Steroids and the Lost Data of Self-Experiment
Steroids and the Lost Data of Self-ExperimentGW: How common is this sort of self-experimentation among athletes?
Phineus: Among athletes that perform in any strength-, speed-, or endurance-dependent sport at the highest levels, at least 80 percent use "drugs" of some type. I use this term very broadly, because from a training perspective a drug is a drug is a drug. The usual distinction between a nutritional supplement and a drug is not a biological distinction, but a legal distinction.
GW: The ones who get caught using banned drugs always say "I didn't know what I was taking!"
Phineus: Pro athletes who claim ignorance are using the only defense they can. "I thought I was injecting flaxseed oil to get bigger." Right. That would be like a NASCAR driver claiming he knows nothing about fuel or tires. His job requires he know the vehicle, and being a top professional athlete requires understanding exactly what you put in your body to get performance out of your organic machine. It could make the difference between a 7-figure or 8-figure income. Carl Lewis tested positive for performance enhancers - stimulants - the same year that Ben Johnson tested positive for anabolic steroids and had his gold medal revoked. How did Carl Lewis then inherit the gold by default? Lewis had a more developed defense - herbal tea consumption - and the term "inadvertent use" was used to dismiss the charges. Athletes know exactly what's banned -- the lists are beaten over their heads ad nauseum because sports franchises and amateur federations dislike the labor costs, PR headache, and revenue loss that scandals can produce.
the latest
latest episodes
"The usual distinction between a nutritional supplement and a drug is not a biological distinction, but a legal distinction.'
It is a legal distinction based on a pharmacological and biochemical distinction.
There's a good doc about steroids I watched recently, "Bigger, Faster, Stronger":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigger,_Stronger,_Faster*
It starts a bit slow, but Christopher Bell gets a lot of good interviews and dives pretty deep into the topic.
Or like hedge fund managers who claim not to know exactly what they were buying.
Many men use patches or a cream for hormone replacement. There have been no long range studies of same. The supposed benefits are strictly anecdotal The doses are small in comparison to what athletes use. At a minimum they can cause fluid retention and high blood pressure. Even small doses can lead to prostate cancer. Contrary to what you'd suppose, steroids can make a man impotent.
Once upon a time the cops in Oakland, CA played match maker between a body builder and a stripper. Every night the body builder would stand before his mirrors and flex. In bed, nothing. His bride got an annulment.
Near the end of the article, it mentions that HGH can cause some body parts to enlarge, heads, hands, internal organs. Could the enlargement be targeted locally?
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
What it comes down to is this: Some millionaire playing baseball who dopes up is just pathetic. Because when world records were set back in the day with crappy equipment, crappy medicine and soot filled air... Well, you had to be amazing to set those records back in the day.
amateur sport (as typified by that corrupt drug-fest, the Olympics) should just give up on pretending. It's all about money, real professional sports should permit absolutely anything. That's what spectators want, gladiatorial,life and death circuses. Any drug, any body mod, anything that works.
I'd also like to refer to something Teresa said awhile back that I agree with:
The athletes who perform exceptionally well "naturally" are merely an accident of genetics. Their bodies happen to produce more testosterone, HGH, EPO, or whatever. Now, once we see gene doping become popularized, that line will be blurred forever.
The social taboo for HGH, anabolic steroids, etc. seems to parallel those of breast augmentation and shows such as The Swan: that science and money can combine to make you better than you are "naturally". c.f. fundamental attribution error
Time to watch GATTACA again. And remember what Syd Mead said:
c.f. transgressive fiction, morphological freedom
to me, the only "natural virtue" that "natural" has is that over the long term it has ensured survival so far. Not that artificial is "bad", just that keeping your eggs in multiple baskets (including the battered but still working old one) is good policy. The very first people who got radial keratotomy to fix shortsightedness had significant failures. Decades later with laser it is much safer. What if everyone had gone for the first tech?
Thalidomide seemed like a good idea, a generation of maimed children followed. Now it's rehabilitated as a breast cancer drug. I guess what is really important is informed consent. I don't think people driven by fear and greed and loneliness make good, careful decisions. On the otehr hand, I really despise the hypocrisy of the Olympics, "amateur" sports leagues and so on. At least pro-wrestling makes no bones about being fake. Ultimate fighting is a bit wussy too - if they meant it, only one man would leave the ring.
But I see your point about how Thunderdome would actually become who can cause the other person's trachea to collapse first.
I have exactly this concern for the first brainjack. Actually, what really worries me is that version 1.0 won't be upgradable to version 2.0, but only "fresh" brains could get newer equipment. I imagine though that people with disabilities will be at the forefront of testing such technologies, as with the cochlear implant or limb replacement.mmph, that brings back a memory; first year university, this guy in the study hall I favoured who always wore a little tuque on an obviously shaved head. After a week he abandoned it and we saw a matchbox sized unit mounted on the top of his head. I think The Terminal Man came out around this time. I suppose he was resident at the teaching hospital attached. I'll never forget his eyes.
mark, you do understand we kill spammers around here?
We're getting spammed by a mortgage broker?
heh! full points for gall!
most of Steroid critics tend to forget what they were created for. Doctors use them to stimulate body growth all the time. They are not evil/toxic/poisonous/addictive. Yes, they have side effects, but so do Aspirin for example.
random googled Aspirin side effects:
Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); black or bloody stools; confusion; diarrhea; dizziness; drowsiness; hearing loss; ringing in the ears; severe or persistent stomach pain; unusual bruising; vomiting.
Steroids can work for your benefit if you take them under doctors supervision. Unfortunatelly society decided for you that its BAD(tm), just like Cannabis and sodomy :)
Well, it is a decent comment. Maybe he just didn't know we don't do that.
NY Mortgage Broker, we don't do that. Please put your link on your profile page. Threads are for conversation. Stick around.
Good catch.
Well, he's under the cornfield now.
I've never understood this argument. As a curvaceous and attractive young woman, people would say I was 'pretty' and I was supposed to say 'thank you' ... instead I said 'I know' (i'm kinda aspergoid)
Now that I'm older and fatter, people don't say that, but I don't really care, because this is what that always sounded like to me:
"Congratulations on the accident of your genetics!" or worse, "Your value is in that which you cannot choose rather than the product of your work." What an insult!
I think that steroids are something of a dead end in performance enhancement, because little evidence exists for things that 'fix' deficiency can 'boost' people within the 'normal' range -- but if people FREELY choose to experiment on themselves, it's up to them.
Unfortunately, most athletes do it to 'keep up' with their opponents.