-steroids- [Archive] - Starting Strength Forums

Sami

12-23-2009, 08:57 AM

i don't mind a rational discussion of the subject. but i am skeptical of a guy who broaches the subject on this board with his 12th post.

personally, I have no issue with someone taking steroids. at 39, I'll be facing declining natural test levels in the near future (if not already). I'll be exploring 'restoration' therapy when the time comes--you better f'ing believe it.

Yeah, clearly he probably should not be taking them now, especially if the OP is still a novice. I don't really see the point, and a novice taking AASs does seem like taking short-cuts. But an elite or advanced lifter taking steroids does not seem like taking short-cuts; it seems like taking the next step in progression (if he/she so desires).

I don't think taking AAS is cheating either, unless you're not upfront about it. If everyone is on drugs, and everyone knows everyone's on drugs, what's the big fucking deal?

homerj742

12-23-2009, 09:09 AM

I'm sensing some troll presence on this forum.

Gary Gibson

12-23-2009, 09:19 AM

Yeah, clearly he probably should not be taking them now, especially if the OP is still a novice. I don't really see the point, and a novice taking AASs does seem like taking short-cuts. But an elite or advanced lifter taking steroids does not seem like taking short-cuts; it seems like taking the next step in progression (if he/she so desires).

I don't think taking AAS is cheating either, unless you're not upfront about it. If everyone is on drugs, and everyone knows everyone's on drugs, what's the big fucking deal?

Strongly agree.

ZKP

12-23-2009, 09:40 AM

Not for me but that doesn't mean not for you. Wait until your fully grown. Regardless of physical effects, you have to ask yourself why you want to take drugs to do something you couldn't do otherwise. Are you a gym Hero or looking to compete in pro steroid events? Even steroids fall under the how your genetically viable you are to their effects. Be carefull and wait your ten years.

Patrick

12-23-2009, 09:40 AM

Yeah if you can't obtain strength without drugs you're a pussy

Let me ask you this: did you respond to folks in this manner before you started reading Rip's posts on his forum? I'm guessing you didn't. What that means to me is that you're a sycophant who is easily led. It doesn't connote that you're particularly tough yourself or that you have some special insight... no more than a parrot who can squak the Gettysburg Address is a great orator or luminary in the history of racial equality in America. On the other hand, Rip's got his personal style and he says it for reasons entirely different than that -- it means certain things when he says it that you can't borrow.

Are you comfortable calling Dave Tate a pussy? All the guys at Westside, including Simmons? Most likely you're not and you stick to anonymous people over the internet. Now, that's a cheap debate tactic because it appears that I'm saying "would you insult very large and strong men of considerable accomplishment" and the obvious answer is no, because even if you're very large, strong, and accomplished yourself you don't want to do that. However, the catch is that those are also smart men who understand the function of steroids in the powerlifting game in particular and in sport more specifically. You could talk to a thousand professional athletes and elite trainers who could tell you that there's a prudent time for someone to take steroids -- you're in your fifth year in the NFL and you really need one or two more seasons to secure your family's financial future before you're forced into retirement. Would I do steroids in that circumstance... you're damn right I would and almost every family man would do the same. Hell -- people work in coal mines for far less fame and money and instead of strong and rich they get lung cancer and trapped by cave-ins.

How about patients with wasting conditions who take androgens so they can lift themselves off the toilet? Again, another unfair trick because I don't believe you think that... but from what you say it's impossible to discern anything except a penchant for name-calling: you don't paint the Mona Lisa with a foam roller so it's probably a good idea to actually develop your ideas if you think you've got something worth saying. Otherwise, what does it add? Why bother?

So yeah, a 17 year old kid taking steroids before he's really honed in his lifting and recovery is a dumb guy who is doing something potentially harmful to himself. And really, a 30 year old guy who doesn't depend on his physicality for his livelihood shouldn't be taking them either because A) what's the point aside from the Bro version of reverse anorexia and B) you might be hurting yourself and your family (prison time isn't exactly conducive to the formation of a stable family unit). And to the OP, if you're "planning" on taking steroids in 10 years because 10 years seems like a significant marker, you need to think it through. You'd take the stuff because you need to be stronger or recover better and because absolutely nothing you can do in the gym, kitchen, or bed can get you there.

Sami

12-23-2009, 09:42 AM

Oh look what just popped up on 70sBig.com.

homerj742

12-23-2009, 10:20 AM

Good read on the 70s big site. Thanks for the heads up...

Koalala

12-23-2009, 12:58 PM

Is Steroid use (not trade) illegal in America?
That's fucked up.

AXB

12-23-2009, 08:07 PM

i don't mind a rational discussion of the subject. but i am skeptical of a guy who broaches the subject on this board with his 12th post.

personally, I have no issue with someone taking steroids. at 39, I'll be facing declining natural test levels in the near future (if not already). I'll be exploring 'restoration' therapy when the time comes--you better f'ing believe it.

You say you don't mind having a rational discussion on the topic, however you were the one who told me to fuck off without any provocation.

As for being a troll, I have been a member of this board longer than you have, and have been reading it since early 2008. I don't post often because most of my questions are already answered for other people.

I made it pretty clear that I'm not interested in using anabolic steroids for at least another decade. I understand the value of hard work and dedication, I have virtually doubled my fucking bodyweight in a span of less than 2 years.

I'm suprised at the amount of negative comments in this thread.

EJLouis

12-23-2009, 09:45 PM

Let me ask you this: ... You'd take the stuff because you need to be stronger or recover better and because absolutely nothing you can do in the gym, kitchen, or bed can get you there.

Great post.

nisora33

12-23-2009, 09:49 PM

For an intellgent, informed and balanced look at steroids (and the supplement industry), watch this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigger,_Stronger,_Faster*

Raskolnikov

12-24-2009, 12:08 AM

Great post.

Seriously. Excellent post.

The steroid debate, quite like the marijuana debate, is so chalk-full with hyperbole and outright bullshit that trying to have an adult conversation, especially over the internet, is a pretty tall order.

I agree that if someone is going to use them, they ought to have a good reason for doing so beyond just some desire to be bigger. I've known three individuals who've used them, two of whom had some not so pleasant side effects (bitch tits and erectile dysfunction). But these idiots had no idea what they were doing, not with a needle full of test, not in the gym, and not in the kitchen. They could have achieved the exact same results with none of the side effects within one year with proper training and diet.

But that doesn't mean steroids are wrong in all cases. For instance, I can see myself using them as I creep into middle age. As my natural test levels start to fall of a cliff, I fully intend on some hormone replacement therapy to improve my quality of life.

PMDL

12-24-2009, 12:20 AM

What do you guys think of steroids?

That's a loaded question.

I think a lot of things about them. Is there anything in particular you want to know, or what?

It seems to me they've been given a bad name much in the same way marijuana has.

Thoughts?

Oh, without a doubt. I don't want to downplay the effects of drug use, because any way you shake it, you're putting a powerful set of chemicals in your body. If you're not completely aware of what that entails, and it's more than just gettin' jakt, then it's not for you.

That said, virtually everything you're told about them, from drug "education" programs in schools and athletic organizations, right on down to literally every media story ever, is either distorted hyperbole or outright lies.

I don't want to come off as pro-steroid, cause really I'm not. But I'm not anti either. I'd rather they be approached as what they are - a powerful tool with real consequences that have to be taken into consideration.

There shouldn't be a moral judgment beyond that. Ok, beyond one: don't enter tested competitions if you're using. That's shitty. But other than that, your choice to take them or not should be your business; the other side of that coin is that you should know what you're doing inside and out (note: this doesn't mean going to a Bro-board and reading threads for six months), and if at all possible, do it under medical supervision.

Stu Hughes

12-24-2009, 01:57 AM

Natural is the only way to go, ancient strongman get strong the natural way, ancient warriors get strong the natural way. Thats how the body is suppose to get strong. Mother nature is always the best way to do things. Unless you are taking part in some competition and is really dying to win it, it is kinda stupid to use roids.

There's nothing natural about a plate-loading barbell and weightlifting shoes. If you want to go for the mother nature argument, then you should only lift big rocks, and do it naked, or you're just a hypocrite.

h k

12-24-2009, 08:23 AM

Some of you guys are extremely naive, or probably just haven't been training for very long. Performance enhancing substances have been and will be a part of higher level sports, be those anabolic steroids or similar substances like peptides, SARMs or gene doping.

George Noble

12-24-2009, 08:42 AM

Taking steroids: not immoral
Grabbing hold of someone's balls and not letting go because they were honest about something: immoral
You guys: jerks

Polynomial

12-24-2009, 02:13 PM

I will look into steroids when I'm in my 40s and my testosterone levels begin to drop (I'm 25 now). But I hope that hard training for the next 15 years will prevent me from having to think much about this subject until well into my 50s.

But let me ask all the steroid haters this: do you take creatine? In PPST it's explained that creatine supplementation helps you keep your "tank" full. Well, when you're 60 and your testosterone levels have plummeted, why can't you supplement? There's a big difference between body builders running test levels of 20 men and medically supervised dosing akin to hormone replacement therapy for women.

I remember reading an article by an older writer who was an amateur cyclist. He decided to see a doctor and take a few supplements to see what effect they have on his body. After taking low doses of HGH, I believe, his joint paint went away and his eyesight improved. While he felt rather unnatural on low level testosterone, he concluded the piece saying that if he had the money, he'd continue taking HGH just because it relieved his joint pain and improved his eyesight to the point where he didn't need reading glasses anymore.

Next you'll be telling me that taking ibuprofen for inflammation is being a pussy.

Polynomial

12-24-2009, 02:27 PM

I also think that some people here feel cheated when a few 20 year old bros look more jacked or lift a lot because they do steroids. It's a fair reaction, but I think it's unwarranted. The point of lifting for a lot of us is not to be the strongest - but to be strong enough. Working hard to get there builds character and skills that youngsters taking steroids simply will not gain. And people notice these things; my friends know where I am every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and they know how hard I bust my ass to get stronger. They appreciate that quality in me, and they think more highly of me than if I was taking shortcuts.

George Noble

12-24-2009, 03:21 PM

but to be strong enough
I'm powerlifter and what is this?

Polynomial

12-24-2009, 03:26 PM

I'm powerlifter and what is this?

You're a competitive athlete. What I said clearly doesn't apply. It's why I said for a lot of us and not for all of us.

George Noble

12-24-2009, 03:43 PM

Just yankin' your chain ;)

Polynomial

12-24-2009, 04:39 PM

Just yankin' your chain ;)

You powerlifters and your chain training! :p

strongdaniel

12-25-2009, 12:13 PM

Like most drugs, I believe that people should have the right to take steroids legally, under medical supervision (obviously there is some room for that already). It's complicated whether or not they should be banned from elite competition. On one hand, perhaps you want to draw a clear line in the sand, so that everyone is competing on an equal level. On the other hand, the nature of elite competition is the will to do whatever it takes to win. Therefore, it is likely that there will always be people willing to break the rules and figure out ways to cheat that are undetectable (from what I understand, that is likely the case nowadays in olympic events like weightlifting).

Personally, I don't see myself using steroids so long as I am 1) a young man with a healthy hormonal balance 2) training at a novice level and 3) so long as AAS are illegal. I can't say for certain, however, that I wouldn't pursue hormone therapy when I reach middle age.

Lastly, I place my ultimate career and my family over my training. As someone who will become a lawyer in the United States, it would be foolish of me to risk all of that, just to increase my squat and deadlift 50-100 pounds.

PMDL

12-25-2009, 04:06 PM

It's complicated whether or not they should be banned from elite competition. On one hand, perhaps you want to draw a clear line in the sand, so that everyone is competing on an equal level. On the other hand, the nature of elite competition is the will to do whatever it takes to win. Therefore, it is likely that there will always be people willing to break the rules and figure out ways to cheat that are undetectable (from what I understand, that is likely the case nowadays in olympic events like weightlifting).

This raises a very interesting and ethically complex argument. Where do you draw the line between what's "fair" and what isn't? Why is taking synthetic hormones bad, but using training methods, implements, dietary strategies, and nutritional supplements considered fair? Why is external equipment OK? Not just powerlifting, but things like footwear or swimsuits or light-weight carbon-fiber implements?

Realistically there is no argument against steroid use in sport that can be constructed from any real moral principles. It relies entirely on tradition and a campaign of misinformation against steroid use - when you deconstruct the "cheating" premise, the goalposts shift to the danger aspect. Of course, the danger aspect is almost entirely manufactured, not based on actual evidence.

Steroids have become bad because they're bad, in other words. That's the extent of the thought process.

Lastly, I place my ultimate career and my family over my training. As someone who will become a lawyer in the United States, it would be foolish of me to risk all of that, just to increase my squat and deadlift 50-100 pounds.

This is the realistic end-game for most people. The legal prohibition is what prevents use by many people. Of course, without a sound basis for the law in the first place, it's often ignored.

Irrational prohibition to satisfy the needs of a loud minority has never been effective at...well, anything.

Platus

12-25-2009, 05:50 PM

For an intellgent, informed and balanced look at steroids (and the supplement industry), watch this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigger,_Stronger,_Faster*For those who haven't seen it yet, the film linked to above does a very good job of exploring the argument below:

Why is taking synthetic hormones bad, but using training methods, implements, dietary strategies, and nutritional supplements considered fair?If anything, I think that the film is using steroids to explore the very concept of fairness that we expect in American life, and of the toll that always desiring to 'be the best' takes on American men (the negative effects of competition do not affect men only, but the film focuses predominantly on male identity).

It seems that most people are more outraged by the perceived 'unfairness' of performance enhancing drugs than they are interested in the potential health benefits and risks. However, sports, as every facet of life, are not fair. We are not all born with the same capabilities or exposed to the same circumstances. Furthermore, the desire to win in elite level competition creates an environment where 'fairness' is not the greatest concern of the competitor, and I would agree that there seems to be a double standard in accepting new material technology to enhance performance while rejecting chemical enhancements.

when you deconstruct the "cheating" premise, the goalposts shift to the danger aspect. Of course, the danger aspect is almost entirely manufactured, not based on actual evidence.The film also makes an interesting and convincing argument about this. One example is that it is illegal for a baseball pitcher to use anabolic steroids, but that it is totally legal and very common for a pitcher to be given glucocorticoids to relieve the inflammation of pitching 90+ mph fastballs - despite the well-known side effects of these synthetic, catabolic steroids (I am summarizing from a documentary, so if my medical knowledge is incorrect, please correct me).

For myself, being 'as strong as I can possibly be' is not important enough to require chemical enhancement. I think that I can reach a more than adequate level of strength to fit my health, recreational, and longevity goals without such measures. But, I don't discount their use based on the belief that they are somehow inherently 'unfair.' Providing uniform access to all enhancements material and chemical would seem to go a longer way towards creating 'fairness' than the current cat and mouse game of drug testing that we see in virtually all sports.

lukeBW

12-25-2009, 09:17 PM

Let me ask you this: did you respond to folks in this manner before you started reading Rip's posts on his forum? I'm guessing you didn't. What that means to me is that you're a sycophant who is easily led. It doesn't connote that you're particularly tough yourself or that you have some special insight... no more than a parrot who can squak the Gettysburg Address is a great orator or luminary in the history of racial equality in America. On the other hand, Rip's got his personal style and he says it for reasons entirely different than that -- it means certain things when he says it that you can't borrow.

Are you comfortable calling Dave Tate a pussy? All the guys at Westside, including Simmons? Most likely you're not and you stick to anonymous people over the internet. Now, that's a cheap debate tactic because it appears that I'm saying "would you insult very large and strong men of considerable accomplishment" and the obvious answer is no, because even if you're very large, strong, and accomplished yourself you don't want to do that. However, the catch is that those are also smart men who understand the function of steroids in the powerlifting game in particular and in sport more specifically. You could talk to a thousand professional athletes and elite trainers who could tell you that there's a prudent time for someone to take steroids -- you're in your fifth year in the NFL and you really need one or two more seasons to secure your family's financial future before you're forced into retirement. Would I do steroids in that circumstance... you're damn right I would and almost every family man would do the same. Hell -- people work in coal mines for far less fame and money and instead of strong and rich they get lung cancer and trapped by cave-ins.

How about patients with wasting conditions who take androgens so they can lift themselves off the toilet? Again, another unfair trick because I don't believe you think that... but from what you say it's impossible to discern anything except a penchant for name-calling: you don't paint the Mona Lisa with a foam roller so it's probably a good idea to actually develop your ideas if you think you've got something worth saying. Otherwise, what does it add? Why bother?

So yeah, a 17 year old kid taking steroids before he's really honed in his lifting and recovery is a dumb guy who is doing something potentially harmful to himself. And really, a 30 year old guy who doesn't depend on his physicality for his livelihood shouldn't be taking them either because A) what's the point aside from the Bro version of reverse anorexia and B) you might be hurting yourself and your family (prison time isn't exactly conducive to the formation of a stable family unit). And to the OP, if you're "planning" on taking steroids in 10 years because 10 years seems like a significant marker, you need to think it through. You'd take the stuff because you need to be stronger or recover better and because absolutely nothing you can do in the gym, kitchen, or bed can get you there.

Reading your whole post gave me diarrhea..... seriously!!!
especially the first part
what does Rip have to do with me? you think only he can call out pussies ?

and it is "psychopath" not "sycophant"

but anyway who the fuck are you ? I was responding to a 16 yo kid not Dave Tate nor any professional athlete..

FYI I am not against juicing in sports where athletes are not tested
if you compete and everyone's doing it doesn't make it ok if the federation doesn't allow it ..
justifiable maybe.. on the other hand if the federation does not test then go ahead and feel no remorse..

The person/team/country with the better medical/scientific staff will have greater chances over some athlete with less $$

It's ok if a private person of legal age takes steroids for their own personal reasons, I could not care less.. like, it's ok if they'd smoke pot or drink cheap beer

But I remain of my opinion , any teenager who decides to take steroids is a pussy

lukeBW

12-25-2009, 09:31 PM

Steroids have become bad because they're bad, in other words. That's the extent of the thought process.

Steroids are bad because they are misused by teens and non professional "athletes",.. In competitive sports steroids are a tool ... but I am still of the opinion that the country or team with the most advanced "tool" has a better chance at winning which puts them in an unfair advantage therefore steroids can't be considered good for a particular sport but only good for the winning team ..

Now if everyone should be given access to the same "tools" there would be no reason to argue.. but we all know it isn't like that

PMDL

12-25-2009, 10:15 PM

Steroids are bad because they are misused by teens and non professional "athletes",

And that misuse comes about because these people don't have access to medical supervision, since possessing or buying these drugs is a felony in the US.

Did the egg hatch the chicken or did the chicken lay the egg?

You don't ban something, then point to the consequences of your ban as reason for keeping that ban in place.

.. In competitive sports steroids are a tool ... but I am still of the opinion that the country or team with the most advanced "tool" has a better chance at winning which puts them in an unfair advantage therefore steroids can't be considered good for a particular sport but only good for the winning team ..

Now if everyone should be given access to the same "tools" there would be no reason to argue.. but we all know it isn't like that

A great many teams can't afford any number of advantages that wealther nations (or at least well-funded sports programs) can provide. Yet those advantages aren't banned.

Why doesn't this standard of fairness apply across the board?

The simple fact is that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs are singled out and demonized, based on pure hysteria and very little empirical evidence to back it up.

Nauticus

12-25-2009, 10:21 PM

and it is "psychopath" not "sycophant"

Actually, the meaning of "sycophant" (a bootlicker, someone who kisses ass) aligns with what he was intending to say

Gary Gibson

12-25-2009, 10:40 PM

PMDL is making a lot of sense. Excellent posts.

lukeBW

12-25-2009, 11:35 PM

And that misuse comes about because these people don't have access to medical supervision, since possessing or buying these drugs is a felony in the US.

Did the egg hatch the chicken or did the chicken lay the egg?

You don't ban something, then point to the consequences of your ban as reason for keeping that ban in place.

You're taking my phrase out of context... I am not arguing that

A great many teams can't afford any number of advantages that wealther nations (or at least well-funded sports programs) can provide. Yet those advantages aren't banned.

can you please name a few ? I was specifically talking about either technological or scientific advantages

Why doesn't this standard of fairness apply across the board?

Good question .. it should

The simple fact is that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs are singled out and demonized, based on pure hysteria and very little empirical evidence to back it up.

That depends on who you talk to .. but really it's not important to me if average Joe wants to use steroids so long that Joe is of legal age

lukeBW

12-25-2009, 11:38 PM

Actually, the meaning of "sycophant" (a bootlicker, someone who kisses ass) aligns with what he was intending to say

Thanks... I missed that,
english not being my main language I thought it was a misspelling

Still have to wonder WTF does Rippetoes have to do with my post ...

PMDL

12-25-2009, 11:42 PM

can you please name a few ? I was specifically talking about either technological or scientific advantages

So you don't think that being able to afford top-notch training facilities, high-caliber coaches, nutritionists, massage therapists, being able to provide athletes with solid meal plans and living conditions, etc etc etc, would constitute advantages?

lukeBW

12-25-2009, 11:51 PM

So you don't think that being able to afford top-notch training facilities, high-caliber coaches, nutritionists, massage therapists, being able to provide athletes with solid meal plans and living conditions, etc etc etc, would constitute advantages?

You need to analyze them one by one.... but generally speaking they are advantages but not unfair advantages, what country does not have a massage therapist or solid meal plans for their athletes?? even 3rd world countries spend decent amount of money to feed and house their athlete well

Steroids are banned in most sports as far as I know , if they weren't banned
they would not constitute unfair advantage, solid meals and trainers on the other hand are not banned so anyone potentially have access to them.

Would you agree that ethiopians are better long distance runners because of their genes and not because they take steroids?

But would you justify another athlete for taking steroids to lessen the genetic gap?

Polynomial

12-26-2009, 12:53 AM

You need to analyze them one by one.... but generally speaking they are advantages but not unfair advantages, what country does not have a massage therapist or solid meal plans for their athletes?? even 3rd world countries spend decent amount of money to feed and house their athlete well

Most countries also have access to doctors and pharmaceuticals as well. That's not the point.

There are two issues with steroids, I think, which causes them to be illegal:
1) not all athletes are willing to do them
and
2) they would make watching sports less enjoyable

After all, it would be unfair to pit drug and drug-free athletes against each other. And making a separate league for drug athletes seems rather stupid for sports like baseball or football. In other sports, such as powerlifting, this does happen ("untested" leagues).

I like the current set up for several reasons. Most importantly, I don't want competitive athletes to have to take steroids to stay competitive. That's why I'm in favor of keeping the Olympic and other sports tested. It's one thing to get a massage; it's another to get testosterone injections.

I'm also fine with the folks who use steroids, as long as they're honest about it.

Sami

12-26-2009, 03:54 AM

That depends on who you talk to .. but really it's not important to me if average Joe wants to use steroids so long that Joe is of legal age

What's the legal age to take steroids? :confused:

kunnar

12-26-2009, 06:41 AM

George Noble

12-26-2009, 07:48 AM

Only some joke powerlifting federations are untested
The WPC does not test.

quadancer

12-26-2009, 08:19 AM

This discussion would make more sense or have more direction if there were classifications between "abuse", "use", and "legal use".
At 56, I'm still asked occasionally if I use juice, but no as often as before; I don't. But that doesn't mean I'm not miserable, sleepless every night, sore, and tend to put on fat like a hog, or lose beef like a P.0.W. - I'd do HRT in a minnit if I could afford it.

kunnar

12-26-2009, 08:26 AM

The WPC does not test.

OK, maybe saying joke federation about WPC is unfair, but it is still not mainstream powerlifting organization. Only IPF is recognized by IOC, is doping tested (many cheaters already caught there) and is in World Games.

If your dream is to be WPC champion then well you can use steroids, but you still cant speak about steroids openly because trading is not legal etc. If journalist will ask you about steroids then you will probably speak about protein powders and make yourself laughable this way.

George Noble

12-26-2009, 09:13 AM

No powerlifting is mainstream. The closest we're getting is the WPC in Britain which is televised when everything works out and the RUM which will be on some TV channel. The IOC's blessing doesn't mean shit since powerlifting will probably never be in the Olympics anyway - and even if it were, that doesn't make it any more mainstream than curling.

coldfire

12-26-2009, 09:48 AM

I can't believe how one can justify steroid usage. Fact is that steroids are simply banned in most serious sports. In Olympic Games they do doping tests. Only some joke powerlifting federations are untested and bodybuilding contests also.
Btw., i have seen some crying sportsman's (get caught doping) in press conferences and Marion Jones was in jail. Think about this.

I don't get it. Just because they are banned you can't justify steroid usage?

kunnar

12-26-2009, 12:05 PM

I don't get it. Just because they are banned you can't justify steroid usage?

They are banned and using them is considered cheating. Of course, theoretically one could justify cheating. Was it you point or what did you actually want to say?

Polynomial

12-26-2009, 12:18 PM

They are banned and using them is considered cheating. Of course, theoretically one could justify cheating. Was it you point or what did you actually want to say?

Bench shirts are banned from raw competitions and using them is considered cheating.

People aren't talking about the same thing that you're talking about.

coldfire

12-26-2009, 12:25 PM

They are banned and using them is considered cheating. Of course, theoretically one could justify cheating. Was it you point or what did you actually want to say?

Considered by who? Is it considered cheating because they are banned? Or are they banned because they are considered cheating?

kunnar

12-26-2009, 12:37 PM

Considered by who? Is it considered cheating because they are banned? Or are they banned because they are considered cheating?

Sorry, i am not going to answer to those questions because i feel that you just want to whine about every little detail.

coldfire

12-26-2009, 12:42 PM

Great logic there.

kunnar

12-26-2009, 12:47 PM

Bench shirts are banned from raw competitions and using them is considered cheating.

People aren't talking about the same thing that you're talking about.

Maybe you can explain more, because i really do not understand what they are talking about then. In most serious sports doping (including steroids) are banned. Such are rules. Breaking rules is cheating. At least in my opinion. Do you agree that breaking rules is cheating? Whats the difference between bench shirts usage in raw division and using steroids lets say for example in powerlifting in IPF where they are banned?

JCavin

12-26-2009, 12:57 PM

My guess would be the unspoken agreement by everyone in the business to violate that rule.

If everyone is violating the rule together, it isn't cheating.

kunnar

12-26-2009, 01:02 PM

My guess would be the unspoken agreement by everyone in the business to violate that rule.

If everyone is violating the rule together, it isn't cheating.

If it really is so then it makes sense. But i am not so pessimistic that every winner in Olympic Games is using doping. Maybe i am just naive.

lukeBW

12-26-2009, 01:13 PM

Most countries also have access to doctors and pharmaceuticals as well. That's not the point.
Generally speaking yes.. but I think it's harder to get access to new products that are created specifically to beat the tests than getting a decent doctor

There are two issues with steroids, I think, which causes them to be illegal:
1) not all athletes are willing to do them
and
2) they would make watching sports less enjoyable

After all, it would be unfair to pit drug and drug-free athletes against each other. And making a separate league for drug athletes seems rather stupid for sports like baseball or football. In other sports, such as powerlifting, this does happen ("untested" leagues).

I like the current set up for several reasons. Most importantly, I don't want competitive athletes to have to take steroids to stay competitive. That's why I'm in favor of keeping the Olympic and other sports tested. It's one thing to get a massage; it's another to get testosterone injections.

I'm also fine with the folks who use steroids, as long as they're honest about it.

I totally agree on this

lukeBW

12-26-2009, 01:23 PM

My guess would be the unspoken agreement by everyone in the business to violate that rule.

If everyone is violating the rule together, it isn't cheating.

That is the problem, not everyone does take steroids and the rule is already written.... so going against it is cheating even if 99% of them do it

and if some don't see it that way then.. sorry !

JCavin

12-26-2009, 01:37 PM

I wasn't talking necessarily about Olympics. Just other competitions in general.

Like I said, it's just what I would guess. I can't see people like Arild Haugen and Marius, or pretty much all of the competitors in WSM, trying to deny steroid use. At least not seriously.

It seems like there would be a sort of silent agreement that to reach the same level of competition you would have to get yourself some gear. Sure, we only see the best of all the competitors on tv. I bet there are a lot of natural guys who failed to make it through to the finals.

They'd have to be idiots not to know that drugs are needed to reach the top in something like that.

Is it fair to all the natural lifters who were put out early by the big juicers that we see every year on tv? I don't know. But, you can't try and make a career out of something like that, knowing very well that the only way to reach the top is by using steroids, and then say it isn't fair.

PMDL

12-26-2009, 02:32 PM

I can't believe how one can justify steroid usage. Fact is that steroids are simply banned in most serious sports. In Olympic Games they do doping tests. Only some joke powerlifting federations are untested and bodybuilding contests also.
Btw., i have seen some crying sportsman's (get caught doping) in press conferences and Marion Jones was in jail. Think about this.

We've already gone over this, kunnar. Did you choose not to read the arguments that have already addressed these very points just so you could add some uninformed stupid to the thread?

kunnar

12-26-2009, 02:40 PM

What arguments?

PMDL

12-26-2009, 02:42 PM

So you really didn't read the thread before posting your RAR ANGRY opinions. That's all you had to say.

kunnar

12-26-2009, 02:50 PM

So you really didn't read the thread before posting your RAR ANGRY opinions. That's all you had to say.

I read but for me those arguments looked void. And everything you dislike to hear is not stupid.

Phil Stevens

12-26-2009, 03:09 PM

Both are personal choices and neither are immoral. I know great people in all walks of sport who are on and who arent. Its a personal choice and like someone said above steroids performance enhancing drugs are and will be a part of high level sports FOR EVER.

I lift in a fed where anything goes. I am also and have been on replacement therapy for 7 years. I was diagnosed hypogonadial the most extreme case my doc had ever seen on a regular scale of 300-900 being normal I had a total T level of 42. Like that of a nun after menopause but still I trained my ass off and had a near 600lb deadlift at a body weight of 215.

anyway now I am on replacement which means I am not doing body builder doses etc, and I continues to make great progress. I am at a lecvel a healthy male would be yet lift in and Out lift, seeing as I have three national records, many lifters in a fed that aloows any thing goes. do I care. NO. If I am worried about what someone else takes then I am not worrying about me and there work I need to put in. Either way you have to work HARD i dont care what your taking it wont allow you to skip that hard work needed.

Again I persoanlly do NOT over use any substance by choice of my own, and lift in a fed that allows anything. I will tell you for a fact the largest thing wrong with performance enhancing drugs. Is that people who rightly so choose not to use for health or moral reason use it for an excuse for being weak as piss.

I was deadlifting over 6 plates at a body weight of just over 200 at 6'1" tall with near zero hormone levels which in and or itself shows I am no genetic freak.

How why was I able to. Becasue I know the number one thing to getting strong is dont be a pussy, Expect it to be hard take a LOT of back breaking work, Blood sweat and tears.

No drug no anything will make you huge or strong on its own, YOU MUST do it. There is no excuse but your own lack of desire and hard work for you not reaching he strength levels you want. So everyone needs to shut up and quit worrying abouit what others are doing and worry about their selves and what they want.

I know I wont be the strongest man ever. Why?? I am not willing to make the sacrifices and steps that takes which includes many performance enhancing drugs. But thats OK I will still get stronger then I even imagined and every day and thats all that matesr there will be and is no limit no strong enough. Those that takes those steps Fine there are no less a person and what they do is NO less admirable. they are still doing it with the same flesh and bones we are and it is that, our basic structure and or mind that are the number one thing thats holds us back from anything

No excuses drug no drugs you cant be a pussy and put so called Genetic limits on your self if you do you just lost.

PMDL

12-26-2009, 03:19 PM

I read but for me those arguments looked void. And everything you dislike to hear is not stupid.

What's void about them? You feel that circular arguments are solid and beyond reproach? You feel that people should just make crazy claims without evidence to back up those claims?

That's not a very intelligent position to take.

Phil Stevens

12-26-2009, 03:28 PM

As far as only a few Joke powerlifting feds are Non drug tested. Thats a blatant lie, false info. thet Largest feds are, the ones with the most and biggest and strongest lifters.

Fact is THE best lifters drugged and not lift in feds that dont test. This is why I lift in a fed thats not tested and for the sad fact most feds dont accept a medical reason like my own for replacement. And the fact of who wants to lift in a fed that when you go to the worlds its in central ohio and your lifting against 5 other lifter from small towns and you dont have to qualify, That is not a worlds.

A worlds is held around the world and contains the best lifter in the world. performance enhancing drugs are here ton stay they ARE ion the olympics and MUCH more then everyone wants to beleive and in every other sport.

That is NOT saying do them, Its saying accept it as fatc they are and will always be a part of making people bigger stronger and faster Flat out and will not stop. Its not a moral issue and it is NOT wrong to take or not takes them.

what IS wrong though is taking them and competing in a sport, such as that in the Olympics or a fed that they are banned and continuing to compete.

If the world was right they would wake the hell up and make seperate games. Or a pro level. Any PRO sport IMO anything should be able to be used. NFL, NBA. MLB etc If I was paying a player multi million a year to paly a god damn game he / she better fucking well do EVERYTHING in their power to win for me and that including performance enhancing drugs. they are getting payed MILLIONS to play a game at a PRO level. If you dont want to take that step, you make that choice and dont become pro as that is your career decision to make or you better be good enough to cut the mustered without it, because just like it is today all your teammates and your competition is doing it and their is another guy in line working to take your pay check away.

kunnar

12-26-2009, 03:42 PM

What's void about them? You feel that circular arguments are solid and beyond reproach? You feel that people should just make crazy claims without evidence to back up those claims?

That's not a very intelligent position to take.

In my opinion i did not made crazy claims without evidence. There have been doping caught sportsman's press conferences with tears and Marion Jones was also in jail because of doping, these are not crazy claims. Well, maybe this post was too angry, sorry, i was just disturbed by some posts that tried to justify steroid usage and honestly i still do not see good point behind them.

PMDL

12-26-2009, 03:45 PM

In my opinion i did not made crazy claims without evidence. There have been doping caught sportsman's press conferences with tears and Marion Jones was also in jail because of doping, these are not crazy claims. Well, maybe this post was too angry, sorry, i was just disturbed by some posts that tried to justify steroid usage and honestly i still do not see good point behind them.

You seem to be missing the meat of the argument because you're too busy looking at the fat on the plate.

It's not gonna help you very much to only look at the consequences of existing drug policy and appeal to that as good reason for steroids being banned.

This discussion is more about the ethics of the drug-use policy itself, which you seem to be glossing over.

Polynomial

12-26-2009, 03:52 PM

i was just disturbed by some posts that tried to justify steroid usage and honestly i still do not see good point behind them.

The thread started with someone asking about steroid use. Not for competition, but for personal use. At that point a bunch of knee-jerk responses were posted calling the guy a pussy. After that the discussion went off on several tangents.

So, are you disturbed by
a) justifying steroid usage in tested sports
or
b) justifying personal steroid usage?

Phil Stevens

12-26-2009, 04:11 PM

The thread started with someone asking about steroid use. Not for competition, but for personal use. At that point a bunch of knee-jerk responses were posted calling the guy a pussy. After that the discussion went off on several tangents.

So, are you disturbed by
a) justifying steroid usage in tested sports
or
b) justifying personal steroid usage?

I think your points are very valid.

I think again what the biggest problem with both those who dont use and bitch about it and many that I hear who want to use is the same.

The ones who dont use them as an excuse for being weak as they dont have what it takes to train hard and 2 many of those who do use try and think they (the drug) would do the work for them. Its a societal problem a world of weak minded pussies to speak less then scientific.

As for the actual facts on drug use. The ONLY reason they are really banned is the make people better. FLAT OUT. Not do to repercussions or side effects but due to the fact they enhance the human body??? sounds a bit fishy to me and I can tel you for a fact you will see in the next ten years a huge shift in the use of hormone replacement via Testosterone and HGH etc taking care of many of the junk meds that are now legal and kill people.

Its not the Use of them, thats cause any problem, its the ABUSE and even that the reports and witch hunts arwe unwarranted for. If you want to attack someone attack Tylenol for the masses that die from its use.

Things like those OTC drugs and handfuls of prescription drugs are MUCH worse. I feel it should be personal choice,. If one is willing to accept the consequences then you should be able to get them medically supervised. and in pro NOT amateur sports they should be allowed.

Tenement Funster

05-09-2010, 09:50 AM

2) they would make watching sports less enjoyable

The McGwire-Sosa home run race single handedly rejuvenated a sport that was dying due to strikes and low attendance and viewer ratings.
It seems like most people don't understand what steroids do. They're not just some pills you pop that turn you into the hulk. The fact is the most professional athletes are supplementing with something, a lot of the times with something like HGH so their body doesn't fall apart from all the abuse it takes. I guess it's different with something like the Olympics where you have countries competing against each other, but when it's a pool of ridiculously talented people that get paid ridiculous sums of money purely to entertain you
with exciting games, I just don't see why the roids are such a big deal.
Here's a good article to read if you're interesting in steroid use in the NFL
http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sex_news_sports_funny_grok/the_steroid_interviewsprofessional_football

gordonrumble

05-09-2010, 11:17 AM

Arise, zombie thread!

I don't personally approve of steroid use in sports. The idea being that it's the best of us working hard and showing what they are physically capable of. It's inspiring and motivating. When athletes use steroids, I understand that they must still work hard but that impression is lost. It becomes a freak show. If someone was playing tennis and they had servomotors in their joints or someone was doing high jump with springs on their shoes, I'd feel the same way. I get that it's still hard, it just ups the limits of possibility, but I'm interested in seeing what the human body and mind can do, not the modified human body and mind assisted by AAS.

For people taking AAS as performance-enhancers recreationally, it's foolish. Outside of HRT, there's no place for them unless you have some kind of insecurity.

WaWa Bird

05-09-2010, 03:04 PM

Bigger Faster Stronger* on youtube. Then again, if you hate cheating don't watch a pirated copy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-8MY1Gep_A

gordonrumble

05-10-2010, 12:56 AM

Watched the documentary. Dark stuff.

It sometimes tries to justify steroid use by saying 'but we have all this other crap that's terrible for you like alcohol and pot and that's legal, why not steroids?', and then throwing out mentions to the prescription drug culture in the US. Instead of making me think that we should add steroids to the pile, it makes me think that the culture is just generally fucked up regarding chemicals.

The mention of other things like eye surgery do bring up the point that we need to figure out just what should be illegal in sports, and test better for it.

JStrong

05-10-2010, 01:26 PM

Question--

I've considered steroids for RECOVERY, does anyone have info on the effects on repairing damage/healing? I've shied away so far becuase I don't want to get my body producing less testosterone once I stop, and I actually am leery of getting huge. But recovering from injury and repairing damage genuinely intrigues me.

Anyone have any intelligent commentary on the recovery effect of steroids and how to weigh it against the negative effects on natural testosterone production.

Are there better recovery products than anabolics?

Aslin

05-10-2010, 01:47 PM

Anyone know if the old man used them back in the day?

gzt

05-10-2010, 01:47 PM

I should think HGH would be more what you're after. There are message boards elsewhere on the internet devoted to discussion of this illegal stuff. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2574291 for an example story.

Jamie J. Skibicki

05-11-2010, 02:45 PM

First off, asking "what do you think of steroids" is a rather useless question. It's like asking "what do you think of drugs". Tylenol and heroin are both drugs. So which steroids? How much? These are more intersting and useful questions.

Also, the circular argument for PED (performance enhancing drugs) is incredible.

Why shouldn't I take them?
Because they are banned
why were they banned
Because they are bad
Why are they bad
Because they are banned

Yes, they have side effects, but so do every other drug out there. Hell, heavy squats have negative side effects, like feeling like shit after volume day, or being generally beat. THe question then becomes at what point does the risk over take the reward. For each person that will be a different place.

But, like most other things in life, most people don't want to discuss them based on outcome or effect (including negative side effects), but have some emotional knee jerk reaction to them.

bomb1977

05-11-2010, 03:13 PM

I have my opinions on Steriods, I was a skinny 6'1" 160 pound 18 year old kid back in 1995 and I didn't know any better. When I got into working out, i just assumed they were a part of it.

Remember that back then there was no internet, I couldn't go online and research everything and come to the conclusion that it's not worth the risk.

I ended up doing a cycle of water based pills because I didn't want to get zits. From there I was hooked and went into a cycle that required needles.

Long story short, I got lucky. I didn't know any better and I didn't suffer anything negative to my health. I was young and bullet proof back then. I wouldn't take the same risk today, no way...no how.

No pct...nothing after the fact. I re-adjusted normally over time. At 18-19 you can get away with it, but you might get burned.

I crash dieted maybe 5-6 years back on the atkins diet and stripped all of the ill gotten gains away, I ended up back at 165 pounds and steadily have been building myself up in a more natural manner.

Yeah I have been around the block a few times...

I won't do sterioids ever again and I am very outspoken on how I got lucky and you shouldn't take the same chance I did...because I was the 1 in 10 that got lucky, so your odds are much lower than the 10% was facing.

Prohormones are even more scary, you can buy them still at GNC. They can still overwhelm your system and shut down your natural test production...I know many people in their late teens/early 20's that are making regular trips to their endocrinologist (sp?) for more samples of Viagra/Cialias while they try to figure out why they can't get it up anymore and have no libido.

Not worth it...

Stay clean, stay natural.

Protein and Creatine Monohydrate are your friends. Regular Bulk versions of both, don't overpay for designer stuff...

I'm very open about my past use, because I don't want to see anybody else make an uninformed decision like I did and not get lucky like I did. Ask me anything and I will be very open with you regarding my experiences with the stuff.

Kev

gordonrumble

05-12-2010, 01:33 AM

First off, asking "what do you think of steroids" is a rather useless question. It's like asking "what do you think of drugs". Tylenol and heroin are both drugs. So which steroids? How much? These are more intersting and useful questions.

Well, most drugs operate under the idea of curing an ill and not enhancing performance when you're already fine. Most doctors will give you medication when they believe that the benefits in treating you are worth the downsides. In that way Tylenol and heroin really aren't the same. Heroin isn't used to treat an illness.

Steroids can be used to treat an illness, but in the healthy population when they are used to build unnatural amounts of muscle mass they are not being used in that way. Sometimes they're used to enhance a professional career or win at high-level sports events where the real debate lies, but most people who use them (85%, according to Bigger Stronger Faster) just use them to look jacked or to lift monster weights for kicks. To me that's very stupid and similar to substance abuse, but i guess to each their own.

Sami

05-12-2010, 04:13 AM

Well, most drugs operate under the idea of curing an ill and not enhancing performance when you're already fine. Most doctors will give you medication when they believe that the benefits in treating you are worth the downsides. In that way Tylenol and heroin really aren't the same. Heroin isn't used to treat an illness.

Steroids can be used to treat an illness, but in the healthy population when they are used to build unnatural amounts of muscle mass they are not being used in that way. Sometimes they're used to enhance a professional career or win at high-level sports events where the real debate lies, but most people who use them (85%, according to Bigger Stronger Faster) just use them to look jacked or to lift monster weights for kicks. To me that's very stupid and similar to substance abuse, but i guess to each their own.

Drugs are used for many, many reasons. Not just to cure something. In fact, technically, most don't cure a damn thing. They improve symptoms. They make you feel better. They improve something.

Heroin is used medically. Exactly like Tylenol. It's an analgesic.

Like you, I also find many people stupid. People that smoke 2 packs a day and people that are more often drunk than not. At least with PEDs, they're are improving themselves. Yes, there are serious consequences when abused; but when used correctly, the benefits far outweigh the side-effects (subjective I suppose). With tobacco and alcohol, you're simply doing some damage to the body, just to feel better. Nothing wrong with that, but they don't exactly improve anyone.

Don't take any of this the wrong way. I don't smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or do steroids at all. But I don't see any damn reason to ban any of them. Because I can't see any damn reason they are that different in the end.

quadancer

05-12-2010, 07:51 AM

Steroids can be used to treat an illness, but in the healthy population when they are used to build unnatural amounts of muscle mass they are not being used in that way. Sometimes they're used to enhance a professional career or win at high-level sports events where the real debate lies, but most people who use them (85%, according to Bigger Stronger Faster) just use them to look jacked or to lift monster weights for kicks. To me that's very stupid and similar to substance abuse, but i guess to each their own.

There is use and there is abuse; you can't be stupid and do 'roids or you'll be in trouble; it is rather complicated and takes some study. I'm not using them, (save for much-needed TRT) but were I to push for personal gains with them, would that be the same as smoking, crap-eating, drinking, thrill seeking cliff jumper stuff?
I think not. As is, powerlifting gives me motivation, discipline, some mass and strength - that eventually increases a little, but diminishes as I age. 'Roids would be the one alternative if I lost motivation and wished to make more gains than the small increments I now experience over long periods of time.
Not being the 'happy go lucky' type, I think the personality increase of using would be detrimental to my often argumentative marriage. The one small cycle of test I did showed me the direction that was going.

Campbell

05-12-2010, 09:33 AM

Heroin is used medically. Exactly like Tylenol. It's an analgesic.

Actually "Heroin" is just a brand name created by the Bayer pharmaceutical company to sell diacetylmorphine.

From 1898 through to 1910 diacetylmorphine was marketed under the name heroin as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough suppressant.

bie

05-12-2010, 10:02 AM

It is used medically though... just called "diamorphine" in the UK.

Sami

05-12-2010, 11:31 AM

gordonrumble

05-12-2010, 12:29 PM

Actually "Heroin" is just a brand name created by the Bayer pharmaceutical company to sell diacetylmorphine.

From 1898 through to 1910 diacetylmorphine was marketed under the name heroin as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough suppressant.

Sure, and cocaine used to be in Coca-Cola. Times change as people realized what those drugs were doing to people.

I think I'm just talking with crossed lines here. Taking steroids to lift monster weights for no particular reason just doesn't seem like a good call to me, but again, to each their own. If everyone was the same, the world would be a pretty boring place.

Chewie_jrc

05-12-2010, 01:05 PM

gordonrumble

05-12-2010, 02:26 PM

Disclaimer: I do not use AAS or other drugs other than the occasional ibuprofen and the more than the occasional alcohol.

Get off your high horses. Who gives a shit what this guy wants to take. Let him do some independent research, weigh the risks, and do what the fuck he wants with his body. Who cares if you think somebody wanting to "looked jacked" is stupid. Who cares if YOU think it's unsafe. I think msingh needs a "California smile" but Im not going to lobby in congress to have his ass curbed...as tempting as that might be.

Also, all combat arms soldiers/marines should be put on anabolic steroids and strength training prior to combat. That is all.

definition:

Forcing someone on to the ground, commanding them to open their mouth and place their teeth on the side of a curb or slab of concrete, and then stomping on the back of their head/neck, effectively smashing all of their teeth, breaking their jaw, and possibly killing them.

Holy shit. Did he murder your family or something?

As for being on my 'high horse', this whole topic is nothing more than a place for people to voice their opinions. I don't like steroids, and I stated that. I'm not going to run out and start imprisoning people who touch AAS, but in the context of this thread I think it was fair for me to say that I don't like them and what they say about our society. I'm not a huge fan of excessive alcohol consumption, hard drug abuse or smoking either as they do have social costs and we'd probably be better off without them, but I think people should be allowed to discreetly harm themselves if they want to.