11/21/24
October 07, 2010
Brent Musburger: Steroids Might Be OK: There may be a place in sports for pro athletes under a doctor's supervision to use steroids to improve performance, broadcaster Brent Musberger told a group of college students at the University of Montana. "Here's the truth about steroids: They work," he said. "I've had somebody say that, you know, steroids should be banned because they're not healthy for you. Let's go find out. What do the doctors actually think about anabolic steroids and the use by athletes? Don't have a preconceived notion that this is right or this is wrong."
Banning steroids no longer really has anything to do with athlete health, and organizations like WADA and USADA barely bother anymore to even pretend that it does.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:24 PM on October 07, 2010
Even this doctor method would be unfair. What if one doctor allowed an athlete to use them, and another doctor told another athlete "no." Then we have people using steroids again under the table hoping not to get caught.
posted by roberts at 12:57 PM on October 07, 2010
It's a modern day "witch hunt" complete with rules that change after the "transgression" happens. In baseball it's especially bad as player's are being castigated for something that was completely within the rules of the game _when_ they did it.
posted by slackerman at 01:01 PM on October 07, 2010
And that WASN'T within the rules for both the NFL and the IOC.
Sorry, but i'm a bit of a purist when it comes to sport. I want to see an athletic contest. I don't want to see one team of juiced guys against those who play it strictly straight. That's not a true sporting contest, and never will be.
And for the evidence about what steroids do, just look at the litany of dead professional wrestlers who pumped themselves full of the shit to get ahead because Vince likes a big man.
Steroids are only acceptable if there is a good medical reason. Wanting to hit a ball further or harder is not an acceptable reason under any circumstances.
posted by Drood at 01:46 PM on October 07, 2010
I'd say that MLB and NFL players have it better off than others, not worse. They at least have some protections under US employment law.
Sorry, but i'm a bit of a purist when it comes to sport. I want to see an athletic contest. I don't want to see one team of juiced guys against those who play it strictly straight. That's not a true sporting contest, and never will be.
If you feel that way, do you also believe that athletes who train at altitude should not be allowed to compete against those who train at sea level? What about athletes whose parents had money to give them better training when they were young, should they be allowed to compete with athletes who went through the school of hard knocks?
Anti-PED legislation has never been about establishing a so-called "level playing field", for the very good reason that there is no such thing.
Steroids are only acceptable if there is a good medical reason.
Incorrect. Medically necessary steroids are still banned, and athletes who use them to treat medical conditions are disqualified.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:15 PM on October 07, 2010
I for one feel steroids are here to stay as is HGH and and other non steroidal substances. In fact is there is never a level playing field as the very nature of training is to gain some sort of performance dvantage. As LBB said, whether it is training at altitude, nutritional supliments, strength training, genetic engineering, or surgical repair and enhancement, etc every athlete is on a constant quest to find a way to a better performance.
What I find so weird is that some might want an asterisk next to say Barry Bonds HR record but nobody really acknowledges that although he used steroids that may or may not have helped him to hit a higher number of homeruns, he did it against a lot of juiced pitchers. In effect, leveling the playing field as Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron did not have to face the Roger Clemens' of the world. Every record or sports accomplishment has to be taken in the context of the time and era in which it occured.
It just so happens that this is the era of performance enhancing drugs and blood doping. The next era will be genetically engineered athletes and surgically enhanced ones.
posted by Atheist at 02:45 PM on October 07, 2010
I think there should be a Maximum Weight in the NFL, say 275 pounds. These 350 pound freaks will have an L50 of age 57 I fear. I know that isn't only a steroid issue but some of the body types the NFL demands are extremely unhealthy.
posted by rumple at 03:31 PM on October 07, 2010
Incorrect. Medically necessary steroids are still banned, and athletes who use them to treat medical conditions are disqualified.
Perhaps you are talking about Olympic-type sports, but I believe MLB players can use steroids under a doctor's care if they get a therapeutic use exemption, although it is rare (but not so rare for a bunch of amphetamine-type drugs, ostensibly used to treat ADD and the like).
I love this quote from Musburger:
Musburger said negative stories about steroids are mainly the fault of "journalism youngsters out there covering sports (who) got too deeply involved in something they didn't know too much about."
Now, maybe just about anyone is a "youngster" to Musburger, but I recall a lot of gray-haired sages of the journalistic persuasion wringing their hands with great agony over the scourge of steroids.
I also wonder how much of Musburger's viewpoint is tied to the fact that he is, at this point, largely a football commentator. In football, the general consensus seems to be that it is great to see bigger, faster, stronger players and more bone-crushing hits. No one seems to get that worked up about steroids in football and you see a fraction of the ink devoted to failed drug tests in football (or the PED culture in football generally) than that for baseball. I think this also ties into the fact that football is very much a team game, where the incremental advances that steroids give can be explained away as just increasing the quality of the game overall, whereas baseball is largely an individual sport, and those same gray-haired sages of the profession get all up in arms about what the use of steroids is doing or has done to the record books.
posted by holden at 03:36 PM on October 07, 2010
Anabolic steroids do have undesirable side effects: acne, baldness, voice changes ... infertility. But sport itself is far more dangerous, and we don't prohibit it. The number of deaths from playing professional football and college football are 50 to 100 times higher than even the wild exaggerations about steroids. More people have died playing baseball than have died of steroid use.
However, the bigger question is what would steroids do to the sport itself? Steroids fill you with rage, and get guys bigger and bigger. Maybe the "steroids" don't end up killing someone, but the increased speed and violence of Football leads to more incidents on the field? Football is dangerous enough, do we really need roid raging 250 pound receivers and 260 pound safeties?
However, anyone who thinks that 'roids aren't already prevalent in all sports needs to get their head examined. I would guess the number of "juiced" players in football is over 50%. So maybe we've already seen what the consequences are of having 'roids in football.
posted by LostInDaJungle at 01:40 PM on October 08, 2010
Sorry, but i'm a bit of a purist when it comes to sport. I want to see an athletic contest. I don't want to see one team of juiced guys against those who play it strictly straight. That's not a true sporting contest, and never will be.
I hope I'm not alone in recognizing the myths that underpin a position like this. Don't take this personally, Drood, 'cause you're definitely not alone either. I do have to say though that defining what is "pure" about modern sporting contests is a futile endeavor.
[On edit: what LBB said]
posted by Spitztengle at 02:45 PM on October 08, 2010
This is a good debate to have, because it's only going to get harder as technology begins to allow us to direct our own evolution. "Steroids" may be easy right now to distinguish as a PED, but the notion of "Performance Enhancing" is going to continue to be increasingly blurred. Medicine/technology and physical enhancements, as well as safe and directed use of steroid-like substances aren't going to make these things easier to deal with in the future.
Oscar Pistorious is a great current example. He may not run as fast as a legged Olympian (yet), and he may never - but someone, sometime on those blades is going to run faster than a "normal" person. Then what?
We're just on the verge of these things starting to happen with regularity.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:15 PM on October 08, 2010
Oscar Pistorious is a great current example.
I was at a conference on (dis)ability and sport a few years back and this was already on the radar ... part of the argument to disallow Oscar ... "because people will amputate themselves to gain an advantage." Weedy, if I'm reading you correctly, you fall into the group of people who believe that this "might" become a reality, albeit perhaps a bit too early yet. You know, when I first heard that argument, it surprised the heck out of me. Of course, there's so much that would have to take place before that would ever happen. But like you said, as soon as someone does exceed what we know as "normal" limits ... all bets just might be off.
The other thing I like to add to this is the rise in what is being called LT (Low Testosterone) diagnoses in men. Middle-aged men who are feeling lethargic and whose free testosterone (or whatever testosterone levels they actually measure (which I don't think is consistent)) levels are "lower" that "normal" for men at that age ... they get "treatment." I've never seen the actual numbers, but gawd would I love to see Usain Bolt's "natural" or "free" or "whatever" testosterone levels and compare them to other guys. From what I'm told by a friend of mine who does research in this area, the "normal" range between men in the upper end, and the lower end is far greater than it is between men and women (or close to it). That's a big difference. If anyone has more info on this, I'd love to see it.
posted by Spitztengle at 07:02 PM on October 08, 2010
No, I don't think people will literally amputate their legs so they can run fast (Maybe a few people, but I don't see it as some kind of trend. I think people really like their legs.) But I do think that surgeries - Tommy John for example. It's very much as perfected a enhancing surgery as there is right now - and other technologies and medicines will drive and blur the line of enhancement and directed proficiencies. This can extend to artificial organs and the like too. In the near future, I don't think we'll just be building replacement organs, but improved organs. My interest is in how this is going to change our culture and outlook as a species, really. How we look at abled/disabled people, how we measure achievements and records and how far we can take it. It's exciting.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:36 PM on October 08, 2010
There was an article (I believe from Slate) a few years ago that discussed the surgery aspect. Tiger Woods had LASIK (or something like it) to take his vision to 20/05 from 20/20. Granted there are lots of reasons to get your eyes improved, but in golf, the ability to see the greens much clearer at much farther represents a significant advantage. Yet there isn't much outcry against it. What we really hate are chemicals-chemicals are icky and unatural. Surgery is done by doctors, so it's ok.
I believe I've pointed out before that I have no problem with athletes doing steroids. Football players kill themselves by playing the game, so health isn't that big a concern. As for baseball players, one good year can lead to a contract that will set a player up for life. Is it worth taking an increased risk of early death for financial payoff? Depends on the payoff, and depends on the person. So, in that sense, I agree with Musburger.
posted by Bonkers at 01:55 AM on October 09, 2010
... in golf, the ability to see the greens much clearer at much farther represents a significant advantage.
Really? These players aren't winging it when they approach a green. They've researched it to the hilt already along with their caddies. I wouldn't think the ability to see more clearly than 20/20 would rate as a significant edge.
posted by rcade at 09:32 AM on October 09, 2010
Dying to be Arnie. Half the liver consisted simply of a crumbly mass, similar to polystyrene for sixth place.
But hey, it's all a big beat-up by the evil WADA, right?
posted by rodgerd at 04:30 AM on October 10, 2010
But hey, it's all a big beat-up by the evil WADA, right?
So we should prohibit boxers from using steroids because that might be bad for them... while they're repeatedly being bashed in the face.
Steroids, like all drugs, wind up being defined by their extremes. You point to 1 guy or 100 guys who have taken 'roids to an extreme and act like this explains the experience of the millions and millions of people who have taken them.
Sport is not safe. Concussions rack the brain and/or joint and ligament damage takes the body in most sports.
Applying you logic, why shouldn't we outlaw cars? They're not safe, and "Dying to be Arnie" sounds a lot more appealing than "Dying to get eggs and milk". Do I need to link to horrific traffic accidents to make that case? I'm sure I could find plenty of heart-wrenching stories and then wag my finger at the rest of you from my moral high ground if I chose.
The current stance against steroids means that they are taken clandestinely without a doctor's supervision and bought on the black market. The real crime of the Munzer situation is that despite all of the obvious signs of abuse, no one stepped up and said anything until he was dead.
posted by LostInDaJungle at 02:37 PM on October 13, 2010
Long-term use of steroids is very much not healthy for you, but neither is playing football. Where do we draw the line?