Why are steroids so bad?

[glucklich]

Understand that a part of me finds them disagreeable but on the other hand part of me says, "so what". If these guys are willing to suffer the consequences then whats the problem? People complain about the sancitity of records and such but why is this always a one-way street? Back in the day the mits didnt have fingers that were bound together yet no one ever questions batting averages from back in the day. The game has also become more integretated which might have affected the records pre 1947. No one ever complains tries to diminish the records from before this. Also, as I mentioned in the other thread, using drugs like cortizone to help players play through pain/injury is really not much different than steroids. I could be wrong on this but I think there is also more substantial proof regarding the negative effects of cortizone as Ive heard it erodes your cartilage. I remember hearing about how the Bears would shoot up Butkus with coritzone. The fact is that records are improved through improvements in technigue/technology all the time. Theres better equipment, training techniques, technique improvements in the activity itself, surgery to diminish the effect of injury...so doesnt it seem kind of arbitrary to draw the line at steroids?

Some actually seem more offended by steroids than gambling. At least with steroids you know the person is trying to excel whereas with gambling even if you only bet on your team you implicitly bet against them when you dont bet. In fact, steroids are kind of an insurance policy that a player is not likely to manipulate the outcome to lose or shave points. Why would someone subject themselves to the affects of steroids to do that?

Thoughts?

[mfreder2]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

the problem is you don't want to pressure kids and other players to feel they have to use steriods to get to the pro level or be good. The players are role models whether they like it or not.

[mfreder2]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

the problem is you don't want to pressure kids and other players to feel they have to use steriods to get to the pro level or be good. The players are role models whether they like it or not.

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

the problem is you don't want to pressure kids and other players to feel they have to use steriods to get to the pro level or be good. The players are role models whether they like it or not.

But as long as they know there might be consequences is it really a problem?

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

the problem is you don't want to pressure kids and other players to feel they have to use steriods to get to the pro level or be good. The players are role models whether they like it or not.

But as long as they know there might be consequences is it really a problem?

[CWood2]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

Understand that a part of me finds them disagreeable but on the other hand part of me says, "so what". If these guys are willing to suffer the consequences then whats the problem? People complain about the sancitity of records and such but why is this always a one-way street? Back in the day the mits didnt have fingers that were bound together yet no one ever questions batting averages from back in the day. The game has also become more integretated which might have affected the records pre 1947. No one ever complains tries to diminish the records from before this. Also, as I mentioned in the other thread, using drugs like cortizone to help players play through pain/injury is really not much different than steroids. I could be wrong on this but I think there is also more substantial proof regarding the negative effects of cortizone as Ive heard it erodes your cartilage. I remember hearing about how the Bears would shoot up Butkus with coritzone. The fact is that records are improved through improvements in technigue/technology all the time. Theres better equipment, training techniques, technique improvements in the activity itself, surgery to diminish the effect of injury...so doesnt it seem kind of arbitrary to draw the line at steroids?

Some actually seem more offended by steroids than gambling. At least with steroids you know the person is trying to excel whereas with gambling even if you only bet on your team you implicitly bet against them when you dont bet. In fact, steroids are kind of an insurance policy that a player is not likely to manipulate the outcome to lose or shave points. Why would someone subject themselves to the affects of steroids to do that?

Thoughts?

Some would argue (as Pete Rose would now) that gambling is a sickness like alcoholism or a chemical imbalance that causes depression. With steroids, you're making a choice to cheat, to take a short cut in your training, and to inflate your stats if it all works in your favor. There was an outrage over that head coach who lied about his resume, yet Giambi still has $80 million coming his way and he did the same thing...misrepresent himself to the Yankees and cash in because of it.

Good points about how baseball and sports have changed, but baseball historians have always made adjustments in how they judge stats over time. The juiced ball era is a great example. The only problem with today is that we don't know who's on the juice and how many records will be dishonestly broken, so where do we put the asterisk? Now that Hank's sacred mark is being approached, I don't think anyone knows what to do. It's a nightmare for Bud and all of us fans who don't know how to react. Do we accept the stories of Jose Canseco and alleged mistresses or keep our eyes forward until a system is intact that can decipher everything...and who knows when that'll be if ever. At a minimum, steroids have given all of us doubts we shouldn't have to think about.

[CWood2]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

Understand that a part of me finds them disagreeable but on the other hand part of me says, "so what". If these guys are willing to suffer the consequences then whats the problem? People complain about the sancitity of records and such but why is this always a one-way street? Back in the day the mits didnt have fingers that were bound together yet no one ever questions batting averages from back in the day. The game has also become more integretated which might have affected the records pre 1947. No one ever complains tries to diminish the records from before this. Also, as I mentioned in the other thread, using drugs like cortizone to help players play through pain/injury is really not much different than steroids. I could be wrong on this but I think there is also more substantial proof regarding the negative effects of cortizone as Ive heard it erodes your cartilage. I remember hearing about how the Bears would shoot up Butkus with coritzone. The fact is that records are improved through improvements in technigue/technology all the time. Theres better equipment, training techniques, technique improvements in the activity itself, surgery to diminish the effect of injury...so doesnt it seem kind of arbitrary to draw the line at steroids?

Some actually seem more offended by steroids than gambling. At least with steroids you know the person is trying to excel whereas with gambling even if you only bet on your team you implicitly bet against them when you dont bet. In fact, steroids are kind of an insurance policy that a player is not likely to manipulate the outcome to lose or shave points. Why would someone subject themselves to the affects of steroids to do that?

Thoughts?

Some would argue (as Pete Rose would now) that gambling is a sickness like alcoholism or a chemical imbalance that causes depression. With steroids, you're making a choice to cheat, to take a short cut in your training, and to inflate your stats if it all works in your favor. There was an outrage over that head coach who lied about his resume, yet Giambi still has $80 million coming his way and he did the same thing...misrepresent himself to the Yankees and cash in because of it.

Good points about how baseball and sports have changed, but baseball historians have always made adjustments in how they judge stats over time. The juiced ball era is a great example. The only problem with today is that we don't know who's on the juice and how many records will be dishonestly broken, so where do we put the asterisk? Now that Hank's sacred mark is being approached, I don't think anyone knows what to do. It's a nightmare for Bud and all of us fans who don't know how to react. Do we accept the stories of Jose Canseco and alleged mistresses or keep our eyes forward until a system is intact that can decipher everything...and who knows when that'll be if ever. At a minimum, steroids have given all of us doubts we shouldn't have to think about.

[Vyce3]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

steroids make your heart blow up by the age of 60

[Vyce3]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

steroids make your heart blow up by the age of 60

[Jimplication]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

I consider gambling to be worse than using steroids, because if someone is using steroids, they are ultimately doing it to better themselves, and thus their contribution to the team. Gambling is two-sided in that there is a chance that team members (at the player level or otherwise), might bet against the team they are on, and thus have a negative influence on their team, and possibly their own desires to help that team.

Steroids are a big deal now, but in the future I think they will become an accepted part of sports. You see it happening already.. Certain supplements are allowed, others aren't. As technology and supplements develops, players are going to start using something, even if it isn't a steroid by definition.

Granted, the records are going to be skewed against old timers that didn't have access to roids. However, records are already skewed as a result of players having better training facilities, better coaches, and better nutritionists advising them what to eat to increase their health, fitness, and muscle gains.

[Jimplication]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

I consider gambling to be worse than using steroids, because if someone is using steroids, they are ultimately doing it to better themselves, and thus their contribution to the team. Gambling is two-sided in that there is a chance that team members (at the player level or otherwise), might bet against the team they are on, and thus have a negative influence on their team, and possibly their own desires to help that team.

Steroids are a big deal now, but in the future I think they will become an accepted part of sports. You see it happening already.. Certain supplements are allowed, others aren't. As technology and supplements develops, players are going to start using something, even if it isn't a steroid by definition.

Granted, the records are going to be skewed against old timers that didn't have access to roids. However, records are already skewed as a result of players having better training facilities, better coaches, and better nutritionists advising them what to eat to increase their health, fitness, and muscle gains.

[Jimplication]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

steroids make your heart blow up by the age of 60

This could be true, but I don't think that is enough to make them illegal/prohibited.

Football players enter their profession knowing that it's going to be rough on their bodies, Many players retire at a young age (compared to 40 an hour, corporate Joe), because of the physicality of the game.

Therefore, using steroids has a consequence of possiblity lowering one's life expectancy, but so does the game itself.

These guys are over eighteen and able to legally make their own decisions, so I am not sure I totally agree with the notion that others must take on the task of looking out for them and stating what they can and can not do.

That being said, players in any sport are employed by governing bodies that are able to impose rules and regulations (just like any other job), and if those rules aren't followed, it's certainly grounds for termination.

My opposition to steroids would come from the fact that these guys would be using them against the consent of the powers that sign their paychecks, and thus they are open to being punished, even relieved of their duties, for their practices.

[Jimplication]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

steroids make your heart blow up by the age of 60

This could be true, but I don't think that is enough to make them illegal/prohibited.

Football players enter their profession knowing that it's going to be rough on their bodies, Many players retire at a young age (compared to 40 an hour, corporate Joe), because of the physicality of the game.

Therefore, using steroids has a consequence of possiblity lowering one's life expectancy, but so does the game itself.

These guys are over eighteen and able to legally make their own decisions, so I am not sure I totally agree with the notion that others must take on the task of looking out for them and stating what they can and can not do.

That being said, players in any sport are employed by governing bodies that are able to impose rules and regulations (just like any other job), and if those rules aren't followed, it's certainly grounds for termination.

My opposition to steroids would come from the fact that these guys would be using them against the consent of the powers that sign their paychecks, and thus they are open to being punished, even relieved of their duties, for their practices.

[Vyce3]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

This could be true, but I don't think that is enough to make them illegal/prohibited.

No much more the fact that using these is like cheating. EVEN if it is true that everyone use them. It's just not the way sports should be played.

[Vyce3]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

This could be true, but I don't think that is enough to make them illegal/prohibited.

No much more the fact that using these is like cheating. EVEN if it is true that everyone use them. It's just not the way sports should be played.