Why are steroids so bad?

[jujuhound]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

Holes punched in them? By whom?

I'll take a page out of your book, but at least it will make more sense considering that you have never responded to this argument.

"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."

I guess its because you say so. LOL, whatever that means. Youre just posturing at this point and its fairly obvious

All of your arguments are "because you say so." You have provided poor logic, at best, and then not bothered to clarify or expand when called on it. You started a whole new thread that you had to know would cause disagreement and argument, yet you refuse (or more likely are unable) to bring any counterarguments. You are above responding, I guess. Your pompous way of ignoring others arguments only makes your lack of a valid argument all the more transparent.

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

No, it makes it obvious you have nothing new or insightful to offer. I told jujuhound a while ago that I didnt want to have the same conversation over and over again. He has said nothing that CWood hasnt already said when he and I already had this discussion but I guess jujuhound thinks hes superior to CWood- that CWood didnt say it right or as well as he could. But the fact is CWood already hit on the points Ive seen from jujuhound yet jujuhound keeps reinventing the wheel and thinks hes accomplished something.

First off... YOU are rehashing all the same arguments yourself. The bottom line is steroids are BAD for baseball. They have been illegal for at LEAST 7-8 years.

Bud Selig just didn't enforce it with any muscle until now... does that mean previous violations are "ok"? NO!

Bud refuses to admit/fix the financial problem in baseball as well... does that mean there is none? NO!

If you have a belt squeeling in your car, you replace it ASAP... you don't do like Bud does and wait for it to break and leave him stranded on the road with no choice BUT to fix it.

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

No, it makes it obvious you have nothing new or insightful to offer. I told jujuhound a while ago that I didnt want to have the same conversation over and over again. He has said nothing that CWood hasnt already said when he and I already had this discussion but I guess jujuhound thinks hes superior to CWood- that CWood didnt say it right or as well as he could. But the fact is CWood already hit on the points Ive seen from jujuhound yet jujuhound keeps reinventing the wheel and thinks hes accomplished something.

First off... YOU are rehashing all the same arguments yourself. The bottom line is steroids are BAD for baseball. They have been illegal for at LEAST 7-8 years.

Bud Selig just didn't enforce it with any muscle until now... does that mean previous violations are "ok"? NO!

Bud refuses to admit/fix the financial problem in baseball as well... does that mean there is none? NO!

If you have a belt squeeling in your car, you replace it ASAP... you don't do like Bud does and wait for it to break and leave him stranded on the road with no choice BUT to fix it.

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

First off... YOU are rehashing all the same arguments yourself. The bottom line is steroids are BAD for baseball. They have been illegal for at LEAST 7-8 years.

Bud Selig just didn't enforce it with any muscle until now... does that mean previous violations are "ok"? NO!

Bud refuses to admit/fix the financial problem in baseball as well... does that mean there is none? NO!

If you have a belt squeeling in your car, you replace it ASAP... you don't do like Bud does and wait for it to break and leave him stranded on the road with no choice BUT to fix it.

If someone wants to say steroids are bad, I have no problem with that. At the outset of this thread, I said Im torn. Part of me acknowledges an detriment presented by steroids. But for people to lump cortizone in with tylenol is less accurate than saying cortizone (and drugs like it) are closer to steroids. There is an element of conditioning thats in effect too. Certain words have negative connotations. Steroids is one and its because its of what people associate it with, with respect to track and field but even moreso football. I have already said I dont think steroids should be in football due to the fact that its a contact sport. So, it makes a difference in that regard. But if someone wants to say, steroids are bad because A) they are not healthy or B) they make other participants feel they have to take them to compete then I dont have a problem with it really. However, point A loses validity when they dismiss some painkilling drugs. Again, part of this is conditioning. Cortizone doesnt have the same connotation as steroids when you hear it. In fact, its kind of viewed in a positive light even though its more similar to steroids than it is to tylenol in two very significant respects (the same respects people object to steroids). As Ive said, I think point B is the most valid argument against steroids but part of me feels that the best thing that can happen is to let people take steroids and then watch what happens to them...to suggest that someone should be able to play baseball without such pressure is like saying they have a right to play MLB and Im not sure thats the case...as I said before, it would be nice to go through life without having your priorities tested but...Im not sure thats compelling enough.

I guess point C) is that its illegal which has holes in it in that it is more vague than people want to realize. I dont disregard what jujuhound has said about suppliers but thats not what were talking about here. Were talking about the users and when Ive discussed the legality part of it I think Ive constantly mentioned that they have left it up to the leagues to deal with (IOW, they looked the other way), but thats whats relevant in this discussion rather than the suppliers.

BTW, Ive mentioned that something is only "illegal" to the extent that its enforced. You may not agree with this and it would not be shocking if you didnt as you are no doubt part of the posture crew now but nevertheless... See the post I pasted a short while ago that references the autobahn and leash laws. I dont care really if you agree with it but it interfaces with what Im saying about the concept of being "illegal".

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

First off... YOU are rehashing all the same arguments yourself. The bottom line is steroids are BAD for baseball. They have been illegal for at LEAST 7-8 years.

Bud Selig just didn't enforce it with any muscle until now... does that mean previous violations are "ok"? NO!

Bud refuses to admit/fix the financial problem in baseball as well... does that mean there is none? NO!

If you have a belt squeeling in your car, you replace it ASAP... you don't do like Bud does and wait for it to break and leave him stranded on the road with no choice BUT to fix it.

If someone wants to say steroids are bad, I have no problem with that. At the outset of this thread, I said Im torn. Part of me acknowledges an detriment presented by steroids. But for people to lump cortizone in with tylenol is less accurate than saying cortizone (and drugs like it) are closer to steroids. There is an element of conditioning thats in effect too. Certain words have negative connotations. Steroids is one and its because its of what people associate it with, with respect to track and field but even moreso football. I have already said I dont think steroids should be in football due to the fact that its a contact sport. So, it makes a difference in that regard. But if someone wants to say, steroids are bad because A) they are not healthy or B) they make other participants feel they have to take them to compete then I dont have a problem with it really. However, point A loses validity when they dismiss some painkilling drugs. Again, part of this is conditioning. Cortizone doesnt have the same connotation as steroids when you hear it. In fact, its kind of viewed in a positive light even though its more similar to steroids than it is to tylenol in two very significant respects (the same respects people object to steroids). As Ive said, I think point B is the most valid argument against steroids but part of me feels that the best thing that can happen is to let people take steroids and then watch what happens to them...to suggest that someone should be able to play baseball without such pressure is like saying they have a right to play MLB and Im not sure thats the case...as I said before, it would be nice to go through life without having your priorities tested but...Im not sure thats compelling enough.

I guess point C) is that its illegal which has holes in it in that it is more vague than people want to realize. I dont disregard what jujuhound has said about suppliers but thats not what were talking about here. Were talking about the users and when Ive discussed the legality part of it I think Ive constantly mentioned that they have left it up to the leagues to deal with (IOW, they looked the other way), but thats whats relevant in this discussion rather than the suppliers.

BTW, Ive mentioned that something is only "illegal" to the extent that its enforced. You may not agree with this and it would not be shocking if you didnt as you are no doubt part of the posture crew now but nevertheless... See the post I pasted a short while ago that references the autobahn and leash laws. I dont care really if you agree with it but it interfaces with what Im saying about the concept of being "illegal".

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

All of your arguments are "because you say so." You have provided poor logic, at best, and then not bothered to clarify or expand when called on it. You started a whole new thread that you had to know would cause disagreement and argument, yet you refuse (or more likely are unable) to bring any counterarguments. You are above responding, I guess. Your pompous way of ignoring others arguments only makes your lack of a valid argument all the more transparent.

No, I have expanded on it previously. You are just to lazy to look at the conversation with CWood I referred you to.

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

All of your arguments are "because you say so." You have provided poor logic, at best, and then not bothered to clarify or expand when called on it. You started a whole new thread that you had to know would cause disagreement and argument, yet you refuse (or more likely are unable) to bring any counterarguments. You are above responding, I guess. Your pompous way of ignoring others arguments only makes your lack of a valid argument all the more transparent.

No, I have expanded on it previously. You are just to lazy to look at the conversation with CWood I referred you to.

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

But for people to lump cortizone in with tylenol is less accurate than saying cortizone (and drugs like it) are closer to steroids. There is an element of conditioning thats in effect too.

This is where you got it exactly BACKWARDS though...

comparing cortizone to Tylenol is closer than Cortizone to Steroids...

Tylenol treats achy heads.
Cortizone treats achy joints.
These don't enhance anyone above their honest, hard-earned 100%.

Steroids does... steroids is purely used (in the sports world) to give an "edge" above other competitors. It's an "illegal" means of gaining an edge.

I won't defend McGwire for his Andro, sure it was legal in MLB at the time.. It was only made illegal like a couple years ago. BUT, Andro WAS banned in the NBA, NFL, NHL AND the Olympics, so obviously this is just a case of the MLB "being behind" as per usual. I don't believe Andro, or any other supplement is any better than steroids, however... but to toss in cortozone in comparison, really IS an "apples/oranges" comparison.

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

But for people to lump cortizone in with tylenol is less accurate than saying cortizone (and drugs like it) are closer to steroids. There is an element of conditioning thats in effect too.

This is where you got it exactly BACKWARDS though...

comparing cortizone to Tylenol is closer than Cortizone to Steroids...

Tylenol treats achy heads.
Cortizone treats achy joints.
These don't enhance anyone above their honest, hard-earned 100%.

Steroids does... steroids is purely used (in the sports world) to give an "edge" above other competitors. It's an "illegal" means of gaining an edge.

I won't defend McGwire for his Andro, sure it was legal in MLB at the time.. It was only made illegal like a couple years ago. BUT, Andro WAS banned in the NBA, NFL, NHL AND the Olympics, so obviously this is just a case of the MLB "being behind" as per usual. I don't believe Andro, or any other supplement is any better than steroids, however... but to toss in cortozone in comparison, really IS an "apples/oranges" comparison.

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

This is where you got it exactly BACKWARDS though...

comparing cortizone to Tylenol is closer than Cortizone to Steroids...

Tylenol treats achy heads.
Cortizone treats achy joints.
These don't enhance anyone above their honest, hard-earned 100%.

Steroids does... steroids is purely used (in the sports world) to give an "edge" above other competitors. It's an "illegal" means of gaining an edge.

I won't defend McGwire for his Andro, sure it was legal in MLB at the time.. It was only made illegal like a couple years ago. BUT, Andro WAS banned in the NBA, NFL, NHL AND the Olympics, so obviously this is just a case of the MLB "being behind" as per usual. I don't believe Andro, or any other supplement is any better than steroids, however... but to toss in cortozone in comparison, really IS an "apples/oranges" comparison.

Ive been over this. Cortizone erodes your cartilage. Its not hard to understand that this could severly diminish ones quality of life after sports unlike Tylenol but like steroids. Yes, they are similar in that they are both meant to deal with pain but thats all. Yes, painkillers are performence enhancing. I also dont think youd take cortizone if you could get away with taking tylenol because of what I said. So cortizone becomes sort of a last option to overcome pain. So the pain has to be too severe for tylenol to work (killing that comparison). So then lets say that due to the pain, a player would only be 50% of what he would be uninjured. But lets say with cortizone he goes to 75%. That 50% was 100% on that given day. Lets say it raises you to 75%, you can look at that as a 25% increase or look at 75% as 1.5 times what he would have been otherwise...with steroids youd have to be 150 % of what you normally are to accomplish this if you look at it that way.

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

This is where you got it exactly BACKWARDS though...

comparing cortizone to Tylenol is closer than Cortizone to Steroids...

Tylenol treats achy heads.
Cortizone treats achy joints.
These don't enhance anyone above their honest, hard-earned 100%.

Steroids does... steroids is purely used (in the sports world) to give an "edge" above other competitors. It's an "illegal" means of gaining an edge.

I won't defend McGwire for his Andro, sure it was legal in MLB at the time.. It was only made illegal like a couple years ago. BUT, Andro WAS banned in the NBA, NFL, NHL AND the Olympics, so obviously this is just a case of the MLB "being behind" as per usual. I don't believe Andro, or any other supplement is any better than steroids, however... but to toss in cortozone in comparison, really IS an "apples/oranges" comparison.

Ive been over this. Cortizone erodes your cartilage. Its not hard to understand that this could severly diminish ones quality of life after sports unlike Tylenol but like steroids. Yes, they are similar in that they are both meant to deal with pain but thats all. Yes, painkillers are performence enhancing. I also dont think youd take cortizone if you could get away with taking tylenol because of what I said. So cortizone becomes sort of a last option to overcome pain. So the pain has to be too severe for tylenol to work (killing that comparison). So then lets say that due to the pain, a player would only be 50% of what he would be uninjured. But lets say with cortizone he goes to 75%. That 50% was 100% on that given day. Lets say it raises you to 75%, you can look at that as a 25% increase or look at 75% as 1.5 times what he would have been otherwise...with steroids youd have to be 150 % of what you normally are to accomplish this if you look at it that way.

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

Ive been over this. Cortizone erodes your cartilage. Its not hard to understand that this could severly diminish ones quality of life after sports unlike Tylenol but like steroids. Yes, they are similar in that they are both meant to deal with pain but thats all. Yes, painkillers are performence enhancing. I also dont think youd take cortizone if you could get away with taking tylenol because of what I said. So cortizone becomes sort of a last option to overcome pain. So the pain has to be too severe for tylenol to work (killing that comparison). So then lets say that due to the pain, a player would only be 50% of what he would be uninjured. But lets say with cortizone he goes to 75%. That 50% was 100% on that given day. Lets say it raises you to 75%, you can look at that as a 25% increase or look at 75% as 1.5 times what he would have been otherwise...with steroids youd have to be 150 % of what you normally are to accomplish this if you look at it that way.

I just CANNOT see you logic... this is a VERY incorrect perspective. On several levels.

Basically what you're insinuating is that a cortizone shot is going to help a baseball player hit 600' homeruns.

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

Ive been over this. Cortizone erodes your cartilage. Its not hard to understand that this could severly diminish ones quality of life after sports unlike Tylenol but like steroids. Yes, they are similar in that they are both meant to deal with pain but thats all. Yes, painkillers are performence enhancing. I also dont think youd take cortizone if you could get away with taking tylenol because of what I said. So cortizone becomes sort of a last option to overcome pain. So the pain has to be too severe for tylenol to work (killing that comparison). So then lets say that due to the pain, a player would only be 50% of what he would be uninjured. But lets say with cortizone he goes to 75%. That 50% was 100% on that given day. Lets say it raises you to 75%, you can look at that as a 25% increase or look at 75% as 1.5 times what he would have been otherwise...with steroids youd have to be 150 % of what you normally are to accomplish this if you look at it that way.

I just CANNOT see you logic... this is a VERY incorrect perspective. On several levels.

Basically what you're insinuating is that a cortizone shot is going to help a baseball player hit 600' homeruns.

[jujuhound]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

No, I have expanded on it previously. You are just to lazy to look at the conversation with CWood I referred you to.

I did read one of your threads with CWood (I made one ill-advised post before reading the whole thread), and you did respond to certain points but ignored or failed to expand on many that I thought were important to your argument (i.e. drawing lines and why it was always arbitrary, illegality). Several people have brought up points that present a different angle and you dismissed them all as the same. That was all I had a problem with. I completely disagree that cortisone is closer to steroids than it is to Tylenol, so that is going to make it possible to come to any resolution.

Bottom Line:

I think:
(1) legality of the drug is not determined by how well the law is enforced
(2) you must consider the degree of harm that each drug causes
(3) cortisone is a medical rehabilitation treatment, not a performance enhancer

You think:
(1) legality is irrelevant if the rules are not enforced by MLB
(2) degree of harm is arbitrary and, therefore, irrelevant
(3) cortisone is a performance enhancing drug similar to steroids
(4) drugs are good

With this many disagreements on basic facts, we will never agree on this subject

[jujuhound]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

No, I have expanded on it previously. You are just to lazy to look at the conversation with CWood I referred you to.

I did read one of your threads with CWood (I made one ill-advised post before reading the whole thread), and you did respond to certain points but ignored or failed to expand on many that I thought were important to your argument (i.e. drawing lines and why it was always arbitrary, illegality). Several people have brought up points that present a different angle and you dismissed them all as the same. That was all I had a problem with. I completely disagree that cortisone is closer to steroids than it is to Tylenol, so that is going to make it possible to come to any resolution.

Bottom Line:

I think:
(1) legality of the drug is not determined by how well the law is enforced
(2) you must consider the degree of harm that each drug causes
(3) cortisone is a medical rehabilitation treatment, not a performance enhancer

You think:
(1) legality is irrelevant if the rules are not enforced by MLB
(2) degree of harm is arbitrary and, therefore, irrelevant
(3) cortisone is a performance enhancing drug similar to steroids
(4) drugs are good

With this many disagreements on basic facts, we will never agree on this subject