Why are steroids so bad?

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Misfit
    All Star
    • Mar 2003
    • 5766

    #91
    Re: Why are steroids so bad?

    Originally posted by glucklich
    Well considering the enforcement the vast majority of the time has been minimal, maybe you should write your congressman, especially since you are reliant on others to raise your kid.

    The 50% you speak of is 100% at that point in time...sometimes 100% today is 50% of yesterday...and thats the point you cant navigate around.

    Why don't you address the issue instead of skipping across stones? I don't need society to raise my kid, and I never said I did. I said I did not want him or her growing up in a world where steroid usage was encouraged. That is all. Just like I wouldn't want to live in a world where most people taught their kids cannibalism was the way to eat. And I'm not the one who has a problem with how steroid use is handled by the government. I'm confident I can raise a kid who has enough sense not to take them, but that's just me.

    And the point I can't navigate isn't a point at all. An athlete taking cortizone injections to block pain isn't on the same level of health as the one who isn't. Gary Sheffield took a few cortizone injections last year and he couldn't even lift his right arm above his head to catch fly balls. You think he wants to be in that position? No one is gaining a competetive advantage of taking a cortizone injection and no one takes regularly enough (or is encouraged to take it regularly) for it to have serious health implications like the ones associated with steroid use.

    Comment

    • jujuhound
      MVP
      • Oct 2002
      • 1040

      #92
      Re: Why are steroids so bad?

      Originally posted by glucklich
      See this was mentioned before. The issue between steroids isnt really that one is a "pain dampener" like tylenol and the other is not. Cortizone is not like Tylenol. It erodes your cartilage. As I mentioned before Butkus sued the Bears for lying or not disclosing this effect of cortizone. Both enhance performence and both have long term effects-- not like tylenol. If you are objecting because steroids are A) unhealthy long term and B) performence enhancing, good luck reconciling that with what cortizone is.
      It is very easy to reconcile if (A) you don't believe that cortisone is performance enhancing and (B) you don't abhor the fact that in some situations you do have to draw "arbitrary" lines. You have a completely different and, in my opinion, absurd view of what a performance enhancer is than most people, so we clearly can't argue about that anymore than we already have. The long-term effects of cortisone shots and the long-term effects of steroids are not even in the neighborhood of being similar. I have no problem drawing that "arbitrary line" and saying that tumors, cancer and horrible death are much worse side effects than losing cartilage if you overuse cortisone shots. Like Heelfan said before, cortisone shots and steroids really are apples and oranges.

      Comment

      • jujuhound
        MVP
        • Oct 2002
        • 1040

        #93
        Re: Why are steroids so bad?

        Originally posted by glucklich
        See this was mentioned before. The issue between steroids isnt really that one is a "pain dampener" like tylenol and the other is not. Cortizone is not like Tylenol. It erodes your cartilage. As I mentioned before Butkus sued the Bears for lying or not disclosing this effect of cortizone. Both enhance performence and both have long term effects-- not like tylenol. If you are objecting because steroids are A) unhealthy long term and B) performence enhancing, good luck reconciling that with what cortizone is.
        It is very easy to reconcile if (A) you don't believe that cortisone is performance enhancing and (B) you don't abhor the fact that in some situations you do have to draw "arbitrary" lines. You have a completely different and, in my opinion, absurd view of what a performance enhancer is than most people, so we clearly can't argue about that anymore than we already have. The long-term effects of cortisone shots and the long-term effects of steroids are not even in the neighborhood of being similar. I have no problem drawing that "arbitrary line" and saying that tumors, cancer and horrible death are much worse side effects than losing cartilage if you overuse cortisone shots. Like Heelfan said before, cortisone shots and steroids really are apples and oranges.

        Comment

        • glucklich
          Banned
          • Jun 2004
          • 4272

          #94
          Re: Why are steroids so bad?

          Originally posted by jujuhound
          It is very easy to reconcile if (A) you don't believe that cortisone is performance enhancing and (B) you don't abhor the fact that in some situations you do have to draw "arbitrary" lines. You have a completely different and, in my opinion, absurd view of what a performance enhancer is than most people, so we clearly can't argue about that anymore than we already have. The long-term effects of cortisone shots and the long-term effects of steroids are not even in the neighborhood of being similar. I have no problem drawing that "arbitrary line" and saying that tumors, cancer and horrible death are much worse side effects than losing cartilage if you overuse cortisone shots. Like Heelfan said before, cortisone shots and steroids really are apples and oranges.

          Yawn, Ive already addressed the issue of drawing the line being an arbitrary exercise. Heres what I posted when discussing this with CWood:

          OK, Butkus did not know because he was not told or was lied to. I believe this is why he sued the Bears and also why they, in turn, didnt retire his number. But nevertheless, there have been people who have taken it more than a few times yet there is no stigma because it increased their capacity by over 25%. Changing your muscle mass can be done by other things than steroids but the more compelling physiological argument against steroids is that that you could end up like Lyle Alzado. Painkillers like cortizone can diminish your quality of life where steroids seem more likely to more severely shorten your life. But in any case, the physiological argument against steroids is that its dangerous like certain painkillers albeit to a different degree...but thats what it is --matters of degree which, as I said in the other thread, makes it an arbitrary exercise to take a stance. But as a general statement steroids and some painkillers are very similar and the same to the extent where one might say, "dangerous is dangerous" or where they might rather shorten their life than live in discomfort...again, this is arbitrary.

          ------

          The only reason you posture that its apples and oranges is to cling to this thread of a position you have taken. Youve entrenched yourself. This is also why you maintain that cortizone is not a performence enhancing drug even though it improves your perfromence capacity (which is basically performence enhancement defined). I was bored with your rebuttals before and you have yet to offer anything compelling or new.
          Last edited by glucklich; 02-17-2005, 07:40 PM.

          Comment

          • glucklich
            Banned
            • Jun 2004
            • 4272

            #95
            Re: Why are steroids so bad?

            Originally posted by jujuhound
            It is very easy to reconcile if (A) you don't believe that cortisone is performance enhancing and (B) you don't abhor the fact that in some situations you do have to draw "arbitrary" lines. You have a completely different and, in my opinion, absurd view of what a performance enhancer is than most people, so we clearly can't argue about that anymore than we already have. The long-term effects of cortisone shots and the long-term effects of steroids are not even in the neighborhood of being similar. I have no problem drawing that "arbitrary line" and saying that tumors, cancer and horrible death are much worse side effects than losing cartilage if you overuse cortisone shots. Like Heelfan said before, cortisone shots and steroids really are apples and oranges.

            Yawn, Ive already addressed the issue of drawing the line being an arbitrary exercise. Heres what I posted when discussing this with CWood:

            OK, Butkus did not know because he was not told or was lied to. I believe this is why he sued the Bears and also why they, in turn, didnt retire his number. But nevertheless, there have been people who have taken it more than a few times yet there is no stigma because it increased their capacity by over 25%. Changing your muscle mass can be done by other things than steroids but the more compelling physiological argument against steroids is that that you could end up like Lyle Alzado. Painkillers like cortizone can diminish your quality of life where steroids seem more likely to more severely shorten your life. But in any case, the physiological argument against steroids is that its dangerous like certain painkillers albeit to a different degree...but thats what it is --matters of degree which, as I said in the other thread, makes it an arbitrary exercise to take a stance. But as a general statement steroids and some painkillers are very similar and the same to the extent where one might say, "dangerous is dangerous" or where they might rather shorten their life than live in discomfort...again, this is arbitrary.

            ------

            The only reason you posture that its apples and oranges is to cling to this thread of a position you have taken. Youve entrenched yourself. This is also why you maintain that cortizone is not a performence enhancing drug even though it improves your perfromence capacity (which is basically performence enhancement defined). I was bored with your rebuttals before and you have yet to offer anything compelling or new.

            Comment

            • jujuhound
              MVP
              • Oct 2002
              • 1040

              #96
              Re: Why are steroids so bad?

              Originally posted by glucklich
              The only reason you posture that its apples and oranges is to cling to this thread of a position you have taken. Youve entrenched yourself. This is also why you maintain that cortizone is not a performence enhancing drug even though it improves your perfromence capacity (which is basically performence enhancement defined). I was bored with your rebuttals before and you have yet to offer anything compelling or new.
              Actually, the reason I say it is apples and oranges is because they truly are so different that they can't be compared. I think you are the one that is entrenched as the only thread that your argument hangs on is that it is silly to distinguish between different degrees of ill effects and illegality. I guess a cold is the same as cancer, vandalism is the same as murder, cigarettes are the same as crack, cortisone is the same as steroids....oops. Well, I guess we agree then. Under your definition of performance enhancing, batting gloves are performance enhancers. They allow a batter to grip the bat 2% better than they could without them, so they are performance enhancing and, therefore, the same as steroids.

              I agree with you that drawing lines between two drugs like Andro and steroids is an arbitrary exercise, but you can't simply apply that to everything no matter how disparate the two things are. You have to draw lines all the time, and exactly where you draw them is somewhat arbitrary, but you have to look at all the facts available to you decide where that should be. When two things are so completely dissimilar as steroids and cortisone, you have a lot of room to place that line and say the two things are different.

              Comment

              • jujuhound
                MVP
                • Oct 2002
                • 1040

                #97
                Re: Why are steroids so bad?

                Originally posted by glucklich
                The only reason you posture that its apples and oranges is to cling to this thread of a position you have taken. Youve entrenched yourself. This is also why you maintain that cortizone is not a performence enhancing drug even though it improves your perfromence capacity (which is basically performence enhancement defined). I was bored with your rebuttals before and you have yet to offer anything compelling or new.
                Actually, the reason I say it is apples and oranges is because they truly are so different that they can't be compared. I think you are the one that is entrenched as the only thread that your argument hangs on is that it is silly to distinguish between different degrees of ill effects and illegality. I guess a cold is the same as cancer, vandalism is the same as murder, cigarettes are the same as crack, cortisone is the same as steroids....oops. Well, I guess we agree then. Under your definition of performance enhancing, batting gloves are performance enhancers. They allow a batter to grip the bat 2% better than they could without them, so they are performance enhancing and, therefore, the same as steroids.

                I agree with you that drawing lines between two drugs like Andro and steroids is an arbitrary exercise, but you can't simply apply that to everything no matter how disparate the two things are. You have to draw lines all the time, and exactly where you draw them is somewhat arbitrary, but you have to look at all the facts available to you decide where that should be. When two things are so completely dissimilar as steroids and cortisone, you have a lot of room to place that line and say the two things are different.

                Comment

                • MSRoble33
                  MVP
                  • Aug 2002
                  • 1840

                  #98
                  Re: Why are steroids so bad?

                  Originally posted by jujuhound
                  Actually, the reason I say it is apples and oranges is because they truly are so different that they can't be compared. I think you are the one that is entrenched as the only thread that your argument hangs on is that it is silly to distinguish between different degrees of ill effects and illegality. I guess a cold is the same as cancer, vandalism is the same as murder, cigarettes are the same as crack, cortisone is the same as steroids....oops. Well, I guess we agree then. Under your definition of performance enhancing, batting gloves are performance enhancers. They allow a batter to grip the bat 2% better than they could without them, so they are performance enhancing and, therefore, the same as steroids.

                  I agree with you that drawing lines between two drugs like Andro and steroids is an arbitrary exercise, but you can't simply apply that to everything no matter how disparate the two things are. You have to draw lines all the time, and exactly where you draw them is somewhat arbitrary, but you have to look at all the facts available to you decide where that should be. When two things are so completely dissimilar as steroids and cortisone, you have a lot of room to place that line and say the two things are different.
                  LOL.. lord forbid if he finds out a guy took an aspirin before a game!!

                  Comment

                  • MSRoble33
                    MVP
                    • Aug 2002
                    • 1840

                    #99
                    Re: Why are steroids so bad?

                    Originally posted by jujuhound
                    Actually, the reason I say it is apples and oranges is because they truly are so different that they can't be compared. I think you are the one that is entrenched as the only thread that your argument hangs on is that it is silly to distinguish between different degrees of ill effects and illegality. I guess a cold is the same as cancer, vandalism is the same as murder, cigarettes are the same as crack, cortisone is the same as steroids....oops. Well, I guess we agree then. Under your definition of performance enhancing, batting gloves are performance enhancers. They allow a batter to grip the bat 2% better than they could without them, so they are performance enhancing and, therefore, the same as steroids.

                    I agree with you that drawing lines between two drugs like Andro and steroids is an arbitrary exercise, but you can't simply apply that to everything no matter how disparate the two things are. You have to draw lines all the time, and exactly where you draw them is somewhat arbitrary, but you have to look at all the facts available to you decide where that should be. When two things are so completely dissimilar as steroids and cortisone, you have a lot of room to place that line and say the two things are different.
                    LOL.. lord forbid if he finds out a guy took an aspirin before a game!!

                    Comment

                    • glucklich
                      Banned
                      • Jun 2004
                      • 4272

                      #100
                      Re: Why are steroids so bad?

                      Originally posted by MSRoble33
                      LOL.. lord forbid if he finds out a guy took an aspirin before a game!!
                      LOL, well the jokes on you as I addressed that. RIF...RIF.

                      Comment

                      • glucklich
                        Banned
                        • Jun 2004
                        • 4272

                        #101
                        Re: Why are steroids so bad?

                        Originally posted by MSRoble33
                        LOL.. lord forbid if he finds out a guy took an aspirin before a game!!
                        LOL, well the jokes on you as I addressed that. RIF...RIF.

                        Comment

                        • MSRoble33
                          MVP
                          • Aug 2002
                          • 1840

                          #102
                          Re: Why are steroids so bad?

                          first off, I was only messing... second off, you HAVE already addressed that, and STILL continue to bring up similar comparisons.

                          Steroids are and have been illegal... that in and of itself, should be enough to deem them "bad".

                          Comment

                          • MSRoble33
                            MVP
                            • Aug 2002
                            • 1840

                            #103
                            Re: Why are steroids so bad?

                            first off, I was only messing... second off, you HAVE already addressed that, and STILL continue to bring up similar comparisons.

                            Steroids are and have been illegal... that in and of itself, should be enough to deem them "bad".

                            Comment

                            • jujuhound
                              MVP
                              • Oct 2002
                              • 1040

                              #104
                              Re: Why are steroids so bad?

                              Originally posted by MSRoble33
                              first off, I was only messing... second off, you HAVE already addressed that, and STILL continue to bring up similar comparisons.

                              Steroids are and have been illegal... that in and of itself, should be enough to deem them "bad".
                              lol. You're going to get a copy/paste of his previously stated views on illegality that have already had more holes punched in them than Swiss cheese, followed by an admonition to read his posts next time.

                              Comment

                              • jujuhound
                                MVP
                                • Oct 2002
                                • 1040

                                #105
                                Re: Why are steroids so bad?

                                Originally posted by MSRoble33
                                first off, I was only messing... second off, you HAVE already addressed that, and STILL continue to bring up similar comparisons.

                                Steroids are and have been illegal... that in and of itself, should be enough to deem them "bad".
                                lol. You're going to get a copy/paste of his previously stated views on illegality that have already had more holes punched in them than Swiss cheese, followed by an admonition to read his posts next time.

                                Comment

                                Working...