Steroid use

To me it looked like a few Bombers were on steroids,it didn't look normal to me.
What are your thoughts?

ya otta cut down on the roids yourself

LOL.. is this what it's come to for some of you Ti-Cat fans?

(if it's that important to you, maybe you should consider the lone recent CFL/steroids case).

Steroids should be legalized, and utilized by any athlete who wants to use them. They should be administered by team doctors, and monitored carefully according to the best current scientific knowledge available.

The one and only issue in my mind is the age at which you ALLOW an athlete to get on the regiment. There has to be some kind of biological, physiological, or other scientific measurement to determine when a human body has reached it's natural maturation peak. I'm guessing it would be at the cellular level of observation that this determination could be made. Once the athlete is deemed "mature" then they would have to meet a whole other range of criteria, or standards to be eligible for the program. That is, they would have to meet minimum measurable, and testable benchmarks of eligibility.

Once they have been admitted to the 'club' then everybody competes on the same playing field. No more 'cheating', just fair and square competing. What this does is just shifts the bell curve laterally ... the same people who would have otherwise been recognized, and rewarded for their athletic ability are still included ... their performances have just been tweaked that much more. When you finally, get to the Olympic, or Professional level then everybody who should be there ... is there - they are just competing at a whole new level. Those who were marginal, or on the bubble ... are still marginal, or on the bubble because everybody is allowed access to the same enhancing formulas.

If a human being decides that it is something they are wiling to do to make themselves the best athlete they can possibly be - then all the power to them. They should not have to hide their use in shame, and they should not be forced to lie about their use in front of Congressional hearings. They should not have to be labelled cheaters, and they should not have asterisks placed beside their name.

As a mere mortal, who is interested in watching professional athletes perform - I want to see that athlete perform at their maximum ability, and potential all the time. If steroids help that athlete recover from injury quicker, maintain muscle strength, muscle stamina, and generally keep the athlete at their best for the maximum amount of time - then let them have at it.

As a mere mortal who is spending significant amounts of money, and investing significant amounts of time following athletic endeavor - I want to see the athlete perform at their peak at all times. I want to see exactly how far, fast, powerful etc the human body can perform, period.

What people can't get their head around is that these are called performance ENHANCERS ... they are not performance MAKERS ... no amount of steroid use is going to make the mere mortal into a home run king if they do not have the eye / hand coordination to make contact with the ball in the first place. No amount of steroid use is going to make Joe Average pitcher into the next Roger Clemens if they do not have the technique, and genetic gifts to throw a ball 90 mph.

There are thousand and one synthetic substances which athletes use to get the most out of their bodies - steroids, and hormones are but two more.

The bottom line is as long as something is made illegal, taboo, and outlawed - there will always be those who try to circumvent those laws, and taboos ... and many will be successful ... there is always a better mousetrap ... and once one side catches up to the other ... the other side will always find a way to counter ... and so on ... which is where the unfairness comes in. Some people, as it currently stands, are not aware, or can't afford the best that science has to offer. These are the people who get caught. These are the people who make all the suckers in the world believe that Ben Johnson was the only person using steroids in the Seoul Olympics of '88. These are the exceptions to the rule that make you think that, so-called 'illegal drugs' are not rampant in every level of competition.

Stop wasting time and money trying to 'catch' these people and start investing time and resources into making it as safe as possible. Use the savings of time and money to ensure that biologically immature athletes are not endangering themselves. It is long overdue that people accept the value of these enhancers, and embrace, applaud, and wish for their safe usage.

Emphasis on the "some". Not all of us TiCat fans want to deflect responsibility for the team's losses to other factors.

On the field is one thing, off the field is another. Roid Rage is a major problem off the field ... perhaps that's because its all done under the table by people who don't know what they are doing ... perhaps not.

Personally I don't think its worth it or necessary, and that steroids are a crutch for those who can't compete.

I see where you are coming from on this, but I disagree with you almost entirely.

There was a time when I played football at a very competitive level. A certain individual hinted very strongly (though he did not say it outright) that if I wished to compete at the next level, steroids were a de facto requirement, not an option.

I was a quarterback, not a lineman. I was in the gym 3 hours per day, 6 days per week. I worked very hard to get to that level, and being told that if I wanted to continue, then I would need pharmaceutical enhancement was crushing. I looked up the side effects of these drugs, and chose not to expose myself to the risks associated with taking them. It should have been an easy decision, but given the time, effort and commitment that I had already spent, the decision to give up on my dream was very, very tough.

Legalizing steroids puts thousands of young athletes in the exact same position that I found myself in a couple of decades ago. I would not wish that upon anyone.

The crack down on steroid abuse in sports has not stopped the use of these substances, but it has reduced it significantly, to a point where good athletes can still succeed without sacrificing their long term health or well being. This crack down has also served to create a stigma around abuse of these drugs, which further reduces their use, and makes for a more fair and level playing field. Most importantly, the crack down on steroids has created an awareness of the very real dangers and health risks that come with abusing these drugs. This allows more young athletes to make informed decisions about their own health choices, and makes it more difficult for recruiters/agents/coaches to bully them into taking these illegal cocktails.

I agree that steroids are performance enhancers, not performance makers. Cousin Bobby will never become and NCAA or NFL or CFL quarterback if he doesn’t know how to read a defense and throw a ball. But in all professional sports, and most high-level amateur sports, the great equalizer is work ethic. How many times have we seen a player with all the skill in the world fall flat because he simply doesn’t want to put in the time and sweat to be great? How many times have we seen an undrafted, unheralded player play their way into a lineup on grit, determination and work? Which of these scenarios provide the more inspirational story? Isn’t that what sports is supposed to be about?

Steroids provide a short-cut on that work-ethic. I’d rather watch sports knowing that those playing have earned their spot on that field through time and effort, and not at the point of a needle. Legalizing steroids moves the bell curve laterally, but it also excludes young athletes who want to perform naturally, and with their health in mind. It also short-circuits the true sign of a champion, that being work ethic, and turns sports into a simple experiment in organic chemistry.

No thank you.

In all seriousness, if there are steroid users on one of the teams, it is unlikely that it would be in any greater proportion than there are on all the other teams. I don’t think anyone can deny that they are in the game at some level, but I don’t think its rational to think that any one team would have more (or fewer) of these cheaters than any other team.

It would be nice if we could irradicate steroids from the game entirely, but really, that’s just dreaming. But in essence, I don’t think that either team has an advantage on that score.

The issue with your logic, is it will force almost all the other players to take steroid if they want to play in the CFL You will stop great players from playing in the CFL, because they won't want to do Steroid, and make no mistake about it, Steroids gives the player a incredible edge over his competition

...what if his competition is using them too? hmmmmm

according to the best current scientific knowledge available
Not enough agreement from the experts yet on that one otherwise I think they would be legalized within safe parameters.

I am liking the conciliatory tone of these counter responses, thank-you, because this is an issue I take very seriously.

First off, my jumping off point on this issue is not so much based on logic, as it is with the true reality. The plain truth, and fact of the matter is that performance enhancing drugs are so prevalent - on every level of competition - that it is just plain naive to think that it can be realistically, banished, outlawed, or prevented - end of story.

As long as there are rules to be broken - there will always be incentive to break them. For people to believe that so-called 'mandatory' , or 'random' testing is eliminating, or meaningfully curbing the use of PE's is just the stuff of fairy tales. The so-called 'cheaters' will ALWAYS find a way to circumvent the, relatively small, obstacles placed before them. This must be accepted as the cold hard truth. No matter what you think, believe, or wish - it is just the facts of life. Just as there was BALCO , a few years back, that was ahead of the testing curve - so to is their another entity out there offering up substances which aren't yet tested for. The cat and mouse game is never ending.

If you truly believe that government sporting bodies really want to eradicate the use of PE's then you are just living in a dream land. If you truly believe that owners of teams (and therefore players) really want to eradicate the use of PE's then you are just living in a dream land. If you believe that coaches want to eradicate the use of PE's by their players then you are just living in a dream land. If you believe that the majority of high level athletes want the use of PE's to be eradicated then you are living in a dream world.

Countries want to claim supremacy ... they get that by fielding the best athletes their money can produce. Owner's want increased revenue ... they get that by having the best possible athlete's their money can buy. Coaches want to be responsible for winning championships ... they get that by having the best possible athletes on their team. Players want the glory, and money that being the best they can be brings ... they get that by doing everything within their power to bring out the best in their bodies. The entire root of the tree is based on results. Cynical as it may sound. Morally offensive as it may sound ... it is just the way it is.

While my argument that PE's are not performance makers more than they are enhancers seems to minimize or neglect the, seemingly obvious, fact that they "make a huge difference" ... it is entirely grounded in the reality that ACCEPTS that PE's are widely distributed, and used.

Thus, the astute question "what if the competition is using them too?" is just simply accepted as the STARTING point of the entire discussion. Not to kick a dead horse - but - Whether or not this reality jives with your morals, and regardless of whether you want to accept it - it is just a fact. The best analogy is the war on drugs itself ... illicit drug use will never, ever, ever, ever be eradicated, period. So why would anyone believe the use of PE's could ? Especially when the effects of use are on the completely opposite end of the spectrum ?? Once this accepted then, and only then can the discussion begin.

Which brings the argument to the next stage of discussion ... and that is the "fairness" of it all, and (as has been pointed out by a poster's personal anecdotal evidence) of the personal, and moral dilemma faced by the modern athlete.

I, too, found myself in (almost) the very same position outlined by 'hit em hard' ... The only difference being - it was never intimated to me by another coach, or scout, or teammate for that matter, that 'the next level' was ever an option. In other words, University football was the highest level I was ever going to play. To put it bluntly, no amount of juice was going to bridge the natural, genetic gap between myself and the, truly, genetically gifted athlete. A little self-awareness, and self-honesty was enough to convince me that steroid use was a dead end for me. However - if there was a coach (or two), and a teammate (or three), and a (single solitary) scout - that did confirm my own self belief that the next level was a realistic option - then you can bet your house that I would have, most definitely, absolutely, 100% have sought the best drugs possible to get me there - period, end of sentence.

This is where the cold, stark, hard truth must be accepted, and believed - because there are very, very, very few people out there that DO NOT seek the best available PE's they can get their hands on if 'the next level' is a bona fide, realistic option. Those people that reject the "help" are either the truly genetically gifted that don't need them, or the dyed in the wool, hardcore moralists that will not ever compromise their personal integrity. Those two people are, often, one and the same ... and are the true one in a million freaks of nature.

Essentially, the people who make the decision to use PE's are the people that SHOULD use the PE's. They are able to accept the cold, hard truth - because they represent the cold, hard truth. Thus, the lateral shift in the bell curve. While it is true, of course, that there are people at the fringes of the curves that can be "artificially" dragged into the successful group via the use of PE's - they represent a small minority - both statistically, and realistically ... and are of little consequence to the argument, one way or the other. It is this small group of fringe outliers that draw the most societal wrath, and are stigmatized the most. To that I say - it's their life - WHY NOT allow them a shot at glory ?

Which brings us to the next level of the argument ... and that is the actual USE of the substances. What people must realize, and get their head around is (as pointed out by another poster) - what often, or mostly, or almost exclusively separates the true pro from everyone else is their WORK ETHIC. Make no mistake - the potential professional athlete is a finely tuned machine, and immaculately trained animal. While genetics has already given them the natural advantage, it is combined with an equal, or greater mental focus. It is these specimens which SHOULD use PE's, because it is only through their rigorous, mind blowing efforts that the MAXIMUM BENEFITS of PE's are achieved. Quite simply put - those already on another level are the one's that can best use the PE's to get to the next level. This is why I do not accept the argument that you will "stop great players from reaching the CFL - because they will not want to use steroids" - because, for the great majority of the cases - those great players will choose to use. When faced with the choice between professional sport, and the life of the everyman - pro sport is going to win out 950 times out of 1000. The other 50 people being potential doctors, lawyers, and Indian Chiefs.

Which brings the argument to the next level ... and that it is the safe administration, and scientifically optimal use of the PE's, and the concomitant necessity to protect those who should not be using them from doing so. By keeping everything above board, and legal, and transparent the athlete can be micro managed, and specially cared for. Also, the PE's they use can be assured to be of the absolute highest, purest quality - and naturally - the lowest quantity. This is where a HUGE presumption, and assumption must be accepted - and that is there is a truly, healthy, acceptable, and optimal level of PE's use - which to the best known scientific data - can be used, within certain tolerances, safely by a human.

It is at this point that a little perspective is required. Because, it is at this point in the argument that people are going to raise their hand and say that there are no safe tolerances for the human consumption of PE's. They will say that there is an inherent risk in their use which cannot be ignored. My simple response to this, of course, is there is an inherent amount of risk, and health impairment already accepted by the professional athlete in the first place. The physical abuse they put their bodies through - with or without the assistance of PE's is already far greater than any other mere mortal. Every time an athlete steps into their respective arena they put themselves at risk of severe injury, and sometimes death. The odds for either, and both increase as the length of their career increases. Which, ironically, is all the more argument for the safe, responsible, legal use and administration of PE's that keep the athlete at their PEAK LEVEL of performance.

By focusing efforts, time, resources, knowledge, man power, and expertise on safeguarding the athlete - rather than looking to PUNISH them by labeling them cheaters, and stigmatizing them - for doing something that we all know they are doing anyway - is best for the entire professional sporting system. We all benefit. Fans, athletes, coaches, owners alike - by getting the absolute best out of the athlete at all possible times.

If you made it to the end of this ... then much respect, and props to you.

When is the movie coming out :stuck_out_tongue:

This is an ethical issue.
No to steroids or HGH. Period :thdn:

Correct, that's what I put it there for. There are several of you guys who have taken the high road and I respect you for it. Then there are a few others who make posts like this.

This is an ethical issue
Lets go back to the fringe player who is one, or two 'cycles' away from getting drafted, and potentially getting a nice sized signing bonus ... he knows, realistically, that the one time signing bonus is all he will ever receive from his career ... the player has a mother who needs life saving medical care ... the signing bonus will cover said medical expenses ... what does your knowledge of normative ethics say about that ?

As a tried to state, as clearly as possible - just because your morals are offended does not make the issue go away ... we live in a morally relative universe ... there will ALWAYS be reason, incentive, rationalization, and motives to circumvent rules ... in the case of victimless crimes what role does moral philosophy play ?

There will always be a person willing to rationalize ANY behaviour. You are correct in that morality is a relative issue. However, morals are measured relative to the norms set by the majority of a society at a given time. Right now, in our time, steroids are considered illegal, and, by definition, immoral. This means that those choosing to use them face consequences if caught, and must factor that risk into their decision. This has the effect of at least limiting or controlling the impact of these drugs on the sport. I am not naive enough to believe that they are not there, but the quantities involved, and therefore their effects, would be much more dramatic if they were not checked in this manner

IMO, legalizing steroids would open the floodgates to athletes taking massive doses of these substances, which are proven to be harmful to human physiology. If you disagree, look at Lyle Alzedo, as one example.

Also, legalizing steroids would enable coaches/agents/trainers to bully young and impressionable men (and women) into taking drugs which cause irreparable harm, all in the name of entertainment. Currently, the only weapon in the young athlete's arsenal is the ability to claim the high ground in refusing to do these drugs. Legalizing steroids would take that lone negotiating weapon away, and would force young athletes to accept health risks or give up their dreams. Please note that the health risks I am referring to are IN ADDITION to the usual health risks associated with sport.

On top of that, aside from the pharmacological downsides of steroids, there are additional health risks involved. The human skeleton was designed to harness and handle a certain amount of strength. Steroids combined with modern training techniques overpower the skeletal system, causing serious, often career-ending, injuries at much younger ages. Look at how many more shoulder injuries and surgeries are required by baseball players than in the past. Torn ACLs are now commonplace, where two generations ago they were rare. The knees, the labrum, and the achilles are especially vulnerable. This trend will continue and worsen. What's more, the additional strength leads to additional speed, and higher impact collisions, resulting in a higher number of concussion injuries for players.

Looking forward over the long term, there will be a shift away from organized sports, as parents will see that in order to make it to a high level, their children will eventually be asked to take these steroids as they reach the cusp of adulthood. In an effort to protect their kids from this eventuality, a lot of parents will simply not register their children to even get involved in perceived high-risk sports, and will instead guide them towards other activities. This will create a shortage of athletes in our sport, and will hurt the product over time.

Yes, I acknowledge that steroids are a reality in high level competition, and always will be. But I truly believe that legalizing them would create a slippery slope, and would cause nothing but harm to our athletes and to the fabric of sport.

And from a moral standpoint, I am unwilling to force young people to accept not only risk, but guaranteed long-term damage to their physiology simply for the sake of my entertainment.

Therefore, I still vote "no" to legalizing steroids.