Why are steroids so bad?

[TimmeH]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

While you are coming up with good arguments for the points that people are bringing up, I find this whole debate dumb.

There's no reason players should have to make the choice of putting their health on the line just to compete with other athletes. It gives people who are reckless and don't give a crap about their body an unfair advantage over those who actually value their live.

I have nothing wrong with taking steroids, if people wanna ruin their lives, fine. It's no different than cigarettes or alcohol as far as I'm concerned. But it shouldn't be allowed in organized sports.

[TimmeH]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

While you are coming up with good arguments for the points that people are bringing up, I find this whole debate dumb.

There's no reason players should have to make the choice of putting their health on the line just to compete with other athletes. It gives people who are reckless and don't give a crap about their body an unfair advantage over those who actually value their live.

I have nothing wrong with taking steroids, if people wanna ruin their lives, fine. It's no different than cigarettes or alcohol as far as I'm concerned. But it shouldn't be allowed in organized sports.

[sput]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

the point of the steroid debate is not that it will influence younger players to try them, it's rather what it represents. i posted this in another thread a few minutes ago, but it's really a matter of natural v. unnatural. the point of athletic competition, at least respected competition, is the inherent belief that what you are watching is the peak of human performance, and that the winner is somehow or another physically "superior."

sports in this way are a test of wills. which team is inherently more talented, and composed of the most will to win, etc. steroids have tainted this competition by increasing the limits of the human body. basically, the human anatomy can only do so much, it has limits. you cannot sprint for twenty straight miles, and you cannot pitch, usually, more than 9 innings without risking serious injury to an arm. steroids have come along, and while being illegal, have increased the potential for the body. in a game like baseball that puts such a high emphasis on past accomplishments, it is not quite kosher to compare a barry bonds, who has obviously experimented with illegal steroids, and someone like babe ruth who had never heard the word before.

in baseball a lot of people forget that the league wasn't always characterized by 10+ players in each league hitting 40 or more homeruns. in 1987 andre dawson and mark mcgwire hit 49 respectively, it was considered at the time a freak occurence. you just have to ask yourself if you have respect for the integrity, and history, of the game. if not, then juice on.

-J

[sput]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

the point of the steroid debate is not that it will influence younger players to try them, it's rather what it represents. i posted this in another thread a few minutes ago, but it's really a matter of natural v. unnatural. the point of athletic competition, at least respected competition, is the inherent belief that what you are watching is the peak of human performance, and that the winner is somehow or another physically "superior."

sports in this way are a test of wills. which team is inherently more talented, and composed of the most will to win, etc. steroids have tainted this competition by increasing the limits of the human body. basically, the human anatomy can only do so much, it has limits. you cannot sprint for twenty straight miles, and you cannot pitch, usually, more than 9 innings without risking serious injury to an arm. steroids have come along, and while being illegal, have increased the potential for the body. in a game like baseball that puts such a high emphasis on past accomplishments, it is not quite kosher to compare a barry bonds, who has obviously experimented with illegal steroids, and someone like babe ruth who had never heard the word before.

in baseball a lot of people forget that the league wasn't always characterized by 10+ players in each league hitting 40 or more homeruns. in 1987 andre dawson and mark mcgwire hit 49 respectively, it was considered at the time a freak occurence. you just have to ask yourself if you have respect for the integrity, and history, of the game. if not, then juice on.

-J

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

the point of the steroid debate is not that it will influence younger players to try them, it's rather what it represents. i posted this in another thread a few minutes ago, but it's really a matter of natural v. unnatural. the point of athletic competition, at least respected competition, is the inherent belief that what you are watching is the peak of human performance, and that the winner is somehow or another physically "superior."

sports in this way are a test of wills. which team is inherently more talented, and composed of the most will to win, etc. steroids have tainted this competition by increasing the limits of the human body. basically, the human anatomy can only do so much, it has limits. you cannot sprint for twenty straight miles, and you cannot pitch, usually, more than 9 innings without risking serious injury to an arm. steroids have come along, and while being illegal, have increased the potential for the body. in a game like baseball that puts such a high emphasis on past accomplishments, it is not quite kosher to compare a barry bonds, who has obviously experimented with illegal steroids, and someone like babe ruth who had never heard the word before.

in baseball a lot of people forget that the league wasn't always characterized by 10+ players in each league hitting 40 or more homeruns. in 1987 andre dawson and mark mcgwire hit 49 respectively, it was considered at the time a freak occurence. you just have to ask yourself if you have respect for the integrity, and history, of the game. if not, then juice on.

-J

Did you even read the thread? Here is part of the very first post in this thread which addressed people like you at the outset:

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?

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

the point of the steroid debate is not that it will influence younger players to try them, it's rather what it represents. i posted this in another thread a few minutes ago, but it's really a matter of natural v. unnatural. the point of athletic competition, at least respected competition, is the inherent belief that what you are watching is the peak of human performance, and that the winner is somehow or another physically "superior."

sports in this way are a test of wills. which team is inherently more talented, and composed of the most will to win, etc. steroids have tainted this competition by increasing the limits of the human body. basically, the human anatomy can only do so much, it has limits. you cannot sprint for twenty straight miles, and you cannot pitch, usually, more than 9 innings without risking serious injury to an arm. steroids have come along, and while being illegal, have increased the potential for the body. in a game like baseball that puts such a high emphasis on past accomplishments, it is not quite kosher to compare a barry bonds, who has obviously experimented with illegal steroids, and someone like babe ruth who had never heard the word before.

in baseball a lot of people forget that the league wasn't always characterized by 10+ players in each league hitting 40 or more homeruns. in 1987 andre dawson and mark mcgwire hit 49 respectively, it was considered at the time a freak occurence. you just have to ask yourself if you have respect for the integrity, and history, of the game. if not, then juice on.

-J

Did you even read the thread? Here is part of the very first post in this thread which addressed people like you at the outset:

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?

[sput]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

first of all, easy with the snide comments, no reason to get personal here, a good discussion can be had between people with dissenting opinions without insult. more often than not the person who responds with anger and attacks is the one without any valid argument.

and of course i read the thread, i was trying to lay out the difference between cortizone and steroids, and the point is, as has been said earlier, steroids extend the limits of personal performance. the cortizone issue is fuzzy, and i'm not entirely sure i support its presence either. when i played hs football i injured my knee in a semistate game and was given a shot to numb the pain so i could play through the second half. i ended up dislocating my patella completely, and did permanent damage to my leg as a result. in the past athletes have used coritzone more and more to provide "healing" so that they can compete, and you're right, someone should look into the usage. the difference is, cortizone is legal, and it does increase an athlete's natural "limit" of performance. if a player sprains his ankle, has a cortizone shot, and plays, while it does artificially enhance his recovery, it does not, in the least, increase his capability of performing.


-J

[sput]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

first of all, easy with the snide comments, no reason to get personal here, a good discussion can be had between people with dissenting opinions without insult. more often than not the person who responds with anger and attacks is the one without any valid argument.

and of course i read the thread, i was trying to lay out the difference between cortizone and steroids, and the point is, as has been said earlier, steroids extend the limits of personal performance. the cortizone issue is fuzzy, and i'm not entirely sure i support its presence either. when i played hs football i injured my knee in a semistate game and was given a shot to numb the pain so i could play through the second half. i ended up dislocating my patella completely, and did permanent damage to my leg as a result. in the past athletes have used coritzone more and more to provide "healing" so that they can compete, and you're right, someone should look into the usage. the difference is, cortizone is legal, and it does increase an athlete's natural "limit" of performance. if a player sprains his ankle, has a cortizone shot, and plays, while it does artificially enhance his recovery, it does not, in the least, increase his capability of performing.


-J

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

first of all, easy with the snide comments, no reason to get personal here, a good discussion can be had between people with dissenting opinions without insult. more often than not the person who responds with anger and attacks is the one without any valid argument.

and of course i read the thread, i was trying to lay out the difference between cortizone and steroids, and the point is, as has been said earlier, steroids extend the limits of personal performance. the cortizone issue is fuzzy, and i'm not entirely sure i support its presence either. when i played hs football i injured my knee in a semistate game and was given a shot to numb the pain so i could play through the second half. i ended up dislocating my patella completely, and did permanent damage to my leg as a result. in the past athletes have used coritzone more and more to provide "healing" so that they can compete, and you're right, someone should look into the usage. the difference is, cortizone is legal, and it does increase an athlete's natural "limit" of performance. if a player sprains his ankle, has a cortizone shot, and plays, while it does artificially enhance his recovery, it does not, in the least, increase his capability of performing.


-J

First of all, there was nothing personal. Your post was an attempt to make something which is complex simple. In the process you gloss over a variety of issues which have already been discussed. I matter of factly responded based on this. The fact that its illegal and the fact that it allows people to perform beyond their normal abilities are the most common arguments. Regarding the legality part, yeah, its prohibited but so are a lot of things. My neighborhood has a leash law but no one is ever ticketed though they could be. So is it really a law? Its questionable if they dont enforce it. Maybe its there to only be enforced if someone gets attacked (like German speed limits where theyre only enforced if there is an accident) in which case calling a law is questionable if its not to be enforced. Maybe its a term that speaks more to willingness to enforce rather than a process of formalizing. In any case, the legality point is weak since it hasnt been enforced by the fed gvt until now. Also, its been pointed out that people contradict themselves when they voice intolerance for steroids but are willing to tolerate drugs like cortizone in that they both yield the same effect and both can be harmful long term. I dont have a problem with someone who doesnt like steroids but if its inconsistent with how they view other things then its worth challenging because a lot of how people think is conditioning.

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

first of all, easy with the snide comments, no reason to get personal here, a good discussion can be had between people with dissenting opinions without insult. more often than not the person who responds with anger and attacks is the one without any valid argument.

and of course i read the thread, i was trying to lay out the difference between cortizone and steroids, and the point is, as has been said earlier, steroids extend the limits of personal performance. the cortizone issue is fuzzy, and i'm not entirely sure i support its presence either. when i played hs football i injured my knee in a semistate game and was given a shot to numb the pain so i could play through the second half. i ended up dislocating my patella completely, and did permanent damage to my leg as a result. in the past athletes have used coritzone more and more to provide "healing" so that they can compete, and you're right, someone should look into the usage. the difference is, cortizone is legal, and it does increase an athlete's natural "limit" of performance. if a player sprains his ankle, has a cortizone shot, and plays, while it does artificially enhance his recovery, it does not, in the least, increase his capability of performing.


-J

First of all, there was nothing personal. Your post was an attempt to make something which is complex simple. In the process you gloss over a variety of issues which have already been discussed. I matter of factly responded based on this. The fact that its illegal and the fact that it allows people to perform beyond their normal abilities are the most common arguments. Regarding the legality part, yeah, its prohibited but so are a lot of things. My neighborhood has a leash law but no one is ever ticketed though they could be. So is it really a law? Its questionable if they dont enforce it. Maybe its there to only be enforced if someone gets attacked (like German speed limits where theyre only enforced if there is an accident) in which case calling a law is questionable if its not to be enforced. Maybe its a term that speaks more to willingness to enforce rather than a process of formalizing. In any case, the legality point is weak since it hasnt been enforced by the fed gvt until now. Also, its been pointed out that people contradict themselves when they voice intolerance for steroids but are willing to tolerate drugs like cortizone in that they both yield the same effect and both can be harmful long term. I dont have a problem with someone who doesnt like steroids but if its inconsistent with how they view other things then its worth challenging because a lot of how people think is conditioning.

[jujuhound]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

You keep snapping at people as if they haven't read any of your arguments. Why don't you try responding to some of the counterarguments brought up by others instead of just saying you already responded to it. Frankly, I have seen quite a few posts that you call "the same" that bring up points that you haven't even come close to refuting. Yet you still act like they are established fact.

Also, its been pointed out that people contradict themselves when they voice intolerance for steroids but are willing to tolerate drugs like cortizone in that they both yield the same effect and both can be harmful long term.

For instance, several people have tried to argue that the effect is not the same at all. Painkillers help you overcome the pain to perform as well as you normally can, steroids artificially boost your God-given abilities well beyond what you could do without them.

You also keep saying that taking a stance based on degree is ridiculous. That is complete garbage. Every day, every single person has to make a significant number of decisions based on their own judgment. Almost all of our laws can be violated to different degrees; murder, assault, theft, etc. Should I be punished the same whether I rip a hangnail off your finger against your will or beat you about the head and neck until you are nearly dead? No!! Why? Because our society has decided to "arbitrarily" make one of those crimes more serious than the other. We have made judgments on the degree of the crime. The same principle applies to any number of everyday decisions you make. If degree doesn't matter, then hell, I drive over the speed limit every day. I'm breaking the law anyway, so I might as well stop off at the Kwik-E-Mart and shoot up the place, rob the patrons, rape the women and blow up the gas tanks.

I dont have a problem with someone who doesnt like steroids but if its inconsistent with how they view other things then its worth challenging because a lot of how people think is conditioning.

We now know that cortisone has negative effects, but you have been comparing taking steroids (which have been illegal and known to be harmful for decades) to cortisone shots (which have always been legal and only in recent years found to be harmful). Not to mention the harm caused by cortisone is much less serious than steroids, but I guess I'm getting into those arbitrary judgments of degree there.

Regarding the legality part, yeah, its prohibited but so are a lot of things. My neighborhood has a leash law but no one is ever ticketed though they could be. So is it really a law? Its questionable if they dont enforce it. Maybe its there to only be enforced if someone gets attacked (like German speed limits where theyre only enforced if there is an accident) in which case calling a law is questionable if its not to be enforced. Maybe its a term that speaks more to willingness to enforce rather than a process of formalizing. In any case, the legality point is weak since it hasnt been enforced by the fed gvt until now.

I disagree with this point as well, but at least I can see where you're coming from. More of a philosophical argument like "if a tree falls in the woods with no one around, does it really make a sound?" The part where I think you are wrong is that the government has been enforcing the law, maybe just not as strictly as you would like. Like other drugs, the government tries to go after the suppliers and the dealers moreso than the end users - in this case the athletes. Most of the steroid drug busts, you have never heard about and never will. The dealers and suppliers are not the guys in the limelight that you would have heard of and who make the news. Ineffective enforcement does not equal no enforcement. The war against all drugs including steroids has been a losing one and not always dealt with by the government in the most effective manner. As far as baseball goes, they have had so little power in negotiating against the 800 lb gorilla that is the MLBPA that they couldn't even enforce the steroid policy if they wanted to. If the media hadn't made such an uproar over this steroid issue right now, the MLB could never have gotten the MLBPA to agree to testing. The players saw public opinion turning against them. That is the only reason there is now a steroid policy.

[jujuhound]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

You keep snapping at people as if they haven't read any of your arguments. Why don't you try responding to some of the counterarguments brought up by others instead of just saying you already responded to it. Frankly, I have seen quite a few posts that you call "the same" that bring up points that you haven't even come close to refuting. Yet you still act like they are established fact.

Also, its been pointed out that people contradict themselves when they voice intolerance for steroids but are willing to tolerate drugs like cortizone in that they both yield the same effect and both can be harmful long term.

For instance, several people have tried to argue that the effect is not the same at all. Painkillers help you overcome the pain to perform as well as you normally can, steroids artificially boost your God-given abilities well beyond what you could do without them.

You also keep saying that taking a stance based on degree is ridiculous. That is complete garbage. Every day, every single person has to make a significant number of decisions based on their own judgment. Almost all of our laws can be violated to different degrees; murder, assault, theft, etc. Should I be punished the same whether I rip a hangnail off your finger against your will or beat you about the head and neck until you are nearly dead? No!! Why? Because our society has decided to "arbitrarily" make one of those crimes more serious than the other. We have made judgments on the degree of the crime. The same principle applies to any number of everyday decisions you make. If degree doesn't matter, then hell, I drive over the speed limit every day. I'm breaking the law anyway, so I might as well stop off at the Kwik-E-Mart and shoot up the place, rob the patrons, rape the women and blow up the gas tanks.

I dont have a problem with someone who doesnt like steroids but if its inconsistent with how they view other things then its worth challenging because a lot of how people think is conditioning.

We now know that cortisone has negative effects, but you have been comparing taking steroids (which have been illegal and known to be harmful for decades) to cortisone shots (which have always been legal and only in recent years found to be harmful). Not to mention the harm caused by cortisone is much less serious than steroids, but I guess I'm getting into those arbitrary judgments of degree there.

Regarding the legality part, yeah, its prohibited but so are a lot of things. My neighborhood has a leash law but no one is ever ticketed though they could be. So is it really a law? Its questionable if they dont enforce it. Maybe its there to only be enforced if someone gets attacked (like German speed limits where theyre only enforced if there is an accident) in which case calling a law is questionable if its not to be enforced. Maybe its a term that speaks more to willingness to enforce rather than a process of formalizing. In any case, the legality point is weak since it hasnt been enforced by the fed gvt until now.

I disagree with this point as well, but at least I can see where you're coming from. More of a philosophical argument like "if a tree falls in the woods with no one around, does it really make a sound?" The part where I think you are wrong is that the government has been enforcing the law, maybe just not as strictly as you would like. Like other drugs, the government tries to go after the suppliers and the dealers moreso than the end users - in this case the athletes. Most of the steroid drug busts, you have never heard about and never will. The dealers and suppliers are not the guys in the limelight that you would have heard of and who make the news. Ineffective enforcement does not equal no enforcement. The war against all drugs including steroids has been a losing one and not always dealt with by the government in the most effective manner. As far as baseball goes, they have had so little power in negotiating against the 800 lb gorilla that is the MLBPA that they couldn't even enforce the steroid policy if they wanted to. If the media hadn't made such an uproar over this steroid issue right now, the MLB could never have gotten the MLBPA to agree to testing. The players saw public opinion turning against them. That is the only reason there is now a steroid policy.

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

You keep snapping at people as if they haven't read any of your arguments. Why don't you try responding to some of the counterarguments brought up by others instead of just saying you already responded to it. Frankly, I have seen quite a few posts that you call "the same" that bring up points that you haven't even come close to refuting. Yet you still act like they are established fact.



For instance, several people have tried to argue that the effect is not the same at all. Painkillers help you overcome the pain to perform as well as you normally can, steroids artificially boost your God-given abilities well beyond what you could do without them.

You also keep saying that taking a stance based on degree is ridiculous. That is complete garbage. Every day, every single person has to make a significant number of decisions based on their own judgment. Almost all of our laws can be violated to different degrees; murder, assault, theft, etc. Should I be punished the same whether I rip a hangnail off your finger against your will or beat you about the head and neck until you are nearly dead? No!! Why? Because our society has decided to "arbitrarily" make one of those crimes more serious than the other. We have made judgments on the degree of the crime. The same principle applies to any number of everyday decisions you make. If degree doesn't matter, then hell, I drive over the speed limit every day. I'm breaking the law anyway, so I might as well stop off at the Kwik-E-Mart and shoot up the place, rob the patrons, rape the women and blow up the gas tanks.



We now know that cortisone has negative effects, but you have been comparing taking steroids (which have been illegal and known to be harmful for decades) to cortisone shots (which have always been legal and only in recent years found to be harmful). Not to mention the harm caused by cortisone is much less serious than steroids, but I guess I'm getting into those arbitrary judgments of degree there.



I disagree with this point as well, but at least I can see where you're coming from. More of a philosophical argument like "if a tree falls in the woods with no one around, does it really make a sound?" The part where I think you are wrong is that the government has been enforcing the law, maybe just not as strictly as you would like. Like other drugs, the government tries to go after the suppliers and the dealers moreso than the end users - in this case the athletes. Most of the steroid drug busts, you have never heard about and never will. The dealers and suppliers are not the guys in the limelight that you would have heard of and who make the news. Ineffective enforcement does not equal no enforcement. The war against all drugs including steroids has been a losing one and not always dealt with by the government in the most effective manner. As far as baseball goes, they have had so little power in negotiating against the 800 lb gorilla that is the MLBPA that they couldn't even enforce the steroid policy if they wanted to. If the media hadn't made such an uproar over this steroid issue right now, the MLB could never have gotten the MLBPA to agree to testing. The players saw public opinion turning against them. That is the only reason there is now a steroid policy.

I didnt read this whole post but the you started off with more recycled rebuttals. If you had something new to say, you should have bottom-lined it.

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

You keep snapping at people as if they haven't read any of your arguments. Why don't you try responding to some of the counterarguments brought up by others instead of just saying you already responded to it. Frankly, I have seen quite a few posts that you call "the same" that bring up points that you haven't even come close to refuting. Yet you still act like they are established fact.



For instance, several people have tried to argue that the effect is not the same at all. Painkillers help you overcome the pain to perform as well as you normally can, steroids artificially boost your God-given abilities well beyond what you could do without them.

You also keep saying that taking a stance based on degree is ridiculous. That is complete garbage. Every day, every single person has to make a significant number of decisions based on their own judgment. Almost all of our laws can be violated to different degrees; murder, assault, theft, etc. Should I be punished the same whether I rip a hangnail off your finger against your will or beat you about the head and neck until you are nearly dead? No!! Why? Because our society has decided to "arbitrarily" make one of those crimes more serious than the other. We have made judgments on the degree of the crime. The same principle applies to any number of everyday decisions you make. If degree doesn't matter, then hell, I drive over the speed limit every day. I'm breaking the law anyway, so I might as well stop off at the Kwik-E-Mart and shoot up the place, rob the patrons, rape the women and blow up the gas tanks.



We now know that cortisone has negative effects, but you have been comparing taking steroids (which have been illegal and known to be harmful for decades) to cortisone shots (which have always been legal and only in recent years found to be harmful). Not to mention the harm caused by cortisone is much less serious than steroids, but I guess I'm getting into those arbitrary judgments of degree there.



I disagree with this point as well, but at least I can see where you're coming from. More of a philosophical argument like "if a tree falls in the woods with no one around, does it really make a sound?" The part where I think you are wrong is that the government has been enforcing the law, maybe just not as strictly as you would like. Like other drugs, the government tries to go after the suppliers and the dealers moreso than the end users - in this case the athletes. Most of the steroid drug busts, you have never heard about and never will. The dealers and suppliers are not the guys in the limelight that you would have heard of and who make the news. Ineffective enforcement does not equal no enforcement. The war against all drugs including steroids has been a losing one and not always dealt with by the government in the most effective manner. As far as baseball goes, they have had so little power in negotiating against the 800 lb gorilla that is the MLBPA that they couldn't even enforce the steroid policy if they wanted to. If the media hadn't made such an uproar over this steroid issue right now, the MLB could never have gotten the MLBPA to agree to testing. The players saw public opinion turning against them. That is the only reason there is now a steroid policy.

I didnt read this whole post but the you started off with more recycled rebuttals. If you had something new to say, you should have bottom-lined it.

[jujuhound]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

I didnt read this whole post but the you started off with more recycled rebuttals. If you had something new to say, you should have bottom-lined it.

Did you read even my first three lines? I started off by saying you haven't even responded to half the rebuttals that have been given. I guess your general refusal to make any distinctions with regard to anything causes you to think all responses against you are the same or "recycled".