Steroids for Debate...

[Sebass67]

Ok...i need some help from some of you.

I have a debate this coming thursday in one of my human kinetics courses..me and another guy in my class have to prove/argue that steroids should be allowed in pro sports...

Any of you have any ideas/arguements?

Or links to data that would argue for the use of steroids...?

Thanks a lot...i ain;t too keen on losing this debate.

 

[Nutri-Wrestler]

ask yourself why they shouldnt be aloowed, and then couter those answers

 

[jdubs952]

People pay to see the sports played at the highest level. Why don't you watch a WNBA game? b/c there is the NBA! Enforce strict drug testing laws and you'll see each of the major sports have a decline in the level of play..then you'll have fans pleading to bring back the juice!

 

[Sebass67]

Anyone else...it seems i am running on fumes here...

 

[StoneColdGold]

how about because these men get PAID to be the biggest, strongest, and fastest they can be. telling pro athletes they can't take steroids is like telling a physicist he can't use a supercomputer to make calculations, or telling an astronomer he can't use pictures from the hubble space telescope. bottom line: they are all tools of the trade which make the previously impossible, possible!

if someone brings up the "health" issue, bring up the analogy of nuclear power plants. no one is telling energy companies they can't use fission to create power, even though it has health ramifications. i would also, of course, be armed to the tooth with information illustrating that intelligent steroid use is no danger at all. be sure to drive the point home that it is men taking supplemental male hormones to achieve a desired physiological effect. it is no different that women taking birth control or estrogen supplementation to achieve a desired effect.

if someone brings up morality issues as a counterpoint, simply bring up the fact that in most other countries (germany, spain, italy, greece, canada, etc.), steroids are over-the-counter medication no differen than tylenol. this is because those countries look at the medical facts when scheduling drugs, not big business like the U.S.

 

[Nutri-Wrestler]

didnt someone put up a post about anadrol and martinis? apparently, a martini raises liver values more than 50mg of anadrol

 

[techlifter_2]

Steroids aren't THE advantage players have in pro sports. Steroids are ONE advantage players have in pro sports.

Consider this; son of wealthy family has a great jump shot, so his father pays a personal trainer to help him perfect it. The son then eventually gets to high school and because his father donated the uniforms he garners a starting position. After three years of starting guard, a college recognizes his talent. Some junior colleges, but some universities as well. His game is good, but not great, at least not great enough to earn a signifigant scholarship. So his dad foots the bill and sends him to the high dollar univeristy. University play means NBA scouts and TV coverage. All of a sudden this good, but not great, player has millions of eyes watching him. The NBA has ample opportunity to select him. He won't go as a first round or even second round, but sometime, some team will pick him up. Now he is a pro.

FLIP SIDE:

poor boy, no trainer, didn't make varsity until senior year, can't afford the university so goes to junior college instead. The only time you will see him on TV is when you are watching Girls Gone Wild and he is in south padre for spring break. No exposure, no NBA, no chance.

Steroids might be one advantage, but consider all the advantages players have and it makes steroids seem so minor.

 

[StoneColdGold]

Steroids might be one advantage, but consider all the advantages players have and it makes steroids seem so minor.

True. And I definitely agree. However for his purposes, I think this is setting yourself up for someone to say, "see, pro athletes don't need steroids."

i'll say this: steroids saved baseball!!! remember how fast baseball was going down the tube before the McGwire/Sosa homer race? that would not have happened without steroids. of course, i still hate baseball, but thats another story.

 

[Golden_Muscle]

Its not fair if one team is on steroids and the other one is not. It is fair if they both are though. Hell, watching athletes with great physical abilities is funner and makes more business.

 

[kyle]

do a search on the supertraining group at yahoo - i remember this being discussed a while back. of course there is also a lot of great info at this site to

 

[Punschkrapfen]

meso has some good articles on this one

http://www.meso-rx.com/articles/gendin/philosophical-defense-of-steroid-use.htm
http://www.meso-rx.com/articles/gendin/ban-non-steroid-using-athletes.htm

"what care I as a fan that someone sets a remarkable record because he used steroids? I pay money to see sporting events and I am entitled to an athlete's very best. Isaac Stern can afford a violin that few violinists and no high school orchestra player can afford. Is he taking unfair advantage of them? If I pay $60 to hear Stern and learn his tone was not up to par because he was too lazy to bring his own violin and borrowed a $50 one from a high school kid, I justifiably want my money back. What care I that he usually plays upon a $200,000 instrument? I am not bothered by this; I want his very best. Likewise, I want the very best an athlete can give me. I don't want to watch athletes who could have done better if only they had used steroids. Talk of steroid performance as unnatural is as ridiculous as complaining about artificial hearts. As for me I plan to have a T-shirt made for me that will read on its front: "Use steroids or go home. Enough of crying and whining.""

 

[2Bbigger]

Weather people like it or not steroid use in pro sports is widespread. Trying to eliminate it now would be like going back in time (it is too late). Didn't they try it with alcohol-it didn't work and it won't with roids. Better option would be to allow steroid use under doctors supervision. Educating athletes about it is a much more realistic approach than trying to ban it.

 

[techlifter_2]

just be sure you make the distinction between NCAA/NIAA and actual professional sports. I am 100% against steroid use in college athletes (even though it doesn't bother or surprise me that many do). At the pro level even the bottom players can afford cycles and take them without fear of being fired or dropped. NCAA players don't have that freedom, nor do they have the disposable income to do so.

Steroids/performance enhancing drugs will ALWAYS be around. When you are playing sports to pay for school or to have an opportunity at the pros it should be based on skill. Professionals have jobs, not oportunities. When you support yourself and your family and your career is based on performance, how fair is it to let yourself be put back because you decide not to juice.

Define exactly why steroids are where the line is drawn. In reality, anything serious athletes put in their bodies is to enhance, not detract from performance. Multi-vitamins are artifical additions to diet. Creatine is, ECA is, andro is, even protein. Who decided all of a sudden that ECA is ok but clen is not. Where is the point between chemical help and non-chemical help?

I have no actual basis to state this, but I have always been under the impression that African-Americans have a higher average test level than Caucasions, or better oxygen paths, or whatever the current popular thought is. Wouldn't that make being black an unfair advantage?