• 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.

Why should steroids be illegal in professional sports?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DOn't forget about "roid Rage".
Not only puts the user of the steroids at risk, it puts others at risk also.
People on roids have been known to become violent towards others and there have been a number of cases where it caused suicidal depression. Some of the attempted suicides were people driving recklesly with the intetnion of crashing to kill themsleves. I for one don;t want someone like that driving on roads where I am.

 
Because most sports deal with physical contests between other groups. Perhaps steroids or other unnatural means of enhancing abilities are frowned upon because they are just that, unnatural. And since they are dangerous, if it became standard for everyone to NEED to use steroids to play a sport, that would degenerate the whole idea of sports.

If you are a kid and want to play football, you need to juice up and endanger your health, there are no options not to juice, because everyone who does play is juicing...
 
uhhh what kind of stupid question is this? i think one of the major considerations is that performance enhancing drugs are in a completely different pharmacalogical class than tylenol, vitamins, or any of the other single action drug. steroids and other drugs are typically potent HORMONES, they are not simply drugs. hormones affect the brain (many times in unpredictable ways) in addition to their target tissue/organ.


=|
 
Originally posted by: gururu
because it is unfair to have to compete with people who are willing to die just to win. the last thing we need are sports where those most willing to die win. it defeats the purpose of what an athlete is.
Click to expand...

I think this is the best reason, too (it's basically what I said in my response to Hammer's post).

Anyway, I've now been convinced that there's a good reason to have steroids banned in sports. Carry on. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: notfred
It encourages amateurs to turn to unhealty drugs?
Click to expand...
I think that's a sound argument. No one wants high school kids self-administering drugs hoping to get a college football scholarship.
Click to expand...
They already do. :frown:
Click to expand...

It's true, and I think that it's still the best argument for disallowing steroid use. While professional athletes may have the resources to administer and regulate steroid use safely, high school athletes do not.

That said, the line between what constitutes "acceptable" and "unacceptable" performance-enhancing substances is being further blurred year after year. How can you call athletic skill "natural ability" these days when science and technology is used to enhance almost all aspects of performance? Whether its better materials for the uniforms/shoes or new dietary supplements or computer-aided training regiments to focus on specific problem areas, athletes use technology to improve every facet of their game. Where does it stop? How do you define an "unfair advantage"?
 
I liked the analogy with danger and car racing...

You put yourself in danger when you're car racing
However, this doesn't change the competitive advantage...

In baseball, you're endangering your life with roids - not taking roids puts you at a competitive disadvantage. Where, in car racing, there is no difference in the level of danger to one's health which provides any competitive advantage or disadvantage.

Suppose that there was a drug that came out next year that would give someone with average ability the ability to run the 40 in 2.5 seconds? The trade-off was that there was an 80% chance of getting a fatal illness (cancer or something) within 5 years of starting to use the drug.

So, 80% chance of dying, but if you take that chance, you're going to get a gold medal in the Olympics. I guarantee that there are people so competitive (or so desperate) that they would be willing to take that chance. Unfortunately, the majority of people willing to take such chances are teen-agers who still have that feeling of invincibility (or the "it happens to other people, but it can't happen to me.") Allowing steroid use in athletes sends the message to kids that it's okay for competition - and the kids don't realize that they're putting themselves in danger. "Sure, it endangers me, but the bad things are more likely to happen to someone else."
 
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Sports == rules. Steroids are against the rules. Period.

Its like asking why we can't have football helmets with razor blades welded onto them, or any other form of cheating.
Click to expand...

I'm asking why the rule exists, and you give me the answer, "because it does". Very insightful :roll:
Click to expand...


Perhaps you didn't understand.

Disallowing modifications to helmets levels the playing field, nobody has an unfair advantage. Same with roids.
 
as said earlier it would basically force everyone to use them. Anyone who didnt load up on steroids would not be able to compete. Then it would be a contest about who could take the most and then they would all be killing themselves.
 
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: pulse8
I thought you were smarter than this. 🙁
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating steroid use, I'm just trying to get solid reasons behind it's disallowment in sports.
Click to expand...

I thought it was obvious.

1) Illegal to use without a perscription
2) Nasty side-effects
3) Telling every kid in America that it's alright to use steroids.
4) Possible player fatalities from use
5) Artifical competition
6) etc.
 
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: Hammer
Originally posted by: HamSupLo
I can see what Notfred is saying. If the athlete roids and screws themselves up, that's their fault and no one elses.
Click to expand...

it puts athletes that don't use drugs at a disadvantage. you're basically forcing them to use drugs to stay competitve. therein lies the problem.
Click to expand...

I was about to say "well, athletes that don't work out as much as at a disadvantage now, what's the difference?" But then I thought about it for a minute, and it IS unfair to essentially require that someone put themselves at unnecesary risk to be competetive. No one runs the risk of disease or death by working out more to keep up eith the other athletes, but they would run that risk ifd they were forced to take steroids to keep up.
Click to expand...
Also, keep in mind that anabolic steroids allow the user to build muscle mass at a rate of 100%-200% the normal rate. Hence, if 2 athletes possess the same natural ability to hit a ball 350 feet (a good estimate of many fences in baseball stadiums), the athlete that uses the roids attains a distinct advantage: one will hit the wall for a double, and the other will hit a towering, 400ft shot. How is that not unfair?

Baseball is about natural ability, not altering your genetics to gain a competitive advantage. Cheating is gaining as much muscle mass in 6 months that takes someone else a year to attain. Popping a painkiller to get the player back to baseline, or the level that got the player to the pro's, is not an advantage whatsoever. Anything that ANY player can obtain and use is not an advantage, like a steroid cortisone shot, or tylenol. Things that are illegal, such as HGH used by AIDS patients and then sold on the black market to players like Bonds, provides an unfair advantage in a)The ability to alter genetic structure/natural ability and b)obtaining and consuming a product that is not only illegal and obtained through illegal means, but at the same time unattainable and accessable by all other players. That is cheating.

 
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Sports == rules. Steroids are against the rules. Period.

Its like asking why we can't have football helmets with razor blades welded onto them, or any other form of cheating.
Click to expand...

I'm asking why the rule exists, and you give me the answer, "because it does". Very insightful :roll:
Click to expand...

The rule might exist because fans dont want to see players doing great things because they're juiced up. The fans want to see a great player succeed because he worked hard for it, or was naturally gifted. Not because he took some steriod. Whether it's morally or legally right or wrong is debatable, but the simple fact is people dont want to see it, and fans keep the sport alive financially, so baseball and other sports will try to eliminate it. That's my take on 'why' the rule exists.
 
Because roids can kill while all those other things cant.

guyX and guyY compete each against each other in sport. guyX trains for 2 hours everyday while guyY trains for 4. guyX has to up his level to 4 or more hours to compete, and guyY may soon need to up his training to maintain an edge. Eventually, they will reach a limit at how much its possible to train, and there will be a "level playing field" where it boils down to natural ability. If roids were introduced to this situation, and guyX and guyY kept upping their roid levels to chase each other and compete, one of them would eventually die, as there is no upper limit to how many roids can be taken. Replace roids with vitamins or protein or whatever supplements, no one is going to die, both guys are just gonna have some funky poops.

As was mentioned earlier, pain killers and antibiotics only allow a player to play at their natural level, it does not elevate the level of play. Also, these drugs need to be prescribed, or it is illegal, like steroids.
 
Originally posted by: rh71
I've often wondered why NO is considered ok in "street races". I guess when all the cars have them, it's even ground again.

In sports, they're all on "even ground" as it is. Would you like to put them all on performance enhancing drugs to see how they perform ? What would be the point then ?
Click to expand...

Take away roids and they're still not all on "even ground". Some have better nutrition, better trainers, better genetics.

 
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: pulse8
I thought you were smarter than this. 🙁
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating steroid use, I'm just trying to get solid reasons behind it's disallowment in sports.
Click to expand...

I thought it was obvious.

1) Illegal to use without a perscription
2) Nasty side-effects
3) Telling every kid in America that it's alright to use steroids.
4) Possible player fatalities from use
5) Artifical competition
6) etc.
Click to expand...

1) Why illegal, though?
2) vitamins and minerals can have nasty side-effects
3) I'm not sure how this point is relavent. we do the same thing with smoking and drinking.
4) Possible, but people die from all types of things they do to their bodies
5) and taking vitamins, minerals, creatine and other supplements is not artificial? Or how about exercise programs specifically designed to get better in the particular sport. is that artificial?



If we want to be on even ground, then everyone should bring to the field what they were born with. There should be no enhancement of your physical ability other than practicing the sport you will be participating in. That is the basic "even ground". Now no one can complain that "well bobby had better nutrition than I" or "well he has a personal trainer". The fact is sport's diets, trainers, supplementation are done to make you better than the next guy. Steroids are no different.
 
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: notfred
Originally posted by: pulse8
I thought you were smarter than this. 🙁
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating steroid use, I'm just trying to get solid reasons behind it's disallowment in sports.
Click to expand...

I thought it was obvious.

1) Illegal to use without a perscription
2) Nasty side-effects
3) Telling every kid in America that it's alright to use steroids.
4) Possible player fatalities from use
5) Artifical competition
6) etc.
Click to expand...

1) Why illegal, though?
2) vitamins and minerals can have nasty side-effects
3) I'm not sure how this point is relavent. we do the same thing with smoking and drinking.
4) Possible, but people die from all types of things they do to their bodies
5) and taking vitamins, minerals, creatine and other supplements is not artificial? Or how about exercise programs specifically designed to get better in the particular sport. is that artificial?



If we want to be on even ground, then everyone should bring to the field what they were born with. There should be no enhancement of your physical ability other than practicing the sport you will be participating in. That is the basic "even ground". Now no one can complain that "well bobby had better nutrition than I" or "well he has a personal trainer". The fact is sport's diets, trainers, supplementation are done to make you better than the next guy. Steroids are no different.
Click to expand...

See my post. Genetics, diet, training, etc. are all natural. It is not natural to shoot synthetic testostorone or harvested horomones into your body.
 
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: rh71
I've often wondered why NO is considered ok in "street races". I guess when all the cars have them, it's even ground again.

In sports, they're all on "even ground" as it is. Would you like to put them all on performance enhancing drugs to see how they perform ? What would be the point then ?
Click to expand...

Take away roids and they're still not all on "even ground". Some have better nutrition, better trainers, better genetics.
Click to expand...
Wrong, they all are on an "even ground". All professional players have, at one point or another, a baseline level of genetics that renders them into the "professional" category. Some are "better" or "greater" professionals than others due to genetics, yes, but generally all in say, MLB, are or have been competitive at a certain point in time to reach the pros. As far as better nutrition and trainers, all have the ability to employ nutritionists and trainers, that's an excuse to say that one has a "better" one than another. All have the opportunity to get these. All do NOT have the ability to obtain illegal anabolic steroids, a variable that will improve genetics. Hence it's cheating.

 
the problem is that someone who is not willing to destroy themselves using steroids will be at a disadvantage against everyone else. It's to make it fair for the people who don't want to use them.
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Wrong, they all are on an "even ground". All professional players have, at one point or another, a baseline level of genetics that renders them into the "professional" category. Some are "better" or "greater" professionals than others due to genetics, yes, but generally all in say, MLB, are or have been competitive at a certain point in time to reach the pros. As far as better nutrition and trainers, all have the ability to employ nutritionists and trainers, that's an excuse to say that one has a "better" one than another. All have the opportunity to get these. All do NOT have the ability to obtain illegal anabolic steroids, a variable that will improve genetics. Hence it's cheating.
Click to expand...

That's a weak argument. Are you telling me that Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez and other superstars don't have access to better trainers than other, less highly paid players?
 
Originally posted by: MrChad
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Wrong, they all are on an "even ground". All professional players have, at one point or another, a baseline level of genetics that renders them into the "professional" category. Some are "better" or "greater" professionals than others due to genetics, yes, but generally all in say, MLB, are or have been competitive at a certain point in time to reach the pros. As far as better nutrition and trainers, all have the ability to employ nutritionists and trainers, that's an excuse to say that one has a "better" one than another. All have the opportunity to get these. All do NOT have the ability to obtain illegal anabolic steroids, a variable that will improve genetics. Hence it's cheating.
Click to expand...

That's a weak argument. Are you telling me that Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez and other superstars don't have access to better trainers than other, less highly paid players?
Click to expand...

The minimum salary in MLB is $300k a year. Decent players making over a million a year can definitely afford very very good trainers and nutritionists. Remember, superstars also had to startout somewhere lower on the foodchain (most of em anyhow).
 
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: MrChad
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Wrong, they all are on an "even ground". All professional players have, at one point or another, a baseline level of genetics that renders them into the "professional" category. Some are "better" or "greater" professionals than others due to genetics, yes, but generally all in say, MLB, are or have been competitive at a certain point in time to reach the pros. As far as better nutrition and trainers, all have the ability to employ nutritionists and trainers, that's an excuse to say that one has a "better" one than another. All have the opportunity to get these. All do NOT have the ability to obtain illegal anabolic steroids, a variable that will improve genetics. Hence it's cheating.
Click to expand...

That's a weak argument. Are you telling me that Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez and other superstars don't have access to better trainers than other, less highly paid players?
Click to expand...

The minimum salary in MLB is $300k a year. Decent players making over a million a year can definitely afford very very good trainers and nutritionists.
Click to expand...

Yes, but someone who makes $300k a year trains with the same people and equipment as someone who makes $2 million a year?
 
Originally posted by: MrChad
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: MrChad
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Wrong, they all are on an "even ground". All professional players have, at one point or another, a baseline level of genetics that renders them into the "professional" category. Some are "better" or "greater" professionals than others due to genetics, yes, but generally all in say, MLB, are or have been competitive at a certain point in time to reach the pros. As far as better nutrition and trainers, all have the ability to employ nutritionists and trainers, that's an excuse to say that one has a "better" one than another. All have the opportunity to get these. All do NOT have the ability to obtain illegal anabolic steroids, a variable that will improve genetics. Hence it's cheating.
Click to expand...

That's a weak argument. Are you telling me that Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez and other superstars don't have access to better trainers than other, less highly paid players?
Click to expand...

The minimum salary in MLB is $300k a year. Decent players making over a million a year can definitely afford very very good trainers and nutritionists.
Click to expand...

Yes, but someone who makes $300k a year trains with the same people and equipment as someone who makes $2 million a year?
Click to expand...

The trainers they can afford should be able to help develop them to a higher level and salary, but like SP33Demon said, there are certain genetics that make players greater then others. But they all can afford very good trainers and nutritionists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top