You must be doing some bad banana peels as you write this stuff.

Plain and simple, steriods are performance enhancing. They allow the user to gain an advantage. Thus they are illegal. There is nothing complicated about that.

I'll quote myself as a service to the reading-comprehension challenged. I am not saying that steroids should be legal in sports.

Furthermore, your logic is still flawed. You claim steroid use allows an advantage over those who don't use it. This is true, but if it weren't against the rules, there would be no advantage because everyone would use it. If you are examing the reason why something is outlawed, you can't cite a consequence of that rule as a reason. Logic 101.

Suzy Hamilton one of the great American middle distance runners has been clean forever as well as being a babe. She lost untold money because the woman that was beating her Regina Jacobs was dirty till she finally was nabbed last summer. I think the mens 800 and possibly 1500 are clean. Everything else is probably tainted.

You paint with way too wide of a brush.

A vast majority of athletes want to be the best at what they do by working harder and smarter than the next guy. It is only those few that will "win at all costs" and have no vision beyond today's Sports Center monent that will cheat.

Question wludavid. Have you ever reached the level in a sport where to take the next step you were tempted by steriods?

Ahh, I understand your point now. I apologize for being impatient earlier.

Let's say (for argument's sake) that IOC decided it could no longer effectively enforce drug rules and made it a free-for-all. Win at all costs, etc. Steroid-users would no longer be cheaters but they would have a tremendous advantage over people unwilling to sacrifice their health. This would make for wonderful entertainment, but it would be the modern day equivalent of Gladiators. Spectators would be entertained knowing full well someone would die. Just in this case, they would die of liver failure at 35 instead of by a sword in the ring.

In this case (and most people would agree) the rules are good, but the rules are in place because of health. The advantage/cheating angle is self-correcting because athletes would do what they needed to win or not compete (ideally within the limits of the rules).

But perfomance enhancing substances is not binary: Steroid and Not Steroid. There is a spectrum. Take creatine. It's legal in pretty much every sanctioning body. When I was competing actively, I decided that the (admittedly mild) health risks were not worth the marginal benefits to a long distance runner. If another runner beat me after training with creatine or after drinking coffee, I wouldn't begrudge him that or cry foul. I guess I'm one of the majority who wants to win by training harder.

However, it wasn't too long ago that weight lifting was considered cheating. The thinking was that you should compete with your god-given muscles. Not long before that, practicing was unsportsman-like. You were either a sportsman or you weren't and practicing sullied the talents of True Athletes. A modern day example of this was when Tiger Woods started winning tournaments. He was one of the few pro golfers who lifted weights. Other golfers had to go along with it or be left in the dust.

To me, it isn't enough to declare something "cheating" just because the majority doesn't want to do it. There has to be a reason to outlaw it. That reason is there with steroids as well as many other substances.

Halm, to answer your question explicitly, I was never tempted to use steroids to gain an edge. Threatening a teenage boy's testicles will do wonders for prevention of abuse! ;) But I never really got a good explanation of why red blood cell doping was unhealthy. If a competitor's body had more cells per kg of muscle just because his body produced more of them, not because he trained harder, why shouldn't I be allowed to add more of my own? I never did this though: it was a rule and I'm a rule-follower. :)

I didn't know there were any serious runners here. What events and what kind of times were you running?

EPO has been known to act as sludge when the blood cell count gets to high. It especially seems to be worse the hotter it is outside.

LOL. Yep the threat of your testicles shrinking up does have a big impact on most men!!!

I do not where to draw the line on substances like creatine. Yes it is natural but so is growth hormone. I am now too far removed to debate that one.

I am old enough and participated at a high enough level to know that steroids were originally banned because they were performance enhancing. Heath issues were secondary because there simply was no data, empirical or antidotal at this point. I think we talk about heath today because of the increasingly young age kids start these programs in hopes of glory.

In any case, during the mid ‘60’s to ‘70’s, the East German women swimmers started experimenting with steriods and they just dominated the Olympics. That may well have been the spring board to multi event / multi sport usage. And also during this time, testing became equally as sophisticated. The serious cat and mouse game we see today between “the federation” and the doper began, in my guess, at the 1972 Olympics. Here we saw 2 things. First a Russian won the 100 and 200 meters. There was little question that he had tapped into the East German’s steroids program.

This was also the beginning of the blood doping you referred to. The Fins introduced that technique and produced winners in the 1500, 5000 and 10k. These guys were one time wonders. Well ok, Lasse Viren came back in 1976 for major Olympic victories. But they never were factors on the world stage before or after, other than their Olympic victories.

The entire Track community knew immediately what they had done and like you because it was “their” blood cells wondered if it was ok. Ultimately we knew it was performance enhancing and just a new way to CHEAT. BTW, blood doping does have a negative impact on the kidneys. It can cause major trauma as they try to filter the excessive and fast dying red blood cells.

So the bottom line is that performance enchanment is cheating. And no one likes a cheater, do they???

I guess it's kind of a chicken-or-egg argument. I still say it's cheating because it's a rule, and you say it's a rule because it's cheating.

I guess arguing on the internet is all it's cracked up to be. ;)

Les Paul, I wouldn't say I was a serious runner by most standards, but I took it seriously. I ran D-III NCAA cross country and a couple seasons of track. Ran a 4:10 1500m a few times. That's a 4:30 mile for those keeping score at home. :) It's not much to brag about at the D-I level, but I'm rather proud of it.

I'm not sure what there is to argue about. Going back to the first Greek games, there has been a code of fair play. Anything that violates that is cheating. Everything from there has been defining "fair play" so people without morals or otherwise perverted common sense know the boundaries. Runners like Regina Jacobs knowingly and willingly broke the code of conduct. Banishment from the sport and elimination of their records is barely adequate punishment these folks. As it should be in ALL sports.

Thanks for the great discussion.

Hypothetically, what if a major sport, say baseball, changes their definition of fair play and allows use of steroids (pretend they are made legal by the govt.). MLB then provides doctors to monitor those on steroids to keep everything safe as possible. Would you still follow baseball the same way?

I guess I would have to ask why any legitimate sport would want to endorse steriods or any any performance enhancing drugs? In the long run, they ruin ownerships most valuable assett: the player.

I don't think any legitimate sport in this day in age would really do that. Steroids first are illegal at this time. And there seems to be a "bad" public perception. I was just curious if one would follow a major sport if such allowances were made. Would steroids change a sport that you wouldn't watch it anymore is what I was after.

I know that use of steroids is cheating as defined by rules, but wondered if in time it would be an accepted evolution of sports. That's what led to the start of this thread to see what other's opinions are.

My thought is that the governing bodies of sports will have to look at perfomance enhancement mechanisms and define for themselves if they will be allowed or not. It will be up to them to decide if certain evolutions would be right for their respective sports. Depending on the sport and what the mechanism is, there will be many different answers.

At this day in age, steroids not acceptable, but who knows in the future. (Maybe in the future, Bonds and McGwire may be hailed as pioneers? :eek: )

Quincy, I guess I missed your point. Yes, I would stop following a sport under those circumstances. There be some that would pay to watch freaks of nuture "compete" but you could do that a few years ago with American Gladiator and pro wrestling. IMHO, most people believe in the spirit of fair play. Hitting a ball further is interesting because it can be measured against other generations. You lose that with steriods.

What drives me crazy about this thread -and the topic in general- is that it is not an intellectual exercise. I can't imagine -in sports, at a minimum- an issue where is easier to see right /wrong. Not only are users breaking the rules and setting bad examples for younger generations, they are totally disrespecting their competitors! There is simply nothing good that comes out of doping.

The conversation I would like to see if how we determine who is a doper and who is clean. For example Marion Jones was married to a doped, had a child by another doper and there appears to be strong evidence that she bought and used "The Clear". But she never tested positive. Should she be banned? Why or why not??? How do we draw the line?

Sorry Hal,
Didn't mean to drive you crazy. Yes, I generally agree this is not an intellectual exercise....... unless you are asking everyone to explain what their definitions of right and wrong are and why, so you could better understand one's position. That's what I was trying to do is to have people tell me their opinions and why their opinions were that way. I'm sorry, I was that aggravating child who repeats "WHY?" after EVERY explanation you give.


Sorry if this thread bothered anyone else. I usually go with the flow and roll with the punches. But every once in awhile a topic comes up that makes me wonder why. This happened to be one of them.