A lesson in this story

[Precambrian]

I feel sorry for Asif being broke and all. Hopefully the settlement from his IPL team will be put to good use to get his life back in order. He really should stop trying to play cricket and move on.

Settlement? What settlement?

 

[Richard]

I feel sorry for Asif being broke and all. Hopefully the settlement from his IPL team will be put to good use to get his life back in order. He really should stop trying to play cricket and move on.

Maybe, but in my experience troubled types generally remain troubled types.

 

[Sanz]

Right but that wasn't better before steroids.

Can't speak for other smaller markets, but my little town used to have its share of baseball fans who used to pack the parks, not anymore. That said Steroids aren't the only reason for that decline, dont even know If Steroids are the reason.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hey, I was the one asking the question, you can't reply to it with another question!

 

[StumpMic]

Settlement? What settlement?

I remember reading that Asif was paid a nice sum by his IPL team to end his contract with them. I did some googling but can't find a source to back me up on this. Maybe I was mistaken.

 

[Precambrian]

Well he might have been paid his 2nd yr appearance fee, but with him being barred for one year, I don't think it has to be paid.

 

[GIMH]

It's just steroids, what's the big deal. Aside from his stupidity at bringing them to Dubai. And not taking a proper masking agent. Punishment is way too harsh anyway. First there should be a confidential warning, followed by a couple games off, then six months, then a year, etc. I'm more annoyed by a thousand other things in cricket, to worry about steroids.

With that said, he should be banned forever for reasons of excessive stupidity. At the very least you could pull of a Warne and take a masking agent on top, so there would at least be a question mark and you can maintain your denial even if you get banned. Being caught for possession, or just straight up taking nandrolone without any masking agent is so completely stupid - I can't fathom it.

Yeah, I'm not excessively bothered about the steroid use. It's the fact that he's obviously a disruptive influence - this has been demonstrated by several things besides the steroids - and isn't being punished for it that concerns me. It just sets a bad example and means that more bad influences are going to come through.

And much as steroid use being banned is silly IMO (if it's available to all, what's the difference?), once it's banned you need to make it clear to people that they abide by the rules. My reaction to the first steroid case was a "nothing can be proven there" but since then it's become obvious he has taken banned substances knowingly and you can't just let people be seen to be getting away with rule-breaking.

I'm really surprised at this. I think I may have discussed this with SS before, but am shocked that Richard holds such a viewpoint. Steroids should be allowed for all? Seriously???

 

[Richard]

I'm no expert on the things, but I fail to see how something is unfair if all are allowed to do it. I basically just support the use of anything that improves performance. As long, obviously, as it doesn't do long-term damage. And there are many things that improve performance - I've never remotely understood how some are deemed legal and some illegal.

 

[GIMH]

I'm no expert on the things, but I fail to see how something is unfair if all are allowed to do it. I basically just support the use of anything that improves performance. As long, obviously, as it doesn't do long-term damage. And there are many things that improve performance - I've never remotely understood how some are deemed legal and some illegal.

I'm baffled, especially given your general strong anti-drug stance

Pretty storng case for a lot of steroids causing long-term damage btw, and they alter the brain AFAIK.

 

[Richard]

UIMM, that's not the reason given for their being outlawed though? It's that they supposedly give unfair advantage, despite the fact that if they're available to all, it by definition can't be unfair. Anyway, if they seriously damaged the body they'd be illegal under UK law, surely? FFS, cannabis is illegal, and that's only moderately dangerous. Not that I approve of its use or desire to use it BTW.

My anti-drugs stance is pretty well a personal thing, incidentally. I have no use for virtually any drug (apart from alcohol) and thus I don't take any except when I've very little other option. And I have a distaste for the use of stuff like heroin, cocaine etc. because I've seen at first hand (and not at first hand before at first hand as well BTW) how they can wreck lives - very easily. If I thought the things could help me be a sportsplayer of a fair bit more calibre than I currently am, I'd damn well consider taking them if there weren't any massive risks of long-term repercussions. Anyway, it's not like all drugs are banned in sport, just those that some righteous WADA deems to be "performance-enhancing". Despite the fact there's hundreds of other performance-enhancing things - like training and practice, and enlisting the help of experts in the field - that aren't banned. I've just never got what the definition is. If anyone could explain to me how there is one, maybe I would. On the other hand, maybe I'd just see it as one of those things that someone, somewhere has made some weird definition and it's stuck.

 

[GIMH]

UIMM, that's not the reason given for their being outlawed though? It's that they supposedly give unfair advantage, despite the fact that if they're available to all, it by definition can't be unfair. Anyway, if they seriously damaged the body they'd be illegal under UK law, surely? FFS, cannabis is illegal, and that's only moderately dangerous. Not that I approve of its use or desire to use it BTW.

Okay, a couple of points here then. I suppose what you are getting at is that if things like supplements are allowed then why shouldn't steroids? It's not a question I have a broad enough knowledge of to answer - the way I have always seen it from a simplenton's point of view is that a sportsman who takes supplements does not gain any effects without working hard (ie training) whereas there are steroids which could make me super muscular without me doing anything about it. I could well be wrong as I am pretty sure I am basing this off assumptions and hopefully someone with a greater knowledge of sciene and the body can explain the reasons further. But I want my athletes to be impressive because they've worked for it. A sprinter who breaks the WR through drugs ceases to be impressive in my eyes, hence why Carl Lewis>>>>>>>Ben Johnson, even though Johnson had two runs which were quicker than any of Lewis's.

As for " if they seriously damaged the body they'd be illegal under UK law, surely?" That's a strange thing to say Richard. Ever heard of lung cancer? Generally caused by smoking which is completely legal. See also alcohol, fatty foods etc. And what's more, steroids alter the brain as well as the body which in itself can be very dangerous. There is nothing worse than encountering a bouncer who is coked up and on steroids, but that's another story for another day I guess.

 

[silentstriker]

Which drugs do yo allow and which you do you ban? What about protein supplements?

 

[GIMH]

Thatr's what I'm kinda saying - I don't know. Would rather they were all banned than all allowed, though

 

[silentstriker]

Thatr's what I'm kinda saying - I don't know. Would rather they were all banned than all allowed, though

What about eating tuna salad after a work out - that's protein. It seems very odd to say that you can eat substance x, but if we take the chemical that you're eating substance x for, and put it in pill form, you can't take it anymore.

 

[Richard]

Okay, a couple of points here then. I suppose what you are getting at is that if things like supplements are allowed then why shouldn't steroids? It's not a question I have a broad enough knowledge of to answer - the way I have always seen it from a simplenton's point of view is that a sportsman who takes supplements does not gain any effects without working hard (ie training) whereas there are steroids which could make me super muscular without me doing anything about it. I could well be wrong as I am pretty sure I am basing this off assumptions and hopefully someone with a greater knowledge of sciene and the body can explain the reasons further. But I want my athletes to be impressive because they've worked for it. A sprinter who breaks the WR through drugs ceases to be impressive in my eyes, hence why Carl Lewis>>>>>>>Ben Johnson, even though Johnson had two runs which were quicker than any of Lewis's.

Under ANY circumstances, drugs\supplements + training >>>> drugs\supplements - training. That's the point. You cannot possibly get a situation where someone would perform better without training than they would with all other things remaining equal with training. No athlete (be they athletics athletes or cricket\football\rugby\etc. athletes) is going to achieve more without hard work than they are with it.

Equally, both Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson would be infinitely faster than me if they never trained for 5 years and I did all the work that was in me - including 'roids - in the same time. If both the person who breaks the WR and the person who previously held it, and those others who are trying and failing to, have done everything in their power to make themselves best, including 'roids, what's the problem? As I say, I just can't see how something is unfair unless some are allowed to do it and others are not.

As for " if they seriously damaged the body they'd be illegal under UK law, surely?" That's a strange thing to say Richard. Ever heard of lung cancer? Generally caused by smoking which is completely legal. See also alcohol, fatty foods etc. And what's more, steroids alter the brain as well as the body which in itself can be very dangerous. There is nothing worse than encountering a bouncer who is coked up and on steroids, but that's another story for another day I guess.

Exactly, and given that despite smoking being the biggest cause of cancer in the UK, the figures remain that it only kills around 1 in 10 before the age of 60. The argument can easily be made that smoking "isn't really that dangerous". And is, in fact, by plenty of self-denial smokers (NOT THAT ALL SMOKERS ARE IN DENIAL, SO DON'T ANYONE START!!!!!!!!!) However, if steroids are so seriously dangerous, you'd imagine they'd be illegal, same way firearms and knives are. I'm little more expert on the matter than you are, though, so it would indeed be good if Corey or some other chemist\biologist would be able to prop-up some more info.

 

[Richard]

Would rather they were all banned than all allowed, though

Why? It's impossible, in my view, to find somewhere to draw the line at. You can't ban "all" things, because that'd mean no-one was allowed to eat. Any form of ingestion is performance-enhancing - someone, somewhere, has just decided that one thing is acceptable and another is not. I don't know who that was or how the decision was arrived at - maybe, just maybe, if I did I'd accept the decision.

The only way to be completely fair, in my view, is not to ban anything.

 

[silentstriker]

I think you have to weigh the risks for each thing individually. Obviously, if something is extremely dangerous, you shouldn't allow it in sports as protection for athletes. Most steroids use is far from that though. I'm not saying it's always good for you, but unless you go crazy with it, it can and does help injury recovery and in other cases. There is always a line between use and abuse, but that line exists with everything, including substances that are over the counter and completely legitimate.

Here is an interesting question: taking HGH (what Barry Bonds took) is illegal (even though its virtually undetectable as far as I know). What if one day, you could go through gene therapy which would allow your body to naturally make more HGH. Should that be disallowed? Another person is simply born with a gene that allows for more HGH production, so why should I be penalized for how I was born? You get into very muddy areas really quickly. While not in you germ line cells (and limited to specific tissues), the genes are now part of your body, much the same as someone who was born with it. Of course, if/when we do germ line gene therapy, there will be absolutely no difference as both people would be born with those genes activated (one 'naturally', other due to gene therapy).

 

[Craig]

So SS if Lance Armstrong said he was doped to the gills to win win 7 Tour de Frances you would say 'good on him'? Oh BTW in his sport, teams pay six figure sums to have anti-doping measures in place, riders need to list their whereabouts 24/7 for the whole year, results of tests are being published on the internet with a list of what is legal (like blood values), paying back a whole year's salary, and that is just the begining of it, and that is still not enough for some (and bans have been increased from two years to four, and some want life), and the sport still gets a bad rap.

Letters in the mail saying 'naughty boy', and then a two-week holiday are a waste of time, what is their exact purpose? You may as well not doing anything and legalise every drug they can get, and if you drop dead, too bad too sad. And BTW in a place like France if dope, you can be arrested and charged under 'Sporting Fraud' and serve some time behind bars.

 

[Craig]

I think you have to weigh the risks for each thing individually. Obviously, if something is extremely dangerous, you shouldn't allow it in sports as protection for athletes. Most steroids use is far from that though. I'm not saying it's always good for you, but unless you go crazy with it, it can and does help injury recovery and in other cases. There is always a line between use and abuse, but that line exists with everything, including substances that are over the counter and completely legitimate.

Here is an interesting question: taking HGH (what Barry Bonds took) is illegal (even though its virtually undetectable as far as I know). What if one day, you could go through gene therapy which would allow your body to naturally make more HGH. Should that be disallowed? Another person is simply born with a gene that allows for more HGH production, so why should I be penalized for how I was born? You get into very muddy areas really quickly. While not in you germ line cells (and limited to specific tissues), the genes are now part of your body, much the same as someone who was born with it. Of course, if/when we do germ line gene therapy, there will be absolutely no difference as both people would be born with those genes activated (one 'naturally', other due to gene therapy).

AFAIK a test was developed by some Australian sciencetists not so long ago, but I could be wrong.

 

[silentstriker]

So SS if Lance Armstrong said he was doped to the gills to win win 7 Tour de Frances you would say 'good on him'?

Yup.

Let's say you became the anti-doping chief of all sports, and you had unlimited powers to ban any substance. How would you decide what to ban?

Oh BTW in his sport, teams pay six figure sums to have anti-doping measures in place, riders need to list their whereabouts 24/7 for the whole year, results of tests are being published on the internet with a list of what is legal (like blood values), paying back a whole year's salary, and that is just the begining of it, and that is still not enough for some (and bans have been increased from two years to four, and some want life), and the sport still gets a bad rap.

The more they try it, the more it makes the sport look worse. The reason might be that if they make it real hard to dope, only a very few will be able to dope, and when they do, it's a big deal because they have got an advantage most people did not. In the NFL for example, an ex-player said that he estimates about 50% of people take it, and it was easy to fake the drug test (you could just get someone else to take the urine test, for example), and even if you got caught once, it was just a confidential warning the first time.

Fans don't care, players don't care, media doesn't care. I enjoy watching it, and everything is fine.

You may as well not doing anything and legalise every drug they can get, and if you drop dead, too bad too sad. And BTW in a place like France if dope, you can be arrested and charged under 'Sporting Fraud' and serve some time behind bars.

This great myth that surrounds doping is really comical to me. The negative effects of steroids are so vastly overstated that they border on the ludicrous. In the NFL, guys get a concussion (a direct injury to the brain, much worse than steroids) and then play the next week. And if you get a second concussion, there is a significant risk of permanent brain injury or death. If you look at running backs in the NFL at the age of 50, they've got knees and joints like 90 year old men, many can't walk, some can't even sit up straight. The sport itself is just so much more dangerous that to harp on the dangers of steroids makes no sense.

I am not necessarily advocating for everything to be legal, but to somehow say that it denigrates sports because of a few lbs of extra muscle, it just doesn't make any sense to me. It's a very arbitrary line you are drawing anyway.

AFAIK a test was developed by some Australian sciencetists not so long ago, but I could be wrong.

Yea, it's possible, but its a hard thing to prove since its a natural hormone that exists in the body.

EDIT: Yup, there is a test for it now, but it has to be a blood test to distinguish between natural HGH and artificial. So that brings up the question - what if I undergo gene therapy in the future that allows me to naturally produce more HGH? Is that legal?