• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Brent Musburger Advocates Steroid Use

techs

techs

Lifer
http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/10/07/brent-musburger-advocates-steroid-use/

Brent Musburger Advocates Steroid Use

Speaking to students at the University of Montana, Brent “Black-Skinned Stormtroopers” Musberger advocated the use of steroids among professional athletes. “Here’s the truth about steroids,” the ESPN play-by-play man told the assembled crowd. “They work.”

Musberger argues the jury is still out on steroids.

“I’ve had somebody say that, you know, steroids should be banned because they’re not healthy for you,” he told the students Tuesday. “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.”



I wish Brent well in his retirement. Which will probably begin this week.
 
I would like to see the whole transcript before passing judgment. Surely that quote is taken way out of context? I do agree that opinions on steroids are probably better left in the hands of doctors than journalists.
 
This is at least a few days old... I don't think he advocated their use at all. Most of what he was saying was the media writes a lot of uninformed opinions about it.
 
To be honest he's not really wrong, a lot of the people who report on steroids seem to get all their information from after school specials. The reality of steroids is considerably less grim then most people realize(thanks in large part to shoddy reporting).
 
Dwight_M said:
To be honest he's not really wrong, a lot of the people who report on steroids seem to get all their information from after school specials. The reality of steroids is considerably less grim then most people realize(thanks in large part to shoddy reporting).
Click to expand...

Yes, the extreme health risks are nothing compared to a few extra base hits or getting to start in a few extra games.

Life is over-rated. Right Musberger?


Oh, btw. Where have you been, Canseco?
 
techs said:
Yes, the extreme health risks are nothing compared to a few extra base hits or getting to start in a few extra games.

Life is over-rated. Right Musberger?


Oh, btw. Where have you been, Canseco?
Click to expand...

Well, some of those guys do get paid millions and it seems like the health risks are a bit overblown. Plenty of people in other professions basically work themselves to death. Many people regularly consume massive amounts of booze, cigs, drugs or even just fatty food and receive a shortened life.

I'm not advocating that steroids be legal in sports and certainly not saying their healthy for you...but I think Dwight has a point. In the ball player example, I'd say most of them did a conscious cost benefit analysis and decided even with all the draw backs they didn't care.
 
He is right, and the AMA was against the The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.

The Congressional Hearings

In the mid 1980’s, media reports of two problems came to the attention of Congress: the increasing use of anabolic steroids in professional and amateur sports, and a "silent epidemic" of high school steroid use. Between 1988 and 1990, Congressional hearings were held to determine the extent of these problems and whether the Controlled Substances Act should be amended to include anabolic steroids along with more serious drugs such as cocaine and heroin. It is sometimes overlooked that the reported adverse medical effects of steroid use, such as potential liver damage and endocrinological problems, were completely irrelevant to the criteria for scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act.

Many witnesses who testified at the hearings, including medical professionals and representatives of regulatory agencies -- including the FDA, the DEA and the National Institute on Drug Abuse -- recommended against the proposed amendment to the law. Even the American Medical Association repeatedly and vehemently opposed it, maintaining that abuse of these hormones does not lead to the physical or psychological dependence required for scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act. However, the records from the hearings suggest that any "psychologically addictive" properties of steroids were secondary considerations to Congress. The majority of witnesses called to testify at the hearings were representatives from competitive athletics. Their testimony, and apparently Congress’ main concern, focused on legislative action far less to protect the public than to solve an athletic "cheating" problem. Congress wanted steroids out of sports and classified steroids as Schedule III controlled substances. As a result, these sex hormones stand out as a strange anomaly among the codeine derivatives, central nervous system depressants, and stimulants that form the rest of Schedule III.
Click to expand...

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/collins/wrong-prescription.htm

Basically no steroids in sports was more important than health and safety. I see no issue with them if they are subscribed and administered by doctors. Of course congressmen know better than medical professionals.
 
Last edited:
Im all for letting athletes take all the shit they want. If they want to shorten their lives to make a few extra bucks, more power to them.
 
swerus said:
He is right, and the AMA was against the The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.



http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/collins/wrong-prescription.htm
Click to expand...

Yes, in the mid 1980's the AMA was against anything that might limit how a doctor could make money. Couple that with the Reagan deregulation which allowed snake oil salesman to flourish, along with the relatively limited knowledge of steroids effects would have influenced many groups to be against more "regulation" and to say steroids weren't bad for you.

Oh, btw, the AMA used to support smoking. In fact it was a recommended treatment for nervousness.
 
techs said:
http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/10/07/brent-musburger-advocates-steroid-use/

Brent Musburger Advocates Steroid Use

Speaking to students at the University of Montana, Brent “Black-Skinned Stormtroopers” Musberger advocated the use of steroids among professional athletes. “Here’s the truth about steroids,” the ESPN play-by-play man told the assembled crowd. “They work.”

Musberger argues the jury is still out on steroids.

“I’ve had somebody say that, you know, steroids should be banned because they’re not healthy for you,” he told the students Tuesday. “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.”



I wish Brent well in his retirement. Which will probably begin this week.
Click to expand...

LOL, athletes kill their body for money anyway, who cares about steroids doing to their nuts.

Not recommended unless you making millions.
 
techs said:
Yes, in the mid 1980's the AMA was against anything that might limit how a doctor could make money. Couple that with the Reagan deregulation which allowed snake oil salesman to flourish, along with the relatively limited knowledge of steroids effects would have influenced many groups to be against more "regulation" and to say steroids weren't bad for you.

Oh, btw, the AMA used to support smoking. In fact it was a recommended treatment for nervousness.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read anything I posted? Its not a mind/mood/altering drug in any way yet Congress lumped it in with the likes of Heroin or Cocaine. This is the main reason they were against it. Jesus we have seriously dangerous drugs like oxycontin that actually are in epidemic right now and I don't see them worried about that.

That totally makes perfect sense.
 
swerus said:
Did you actually read anything I posted? Its not a mind/mood/altering drug in any way yet Congress lumped it in with the likes of Heroin or Cocaine. This is the main reason they were against it. Jesus we have seriously dangerous drugs like oxycontin that actually are in epidemic right now and I don't see them worried about that.

That totally makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

except that it is a mind altering drug..its well established..
 
swerus said:
He is right, and the AMA was against the The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.



http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/collins/wrong-prescription.htm

Basically no steroids in sports was more important than health and safety. I see no issue with them if they are subscribed and administered by doctors. Of course congressmen know better than medical professionals.
Click to expand...

techs said:
Yes, in the mid 1980's the AMA was against anything that might limit how a doctor could make money. Couple that with the Reagan deregulation which allowed snake oil salesman to flourish, along with the relatively limited knowledge of steroids effects would have influenced many groups to be against more "regulation" and to say steroids weren't bad for you.

Oh, btw, the AMA used to support smoking. In fact it was a recommended treatment for nervousness.
Click to expand...

not that i really support steroid use, but i imagine with doctor supervision, they could actually be used safely.
 
Fenixgoon said:
not that i really support steroid use, but i imagine with doctor supervision, they could actually be used safely.
Click to expand...

Uh, steroids are used by doctors. Quite often, in fact. Many medicines have adverse side effects, but are still used when the benefits outweigh the negative effects.

The Congress basically wanted to add steriods into a well established and legally tested classification of illegal drugs. Among other things this would include steroids in drug education programs. In other words it would be far easier than making a whole new classification for steriods and then having to rewrite thousands of federal and state laws.

Of course pharmaceutical companies and doctors who were making a ton of money off the use of steriods as ped's instead of medical treatment of disease lobbied against this.
 
lol. Good job Brent.


I'm going with the out of context argument as well. The media is actually worse than ATOT and P&N combined when it comes to making shit up. Example
guy A wil say something like "not all fat is bad; you need to fat to survive" then the media takes this "omg guy A just advocated in favor of obesity!!!"
 
techs said:
http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/10/07/brent-musburger-advocates-steroid-use/

Brent Musburger Advocates Steroid Use

Speaking to students at the University of Montana, Brent “Black-Skinned Stormtroopers” Musberger advocated the use of steroids among professional athletes. “Here’s the truth about steroids,” the ESPN play-by-play man told the assembled crowd. “They work.”

Musberger argues the jury is still out on steroids.

“I’ve had somebody say that, you know, steroids should be banned because they’re not healthy for you,” he told the students Tuesday. “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.”



I wish Brent well in his retirement. Which will probably begin this week.
Click to expand...

Watch Bigger, Stronger, Faster. It's an eye-opener about steroids and they make a good case for allowing them.
 
Most simply don't understand them.

Steroids are pretty safe compared to the risks of just playing in professional sports providing they are not abused.

Most of the stories we hear about are due to those abusing them or simply blaming them for other problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top