I answer the "who's going to pay for the drug testing" with "who's going to pay for the regulation of all these drugs when they are legal for athletes?" These still aren't going to be your GNC style drugs. The FDA is STILL going to regulate them, but the job will be MUCH larger with all the folks taking them. Just because you legalize their use for athletes doesn't mean they will be totally unregulated by the government. We could test every major athlete every day of their lives and it wouldn't cost a drop in a bucket next to the cost of regulating the drugs. The FDA is STILL going to take an interest in making sure marketed drugs are NOT harmful...witness the recent VIOXX fiasco. And I know quite a few athletes that used THAT drug routinely in their trainng and racing.

There is a lot of layman drug naivity going on in these discussions, by myself included. I have been set straight by my medical wife. There are a lot of issues we haven't touched, and most of them argue squarely against legalizing PEDs.

   

"The squeaky wheel gets the oil. "

But which will squeaks loudest? The cheap one or the one that hands out cash.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Uh, first off, the closing paragraph is one of the most absurd appeals to authority I've seen in a while. The patronizing tone of "None of you know what you're talking about, but my medical wife does, so I know more than you" is silly. Furthermore, unless your wife does physiology research or is an endocrinologist, her knowledge of the subject is probably restricted to a phyisology class N years ago and her own reading since. Which is probably the level of knowledge of a couple people in this thread.

Who pays for it? Well, my cynical nature leads me to think somehow taxpayers will get stuck with it. But "if I were king", then some split between the pharmas that make them and a collection of players unions, leagues, etc. I.e. the people who make money off the games involved.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most of the drugs we're talking about legal by prescription, and hence already regulated and subject to clinical trials?

Hell, if athletes you know used vioxx regularly while training and racing, they've pretty much subjected themselves to risks at least as great as the PEDs discussed in terms of lifelong ailments.

"But which will squeaks loudest? The cheap one or the one that hands out cash. "

I don't think the question here is cash or no cash. The question is positive cash or negative cash.

Are we willing to spend a few extra bucks for a little more testing, or are we willing to take away alot of bucks in the hope that the organizations “get the message”. My opinion is that simply taking away the cash will do more harm than good. These organizations aren’t sitting around doing nothing, and most at least, are on the low end “paying lip service” to the no drugs policy. In some cases, cycling for instance, a lot of money is already being spent to limit drug use. Is it perfect, by no means. Is it better than no testing at all, depends on your stance on the issue I guess.

Looking at a completely no cash scenario where people get involved in the sport to affect change, I think people often underestimate the power of involvement and even the “getting mad” factor. We’ve seen many legislative and societal actions take place simply because someone was passionate about a cause.

I’d agree that the “corporate” world is far less susceptible to this “emotional” pressure than legislators, but still not entirely immune.

~Matt

"Who the hell is going to pay for the extensive drug testing everyone is screaming for?"

Going to? Apparently WE already are. Since alot of dough is already spent on testing I woudl assume those of us that are involved in the sport are at least partially footing the bill. The question then becomes are we willing to pay a bit more.

"Day of competition testing is useless"

I really have no idea why you woudl say this, not because I know that it is useful, but because I really am not sure how the whole testing thing works. Didn't Kraft get nailed by race day testing? Or am I missing something?

"If you think it'd cost $5 for each entry, you're grotesquely underestimating the level of testing you'd need to make PED use likely to be spotted. "

Completeness of testing would have to weighed against the cost. I don't think anyone is advocating 100% testing of all athletes. Obviously that's not feasible. Simply expanding the Pro's testing into the AG groups would be a start, and certainly not at a cost of 50$ an entry.

"Second point: there's a lot of the-sky-is-falling hysteria about PED use."

This I can agree with. I think PED usage is far below what most people think. I read an article that put positive tests in cyling around .1%. For the average AG'r the cost for some of these exotic drugs is simply prohibitive...unless of course you're rich I suppose.

"Whats the difference between injecting massive amounts of B vitamins and HGH?"

There is no clear cut line, but indeed somewhere a line must be drawn. Isn't the race at some point supposed to be about the individuals ability rather than "equipment"? Why then rules on bike equipment or drafting or even following the same course? Rules are what defines the challenge and makes a best effort to create a similar challenge for all. Without rules wouldn't it be a race of one?

~Matt

Tibbs:

Fear is the issue. We don't know what our world would be like if we legalized PEDS and other drugs such as marijuana. Would we have supersized sixth graders "AHnolding" around the playground? Would crime go through the roof? Would we be destroying the health of an entire generation of chldren by letting them experiment in a no drugs barred environment? When some roid rage induced psychotic teen goes ballistic at his high school and takes out a few hundred people will that mean we've gone too far, or should we simply shrug our shoulders and say "that's the price of freedom"? We have so many risks for our children and teens today, why add yet another fear for parents, teachers, and the legal system? And, how will such an "open system" be fair for all racers? Will race directors be required to divide race classes into, for instance, Military Clydesdales On the Shit? Sheezh....

The reason your libertarian views aren't law is because grownups look before they leap. We've been to the precipice, looked over, and decided not to jump.


-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Malk, after rereading my post, I'll agree that my tone was terribly written. I did not mean to imply that I "know more" than others here because I have a medical wife. (By the way, she is an anesthesiologist, and very aware of how the body reacts to drugs) What I meant is that when you and I (and Tibbs, of course) argue either way about legalizing PEDs from the standpoint of "they only harm the player"...we are not even scratching the surface of the subject. Few of US know much about what we're talking about there. I am certainly not one, as my wife pointed out. So I stand corrected on how my point was written. But I continue to stand by my point on the drug effects.

Yes, many of the drugs here are legal by prescription. But I believe that by "legalizing" PEDs, we'll see an increase in the demand for more effective drugs supplied for nothing more than performance enhancing use. Heck, they're currently illegal, and yet we have BALCO allegedly creating a new performance enhancing drug or two. The cost to the government, and hence to the public, for the regulation of these drugs will expand many times over. The current drugs that are legal by prescription will require further regulation...which costs money. After all, the regulations are not pulled out of thin air, but rather they are developed after extensive testing processes. Current regulations are designed around mostly medical uses of the drugs. You'd better believe that if we legalized steroids, the FDA is going to want to know how much Nandrolone is too much. They're going to want to know what appropriate dosing protocols are for it. And this is with respect to performance enhancing...not with respect to current use. Hence....more testing....MUCH more testing.

Remember, when we talk about "legalizing" PEDs, we are talking about more than sporting organizations allowing their use. We then have to have the governments authorize their use for performance enhancement.

Again, I'm only noting that there are whole angles on the issue that most of us haven't considered. I think we've necked down on where folks stand on whether they consider PEDs "cheating" and whether or not they consider "legalizing" them as the ethical thing to do from a sporting standpoint.

And yes, those folks I know who used Vioxx, are now regretting their decision to use it...having chosen to do so on the basis that it was legal by prescription...and therefore presumed to be safe for usage...but never intended to be used as many of them used it. This in some ways illustrates my point above. The government's initial acceptance of Vioxx had nothing to do with how folks were using it for sports purposes. Had they anticipated this sort of usage, there would have had to have been even further testing for physiological efficacy and reaction under these conditions. Ironically, this sort of testing might have even exposed the significant risk that particular drug posed under ANY circumstances.

Dude the drugs are already legal and kids are already buying them. The pressure is already on the kids to take this shit. It is the ticket to money. Money is what is driving this whole thing. Kids see if they juice they get the bling and they are buying it and they are using it. I have brought up the idea of the law and parents doing something to stop it and I was nicely told to fuck off. There is already a system in place to secure and distribute them through doctors so there will be no need to change how the athletes get them.

I favor stronger testing but I don't see how we are going to get it. I talk legalization because I think it's time we make a decision. Do we want our sports clean or do we want the record performances? It's time we make our choice and do something about it.


"The reason your libertarian views aren't law is because grownups look before they leap. "

Of course that is ridiculous because I am a grown up and I do thoroughly think through all my decisions. I would put decisions I have made in my life against yours any day of the week.

"We've been to the precipice, looked over, and decided not to jump."

The problem with this statement is sometimes that is the decision of the wise and sometimes it is the decision of a coward.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

The problem with this argument is that the "level playing field" is not intrinsic, but is only defined by the rules. At the moment a level playing field is defined as competing without PEDs. However, this playing field is only level from that point of view - in many other ways it is inherently discriminatory and unfair, since people with better natural abilities have a huge advantage (you appear to accept this as intrinsically fair - clearly it is not). As do those who have access to better coaching, equipment, nutritional support, financial support. The only thing that makes sport fair is all competitors sticking to the rules. Changing the rules to legalise PEDs, in itself, does not affect the fairness.

1. Knowing the harmful side effects goes into making the decision to partake or not ... just like smoking and drinking and anything else. Responsibility is part of having freedom.

2. There would still be age restrictions.

The harmful side-effects seem to be a highly individual matter. I'm sure we all know folks or have read about folks that have taken a ton of stuff and did not get even acne or "bitch tits" (gyno), then we know know or have read about folks that got "everything" from small amounts.

The thing is, without bloodwork, we have no idea what harmful effects were done on the important stuff (and I'm not referring to testicular shrinkage). Were the arteries hardened at all? Heart voume? Blood pressure?

As I mentioned before, I used to be a huge bodybuilding fan (actually stopped, not because of the drugs, but because of what many of the athletes do to afford the drugs), and the amount of stuff these guys take just to balance out the "unwanted effects" of the stuff they do want to take is a long-list. These guys are walking experiments ... and when I say experiments, I mean of the Frankenstein variety. Most of them like that idea ... that they are on the brink.

Right now, the biggest risk to HS athletes, IMO, is somebody selling them bad stuff, or straight up vegetable oil.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Tibbs:

This isn't about you, but the ideas you are espousing. We don't need to compare all the mistakes we've made in our personal lives to reach the conclusion that legalizing drugs would possibly cause more problems than it cures.

The PEDS may be legal, but most aren't without a doctor's prescription, at least after January 2005 when the prohormone ban goes into effect.

Taking PEDS out of pro sports can be accomplished through a variety of means, including collective bargaining agreements, regulations, and testing.

I have no illusions about significantly reducing the use of PEDS among the vast throng of amateur and high school athletes, but if their idols aren't using them and are advocating avoidance of drugs, perhaps they will get the message.

Opening the door for everyone over the age of 18 to buy PEDS such as HGH and steroids without a prescription would be not only a health disaster but a moral/ethical one as well. You may think through your decisions, but you don't have a clue what the overall ramifications would be of a broad-based drug legalizaton scheme. You certainly don't know the health costs.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

but if their idols aren't using them and are advocating avoidance of drugs

An example of this in action is "baseball and chewing tobbaco". I first started dipping in 6th grade ... why? because everyone in baseball dipped in the 80s (and before). Baseball and chew just went hand-in-hand. Then, when I was in college, the NCAA banned it and MLB went out a nationwide "please stop it" campaign to their athletes. Many athletes quit, and some (Schilling, Bagwell, etc) had well-known difficulty in stopping. But, the number of teen athletes, from what I can see has to be far less than when I played. Sunflower seeds have replaced dip for a good number of people. Emulation is a motivating factor (we even see that in triathlon equipment purchases).

The message kids are getting right now from Sheffield, Giambi, Bonds, etc ... is that "the cream" and "the clear" should be your favorite colors (is clear a color?). The message the kids need to be getting from authority is "You're not doing that in MLB!" (and mean it).

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

"Opening the door for everyone over the age of 18 to buy PEDS such as HGH and steroids without a prescription would be not only a health disaster but a moral/ethical one as well. "

Never once have I put forward the idea of PEDs being bought with out a doctor’s prescription. If you would reread what I wrote I have stated several time there will be no need to change the way the drugs are currently sold. A team doctor can obtain the needed prescriptions.

As far as the morals go. What is your biggest moral objection to this?

"Taking PEDS out of pro sports can be accomplished through a variety of means, including collective bargaining agreements, regulations, and testing. "

I agree 100%. Again if you would read what I wrote I have said several times I support stricter testing but there is no reason for the sports to do it. People want records and with out dope records are going to be in short supply. A great performance out sales bad press every time.

My whole argument here is we need to be honest with ourselves. We will never put the kind of pressure needed to change things so should we admit we like the effects of drugs and have them out in the sunlight instead of the shadows.

" have no illusions about significantly reducing the use of PEDS among the vast throng of amateur and high school athletes, but if their idols aren't using them and are advocating avoidance of drugs, perhaps they will get the message."

This is not about idols this is about money. The kids don't want to be like Mike, they want to spend like Mike. Dope gets kids in a good college; dope gets kids on the best pro team, dope get the big contract. The days of heroes are dead. It is fame and money that is the driving force and drugs give it to you.

We all talk a great game about PEDs and we all feel real good about how we support real testing and real punishments and really tough rule but I ask again where is the incentive to knuckle down?



"We don't need to compare all the mistakes we've made in our personal lives to reach the conclusion that legalizing drugs would possibly cause more problems than it cures. "

We are already using the drugs. All this talk about preventing is already happening.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

"Opening the door for everyone over the age of 18 to buy PEDS such as HGH and steroids without a prescription would be not only a health disaster but a moral/ethical one as well. "

Also ... lets not forget just how expensive HGH is ... even for medical use only. Not many kids are using HGH. Steroids are readily available on the internet and it's not so secretive. I'd be willing to bet that most kids could [1] order steroids off the net, [2] pay for them, and [3] have their parents never know about it. Especially among high school teens where it's not common for males to leave school one year looking like a boy, and come back looking like a young man.

Everyone over 18 can buy cigarettes ... and wanna talk about a health disaster.

I personally, do not see steroids as a moral/immoral choice ... as long as it's not breaking rules of your sport (cheating is immoral). It is a health-evaluated decision, but what isn't? I still don't think they are for me, but that shouldn't stop anyone else from using them if they feel they are justified.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

EPO is only detectable for 3 days after use, if I recall correctly, and red blood cells live considerably longer than that. Unless there's a new test, the only reason Kraft got caught is that she was sloppy or clueless.

There was an article on the main slowtwitch site a while ago about the costs of testing. Short form: labs cost money, competant people to take samples cost money, out of season testing costs money, having someone knock on your door and take a sample costs money, etc etc.

Re cost of PEDs, well if random gym rats can afford steroids, I imagine a sport populated by $4k bikes wouldn't be clean just because of how much drugs cost.

Re: lines drawn, well there are already a huge number of factors aside from innate talent. Your equipment is already a rather large factor in a lot of sports, how much money your team has for supporting players, your coach, the training regime, all sorts of things aside from innate purity and talent. We're already ok with putting random chemicals in our body to improve performance. People still seem to have a knee jerk reaction to (some) PEDs. I'm not saying we should remove all rules, I'm saying some rules are obviously not working and in a more abstract sense are on the losing side of the big picture factors (difficulty of testing, the audience wanting bigger faster better, etc etc.).

The fact that you can make up stories about the horrible things that *might* happen if we did something is completely meaningless. I can give you a litany of horror stories on what would happen if we didn't legalize em. Lets start with any number of dumb kids who got longer jail sentences than most rapists for selling pot.

Whats wrong with more testing on Nandrolone? What if out of that testing, a drug regimine would be found that would dramatically improve your quality of life past 40? How giddy would the pharmas be if they found a drug that would be applicable to most older men and women and that dramatically improved their quality of life? The problem is that we know far too little about how our bodies work and how to tweak them.

I never supported jail sentences for drug users in the first place.

Apparently, Tibbs is not in support of full legalization of PEDS, which I think is a sound approach. I'm not in favor of his idea about giving pros the right to take PEDS, even if under a doctor's supervision. I see no reason to extend the number of risky drugs available to our population. To give baseball players, in particular, another exemption would be like giving them four strikes. Why should pro athletes get some special drug treatment? Seems odd to me, but then I wouldn't walk into Starbucks in a Speedo either. :)

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

Tibbs, are you cracking? Your arguments had purported to be grounded in realism.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

WHAT I AM SAYING IS SPORTS HAS NO REASON TO SEROUIS DRUG TEST AND DEEP DOWN IN A PLACE THAT NO ONE WILL ADMIT WE LIKE THE PERFORMANCES THE DRUGS BRING BUT WE HATE WHAT THE DRUGS DO. MONEY IS THE LIFE FORCE OF MODREN PRO SPORT SO WE EITHER NEED TO HIT THE POCKET BOOKS OF THE SPORTS AGNECIES SO THEY WILL CLEAN UP OR WE JUST NEED TO GO A HEAD AND LEGALIZE THE USE. EITHER CHIOCE IS BETTER THAN THIS EMPTY SUITED CHIN MUSIC WE ALL GIVE TO THE SUBJECT.

ALL I WAS DOING IS SHOW HOW LEGALZATION CAN BE DONE NOT HURT THE CHILDREN. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!!

I AM BEING REALISTIC! WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW IS NOT WORKING BUT NO ONE WANTS PUT THEIR NUTS ON THE CARVING BOARD AND EITHER FIX IT OR GIVE IN TO WHAT WE REALY WANT TO SEE AND LEGALIZE IT.

I WANT MORE TESTING BUT I DON'T SEE HOW IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE KEEP PAYING AND I DON'T SEE IT LASTING LONG BECAUSE WHEN THE PERFORMANCES STARTING DROPPING SO WILL THE CASH AND THEY WILL LOOSEN THE RULES! SO WE EITHER NEED TO MAKE OURSELVES HEARD OR JUST FUCKING GIVE IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Other than the original Powercrank Thread where we saw one man go through 10 aliases and that went on almost as long as the current Hottie Thread, I'd probably nominate this as one of the longest threads to continute on with such fervent zeal when every last one of the posters has emphatically stated "I speak of that which I do not know." Because of the nature of the elements involved, I imagine those who can actually shed the light of experience on this topic are required to stay silent, which is just another reason I think it should be legalized. Fight on friends.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041207/SPORTS0102/412070326/1007/SPORTS

How did we miss the NYT poll mentioned in the article? :)

Perhaps the poll explains the disconnect between older athletes here and younger ones on this issue?

Welcome to your Brave New World.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

So you are saying: regulation not working, so just toss the regulation and legalize, but, oh yeah, we'll still need to have regulation to protect the children, but it will work.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." The Who.