Why are steroids so bad?

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

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.

Im not insinuating this. Im saying that there is a disconnect in their logic when they readily tolerate certain painkillers yet oppose steroids.

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

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.

Im not insinuating this. Im saying that there is a disconnect in their logic when they readily tolerate certain painkillers yet oppose steroids.

[jujuhound]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

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.

I don't think he's saying that. I think he doesn't make a distinction between (A) using a painkiller to perform closer to your natural healthy maximum and (B)boosting your healthy maximum well beyond what you could do naturally.

[jujuhound]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

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.

I don't think he's saying that. I think he doesn't make a distinction between (A) using a painkiller to perform closer to your natural healthy maximum and (B)boosting your healthy maximum well beyond what you could do naturally.

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

JuJu said it best...

Cortrizone is "rehabilitative"
Steroids is "performance enhancing"

Seriously.... it's like polar opposites.

Two DIFFERENT drugs, that serve DIFFERENT purposes, yet you call them the SAME?!

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

JuJu said it best...

Cortrizone is "rehabilitative"
Steroids is "performance enhancing"

Seriously.... it's like polar opposites.

Two DIFFERENT drugs, that serve DIFFERENT purposes, yet you call them the SAME?!

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

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

This is not completely accurate. You are asserting that I advocate steroids which is not necessarily so. I dont necessarily think theyre good but I see it as a personal choice and accepting risk. Point 4 is not entirely accurate and to some degree point two. I dont think harm is irrelevant. My thing is that if you oppose steroids then it makes sense that you would also oppose cortisone since it has bad long term effects.

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

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

This is not completely accurate. You are asserting that I advocate steroids which is not necessarily so. I dont necessarily think theyre good but I see it as a personal choice and accepting risk. Point 4 is not entirely accurate and to some degree point two. I dont think harm is irrelevant. My thing is that if you oppose steroids then it makes sense that you would also oppose cortisone since it has bad long term effects.

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

JuJu said it best...

Cortrizone is "rehabilitative"
Steroids is "performance enhancing"

Seriously.... it's like polar opposites.

Two DIFFERENT drugs, that serve DIFFERENT purposes, yet you call them the SAME?!

Rehabilitative? Its a short term solution that creates long term problems...how is that "rehabilitative"?

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

JuJu said it best...

Cortrizone is "rehabilitative"
Steroids is "performance enhancing"

Seriously.... it's like polar opposites.

Two DIFFERENT drugs, that serve DIFFERENT purposes, yet you call them the SAME?!

Rehabilitative? Its a short term solution that creates long term problems...how is that "rehabilitative"?

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

I don't think he's saying that. I think he doesn't make a distinction between (A) using a painkiller to perform closer to your natural healthy maximum and (B)boosting your healthy maximum well beyond what you could do naturally.

I know he didn't say that "specifically", but if he's going to say cortizone is the same as steroids, he might as well have.

I understand what distinction he's NOT making.. I'm just trying to give him an extreme example of why he SHOULD make that distinction.

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

I don't think he's saying that. I think he doesn't make a distinction between (A) using a painkiller to perform closer to your natural healthy maximum and (B)boosting your healthy maximum well beyond what you could do naturally.

I know he didn't say that "specifically", but if he's going to say cortizone is the same as steroids, he might as well have.

I understand what distinction he's NOT making.. I'm just trying to give him an extreme example of why he SHOULD make that distinction.

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

Rehabilitative? Its a short term solution that creates long term problems...how is that "rehabilitative"?

But never ONCE is it "enhancing"...

[MSRoble33]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

Rehabilitative? Its a short term solution that creates long term problems...how is that "rehabilitative"?

But never ONCE is it "enhancing"...

[glucklich]

Re: Why are steroids so bad?

But never ONCE is it "enhancing"...

See post 66.