PDA

View Full Version : Do You Care if Players Use "Performance-Enhancing" Drugs?


TheCD
12-27-2011, 02:08 PM
Just wanted to throw a poll out there to see what everyone thinks. This can be a hot button issue so I don't want to stir any pots, but my question is: Does it matter to you if players use things like steroids or HGH? If so, why? Are there any reasons to you other than these guys are role models for kids?

Personally, I don't care if they do. It really doesn't matter to me, nor do I feel that it "tarnishes" the legacies of past players that didn't use. Accomplishments of the past are great and should always be remembered, but with time comes rule changes (for any sport but baseball, I guess) and that will inevitably mean past records will be broken regardless. Quite frankly, it's fun to watch guys chase for history, and I'm not concerned with what someone does with their body. To me, it doesn't tarnish the game.

What does everyone else think? I am sure I am in the minority here, but I would like to hear everyones opinion. If you would like for arguments sake, let's pretend that the use of these drugs was entirely legal, would that change your opinion? Personally, the use of pain killing injections, gloves to help catch footballs, hell even today's helmets, pads, cleats, and even turf are "performance-enhancing" compared to years past.

Section516
12-27-2011, 02:20 PM
A. Rodgers, D. Brees, T. Brady, etc. already have PED's..

They wear black and white and are called refs.

Double Barrel
12-27-2011, 03:10 PM
The Steel Curtain was great because of P.E.D.s. I truly believe that the Oilers would have went to a Super Bowl if the entire Steelers defense wasn't juiced up out of their minds.

gary
12-27-2011, 03:13 PM
NO. Players have already broken records years ago without them.

eriadoc
12-27-2011, 03:48 PM
I voted NO, and here's why:

1.) Uneven playing field - if everyone used them, then that puts everyone on a roughly level playing field. However, by making it OK to use PEDs, you're essentially forcing those who don't want to use them to do so. You're making the good guys taint their bodies. The reason that is important is ...

2.) Long-term health ramifications - Steroids wreck your body. Sure, they have things other than steroids now, but the long-term ramifications of those are not well known yet. hGH is HUMAN growth hormone, but there's a reason your body doesn't produce it in those quantities. Plus, the human body produces all sorts of things that are harmful at high concentrations. Perhaps most importantly is the impact PED use would have on post-career health care demands. Players are already clamoring for post-career concessions and payments, so why make it worse? Also, if everyone is taking PEDs, then collisions are going to be even worse, which leads to more concussions. That means the NFL eventually takes hitting completely out of the game, at least for certain positions. Part of the reason we've seen so many lame rules is because players are just a helluva lot bigger and faster now, and that's due to PEDs. OK, some of them are legal PEDs (supplements), but it's changing the face of the game.

I don't much care about the records, as long as context is observed when engaged in such discussions (HOF?), but the impact they have upon the rules of the game is critical, IMO.

Mr teX
12-27-2011, 03:54 PM
They shouldn't be allowed to use them imo b/c part of being elite enough to play ball on that level is b/c god blessed you with attributes to be able to do so. You as the athlete have to refine those attributes through hard work & determination. using PED's allows for guys (& gals) to take the easy way out thereby cheapening the process & what it takes to get there.

All leagues just need to get together & come to terms on a universal testing policy that's stringent enough to deter the use of PED's & one that has the ability to keep the gap between the cheater & the curve relatively the same in the future............ b/c we all know the cheater is always ahead of the curve.

gary
12-27-2011, 03:58 PM
I voted NO, and here's why:

1.) Uneven playing field - if everyone used them, then that puts everyone on a roughly level playing field. However, by making it OK to use PEDs, you're essentially forcing those who don't want to use them to do so. You're making the good guys taint their bodies. The reason that is important is ...

2.) Long-term health ramifications - Steroids wreck your body. Sure, they have things other than steroids now, but the long-term ramifications of those are not well known yet. hGH is HUMAN growth hormone, but there's a reason your body doesn't produce it in those quantities. Plus, the human body produces all sorts of things that are harmful at high concentrations. Perhaps most importantly is the impact PED use would have on post-career health care demands. Players are already clamoring for post-career concessions and payments, so why make it worse? Also, if everyone is taking PEDs, then collisions are going to be even worse, which leads to more concussions. That means the NFL eventually takes hitting completely out of the game, at least for certain positions. Part of the reason we've seen so many lame rules is because players are just a helluva lot bigger and faster now, and that's due to PEDs. OK, some of them are legal PEDs (supplements), but it's changing the face of the game.

I don't much care about the records, as long as context is observed when engaged in such discussions (HOF?), but the impact they have upon the rules of the game is critical, IMO.

They shouldn't be allowed to use them imo b/c part of being elite enough to play ball on that level is b/c god blessed you with attributes to be able to do so. You as the athlete have to refine those attributes through hard work & determination. using PED's allows for guys (& gals) to take the easy way out thereby cheapening the process & what it takes to get there.

All leagues just need to get together & come to terms on a universal testing policy that's stringent enough to deter the use of PED's & one that has the ability to keep the gap between the cheater & the curve relatively the same in the future............ b/c we all know the cheater is always ahead of the curve.These two.

The Pencil Neck
12-27-2011, 04:06 PM
I voted that they should be able to use them.

The biggest problem with steroids and other performance enhancing drugs is that guys use them without proper supervision. You get a bunch of athletes who have absolutely no idea what they're putting into their body following a bunch of voodoo hypotheses that they get from people who don't really know.

That's why you get someone like Cush taking HCG because he's heard it's a great way to lose fat without losing muscle and he doesn't have a physician to go to and get some real information.

Athletes, even athletes who don't make a lot of money, are going to do whatever it takes to get an edge on their competition. That means that a lot of them are going to take a lot of supplements and drugs that really have no proven performance enhancement and they're going to damage themselves. I firmly believe that Walter Payton died not because of a "genetic" condition but from a steroid abuse condition that looks like a "genetic" condition.

If athletes are allowed to take these sorts of things with physician's supervision, this will allow us to study the long-term effects of drugs and compounds that we currently have no information on. This gives us a great way to develop better therapies and better drugs that will help not just elite athletes but also regular people.

Texecutioner
12-27-2011, 04:40 PM
Why anyone would vote a yes to a question where the result would be to force every athlete that has aspirations for being a pro football player to take and use harmful substances that will have negative effects on their body is beyond me.

If you vote yes on this, than everyone would have to take PED's and when and where do the PED's ever stop?? Athletes are supposed to be training and competing on fair levels with their natural abilities. That's what the celebration of sports champions is and has always been about. Celebrating the greatness of these natural athletes. Forcing every pro athlete to take PED's to be a pro athlete is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard someone advocate for as far as someone's career goes in any field.

TheCD
12-27-2011, 04:55 PM
Why anyone would vote a yes to a question where the result would be to force every athlete that has aspirations for being a pro football player to take and use harmful substances that will have negative effects on their body is beyond me.

If you vote yes on this, than everyone would have to take PED's and when and where do the PED's ever stop?? Athletes are supposed to be training and competing on fair levels with their natural abilities. That's what the celebration of sports champions is and has always been about. Celebrating the greatness of these natural athletes. Forcing every pro athlete to take PED's to be a pro athlete is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard someone advocate for as far as someone's career goes in any field.

I voted yes. My reasoning is because PEDs are already taking place, it is just under the guise of something else, for example, pain-killing injections. There is no argument that can disprove the fact that athletes who are able to take painkillers before and during games these days are able to perform at a "higher" level than athletes of the past. The pain killer improves the athletes ability to perform, and it is allowed.

I disagree with the idea that just because a few take them every else "has to". Would they feel pressure to? Sure. But nobody would force them to. PEDs may give you the ability to throw the ball farther or hit someone harder, but it won't make them throw the ball more accurately or be able to tackle more fundamentally. PEDs aren't magic drugs that instantly make players Hall of Famers, and I would venture the guess that more players who use PEDs are fringe players trying to stay in the league rather than players who are wildly successful.

burro
12-27-2011, 05:04 PM
As with other drug use, I don't feel like it's any of my personal business. If the league wants to do something about, far be it from me to judge what they decide to be best. Short version: I don't think it's a matter for congress, but if the league decides to act, it's their business.

SheTexan
12-27-2011, 07:07 PM
If it's legal, why not?

The Pencil Neck
12-27-2011, 07:13 PM
If you vote yes on this, than everyone would have to take PED's and when and where do the PED's ever stop??

From everything I've heard from professional athletes and coaches in several sports is that everyone is already taking them. The problem is that since they're not legal, people are taking risks without even realizing it.

By voting "no", you're basically telling all the athletes to keep doing what they're doing and to do it without proper medical supervision that could keep them from damaging themselves. Heck, if you're a competitive athlete, you can't even take most over the counter cold and flu medications.

gary
12-27-2011, 07:14 PM
The players will be almost forced to take them to match the others.

The Pencil Neck
12-27-2011, 07:17 PM
If it's legal, why not?

There are tons of legal, over the counter medications that cause positive readings for performance enhancing drugs. AND there are some over the counter medications that can be used to enhance performance.

The most famous and easiest to put together was the old ECA stack. You take a couple of Primatene tablets (ephedrine), a "Stay Awake" (caffeine) tablet, and a children's aspirin. You could train harder and longer and your body burned more fat. Totally legal but a PED and banned in most athletic federations.

The Pencil Neck
12-27-2011, 07:18 PM
The players will be almost forced to take them to match the others.

Why do you think they're not ALREADY forced to take them to keep up with the other athletes?

Hervoyel
12-27-2011, 07:37 PM
I voted that they should not be allowed to use them.

Of course having said that I must confess that I've been waiting decades to see this (http://www.hulu.com/watch/4090/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-all-drug-olympics)

Texan_Bill
12-27-2011, 07:40 PM
A. Rodgers, D. Brees, T. Brady, etc. already have PED's..

They wear black and white and are called refs.

:penalty: You failed to mention Manning. While he's been out all season, the refs feel it necessary to continue their policy with the Colts, even for Painter or whatever scrub they throw back there.

Signed,

JJ WATT

gary
12-27-2011, 07:55 PM
Why do you think they're not ALREADY forced to take them to keep up with the other athletes?How do you know they all use them? And, why not just do it with what God has given to them? JMHO.

Speedy
12-27-2011, 08:01 PM
If it's legal, why not?

Because...

1.) Uneven playing field - if everyone used them, then that puts everyone on a roughly level playing field. However, by making it OK to use PEDs, you're essentially forcing those who don't want to use them to do so. You're making the good guys taint their bodies. The reason that is important is ...

2.) Long-term health ramifications - Steroids wreck your body. Sure, they have things other than steroids now, but the long-term ramifications of those are not well known yet. hGH is HUMAN growth hormone, but there's a reason your body doesn't produce it in those quantities. Plus, the human body produces all sorts of things that are harmful at high concentrations. Perhaps most importantly is the impact PED use would have on post-career health care demands. Players are already clamoring for post-career concessions and payments, so why make it worse? Also, if everyone is taking PEDs, then collisions are going to be even worse, which leads to more concussions. That means the NFL eventually takes hitting completely out of the game, at least for certain positions. Part of the reason we've seen so many lame rules is because players are just a helluva lot bigger and faster now, and that's due to PEDs. OK, some of them are legal PEDs (supplements), but it's changing the face of the game.

EllisUnit
12-27-2011, 08:13 PM
supplments and muscle building enhacments no, steriods yes.

Texan_Bill
12-27-2011, 08:18 PM
If it's legal, why not?

Ummm, Gma :thinking:


Well, because it's not ? :D

Texan_Bill
12-27-2011, 08:23 PM
supplments and muscle building enhacments no, steriods yes.

I agree, unfortunately a lot of supplements are working with banned substances. For example, ephedrine shows up in cold mediciines, no?

I know a little something about ephedrine....

CloakNNNdagger
12-27-2011, 09:16 PM
There are tons of legal, over the counter medications that cause positive readings for performance enhancing drugs. AND there are some over the counter medications that can be used to enhance performance.

The most famous and easiest to put together was the old ECA stack. You take a couple of Primatene tablets (ephedrine), a "Stay Awake" (caffeine) tablet, and a children's aspirin. You could train harder and longer and your body burned more fat. Totally legal but a PED and banned in most athletic federations.


This piece, which I present as an FYI was published in 2001. Since then, there have been mounds of additional cases and studies that led to the ban of ephedrine and ephedrine-containing products by the FDA. Anyone considering the "safety" of these products should take the time to read this fairly lengthy piece.


Ephedrine . . . The Other Side of "Fat Burning."

I've taken what I believe to be a very diplomatic position in addressing a product ingredient that can no longer be called "new" and questions abound as to whether it should be referred to as "safe." I've always felt it important to balance information regarding the potential risks of a substance or compound with the potential benefits and then allow educated people to make wise choices. I have been careful in the articles I've written, not to scare those who choose to face potential for risk . . . cautiously . . . in the hope that they can find some benefit. I've also been careful to be selective in the product names I've addressed since many of my articles are published in magazines supported at least in part by supplement sellers. At this point in time, I believe it's time to sway more to one side than the other. With this article, I'm going to provide some insight into the reasoning that drives those who aggressively oppose the sale of this particular product. With this article, I'm naming names. Here goes . . .

Xenadrine. Hydroxycut. Ripped Fuel. Metabolife. Metabolift. Diet Zx. Zymax. Thermadrene. Stacker 2. Yellow Jackets. Clenbutrx. ECA Stack. Dymetadrine. AST EPH-33. Universal Herbal Phen Fast. Thermadrol X. Zenotrope. Thermapro. Thermo-Cuts. ProBURN.

I can keep going. There are hundreds of these on the market. What are they? They are all different brands, all different names for capsules that contain ephedrine as their "active" ingredient, and they are marketed to people who want . . . well . . . almost anything at all. I've found ephedrine products being sold as:

Fat Burners
Metabolism Boosters
Energy Enhancers
Stay Awake Pills
Sexual Aids
Herbal Ecstasy
Asthma Relievers
Diet Supplements
Appetite Suppressants

Ephedrine is in fact a drug. It can be derived from the herbs Ephedra or MaHuang, thus any product that contains either of those herbs contains the drug ephedrine. When standardized extracts of herbs are used, product manufacturers cleverly refer to these products as "natural" or "herbal," terms which at least a portion of the supplement buying public believe has some direct link to safety.

I've written a number of articles about the risks and the potential benefits of ephedrine, but the market has gone so far overboard . . . the products are being mass marketed with such aggressive promotion ("the strongest fat burner in the world," "more effective than diet and exercise," etc.) I feel obliged to slant this article toward "the other side." I'm leaning, intentionally, toward the realities that rarely make it into mass media. I'll start by sharing an e-mail I received several days ago:

Today, my friend who is only 38 years old, is hooked up to life support following 3 massive strokes over the weekend. Tomorrow her family will make the arrangements to donate her organs. The following day her family and friends will go to her funeral. Why? After a battery of tests, the doctors have concluded that the strokes were caused because of her use of Xenadrine. The doctors also mentioned they have had three other deaths related to this product, the youngest casualty being 22 years old. Help us to understand. Where did she go wrong? How could this have been prevented? How can we prevent this from happening again?

Those who sell ephedrine based products will claim that incidents such as this are due to overuse, abuse, or contraindications - prexisting conditions that should preclude people from using this drug. Those who sell ephedrine based products are absolutely correct! So why am I swaying the other way? Because overuse, abuse, and misuse are, based on the cases I've personally witnessed, are the result of flawed or omitted information. Sure, maybe the small print on the label warns people not to use the product if they suffer from hypertension or thyroid disease, but when the ads blare out "Lose Weight, It's So Easy," or "The New Weight Loss Miracle is Here," the small print too often is ignored. I don't want to present this strictly from conjecture so I'm about to share a mix of research info and my own interpretation of the evidence. I will preclude my further comments by saying that under the right circumstances, ephedrine can be a fat burning aid. You can learn more about "the right circumstances" by accessing an article I'd written on Xenadrine.

Ephedrine is a bronchodilator. It used to be sold over the counter as an asthma medication. About a decade ago, bodybuilders found that the asthma medication clenbuterol appeared to have some fat burning properties and the drug found its way into the gray market among physique athletes. It later was classified as a Class III substance which meant the sale or importation of clenbuterol could be punished by jail time. In the meanwhile, research using a combination of caffeine, ephedrine, and aspirin was proving appealing among those in search of weight loss. When clenbuterol became a black market product, bodybuilders began to make the switch to ephedrine and with time, enough people were losing enough weight for ephedrine based products to become big sellers. There are some things you should understand about ephedrine before you believe it will just jump in and start burning up fat. In addition to its bronchodilation properties, it is also a stimulant. It elevates heart rate and can also elevate blood pressure. When you combine caffeine, another stimulant, with ephedrine, of course the "speed" effect is enhanced. In the 1970's, "diet pills" were all the rage. By combining caffeine and ephedrine, supplement sellers now had legal speed. It that being a bit harsh of overblown, equating ephedrine to speed? I don't think so. In fact, ephedrine is the raw ingredient used in underground methamphetamine labs to create one of the most addictive stimulants to enter the world of illegal drugs.

Ephedrine also has a diuretic effect and it alters neurotransmission to minimize appetite. The end result is often less food intake and a body that is cranking up in high gear. Calorie deprivation is NOT an effective way to boost metabolism, yet many who depend on these ephedrine based supplements for weight loss wind up using it as an aid in simply minimizing caloric intake. Residual water loss contributes to the illusion that it is really having a very significant effect on fat loss.

One important point that is often neglected in warning labels is the fact that ephedrine is addictive at some level. Combine it with caffeine, and the propensity for addiction elevates. What a great bonus for supplement sellers! If they can get you addicted, you're going to buy more, and more, and more!

I have met with many people who had negative experiences with ephedrine, and in every such case, the person was misinformed about the value or risk of the product they were taking. "Friends" often tell "friends" to take a "great supplement," and if you can't trust your friends, who can you trust? If the user of a "metabolism boosting" formula containing ephedrine and caffeine fails to recognize the risks, regular consumption of coffee, diet cola, cold medicine, and the "Ripped" drink they have before a workout in the health club, can stack up to create serious potential for risk.

Extensive research in judging the value and potential for risk is certainly important, but I don't believe research can actually prove that something is safe. I believe that ongong research can suggest that risks might be unlikely, but a single episode in a single study can invalidate all prior research attempting to prove safety if it leads to death or injury. Take a look at the following abstract:

Gurley BJ, Gardner SF, White LM, Wang PL. Ephedrine pharmacokinetics after the ingestion of nutritional supplements containing Ephedra sinica (ma huang). Ther Drug Monit. 1998 Aug;20(4):439-45.

Abstract: Nutritional supplements containing Ephedra sinica (ma huang), a botanical source of ephedrine alkaloids, have been linked to several episodes of ephedrine toxicity and at least 17 deaths, yet these products remain unregulated. Ten subjects were enrolled in a randomized, crossover study aimed at characterizing the pharmacokinetics of ephedrine after the ingestion of three commercially available ma huang products compared with a 25-mg ephedrine capsule. Pharmacokinetic parameters for botanical ephedrine were similar to those for synthetic ephedrine hydrochloride. Gender-based comparisons of Vss/F and CL/F revealed higher values for women than for men (Vss/F, 3.49 +- 1.04 vs 2.98 +- 0.73 l/kg; CL/F, 0.48 +- 0.11 vs 0.37 +- 0.11 1/hourcntdotkg). The current study suggests that the increased incidence of ma huang toxicity does not stem from differences in the absorption of botanical ephedrine compared with synthetic ephedrine; rather, it results from accidental overdose often prompted by exaggerated off-label claims and a belief that "natural" medicinal agents are inherently safe.

There are some key points to take note of:

There were at least 17 deaths linked to ephedrine toxicity.
Increased incidence of toxicity results from accidental overdose.

Ephedrine sellers went on the warpath, and understandably. Ephedrine is big business and this information could have proven alarming and crippling to fat burner product sales. They took a counter spin on the theory that ephedrine supplementation can be lifethreatening. They delved into the incidents referenced in the above abstract to question whether there were definitive links to ephedrine products. They also questioned whether the FDA had adequate evidence to suggest a control on ephedrine. While the FDA reports over 1000 reports of adverse effects, ephedrine sellers minimized the reference by noting that there have been several hundred million doses over the last couple of years.

My conclusion is not that ephedrine is in fact safe, but that at least some people died that didn't have to because they were misinformed about the supplements they were taking. If some people died, I believe it's important that people become fully educated before opting to put something into their mouths that may in fact threaten their lives.

We shouldn't only consider "absence of directly linked deaths" in deciding whether or not a product is safe. Research has unquestionably linked ephedrine to specific health issues. Here's an abstract that should support that statement:

Powell, T. ; Fong Fu Hsu ; Turk, J. Ma-Huang Strikes Again: Ephedrine Nephrolithiasis. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 1998

Abstract: Ephedrine and its metabolites are naturally occurring alkaloids that can be derived from evergreens worldwide and have been used as medicinals for hundreds of years. Because they have "real" pharmacological alpha and beta catecholamine effects and are "natural" products, the alternative medicine industry has popularized them for multiple uses, including asthma, weight loss, energy and sexual enhancement, and euphoria. Several recent reviews have documented the dangerous nature of using these "drugs" unsupervised, including multiple deaths, and the FDA is currently reviewing ephedrine's use in the alternative medicine industry. We report a new toxicity, ephedrine nephrolithiasis, in a patient using an energy supplement, Ma-Huang extract, which contains ephedrine. Although previously not reported, the Louis C. Herring and Company kidney stone database show that this is an endemic complication of ephedrine with hundreds of previous episodes.

Are kidney stones going to kill you? Not likely, but again, if there is any risk to be considered in evaluating a product, it should be addressed adequately so that anyone who wishes to avoid such risk can make an educated decision. The FDA, in trying to take some action to control ephedrine, requested an independent review of the reports of adverse effects. The review was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine:

CloakNNNdagger
12-27-2011, 09:20 PM
[Continued from above]

Adverse cardiovascular and central nervous system events associated with dietary supplements containing ephedra alkaloids. NEJM, 2000

Abstract: Background: Dietary supplements that contain ephedra alkaloids (sometimes called ma huang) are widely promoted and used in the United States as a means of losing weight and increasing energy. In the light of recently reported adverse events related to use of these products, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed limits on the dose and duration of use of such supplements. The FDA requested an independent review of reports of adverse events related to the use of supplements that contained ephedra alkaloids to assess causation and to estimate the level of risk the use of these supplements poses to consumers. Methods: We reviewed 140 reports of adverse events related to the use of dietary supplements containing ephedra alkaloids that were submitted to the FDA between June 1, 1997, and March 31, 1999. A standardized rating system for assessing causation was applied to each adverse event. Results: Thirty-one percent of cases were considered to be definitely or probably related to the use of supplements containing ephedra alkaloids, and 31 percent were deemed to be possibly related. Among the adverse events that were deemed definitely, probably, or possibly related to the use of supplements containing ephedra alkaloids, 47 percent involved cardiovascular symptoms and 18 percent involved the central nervous system. Hypertension was the single most frequent adverse effect (17 reports), followed by palpitations, tachycardia, or both (13); stroke (10); and seizures (7). Ten events resulted in death, and 13 events produced permanent disability, representing 26 percent of the definite, probable, and possible cases. Conclusions: The use of dietary supplements that contain ephedra alkaloids may pose a health risk to some persons. These findings indicate the need for a better understanding of individual susceptibility to the adverse effects of such dietary supplements.


Even with FDA guidelines for dosages that would cross into the "risk" category, the health challenges run even further in that consumers must then trust product sellers to accurately label their products. Since the herbs MaHuang and Ephedra are often used, the actual content of ephedrine alkaloids can vary wildly. Adequate policing to make certain products contain what their labels claim they contain is certainly far from being in place. The following study led by Bill J. Gurley, Ph.D, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, brings the realities to the limelight.

Gurley, Bill J. Content versus label claims in ephedra-containing dietary supplements ; American Journal of Health System Pharmacy 2000. 57: 963-969

Twenty different ephedrine based products were analyzed. The products were purchased in 1999 from local retailers or the Internet. The study found great discrepancies between label claims and ephedrine alkaloid content:

Half of the products tested had content versus label discrepancies greater than 20 percent.
One product had no active ingredient.
In some instances, there was great content variability even between different lots of the same product.
Some products had potentially dangerous combinations of active ingredients.
Five products contained substantial quantities of norpseudoephedrine, a Schedule IV controlled substance.

So, even if there were imposed regulation, even if warning labels spelled out the risks with excessive dosages, and even if people learned to be "cautious," random contents can lead even the cautious to meet with accidental overuse.

Probably the most publicized ephedrine related incident was the death of Anne Marie Capati. At 37 years old, following the written advice of her personal trainer, she began taking an ephedrine based supplement . . . a "fat burner." During a workout she collapsed and later that night, after doctors at St. Vincent's Hospital in New York determined she had suffered a stroke, excessive and uncontrollable bleeding in her brain led to her death. The publicity has emerged out of a 320 million dollar lawsuit against Crunch fitness, the trainer, the supplement manufacturer, and the store where the supplement was purchased. I don't pretend to know who should be held liable, but I do know that if someone had explained to Ann Marie Capati the possible ramifications of ephedrine use, she likely would have decided not to use it. Capati had pre-existing high blood pressure.

Dan Duchaine was infamously known as the Steroid Guru. He developed a reputation as the expert in anabolic steroid use for athletes. Dan was extremely controversial and he was a guest on my radio show several times, once from prison where he was being held for charges of smuggling clenbuterol from Mexico. On that particular show he spoke about how he believed steroid risks were overblown in the media and the medical community and how careful use can even be a health benefit. It led to some interesting debate. One point Dan brought up was the fact that he had never suffered any ailment from steroid use . . . but he suffered a stroke from ephedrine! Dan has since passed away in his 40's of what the doctor's apparently referred to as "natural causes." Dan was reputed to be a human guinea pig. Did ephedrine have anything to do with his untimely death? Who knows. If someone takes a supplement that leads to a stroke, there can be long term health issues that make that person subject to further vascular incident.

An article February 12, 2001, in U.S. News and World Report outlined stories of death and injury due to misuse of ephedrine. I don't need to reiterate the stories here. If you want to find more I'm sure that article is accessible on the Internet or by contacting U.S News directly. The issues related to ephedrine have been before Congress, have been addressed on almost every TV Network, have been explained and explored in Consumer Reports, publications by the national Council Against Health Fraud, and an ever-growing number of consumer advocacy groups.

Here's a less publicized study since it doesn't appear to address the impact of "fat burners" on people, but I can draw my own conclusion from the abstract.

Suspected caffeine and ephedrine toxicosis resulting from ingestion of an herbal supplement containing guarana and ma huang in dogs: 47 Cases (1997-1999). Journal- american veterinary medical association

Records of dogs that had ingested an herbal supplement containing ma huang and guarana between July 1997 and October 1999 were retrieved from the National Animal Poison Control Center database. Results: Most dogs (80%) developed clinical signs of toxicosis within 8 hours of ingestion, and clinical signs persisted for up to 48 hours. Hyperactivity, tremors, seizures, and behavior changes were reported in 83% of dogs; other signs included vomiting (47%), tachycardia (30%), and hyperthermia (28%). Seventeen percent of the dogs died. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: Accidental ingestion of herbal supplements containing primarily guarana and ma huang in dogs can lead to a potentially lethal condition that may require prompt detoxification and supportive treatment for several days. Most dogs recovered with supportive treatment.

Let's think. Dogs are smart, but not smart enough to go down to the local health food store and purchase ephedrine based products in the hope that they'll shed fat. If enough dogs accidentally ingested something their owners no doubt had in their respective supplement collections, it's quite clear that use of this potentially dangerous substance is abundant.

I can keep going . . . and going. There is extensive research available, and the longer research on ephedrine continues, the more the risk questions will obviously rise to the surface. I speak to scores of people each week who suffer at least minor issues (termors, jitters, headaches, nervousness) from their fat burners. With that said, I don't believe I need to go on any further. Although the length of this piece would be extended, my conclusions would be unchanged . . . so I'll conclude with my opinion.

Ephedrine is a drug and has definitive drug effects. Thus, while I'm not certain what's fair in terms of regulation, it should be sold, not only with small print, but with inserts explaining the risks, just as you'd receive with any packaged medication. Claims for "safe, quick, easy weight loss" should be aggressively policed by the FTC and severe rather than token fines should be incurred as punishment for fraudulent or misleading claims. If people come to understand the potential risks, will ephedrine sales cease? I doubt it. People flock to take weight loss drugs where potential side effects are publicized in the the hope that the benefit will outweigh the risk. The want for weight loss is so great I don't believe a consistent message being sent out outlining the reasons you might not want to even consider ingesting ephedrine will put even a single supplement manufacturer out of business. Supplements are sold under the guise of "health" products, and Responsible sale and distribution of these products can only exist with adequate warnings.

If you were to ask me if I think you should take an ephedrine supplement in the hope it will help you lose weight, boost metabolism, summon up energy, or have better workouts, my answer would be clear and consistent. No.

Hardcore Texan
12-27-2011, 11:42 PM
There are tons of legal, over the counter medications that cause positive readings for performance enhancing drugs. AND there are some over the counter medications that can be used to enhance performance.

The most famous and easiest to put together was the old ECA stack. You take a couple of Primatene tablets (ephedrine), a "Stay Awake" (caffeine) tablet, and a children's aspirin. You could train harder and longer and your body burned more fat. Totally legal but a PED and banned in most athletic federations.

Last time I was sent to the Middle East in '99, I was taking Diet Fuel and Hydroxycut before they removed the ephedrine. And I got to say my weight loss was at least double, my energy level was thru the roof, and my appetite was totally suppressed. Plus I could breathe so much more oxygen it seemed. It was great!

And then, a few years later when I went to work out and thought about taking it again, I started to pay attention to all the findings that were coming out. Right after that MLB pitcher dropped dead.

I never took it again after that, I had no idea those supplements were bad for me at the time or I would have never took them, but believe me when I say they were 100% PEFORMANCING ENHANCING.

That stuff was like speed (although I have never done speed but I have seen people around me do it). It was so great for weight loss and pumping up your energy level, my workouts could almost be doubled by it. It was a sad day to find out it could hurt your heart. I never took it again once I found out, I was young and dumb and I guess too trusting of the FDA. But damn was it effective.

HJam72
12-27-2011, 11:55 PM
Went to a Metallica concert once back in like '90 or '91. This was back when people were taking Epinephrin (not checking the spelling) for fun. Friend of mine took 20 of them and I just thought that was one of the stupidest things I'd ever seen. He was fine, but I wasn't about to do that and I couldn't much see what the draw was either. I did take 3 of them just to relieve some of the peer pressure, but I think the RD was 2, LOL.

The Pencil Neck
12-28-2011, 12:13 AM
How do you know they all use them? And, why not just do it with what God has given to them? JMHO.

God gave some guys more testosterone. God gave some guys more hGH. God gave some guys a higher pain threshold.

And athletes try to "level the playing field" by taking stuff to try to supplement what God gave them to get up (or past, actually) to the level of the guys who got more. And then the other guys try to "level the playing field" by supplementing to a point where they're better than those guys.

I haven't worked with every athlete in the world or every coach in the world. There may be lots and lots of clean athletes out there. But I doubt it. Just the powerlifters and olympic athletes I've known and worked with have done everything they could to improve their performance. And many have the mind set that if you don't get caught, you didn't do anything wrong.

Every athlete who's good is looking for an edge. Every athlete who's working hard at their sport and trying to be better than the next guy is doing everything they can to improve their performance. That includes eating food that they've heard improves performance (like lots of extra protein or certain ratios of macro-nutrients or whatever) to their workout regimens to whether they allow themselves to have sex before a competition to... whatever.

I mean, if you want to go back to "you can only use what God gave you" to level the playing field, then you might as well put everyone on exactly the same diet and not let them lift weights. If you want to ban performance enhancing drugs, then ban painkillers. Don't let any doctors in the locker rooms shoot some guy up with something to dull the pain so they can play.

Texecutioner
12-28-2011, 10:50 AM
I voted yes. My reasoning is because PEDs are already taking place, it is just under the guise of something else, for example, pain-killing injections. There is no argument that can disprove the fact that athletes who are able to take painkillers before and during games these days are able to perform at a "higher" level than athletes of the past. The pain killer improves the athletes ability to perform, and it is allowed.

Murder and theft are illegal, but people still engage in that too. SHould we make that legal just because there are scumbags that take part in that any way?? Sure it's not the same thing, but your premise is the exact same. People break the rules any way, so why not just let them break the rules?? Sorry, but that's extremely flawed. You want to force other people who want to play by the rules to put harmful substances into their bodies in order to keep their jobs.



I disagree with the idea that just because a few take them every else "has to". Would they feel pressure to? Sure. But nobody would force them to. PEDs may give you the ability to throw the ball farther or hit someone harder, but it won't make them throw the ball more accurately or be able to tackle more fundamentally. PEDs aren't magic drugs that instantly make players Hall of Famers, and I would venture the guess that more players who use PEDs are fringe players trying to stay in the league rather than players who are wildly successful.

Well all you're doing is a bunch of speculation here. I don't care who or how many players you think are using some form of PED. As a fan I want to see natural athletes competing. If someone wants to break the rules, than I hope that they're caught and eventually they will be. Every league will eventually come up with stronger and better methods to catch athletes who try to cheat their sports. As long as the league is continually trying to evolve their methods to catch the guys who aren't flying straight, than I'm good with that knowing that there might be a few here and there that get away with it for a certain while.

You can sit here in this fantasy world and act like all athletes wouldn't eventually have to take PED's to compete, but you're way off on that. Once the majority of athletes started using they'd have a better competitive advantage and no athlete wants to know that their competitors have advantages over them because of PED's. They'll eventually feel like they need that same advantage or to have that advantage negated and they'll use as well. College athletes will all start using as well and it never ends at that point. That also teaches young kids that it's okay to use PED's because the pro athletes do that are on tv. It turns into a never ending cycle of drug use.

Texan_Bill
12-28-2011, 11:10 AM
I wish people would understand that PEDs are the exception and not the rule. Take the Mitchell report for example. The Mitchell report listed around 90 people and that spanned a few years. During the regular season there are 750 players on MLB rosters (that number doesn't include people who may called up while someone else is rehabbing or on the DL).

So no... "Not everyone is doing it."

The Pencil Neck
12-28-2011, 11:41 AM
I wish people would understand that PEDs are the exception and not the rule. Take the Mitchell report for example. The Mitchell report listed around 90 people and that spanned a few years. During the regular season there are 750 players on MLB rosters (that number doesn't include people who may called up while someone else is rehabbing or on the DL).

So no... "Not everyone is doing it."

The strength coaches I've worked with who worked with college and professional athletes in track & field, cycling, olympic weightlifting, football, figure skating, and hockey told me something entirely different. Granted, I haven't worked with those guys since about 2001 and maybe everything has cleaned up since then... but I doubt it.

Guys don't test positive for PEDs because they no longer use the PEDs that the agencies test for or do things with the drugs so that they won't test positive (like maintaining a "legal" test/epi-test ratio). Every time a new test is developed, someone develops another way around it. There are guys out there, like Victor Conte and Patrick Arnold, who just find ways around the drug tests and loopholes in the laws and rules.

TheCD
12-28-2011, 11:47 AM
Murder and theft are illegal, but people still engage in that too. SHould we make that legal just because there are scumbags that take part in that any way?? Sure it's not the same thing, but your premise is the exact same. People break the rules any way, so why not just let them break the rules?? Sorry, but that's extremely flawed. You want to force other people who want to play by the rules to put harmful substances into their bodies in order to keep their jobs.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am not trying to say "just because some people are doing it this should be allowed". What I was trying to say was that the league already allows for performance-enhancing drugs to be used, so I am against a crusade on steroids and HGH because painkillers are the same exact thing. Again, just because some people use steroids and HGH does not mean everyone would be forced to. Likewise, someone who chooses not to could very well be better than all of the people who do use. Use of a PED in no way means the user is guaranteed to be better than their peers.




Well all you're doing is a bunch of speculation here. I don't care who or how many players you think are using some form of PED. As a fan I want to see natural athletes competing. If someone wants to break the rules, than I hope that they're caught and eventually they will be. Every league will eventually come up with stronger and better methods to catch athletes who try to cheat their sports. As long as the league is continually trying to evolve their methods to catch the guys who aren't flying straight, than I'm good with that knowing that there might be a few here and there that get away with it for a certain while.

I believe this gets at the heart of my original post and I'm glad you said it. This is where we differ and no matter what either of us says our opinions will remain different. Personally, I feel as though there is nothig wrong with using them as they aren't a miracle drug that suddenly makes you better. I feel as though if someone wants to put something in their body that isn't hurting others then that should be their right. If testing is not done, it is quite likely younger athletes will not know of the use anyways (or they will not know of the use any more than the speculation there already is now even though it is not allowed). Again, I appreciate your point here and this is what I was wanting to understand when asking this question to begin with.

You can sit here in this fantasy world and act like all athletes wouldn't eventually have to take PED's to compete, but you're way off on that. Once the majority of athletes started using they'd have a better competitive advantage and no athlete wants to know that their competitors have advantages over them because of PED's. They'll eventually feel like they need that same advantage or to have that advantage negated and they'll use as well. College athletes will all start using as well and it never ends at that point. That also teaches young kids that it's okay to use PED's because the pro athletes do that are on tv. It turns into a never ending cycle of drug use.

Again, this turns into the two of us speculating. The only difference is that you feel it will be a slippery slope of use and I do not. Hopefully we can agree to disagree here, but I stil feel vehemently that PED use is more rampant with players who are depserate to get/stay on a team than those already established.

eriadoc
12-28-2011, 04:10 PM
I feel as though if someone wants to put something in their body that isn't hurting others then that should be their right.

See, I agree with this, but I make the distinction. I want PEDs to be legal to use from our government, but I think the employer in this instance should ban them in an effort to provide a quality product ... and of course, the medical issues I mentioned in my other post in this thread. I don't think anyone should go to jail (unless they're idiotic enough to volunteer to go to Congress and then lie to them, in which case, I just laugh at their dumb ass), I just think the company has a responsibility to provide a quality product.

Keep escalating PED use and someone's going to die on the field as a result of a collision. Then we'll start seeing photoshop jobs of Goodell's face on the Emperor doing the thumbs down, and no one wants that.

Giant Tiger
12-28-2011, 11:51 PM
I'm probably in the minority here, but I voted that they should be allowed, because I've always found it strange that athletes who have used them have been suspended, but other athletes & officials (any discussion on this should include officials) who try to gain an edge by cheating get off scott-free.

If using PED's is cheating & an athlete caught using them is suspended, then all types of cheating should be treated the same. I remember watching a video of a Baltimore Orioles pitcher thrown out of a game because he was caught using a file a few years back. He got thrown out of the game, but everybody at work was laughing about it the next day; not because he was cheating, but because he got caught.

My point is if they want to eliminate cheating, then eliminate all of it by having severe penalties on all forms of cheating, don't just target PED's. If they won't do that; then PED's should be allowed.

The Olympics are even worse. There are crooked judges in practically every event; not just figure skating (remember Roy Jones beating up the Korean boxer? But the Korean won the gold medal... that was cheating). And why were the East German swimmers allowed to keep their gold medals from the 1970's & '80's? The fact they allowed that to happen is cheating, too.

markn
12-29-2011, 01:08 AM
I'm way more confused about this than I used to be. Dwayne Brown got banned for 4 games and I'm over it, he owned up to it, and all is good. Cushing essentially did the same crime and took us all for a bunch of fools: we all know he's neither 'over-trained' nor has he got a tumor, and he's certainly not pregnant. Everyone knows he was taking steroids and used a banned drug to equilibrate his natural testosterone generation at the end of a cycle. He takes his fans, team-mates, opponents and coaches all for fools; he's lost a ton of good will and almost certainly a pro-bowl selection because of it. I care that Cushing cheated, but I don't care that Brown did. Bottom line: if you're gonna do the crime you gotta do the time... and don't whine about it like a spoiled brat.

The Pencil Neck
12-29-2011, 01:55 AM
I'm way more confused about this than I used to be. Dwayne Brown got banned for 4 games and I'm over it, he owned up to it, and all is good. Cushing essentially did the same crime and took us all for a bunch of fools: we all know he's neither 'over-trained' nor has he got a tumor, and he's certainly not pregnant. Everyone knows he was taking steroids and used a banned drug to equilibrate his natural testosterone generation at the end of a cycle. He takes his fans, team-mates, opponents and coaches all for fools; he's lost a ton of good will and almost certainly a pro-bowl selection because of it. I care that Cushing cheated, but I don't care that Brown did. Bottom line: if you're gonna do the crime you gotta do the time... and don't whine about it like a spoiled brat.

The thing is that the HCG is now being used as a weight loss supplement by a lot of people. So he really might have been surprised that he tested positive and he might not have been taking the HCG to get his nuts going again. He may have been taking the HCG in a dose he thought would not give him a positive test but for the purpose of weight loss.

If he was using HCG to get his nuts going again, then he's a whole lot stupider than he seems.

thunderkyss
12-29-2011, 08:50 AM
I voted NO, and here's why:

Good post

1.) Uneven playing field - You're making the good guys taint their bodies.

If it were legal & administered properly, I don't think there would be the "good guy/bad guy" stigma would exist.

2.) Long-term health ramifications -

I think of it like race cars. They put all this "technology" into race cars that trickle down to our cars. Our cars today perform so much better than cars back in the day... gas mileage, efficiency, longevity, etc...

Imagine responsible administration of PEDs.... Steroids bad, don't use them. But you can use "this & that & some of this" allowing athletes (and us through the trickle down affect) to get closer to our full potential.

Who knows, the cure for cancer may be found through responsible PED programs.


I don't much care about the records, as long as context is observed when engaged in such discussions (HOF?), but the impact they have upon the rules of the game is critical, IMO.

If their not going to put an asterisk next to Brees' name for his latest record (QB protection & Rules made to benefit the passing game).... I don't think there should be any reference to the "steroid" era.

But that's just me.

kastofsna
12-29-2011, 08:51 AM
don't care what anyone does to their body. also i don't think it's even cheating.

thunderkyss
12-29-2011, 09:09 AM
I disagree with the idea that just because a few take them every else "has to". Would they feel pressure to? Sure. But nobody would force them to.

I'm sure there will be some of that. Just because the (would be) athlete will always wonder if he could be better.

But like you said earlier, or someone said, if it's legal, it would be safer. Instead of millions of young (would be) athletes experimenting with stuff they should absolutely not put into their bodies (sometimes injecting it straight into a vein), they would have safe alternatives.

& just because PEDs are made legal (in my mind) doesn't mean everything is automatically allowed. Some things that we know is dangerous would still be excluded. If there are medical folks who think a particular substance can safely be administered, then it should be allowed & they can figure out what is & what is not safe.

The supplement market is a joke right now. & I think this is one of the reasons.

The Pencil Neck
12-29-2011, 10:25 AM
I'm sure there will be some of that. Just because the (would be) athlete will always wonder if he could be better.

But like you said earlier, or someone said, if it's legal, it would be safer. Instead of millions of young (would be) athletes experimenting with stuff they should absolutely not put into their bodies (sometimes injecting it straight into a vein), they would have safe alternatives.

& just because PEDs are made legal (in my mind) doesn't mean everything is automatically allowed. Some things that we know is dangerous would still be excluded. If there are medical folks who think a particular substance can safely be administered, then it should be allowed & they can figure out what is & what is not safe.

The supplement market is a joke right now. & I think this is one of the reasons.

Right now, there are a bunch of high school athletes out there who have thoroughly convinced themselves they're taking steroids when they're not. And they tell people they're taking steroids. But they're really just taking stuff like Creatine (which is totally legal and not a steroid.)

But because these kids are trying to find an edge, they want to be taking something to enhance their performance. They experiment with stuff that's dangerous. I knew some guys that were experimenting with stuff that's basically rat poison because it was supposed to raise your metabolism and heighten fat burning.

If we could legalize some stuff and make the enhancement of athletic performance a valid and legal type of medical practice, it would make everything safer and remove some of the hoodoo medicine out there.

And we'd also have healthier athletes who are able to perform at a higher level for longer. There are reasons to take steroids and hGH and things like that to aid in recovery from injuries and things like that.

HJam72
12-29-2011, 11:32 AM
1. Rat poison is absolutely a fat burner. It kills all yer fat.

2. Cushing was pregnant and I'm sticking to it. :)

Texecutioner
12-29-2011, 11:44 AM
I can't believe that anyone would advocate to change our sports industry in this country completely to where everyone has to take PED's or steroids to be a professional athlete.

And spare me with the responses of "Well they wouldn't have to", because that's a complete crock and anyone using that is denying the obvious. Players want to keep their positions and they've got two to three guys always trying to out play them to "take" their positions and when that starter knows they're taking PED's he'll have to take PED's most likely to keep up especially as they get older or after a few injuries. That's the nature of the beast. Also, players are playing for huge contracts and signing bonuses where you typically get paid after having a huge season or having several huge seasons. Athletes are already to motivated to take PED's now to try and land that huge contract, that it would only get way worse. That's way to much money on the line for athletes not to take PED's if they're legal and everyone else is doing that. The regular athletes that don't want to take them eventually know that they have to in order to keep up. You steroid and PED advocates can deny this all you want, but that's reality

The Pencil Neck
12-30-2011, 05:09 PM
I can't believe that anyone would advocate to change our sports industry in this country completely to where everyone has to take PED's or steroids to be a professional athlete.

And spare me with the responses of "Well they wouldn't have to", because that's a complete crock and anyone using that is denying the obvious. Players want to keep their positions and they've got two to three guys always trying to out play them to "take" their positions and when that starter knows they're taking PED's he'll have to take PED's most likely to keep up especially as they get older or after a few injuries. That's the nature of the beast. Also, players are playing for huge contracts and signing bonuses where you typically get paid after having a huge season or having several huge seasons. Athletes are already to motivated to take PED's now to try and land that huge contract, that it would only get way worse. That's way to much money on the line for athletes not to take PED's if they're legal and everyone else is doing that. The regular athletes that don't want to take them eventually know that they have to in order to keep up. You steroid and PED advocates can deny this all you want, but that's reality

You're arguing against yourself.

Because you are completely right. There's WAY too much money on the line for athletes not to take PEDs. Period. And you can bet that they are. And because there's so much money on the line, guys are coming up with ways to get around the rules and the laws and making money off of it.

I think it's better to make everything transparent so we know what these guys are taking and so they can take the drugs safely and so someone can monitor the drugs and then see what the real risks and consequences are. As opposed to what we have now where most professional and olympic level athletes are most likely taking drugs but no one knows exactly what and even the athletes don't know if what they're taking is really any good or if it's killing them.

thunderkyss
12-30-2011, 07:48 PM
You're arguing against yourself.

Because you are completely right. There's WAY too much money on the line for athletes not to take PEDs. Period. And you can bet that they are. And because there's so much money on the line, guys are coming up with ways to get around the rules and the laws and making money off of it.


I don't think they all are & I don't think it is so bad that it is at the stage you suggest.

I don't think Kevin Walter uses PEDs, I don't think Andre does either. But I have no doubt they use whey protein, Casein, Amino Acids, or use high tech workout equipment, spas, the best medical care available, etc...

I do not think steroids are any different than a B12 tablet.

Yes, steroids as we know them today are dangerous, especially when you add in all the hoodoo science. However, I think with the proper research I think we can produce products that are as safe as a multivitamin that will help the human body reach their ultimate potential..... which is why I watch sports. I want to see the best of the best compete for my amusement.

The Pencil Neck
12-30-2011, 10:58 PM
I don't think they all are & I don't think it is so bad that it is at the stage you suggest.

I don't think Kevin Walter uses PEDs, I don't think Andre does either. But I have no doubt they use whey protein, Casein, Amino Acids, or use high tech workout equipment, spas, the best medical care available, etc...

I do not think steroids are any different than a B12 tablet.

Yes, steroids as we know them today are dangerous, especially when you add in all the hoodoo science. However, I think with the proper research I think we can produce products that are as safe as a multivitamin that will help the human body reach their ultimate potential..... which is why I watch sports. I want to see the best of the best compete for my amusement.

We're talking about Performance Enhancing Drugs. I'm not saying that everyone is taking Steroids. I'm not even saying that everyone is taking substances that are illegal or are specifically banned.

What I'm saying is that professional (and olympic level) athletes take performance enhancing drugs.

People today are hung up on steroids and hGH but there are other things that people are taking to improve their performance. And I believe the regulating agencies and the general public are always a step behind.

Steroids are like the sledge hammer of performance enhancing drugs. Athletes on the cutting edge of training started taking them in the 50's. By the 60's, you couldn't find more than a couple of bodybuilders who weren't using them. By the end of the 70's, most football players were probably taking them. They weren't made illegal until the early 90's (and you can still take them "legally" even today if you're willing to put in the effort.)

Steroids haven't been on the "cutting edge" of performance enhancers since then.

Remember the Pro-Hormone craze in the 90's/early 00's? That was one of the first attempts to find a steroid-like performance enhancer. The idea was to use the body's own testosterone production machinery to produce more testosterone than normal. AND, those prohormones could be made from plants and so fell under the heading of Herbal Supplement and were NOT illegal. The problem with them was that they didn't work very well and they still caused an imbalance in the test/epi-test ratio so you still tested positive for steroids, even though you hadn't taken any. (Which caused a lot of failed steroid tests.)

The same guy that developed those prohormones (for EAS) worked with Victor Conte to create the Cream and the Clear that Bonds and Jones were using. The Cream and the Clear were topically applied steroids that boosted your testosterone levels while maintaining the test/epi-test ratio so you tested negative for steroid use even though you were effectively taking steroids. And I don't know if those compounds were necessarily even against the law per se.

I believe that stuff is just the tip of the iceberg. I've heard about athletes taking other stuff that no one really even talks about. I can't believe that in the 10 years since I was heavy into that community that a lot more stuff hasn't been developed. And I can't believe that professional athletes, with the money they have and the money they stand to lose, aren't finding new and better drugs to spend their money on.

Steroids? That's so last century.

Rey
12-31-2011, 01:06 AM
Not only no, but HELL NO.

Only thing I've ever taken is vitamins and I've taken a little protein.

I hope to have a son one day that will want to play football and I don't want him to feel pressured to used PED's because virtually everyone around him is taking it. Rely on DNA, workout habits, protein and such, vitamins...hard work.

Keep PED's out of sports as much as possible.