just learned that some 40 percent of Americans are on some kind of constant medication - the line between pharmaceuticals that actually cure illness and those that enhance our quality of life (viagra, anyone?) is getting blurrier all the time. what is health, after all, if not somewhat relative? our cultural norm is that drugs that do not harm you are perfectly legit in increasing your enjoyment of life, or enhancing your ability to perform certain tasks. Why, then, are steroids so illegitimate in sports? yes, they can harm a body, but only if taken in excess and outside a doctor's supervision. yes, it's unfair when some players use them and others don't. but the answer to that might just as well be universal steroid use as a universal ban. the notion that there is some "pure" human being out there - unaffected by the technology that now enhances our lives in so many ways - is fiction. i'm not that comfortable with a steroid free-for-all; but I'm having a hard time coming up with good arguments as to why I shouldn't be.
__________________

Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-08-2004, 08:03 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 26,355
Local Time: 11:53 PM
I guess I just think sports should still be one "pure" place, and I consider steroids to be cheating. It's not fair to have athletes working out and taking good care of themselves the "old fashioned" way losing to juiced out people.

Not to mention what steroids do to your health.
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 08:13 AM   #3
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,211
Local Time: 11:53 PM
hey -- i agree with you. as a former swimmer, it was such a good feeling watching the US women's 4x200 relay destroy the final East German record this summer in Athens. it was like good finally vanquished evil (i.e., the clean were better than the doped).

but this is an ethical question -- where do we draw the line? why should sports performance be out of bounds for chemical enhancement, but sexual performance (again, that viagra) be in bounds?
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-08-2004, 09:15 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,197
Local Time: 11:53 PM
I think that sports performance should be just that. Athletes aren't robots, but they are role models, especially for a lot of kids. I would love to have kids that are every bit as involved and passionate about sports as I was, but if every professional sport was governed by steroid use, I think it would be very sad.
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 09:19 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 26,355
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
why should sports performance be out of bounds for chemical enhancement, but sexual performance (again, that viagra) be in bounds?

Cause you can't get medals, become idols/role models, or make tens of millions of dollars from sexual performance

I think if we allow steroids in sports, we may as well just create robots to replace athletes
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 09:21 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 10:53 PM
My big issue is, if they dare strip Marilyn Jones or any other recent athlete due to steriods or doping, go back to the pre-Cold War Olympics and strip every Soviet bloc athlete who used them, including the gymnasts on 'peter pan' drugs. If you're not going to do that, leave everybody alone!!
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 09:26 AM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,197
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
My big issue is, if they dare strip Marilyn Jones or any other recent athlete due to steriods or doping, go back to the pre-Cold War Olympics and strip every Soviet bloc athlete who used them, including the gymnasts on 'peter pan' drugs. If you're not going to do that, leave everybody alone!!
Are you for or against steroid use? I do think that we should look at present situations rather than the past, for the sake of fairness.
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 09:46 AM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,211
Local Time: 11:53 PM
okay, but what about tests? are the kids on ritalin at an advantage? what if i weren't ADHD, but Ritalin improved my memory and focus -- why should i not be allowed to use that on test day? when it comes to SATs, and MCATs and LSATs, the rewards for doing well are just as high stakes as olympic medals and world championships.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-08-2004, 09:59 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,197
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
okay, but what about tests? are the kids on ritalin at an advantage? what if i weren't ADHD, but Ritalin improved my memory and focus -- why should i not be allowed to use that on test day? when it comes to SATs, and MCATs and LSATs, the rewards for doing well are just as high stakes as olympic medals and world championships.
I don't know about comparing ritalin - a drug that many kids need - could equally be compared to steroids - a drug that athletes choose to use, even if they could hit home runs without them.
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 10:48 AM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Are you for or against steroid use? I do think that we should look at present situations rather than the past, for the sake of fairness.
It was 'for the sake of fairness' I said that. Some of those East German women in the 70's were so pumped full of steroids they looked like men and guys over here made fun of them. What I'm saying is, fair is fair, if you strip a recent athlete, strip everyone in the past too. Why should they keep their medals and not Marion Jones?
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 11:04 AM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,563
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
My big issue is, if they dare strip Marilyn Jones or any other recent athlete due to steriods or doping, go back to the pre-Cold War Olympics and strip every Soviet bloc athlete who used them, including the gymnasts on 'peter pan' drugs.
Sorry, as a gymnast, I'm naturally curious. Can you elaborate on "peter-pan" drugs? One of the reasons I really like gymnastics is that steriods and performance enhancing drugs are of absolutely no use to our sport. If anything, they hinder performace. There are male gymnasts that struggle with becoming "muscle bound" without the use of steroids.

I would say there IS a difference between performance enhancing drugs and drugs like viagra because athletes CAN fairly win medals without drugs, but a lot of men CAN'T have sex without viagra. Personally, I think taking it for an extra boost or whatever is stupid. I mean, if a guy my age was doing that, it wouldn't turn me on in the slightest. Talk about low self-esteem!
Liesje is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 11:14 AM   #12
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 79
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Using steroids for athletic enhancement is akin to buying off a juror to win a case. It's the height of cheating.

I won't get into the long term health hazards, or the fact that it's an illegal substance unless prescribed, but suffice it to say that this has spilled way down into the high school ranks and polluted our teenage pool. Testing should be mandatory from 9th grade on if you want to play sports...People get athletic scholarships because they have cheated to enhance their abilities. This is patently unfair and something that our culture needs to take way, way more seriously...
bw in dc is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 11:38 AM   #13
The Fly
 
pwmartin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: western Pennsylvania
Posts: 107
Local Time: 10:53 PM
It's all about the benjamins.
pwmartin is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 11:51 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,197
Local Time: 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten


It was 'for the sake of fairness' I said that. Some of those East German women in the 70's were so pumped full of steroids they looked like men and guys over here made fun of them. What I'm saying is, fair is fair, if you strip a recent athlete, strip everyone in the past too. Why should they keep their medals and not Marion Jones?
Ahh... so you meant that we shouldn't credit those so much in the past who have used steroids, if we can't credit those in the present? If that's what you meant, I could agree to it.
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 12:07 PM   #15
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,211
Local Time: 11:53 PM
feels weird to argue for steroid use ... but for the sake of argument (i'm hardly endorsing this viewpoint, i'm just throwing it out there), what's the difference (and who determines the difference) between some of the stuff you can find at your local GNC and what we determine (now) to be illegal? lots of guys use Creatine to increase muscle mass, even though there are worries about it causing liver damage. why is this not a steroid, yet the stuff Bonds was on (proper nouns escape me) is deemed illegal.

are we being anti-science here? should we not embrace technology that enhances human performance? one can argue that the highly scientific drugs given to Bonds and (probably) Jones are light years safer and more scientific than what those poor East German women were injected with by their governments. the health risks are simply not the same as the once were.

we see it as perfectly justified when someone with a good natural singing voice takes pride in his performance, although we're aware that his singing has more to do with talent than with effort and training. if, however, Bono were to improve his singing by the use of a drug, Bono would be denied the same recognition (unless Bono had put a lot of effort into inventing the drug in question before testing it on himself). the point is that both hard work and natural talent are considered 'part of' Bono, while using a drug is 'artificial' enhancement because it is a form of external manipulation.

this brings us back to the same problem: once we know that Bono's 'natural talent' depends on the levels of certain chemicals in his brain, does it matter, morally, whether Bono acquired it from outside or have possessed it from birth? and, if Bono's job is to sing well on a record, just as it is Barry Bond's job to play well, why should we deny either of them the tools to perform at the highest level possible (and further justify their obscene salaries)?

Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-08-2004, 12:08 PM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 32,211
Local Time: 11:53 PM
and, since the technology used to mask steroids is so far ahead of the technology used to detect them, what's the difference anyway?
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 12-08-2004, 12:44 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Sorry, as a gymnast, I'm naturally curious. Can you elaborate on "peter-pan" drugs? One of the reasons I really like gymnastics is that steriods and performance enhancing drugs are of absolutely no use to our sport. If anything, they hinder performace. There are male gymnasts that struggle with becoming "muscle bound" without the use of steroids.
"Peter Pan" drugs are not steroids and have nothing to do with performance enhancement. They were used to temporarily stunt growth and stall naturally physical development, keeping an 18 year old the size of a 12 year old, so she could stay a bouncy little gymnast longer. Sorry I don't have a link, it's one of those many things I saw/heard/read a lot about when I was growing up in the 70's and 80's and didn't read online. It might be on there somewhere if anyone wants to google it or ask jeeves or something.
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 12:45 PM   #18
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Sorry, i forget that American female track athlete's name, the one that was on 20/20 this past week and was using Balco's stuff, etc. She said the steroids, in one sense, are actually good for the athletes health...she felt stronger, less aches, less injuries, she could train more without hurting her body. Without the drugs, the type of training they do results in plenty of injuries.

I'm not advocating for or against (though i have no moral problem with humans making free choices to abuse their bodies; i have a problem with humans breaking laws and or deceiving us and how they achieved their success). But there IS a fair-enough opposite stance to the point that "steroids are bad for your health."

They're bad in some ways and, obviously, good in others (for the person using them at least).
Judah is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 12:53 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 09:53 PM
You have to look at the legitimacy and the reason the drugs are being used.

If you can't have sex and need viagra go for it.

If you need the ritalin go for it. If you are abusing it or using it for edge they should get disciplined.

If you need steroids because you have a bad back like my grandma then use it, but if you're a healthy athlete and you are using they should get disciplined.

The difference between steroids and the stuff you can buy at the mall is that creatine and others don't have any known side effects. Also contrary to popular belief creatine does not actually alter or promote muscle growth. It's a natural chemical already found in your body that increaces short term anaerobic power.

All this being said, this is something the individuals and the sports league need to deal with and not our govenment.
BVS is offline  
Old 12-08-2004, 12:55 PM   #20
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,226
Local Time: 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah
She said the steroids, in one sense, are actually good for the athletes health...she felt stronger, less aches, less injuries, she could train more without hurting her body. Without the drugs, the type of training they do results in plenty of injuries.
I heard cocaine does the same thing.
__________________

BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×