Ethical Hypothesis: What if Steroids Were Safe?
Found this link (it's a press release, summarized below if you don't care to read ads)
http://www.aralifestyle.com/article.aspx?UserFeedGuid=c4912e92-af0a-42a…
Basically, they're advertising a steroid that doesn't have negative steroid side effects. It builds muscle by stimulating stem cells (no, not the ones in labs -- the ones you have aplenty in your body for building new stuff inside you while sleeping).
If this works, I'd like to see what people's thoughts are on a "safe steroid," and its application in collegiate and pro sports.
Even if this product is bollux, you gotta figure they'll come up with a safe performance enhancement drug or 20 in the future, right?
So hypothesis: there's a drug with no negative side effects that can accomplish in a pill what today we accomplish with half of a Barwis workout.
How would you feel about pro athletes taking them? Would you want them banned? How about in college? What if schools put their student athletes on the supplements as a matter of course?
Positives: Free market. Better athletes = better sports. Banning would be really hard to do; I imagine if roids are rampant now even with shrinkage, etc., what if they didn't hurt you? For Michigan, if they're priced out of the range of smaller schools, that's one more big-school advantage.
Negatives: More "explosive" players already has increased injury rates...the modern "big hit" is already dangerously close to the limits of what the hittee's bones and muscles and tendons can reasonably take. Lots of $$$ of athletic budgets going to pharmaceutical companies, NCAA-wide.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:38 AM ^
I'd have a tough time with the notion that the team that can afford the most and best steroids wins.
Besides, there is so such thing as a 100% safe drug. Guarantee, if this happens, an OTL feature in the distant future will cover an athlete who died because his coaches (or he himself) crammed an overdose of supposedly safe steroids down his throat.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:41 AM ^
Even if this product is bollux, you gotta figure they'll come up with a safe performance enhancement drug or 20 in the future, right?
Well, haven't they? What are all the whey proteins, creatine, etc., that guys take now? I understand that these aren't strictly "drugs", but you get my point.
In my mind, the ethical issue with players using PED's right now is simple: they're illegal in the US (either in general or without a prescription) and illegal in the sport. It's the same as scuffing a ball or using a corked bat - they cause an unfair edge over your competition. But - what if corked bats were legal? Would people give moral pause to hitters using them? Of course not.
My issue with athletes taking PED's is that it skews the levelness of the paying field. I'm less concerned with their bodily harm, as it's a decision they're choosing to make.
If they made "safe" versions of PED's that could pass the FDA standards and be legal by baseball, I have a difficult time seeing what the issue would be.
August 17th, 2009 at 8:56 AM ^
I agree, there are many things you can buy to stimulate muscle growth already. Also, I guarantee that some of these 'safe steroids' will be banned over the next few years. Think of all the steroids, or steroid-like products such as Andro that were legal just 10 years ago (maybe more? can't remember the mcguire years). In summary, there will always be regulations on performance-enhancers and these 'safe steroids' are no different.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:11 AM ^
The issue would be that if you wanted to be a pro baseball player, you would be forced to take PED's. Even if it was safe most people probably wouldn't want anything to do with them, so you would render the players who don't take them uncompetitive.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:36 AM ^
About a year ago I started working out and decided to take creatine bc I had heard that it would increase my strength and help me recover faster. I didn't see the effects of it for about 2 months but when it kicked in it was insane. My bench was at 200 max and the day it kicked in I could do 300 2 times. My squats went from 225 one time to 350 five times. I was also able to do all of the weight on the machines with the pulley systems. I went from 180 to 210 in about a month after it kicked in.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:39 AM ^
LOL lies
August 17th, 2009 at 1:12 PM ^
We may have just discovered a negative reaction to creatine use: The inability to recall events correctly and/or the inability to properly add numbers.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:00 PM ^
this is a new contender for stupidest thing ever posted on MGo
August 17th, 2009 at 9:03 AM ^
has anything to do with the fact that they are safe or unsafe, it is because they inhance a players performance. I think the big issue is (at least this is what I think the biggest issue is) that people want to look at sports in their review mirrors and compare what is happening today with what happened in the past.
If you look at baseball for instance, how can you compare todays players with the likes of Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Roger Marris? With the cloud of uncertainty that surrounds baseball players today it is hard to mention anyone in the same breath as these hall of famers. The biggest issue is, safe or not, players from the past didn't have these at their disposal so current players shouldn't either.
This is what sports is now, everyone trying to compare current athletes to past legends. Tate Forcier isn't simply Tate Forcier, he is the next Colt McCoy or Jeff Garcia...People want to be able to look at current stars and compare them to the stars of the past and if the playing field changes, that can't be done (at least accurately).
I say keep them out.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:18 AM ^
It's folly to compare performances across generations irrespetive of whether a certain subset of performance enhancers get used or not. Players in all major sports that I'm aware of are physically very different than the players that came 50 years before them. This is a result of, among other things, differences in training, diet, and permissable performance enhancers (creatine, beta alanine, bcaa pills, etc.). Even if you could control for these things, I don't think anyone would argue that you should. (Does anyone really want to say that baseball players shouldn't be allowed to lift weights?)
I tend to take a more inclusive stance on what sort of enhancers ought to be allowed. My priority would be to make the distinction as non-arbitrary as possible - maybe basing it on what is or is not illegal, which in turn ought to be based on safety.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^
looks at present and past players as some type of science experiment that has factors that need to be controlled etc. (correction, maybe you do but most fans don't). Sports are all about history and we look at players today and compare them to our favorites of the past, whether it is "folly" or not.
Sure, you can argue that foods, workouts, lengths of seasons, equipment etc have all changed and that is a given. What shouldn't change, IME, is giving player the option to use something other than hard work, natural ability and time practicing to gain an advantage over the competition and the legends of the past.
It is still very impressive to note that in spite of all these changes Babe Ruth still holds the record for HR's per at bat by a large margin.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:35 AM ^
"What shouldn't change, IME, is giving player the option to use something other than hard work, natural ability and time practicing to gain an advantage over the competition and the legends of the past."
My point is that current players do have many such options without the use of PEDs. The state of knowledge regarding training, nutrition, and supplementation today is hugely advanced now compared to where it was just a few decades ago. (I remember as kid reading baseball training books that said that baseball players should never lift weights because doing so ruins your swing.) Such advancements in general knowledge don't fit within "hard work, natural ability, and time practicing", yet they clearly affect players' performance levels. I find it pretty implausible that Red Grange could run for 1000 yards in today's NFL, or that George Mikan could put up 20 and 10, or that Babe Ruth, if he were playing today in his same physical form from the '20s (and I know the counterfactual is ridiculous, but that's kind of my point), would be nearly the hitter that Pujols is.
There is a good argument to be made that individual players shouldn't be allowed gross advantages over their contemporaries. But you're not making that argument.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^
Players will always be better equipped to increase performance as time goes on, but at the same time, you can't have athletes taking a pill or shot that causes a drastic change in performance with minimal work. Its more a question of integrity then of history though. Sports change so much over time, that history always has to be looked at differently than the present. Not all change is bad, medical advances allow players to recover faster, and come back from injuries that previously could have ended careers. What would be bad is if PEDs removed natural talent and hard work from the process, creating a sporting world where everyone is a freak athlete.
Also, I think McGuire might hold the AB/HR record, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it was Ruth.
August 17th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
Ruth is one per 8.5 at bats and had a career BA of .342.
http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/park/1138/hof/baberuth.html
Mcgwire: the only stats I can find on him say 1/10.6 at bats and claim his is the best, but clearly that isn't better than 1/8.5. FWIW the three sites I saw that number claiming to be the "leader" also said he broke Babe Ruths HR record when he hit 70......It was Roger Marris who held the record prior to McGwire with 61.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:02 AM ^
Spartacus had a Piper Cub?
August 17th, 2009 at 9:09 AM ^
The issue has never just been about health or safety; do many people really care that much if Jose Canseco has shrunken jewels? They are voluntary, after all. The bigger concern for me as a fan is the fact that with PEDs, the sport is no longer comparing one person's God-given mind & body with another; rather it is comparing who can make the best use of steroids. What's interesting about that? I want to know who put in the most time practicing, who has the most natural skill, who has been working out the hardest, who has the best reflexes, who has the best hand-eye coordination, etc. Adding PEDs to the mix muddles all of that, and you don't know what you're looking at - the athlete, or the drugs. Nope, no PEDs in my sports, safe or otherwise please.
August 17th, 2009 at 9:22 AM ^
It is not just "who has the best steroids". Both Barry Bonds and Alex Sanchez did steroids, remember.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:25 AM ^
Agree completely with Chitown. This is a mightily unsophisticated view of what performance enhancing drugs do for you.
It also prompts the question of what counts as "God-given". Can I go on a meticulous regiment of training and supplementation with protein, amino acids, creatine, and various essential fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants/anti-inflammatories and still possess a God-given body?
August 17th, 2009 at 9:33 AM ^
steroids are safe
August 17th, 2009 at 10:11 AM ^
what drugs you are taking that are "safe"? As an MD I have yet to become aquainted with any steroids that don't have some side effects. Just because you may be one of the fortunate ones that don't suffer from the many side effects associated with steriods doesn't make them safe. Lets be clear here....not all perfromance enhancers are steroids, and some of the others may be safe, but to make the blanket statement that steroids are safe is both untrue and quite irresponsible.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:13 PM ^
Others may negbang you, I won't, I'll upbang you, even though your post does look bad.
Steroids, taken correctly under the strict supervision of professionals that pro players and teams can get aren't bad. They are bad when a high school kid starts taking a handful of them a day in high school with little regard to what they do, how they affect your body and only focuses on getting big. No deaths have ever been linked to steroids ... eh ... whatever, i can understand people not wanting pro players to take them, I really can. I just feel like if people knew all the facts ... not the E!SPiN facts they may have a different outlook on steroids ...
10 minutes, if you have it ...
if the embed doesn't work ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0LEj8IPHGU
August 17th, 2009 at 9:34 AM ^
"So hypothesis: there's a drug with no negative side effects that can accomplish in a pill what today we accomplish with half of a Barwis workout."
That isn't how it works. You still have to do the workout. You are just able to workout harder/more often because of faster recovery time.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
I've always thought there should be two distinct sets of Olympics and other sporting events:
1. No PEDs, blood doping, etc. Just heads up, run what you were born with.
2. Everything is legal (to the extent of the law). Anything you are willing to do to run as fast as you can, jump as high as you can, etc. Test the limits of biochemistry and the human body.
Do this, keep the record books separate, and enjoy seeing what effect PEDs really have.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^
2 Sets would be an interesting idea. The problem becomes a lot of people would take the drugs and still lie about it, so that they could get into the "what you were born with set," and win easier. Even if roids were 100% legal and safe, I'm sure we'd still have a lot of people lying about using them.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:23 AM ^
Keep the thoughts coming.
With anabolic steroids, in my opinion, the negative side effects are the biggest ethical problem. There are plenty of things that athletes must do/buy/ingest in order to compete at a high level, e.g. an equivalently talented player who loads up on carbs the day before a game will perform better than one that eats steak (or at least that's what I was told before the War on Carbs of 2004).
However, if advantages are given to players who screw their bodies and personalities and relationships up permanently by taking the drugs, then eventually that will mean you have to screw up your body and your personality and your relationships in order to play the sport. As MGoAero pointed out, as a fan, what do you care. But then imagine your son demonstrated outstanding baseball talent, and then you had to help him decide between being a perpetual minor leaguer, or accepting the negative side effects of PEDs.
I don't believe there is any "natural God-given state" that applies across athletics. Your body will last longer than Babe Ruth's simply because the beer and hot dogs you've eaten are a million times safer than what he was digesting. Better nutrition alone is a performance advantage the modern athlete has over old players, not to mention new techniques and all the innovations each game has experienced. I think we're lucky if old stats are comparable. I think the reason they are comparable, even with scientifically enhanced swings, the spread offense, etc., is because talent and training transcend these other factors (chew on this: if anyone else who ever lived had taken the same exact steroid regimen as Barry Bonds, would they have the all-time record for home runs in a season and a career?)
That's the God-given side. God-given talent, for lack of a better word, doesn't seem to be about muscle-building, but the speed and precision with which a person's brain can interact with those muscles. No supplement or chemical or steroid that could possibly be invented in our lifetimes can make my brain talk to my muscles the way Braylon Edward's brain communicates with his (the muscles).
Chitownblue inadvertently makes the point that there is a precedent already for legal PEDs being accepted in sports:
Well, haven't they? What are all the whey proteins, creatine, etc., that guys take now? I understand that these aren't strictly "drugs", but you get my point.To address his point (that this is nothing new), while there are performance enhancers out there right now that don't have negative side effects, there is not a safe muscle-builder. The ingredients for muscles, to my understanding, are micro-tears in your current muscles, protein, testosterone, and sleep. You get the micro-tears by working out those muscle groups. You have to eat the protein in one way or another (and I think the protein is needed for making the stem cells). Sleep I'm guessing you're familiar with. Testosterone is the stimulant -- to my understanding, I'm no doctor, and I'd love for someone who knows this stuff better to tell me how wrong I am here -- and there isn't a way to safely enhance that ingredient. Steroids try. Stemulite is just another of these supplements, which seems to me to use the protein in eggplant which simulates testosterone's effect (but isn't testosterone). This still gets us nowhere with the ethical question of where do we draw the line, if we draw one, with performance enhancement in general? Obvs, there's no way to force every NCAA football player to have the same regimen as Harry Kipke. So I figure, if we're to draw a line somewhere, the one already there between "dangerous if used as intended" and "not dangerous if used as intended" is as good as any. But then, what happens when they can simulate every ingredient for muscles safely? What if you could take a pill that creates the mini-tears just where you need them, and then stimulates and creates an overabundance of testosterone and stem cells for fast rebuilding (and helps you sleep), but was completely safe. The potential for the existence of such a drug makes my "safe/unsafe" line incompatible with our basic moral senses. Another put forth is legality, another very visible line, but in that case more subject to the whimsy of lawmakers (i.e. us). Any more? As you can see, the OP here is pretty conflicted.
August 17th, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
simply correct the statement that "Testosterone is the stimulant". Testosterone is a naturally occurring hormone within the human body.
Secondly, I will agree that steroids don't impact a players hand eye coordination or "the way the brain talks to the muscles" as you put it. I disagree, however, with your seeming assertion that it therefore doesn't make a difference. Go back and look at Barry Bond's career stats and you can make a very good educated guess as to when he started using steroids. He always had a great swing, but didn't always hit 60+ homeruns. The steroids put more power behind that great swing and probably extended his career by a few years as well.
Also, in your hypothetical about 'would anyone else have the all time homerun record for a season". My assertion would be yes. If you gave Babe Ruth steroids and the extra games that are played today in comparison to the season length he played you would definitely have a different single season home run leader. Look at their respective HR's per at bats......no one even comes close to Ruth and that is without Steroids.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:26 AM ^
Thank you for the correction on the testosterone thing. This is why I love this board.
On the Bonds/Ruth thing, though, it's a little more complex than "started taking steroids," isn't it? I remember a radio interview last summer, might have been on NPR, in which one of Barry's trainers said he (Bonds) made a conscious decision to hit more home runs after he saw Cecil Fielder get so much attention in 1990, and again after the 1998 home run chase.
And on Ruth:
If you gave Babe Ruth steroids and the extra games that are played today in comparison to the season length he played you would definitely have a different single season home run leader.You forgot to mention the first six years of his career were during the dead ball era: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ruthba01.shtml#1914-1919-su… There are a lot more factors than that. For one, what we call a "ground rule double" today was a home run until 1931 in most parks. On the other hand, those parks were generally a LOT bigger. On the other other hand, the years he was with the Yankees had a lot more runs in general than today. All told, the neutralized batting stats we have say that playing 162-game seasons against modern pitching, Babe would have hit 712 home runs. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ruthba01-bat.shtml#1914-193… ut that doesn't seem to take into account the size of ballparks, which hurts Babe in the homer category if it helps with his batting average. And it doesn't give him back the years he spent pitching. Ruth hit 49 home runs between 1914 and 1919. He hit 54 in 1920, and 59 in 1921, and AVERAGED 41 homers a year for the rest of his career. With both of these men, then, there was a marked shift in amount of home runs hit at the same time there was a marked shift in power numbers across the league. In 1992, the AIR (offensive level of the parks played in) was at 91 for Bonds, and was generally in the high '80s or low '90s until then. In '93, it jumped to 101, and never dipped below 100 again in his career (he moved to San Francisco in '94 so it wasn't that the park changed). For Babe, it was low 80s until jumping to 90 in 1919 and to 110 in 1920, remaining about that level for the rest of his career. For Ruth, it was the live ball and the construction of the Classic Era ballparks that explains this. For Bonds, I guess 1993 is the start of the steroid era.
August 17th, 2009 at 1:52 PM ^
for that. We may disagree in which side of the fence we sit on this issue but your arguements are well thoughtout and backed up with research, and I like that. Good Stuff Misopogon.
I will also say that I don't believe there will ever be such thing as a "safe" steroid. In my years as a Dr. I have never seen one and don't see how one could be developed and not yield serious side effects.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:17 PM ^
Well you wrote a lot and I didn't read it all. I just want to know what negative side effects are there? Acne and cholestrol?
August 17th, 2009 at 10:33 AM ^
I really do not even want to think about a safe steroid. I think that we would be caught up in a shit storm of controversy if something like this was allowed. What would you do about old records? Would everything have an asterisk? Is this ethical? Would there be an increase in injuries? Are there any side effects at all, both mental and physical? Who would this benefit?
Those are just a few questions that I would like to see discussed if this ever came to fruition.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:38 AM ^
Wait... Steroids aren't safe?
Oh crap.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:40 AM ^
I guess I'm confused (CRS?). We had a discussion a few months back and I recall virtually everyone agreeing that steroids are commonly used in football at all colleges.
It was agreed they are currently being used at U/M.
August 17th, 2009 at 11:59 AM ^
I thought the following HBO Real Sports story from a few years ago was very interesting. It suggests that steroids are safe for adults.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:18 PM ^
Dang I didn't see that you had posted that and I posted it above, sorry. I agree with the clip almost completely.
August 17th, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^
Without using steroids, an athlete can, and in order to remain competitive must, do several things to improve performance. These things include practicing, conditioning, dieting, and the like. What these all have in common is that they all are somewhat difficult and can be done by virtually anybody.
Steroids present several ethical issues here. The price and geographical availability of various steroids creates a situation where the best athletes will be affluent enough to buy them and live in the region where they are sold. This is particularly a concern in high school, where every major sport starts recruiting and these factors will be most evident. Also, steroids are illegal, and even if safe steroids are legalized, illegal steroids will still be used to provide even more of a kick, creating more issues with drugs. However, all of this pales in comparison to the issue of the nature of performance-enhancing substances. The highest ideal in sporting is that the individual or team that has athletic talent supplemented with hard work and the drive to victory will be victorious. The individuals that practice and condition the most should be among the best. A steroid detracts from this ideal because taking a steroid makes an individual better at his or her sport without any effort on the part of the individual and devalues the traits that we admire in athletes.
August 17th, 2009 at 1:20 PM ^
This is true for many other supplements or treatments that enhance performance.
Steroids mess with your body in ways you probably don't understand when you take them, and you pay the physical price later. As a result, they are illegal. As a result of that, they are not consistently available to all competitors, and therefore also unfair.
So, if you had a performance enhancing pill or whatever with long term side effects similar to ibuprofen, there is no reason it should be illegal or banned from sports. I think there are already dozens of these though.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^
"Steroids mess with your body in ways you probably don't understand when you take them, and you pay the physical price later. As a result, they are illegal"
who what and when? There is no link between steroids and anything physical disabling when you get older. I think you posted a bunch of hearsay, which is no fault of your owwn and is relatively common in the steroid debate. There is noone with bad health which is due to steroids. There may be people that say steroids did this or that to them but there is no actual scientific link to it.
I'm also not sitting here trying to scold you or even say everyone should take steroids. They are illegal, so they shouldn't ... I'm just saying sometimes media makes things appear worse than they really are. Maybe they see all the massive homeruns and they say well you can't be able to do that without some sort of side effect.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:25 PM ^
I love talking this subject! I mean I could be wrong and some evidence could come out in the next 10 years titled,'MCHammer doesn't know his shit' but it sure is fun to talk about.
August 17th, 2009 at 2:08 PM ^
I don't like it that if I blew an infraspinatus, I could get steroids right now to help heal, but a pitcher who makes his living partially with his infraspinatus wouldn't have that option.
I hope that they do come out with a stem-cell product that works. It could help in tons of diseases and conditions and elevate the quality and length of life for a lot of people. Besides, athletes will still have limits as to how much mass they can build; it will just be more than the last generation.
Before the 1960's, it was generally accepted that smoking wasn't hazardous to one's health and that weightlifting slowed one down and made one "muscle-bound." It was also common "knowlege" that fat and sugar weren't bad, either, and paying attention to what one ate was for "health nuts" and did nothing to help athletic performance. And getting drunk almost every night was an accepted lifestyle among athletes. And there was no such thing as "sports psychology" because only people who "had something wrong with them" went to a psychiatrist.
But it was all equal because everyone thought that way. As time progresses, so do we. Now, athletes have more knowlege at their disposal and use it accordingly. If a stem-cell rejuvenator becomes part of this millenium, so be it. If I can get it at the health food store, an athlete should be able to use it, too.