MESO-Rx

Steroid Forum: This is a discussion on Good Fox News Steroid Article within the Anabolic Steroids forums, part of the extensive steroid information at MESO-Rx; Finally someone is representing a different side on steroids: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140835,00.html What's Wrong with Players on Steroids? By John R. Lott ...

Go Back   MESO-Rx > Anabolic Steroids > Steroid Forum
Connect with Facebook

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12-08-2004, 04:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 617
Rep Power: 0
Patuba is on a distinguished road
Default Good Fox News Steroid Article

Finally someone is representing a different side on steroids:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140835,00.html

What's Wrong with Players on Steroids?

By John R. Lott Jr., Sonya D. Jones

So athletes use steroids to perform better. Wall Street traders take Ritalin and everyone uses caffeinated drinks during work to stay alert. News anchors get face lifts and actors take Botox so more people watch them. What's different about athletes?
Yet, this weekend you would have thought that Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds had committed some unspeakable crime. Commentators spoke of them "falsifying the product." Saturday, Sen. John McCain promised hearings and threatened legislation imposing drug-testing standards if professional baseball does not crack down. By Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist made a similar call for legislation, and McCain said President Bush would sign such a bill.

Athletes may have more at stake than most of the rest of us. They may go a little farther in competing, but the risks seem pretty mild. This spring a baseball players' union representative, Gene Orza, claimed that steroids are "not worse than cigarettes." With over 4,000 people playing major league baseball over the last decade and claims that 40 or 50 percent of players are using some form of anabolic steroids, what is striking is how rare baseball deaths are and that these are not really related to "performance-enhancing" drugs. Take the last two years:
  • In October, 41-year-old retired baseball star Ken Caminiti's death from a heart attack caused quite a stir. Yet, it proved a false alarm. The medical examiner ruled that the death was due to an overdose of cocaine and opiates.
  • In 2003, the Baltimore Orioles' Steve Bechler died during spring training while taking a diet aid, Epherdra (a stimulant). Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) quickly rushed forward with legislation to require stricter standards. It only became clear later that the death likely had another cause: Bechler had a history of heart problems, came to camp out of shape and way over weight, and was playing while dehydrated and not eating.
Scott Gottlieb, a former senior policy adviser to the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, notes: "There are plenty of people with [multiple sclerosis], Crohn's and Colitis and rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and other diseases who are on much higher doses of chronic steroids. Certainly they have a lot of side effects, but they don't drop dead of [heart attacks] so easily."

McCain points to the NFL, with its strict testing policies for performance-enhancers, as the example for baseball to follow. Yet, football players endanger their health every game. USA Today reported earlier this year that "Two out of three [NFL players] said they left with some permanent injury."

Most likely the NFL has stricter rules simply because with direct physical contact ever-larger players are more likely to just harm each other. In baseball, few injuries result from direct physical contact.

But even if baseball players ended up crippled after their playing days as football players do, why isn't it their choice? What's next? Will government regulators protect white-collar workers from risking heart attacks when they pull all-nighters trying to meet deadlines?

The greatest risk to athletes may be the drugs' very prohibition. Getting the drugs in secret and not having the proper supervision may result in complications that could otherwise be easily avoided.

Possibly the strongest argument against drugs in baseball is the same reason the sport opposes changing how it makes baseballs. Sure we could make balls that go farther today, but baseball is a sport where history matters and such changes would make it difficult to compare performances over time.

Purists may not like the designated-hitter rule. But would it make sense for government to determine what rules baseball has? If fans like spectacular plays made possible by performance-enhancing drugs more than the loss of historical comparisons and the risks borne by players, allowing enhancements makes sense.

People take risks with their bodies everyday. Yet, without some evidence that athletes aren't properly weighing their choices, shouldn't politicians just leave the decision to those who are affected?

John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Sonya D. Jones is a law student at Texas Tech University.
Twitter
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 12-08-2004, 04:21 PM
lestatgear's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Dark SIde of the Moon
Posts: 159
Rep Power: 6
lestatgear is on a distinguished road
Default

Good read, and I agree w/ it completely.
Twitter
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 12-08-2004, 04:39 PM
Massive690's Avatar
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,625
Rep Power: 0
Massive690 is on a distinguished road
Default

good article
Twitter
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Sponsored Links
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-08-2004, 08:22 PM
Bob Smith's Avatar
Immortal Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,516
Rep Power: 13
Bob Smith is on a distinguished road
Default

Excellent article!

If you would like to email him a note saying that its nice to see some common sense regarding the steroids issue, his email is JLott@aei.org
__________________

Twitter
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-08-2004, 08:28 PM
Grizzly's Avatar
Immortal Member
Points: 10,365, Level: 43
Points: 10,365, Level: 43 Points: 10,365, Level: 43 Points: 10,365, Level: 43
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,225
Rep Power: 12
Grizzly is on a distinguished road
Default

not half bad at all. Goodnight people, I'm outta here.
Twitter
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-09-2004, 01:58 AM
Mark Kerr's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 785
Rep Power: 0
Mark Kerr is on a distinguished road
Default

Is that the same John Lott from the University of Chicago that wrote "More Guns, Less Crime"?
Twitter
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-09-2004, 02:08 AM
Senior Member
Points: 6,281, Level: 33
Points: 6,281, Level: 33 Points: 6,281, Level: 33 Points: 6,281, Level: 33
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 635
Rep Power: 6
J DUB is on a distinguished road
Default

Yes, it is. You're a libertarian aren't you??

EDIT: nevermind, just read your sig.
Twitter
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-09-2004, 05:07 PM
esco's Avatar
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,882
Rep Power: 0
esco is on a distinguished road
Default

about time, excellent article.
Twitter
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-09-2004, 05:27 PM
Senior Member
Points: 6,281, Level: 33
Points: 6,281, Level: 33 Points: 6,281, Level: 33 Points: 6,281, Level: 33
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 635
Rep Power: 6
J DUB is on a distinguished road
Default

This article was also in the NY Post. I encourage everyone to post their opinions on their site, and the link below takes you to where you can do so (200 word max). Our ramblings about how dumb the laws are do no good when just confined to this message board. If there are a lot of responses to this article, the editor will likely encourage the authors to write more like this, and that would be great. However, don't get on there and just say "The Feds suck, steroid laws are dumb!" Make it a concise, reasoned argument and get your views out in the open. We can either sit back and watch more steroid users go to prison for nothing, or we can fight back and begin the push to change these laws.


http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/letters/36000.htm
Twitter
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-12-2004, 04:37 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5
Rep Power: 0
protester is on a distinguished road
Default

hopefully the whole Bonds issue will bring a new light to steroid use, and it will end up doing more good than harm in the long run. if nothing else, it has brought AAS to the attention of many more people. all that attention can't be a bad thing. it may seem like it at first, but down the road all the attention will lead to more discussion, research and hopefully less hyperbole.
Twitter
Reply With Quote


Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Reply

Tags
aas , anabolic , anabolic steroids , barry bonds , baseball , chicago , cocaine , diet , football , health , john mccain , nfl , nfl players , steroid laws , steroid use , steroids , texas

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:59 PM.


Advertising on Steroids



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12