Roids All the Rage? by Mike Warkentin - CrossFit Journal
Mar 16, Do the CrossFit Games really crown the fittest men and women on of a powerlifting meet, the athletes have performed a total of 9 single reps. Oct 29, “Have baseball players stopped using steroids or HGH or whatever else they're using? “I think they're all at risk—every single sport,” he said. time an official Olympic-lifting meet has been paired with a CrossFit workout. [Archive] Steroids Fitness. I'll bet I can find scientific research that shows steroid use is good for you (as well You guys lose by a single try.
And if you are an athlete that uses what about all of the ancillary drugs you need to use to keep your blood work in line? Blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, liver meds, kidney meds I'm sorry if I offended anyone. That's not my intention.
Drugs in sports does not make sense. Being an athlete should equate to being in great shape which should equate to being healthy. As time moves forward we all have the responsibility to not use drugs, but work hard in our training, diet and legal supplementation.
Bill Russell I've searched a bit but can't find the source. Patrick Haskell It is not necessary to allow the perceptions of others as to whether you are a winner or a loser to dictate your behavior. Just pausing to offer a golf clap on that whole post. Alex Nisetich First off, I realize steroids are illegal and banned by the governing bodies of most sports. I realize as well that someone who uses steroids in an environment where they are prohibited is cheating, and I strongly disapprove of such behavior.
However, that was not the question I was trying to raise. I was asking whether or not steroid use is FAIR, regardless of whether or not it is allowed. I also think that the impetus to use at that level is much stronger than the moral argument against them, which is reliant on degree and semantics.
Steroids are different from other forms of supplementation and training. However, the way in which they differ is crucial. An athlete takes a vitamin pill, protein powder, or creatine because they will help him perform better -the same reason an athlete would choose to use steroids.
This is not cheating in the same sense as bribing referees, sharpening your cleats, or throwing juiced balls. It is cheating simply because it is against the rules, a method that falls just beyond what we consider acceptable because it is ostensibly far more effective than others. Acceptability is a very fickle thing.
Like I said before, practice used to be considered cheating, back when amateur sports were for the well-paid upper class and only poor immigrants went pro. No one today would be taken seriously if they said that somebody had cheated by practicing for a match. Indeed, why are steroids so bad when literally hundreds of supplements are perfectly legal? Why is it okay to take ZMA to increase testosterone levels when just taking testosterone is intolerable? Ultimately, I believe the antipathy toward steroid use, at least at the professional level of athletics, is temporary.
As techonology and knowledge continue to progress, steroids will look more and more ordinary, and become increasingly tolerated by society. That said, I do not use steroids, and I will not use them in the forseeable future. I don't even use supplements like protein or creatine for financial reasons more than anything elseand I take pride in the fact that I can outrun, outlift, and outplay the supplement-laden competition.
If my teammates, friends, or opponents were to use steroids, I would be very angry. I cannot explain why steroid use bothers me at the personal level, and that is one reason I started this thread.
I think there are many good explanations for that feeling in the prevoius posts.
Testimony from a Female Ex-Steroid User »
Yet I still believe that these feelings, even my own, will give way in the future to a general acceptance and tolerance, and I welcome the time when we can worry about more important things. Peter West-Oram I am a philosophy graduate and in my final year I wrote my dissertation on the ethical significance of performance enhancing drug use in sport. The main things that I considered were the infringement of rules that drug use represented, the fairness or otherwise of such use and the potential harms that arise from drug use.
The main drive of my argument was to look at the the reasons that we may feel drug use to be wrong and evaluate those arguments. Generally looking at the first two, as has already been stated, does not provide a convincing argument against steroid use.
This is because IMO if we object to drug use because it is against the rules then we leave ourselves open to the response that by changing the rules we would no longer have a problem with the use of drugs, obviously leaving this unacceptably weak as an argument against drug use. An example would be the shift from wooden pole vaulting poles to those made from fibreglass, before the shift the latter where illegal as they conveyed too much of an advantage, now everyone uses them.
Further when we look at the issue of fairness it is possible to see that sport is unfair for a variety of reasons be they economic, physiological or whatever. Of particular interest is the way in which certain rules give an unfair advantage to richer athletes - the use of altitude training or hyperbaric chambers can be more expensive than certain drugs that would have the same effect such as EPO, though the latter is illegal whilst the former is not.
It is also possible to look at the ways in which differing genetic makeups can have an effect on performanc. I know that "genetically gifted" is somewhat of a swear word but it is easy to see that a someone with the traditional endomorph body type will have a harder time training for the marathon than an ectomorph would extreme generalisation i know but they may have the same dream of an olympic gold in long distance events.
Though of course if they win that medal that achievement is all the greater, but why not allow them to use drugs to "rebalance the scales? The other side of the argument is of course that we dont want to see athletes die aged 40 and we should ban harmful performance enhancers in the same way that we legislate to make heroin or cocaine illegal.
This of course ignores the issue of the influence that athletes may have on others and the role models that may be. However, taking the athlete as athelete, independant of anything else, this seems to be the main issue.
The main conclusion that I reached was that if certain conditions apply then certain drugs may be used fairly and within the rules of sport. The main conditions that I argued for were safety, though with a different approach than the current blanket ban. In the case of EPO i would argue for a set level of Haemoglobin that was acceptable for the competition and ignore how that was achieved.
By limiting for safe levels of Haemoglobin in this case we no longer discriminate against poorer athletes and remove the issue of athletes with naturally high levels of haemoglobin having an "unfair" advantage.
Of course safety does leave a problem for steroid use which I dont really have an answer for but again if "safe" levels could be established then limited use may become acceptable. There is also another issue of what is wanted from sport and whether drugs help athletes to achieve taht goal, for the amateur who competes for fun probably not, for the proffesional who competes to win prize money probably steroids would help them achieve their goal.
As an audience, society needs to have an understanding of what is wanted from sport, and what would help these goals get realised. Anyway thats my two cents worth, I suppose my main point would be that if something is safe even under certain restrictions and it enhances or improves the ability of the athlete, the governing body and society in general to get what is wanted from a sporting endeavour then its legalisation should, at least, be considered.
I would be interested to know what people think. Please PM me if that's possible. I havent really had much opportunity to get opinions from outside of my University, those from other people doing crossfit would be especially interesting. The Dissertation was only for my undergrad 12, words and in the U. K they dont generally get published. While I didnt have to formally defend it I did send a lot of time debating it with my supervisor and it was marked as a first and I graduated with that degree classification, so it was at least academically acceptable.
I dont see a way to attach the file here but I can copy the text into the email if you would prefer or let me know your email and I can send it as an attachment, let me know. Thanks once again for the interest all best Dale F.
The Fittest on Earth? | T Nation
I think I got it from an article on Bonds, but it was quoting from an interview he gave earlier. Alex - I think I gave quite clear reasons why it's "unfair" or morally wrong and I don't see how your analogy addresses those that I gave.
Namely, if we accept the scientific evidence that classified steroids as Schedule III, then we now are saying that elite athletes are ALL compelled to take the health risks in order to stay competitive in their profession. Again - if I am an elite athlete and I know I have health risks for cancer or other diseases that might be "expressed" because of unnatural use of steroids, why isn't it unfair for me to have to be tackled by some guy who doesn't care about the health consequences or having grandkids?
I'm turning your casuistry around on you. Why is it fair for him to use and me to choose not to simply because I am unwilling to take the risks to my health that he is willing to take? That seems rather unfair to me. This argument does not depend upon "acceptance" of steroids or "rules of the game" that forbid their use. I am talking about the state of science that says steroids are illegal because they're harmful - potentially very harmful. Let's take it one step further - suppose a new substance comes out called TGX I just made that up.
It has all the benefits of steroids and more with NO long term ill health effects and no illegality. I can't see any moral problem with athletes using this - those who don't for whatever reason would have to suffer the consequences of falling behind the performance curve. But the problem is that steroids are NOT in this category - the evidence is pretty compelling that steroids cause harm to the body, in the short, medium, and long term, depending upon the user.
And that is the essence of the moral conundrum - "clean" guys, who abide by the rules for either health concerns or respect for the rules and the law, have to compete against "non-clean" guys who gain a very clear advantage. Think women's East German swim team of the olympics. Our women were defrauded out of a fair competition - everyone knows that now. The East Germans did not win and set those records "fair and square". Much like Casey Burgener and other top US lifters will probably never break some of the longstanding lifting records because of the era in which those were set - when steroid use was rampant.
That seems very clearly unfair to me - if someone could explain how it's "fair" without resort to sophistry, I'd love to hear it. I'll take the opportunity to address them now, because they are defintiely worth considering.
I'll refer to the numbered sections of your first post. However, laws don't make things intrinsically wrong, they make them illegal --it just so happens that most illegal things tend to be bad.
When addressing the question of whether or not steroid use is morally appropriate, issues of current legality in our country are not important, as Peter said very well "if we object to drug use because it is against the rules then With regards to safety, I will say that there are many reasons why a drug could turn up on the controlled substances list, and most of those are not due to pure medical virtues.
Steroids are not entirely safe, but that is not a good reason to deny people access to them. Like I have said before, life is full of risks, and being a competitive athlete can cause many serious health problems, with or without steroids. No, it may not be completely fair for him if he can't use but his opponents are juiced. However, let's expand the scope of the example: Is it fair competition if one athlete has greater genetic ability than the other? Is it fair if his opponent has better equipment than he does because he has more money to spend?
Is it fair if the referee sneezes and misses a crucial call? Is it fair if one athlete comes down with the flu before a game while the other is fine because he was vaccinated?
We accept these and innumerable other factors that may have a significant influence on the outcome of a competition, even though it may not be fair. Athletic commissions have no influence over their players genetics, so why should rules be made in reaction to specific and generally rare cases?
Ultimately, there is only so much that can be regulated, and competition is never totally fair; rules can only go so far. Records are constantly being broken because athletes are always improving their skills. Leagues change constantly and it is really difficult to compare current players with those from other eras. Sports journalists spend a large portion of their careers comparing contemporary players to the all-time greats, and there is seldom if ever a definitive answer to the question of what a record means.
Consider Barry Bonds' home run record. Can it be compared to Hank Aaron's?
I Only Look Like This Because I Have Good Genetics…
Bonds hit his homers in different parks with different field configurations, different baseballs, different players, and of course different drugs. Take another example, one that is not about steroids. His record for career touchdowns, 99, stood for forty years. Today several receivers have broken Hutson's record. However, their achievments are not really the same as Hutson's, who played in a totally different era when the forward pass was still an "experiment," receivers got very few touches per game, there was no pass interference rule, and players played both offense and defense Hutson himself had 30 career interceptions as a safety, including 8 in one game season, and kicked extra points and field goals.
His achievements cannot be compared on a 1-to-1 basis with those of modern receivers like Terrell Owens, Jerry Rice, and Micheal Irvin because the game he played was so different.
Yet no one is complaing that the pass interference rule ruined or nullified his receiving records. Of course, records are tarnished if athletes cheat to break them, but steroid use doesn't HAVE to be cheating.
If steroids were allowed, it would be a very different debate. You yourself said that in Bonds' case, it wasn't the simple fact that he broke the record, but the way he did it. I hope that clarifies my feelings a little better on the subject. I hope as well that it will satisfy your request for an explanation without casuistry or sophistry. Please understand that I mean everything I say, and I'm not writing this to try to be clever. I am honestly very puzzled by the issue, and I am trying to reason it out for myself.
Tom Rawls We are not born equal. The question isn't simply that some things are unfair, so what's the big deal if something else is unfair.
The question is, how do we structure the rules to achieve as much fairness as possible, given what we are able to control. Comparing steroid use to a missed call by a ref is a false comparison. Human error is part of any contest with refs and judges.
The vagaries of flu bugs, ring worm, food poisoning are not germane to the conversation. In so doing, you must also be willing to do whatever it takes to get away with it. You can't decide to do one without the other. If you're not willing to keep a bag packed at all times in the trunk of your car and have enough room on your credit card to drop what you're doing, head to the airport, and buy the next available ticket to bunghole Egypt then you shouldn't play this game, because that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Which reminds me, you're also going to need an attorney versed in steroid litigation. I recommend Rick Collins; he's the best there is. How the Cheaters Cheat If we are to follow the CrossFit doping code, there are just a few dimensions of cheating in which an athlete should become adept if he's to get away with doing whatever it takes to win.
Here are a few of them. Suck or "Retire" to Avoid Drug Tests According to WADA, and to some degree followed by CrossFit, if you're an exceptional athlete in your chosen sport, or begin to exhibit marked improvement in your size, strength, and speed, you're going to be profiled as a "high risk of doping" candidate.
That means you'll be put in a special pool of other exceptional athletes. You'll be tested at a minimum of three times in 18 months, or any time they want to test you — which can be a lot.
So, the number one best way to minimize being tested is to suck. If, however, you do not suck, then the best way to pass a drug test is still not to get tested. The best way to avoid that is to announce your retirement right after the CrossFit Games. If you're retired you're not included in the testing pool. You can announce your return to competition before the next regional event you plan to enter, or sometime soon before the Games when you know you'll test clean.
Take Drugs That Aren't Tested For The second best way to pass a drug test is to know which drugs on the banned list have no current test to detect them. Those it does list are many, and CrossFit further admits that the listed items do not constitute a complete list. They're basically leaving the door open to include any drug they want any time they want, even drugs that have "not yet been named! So, while they can say you can't do these drugs, there's absolutely no way they'll ever be able to catch you doing them.
In essence, they're relying on the honor system — or your ignorance — to keep these drugs out of competition. If you're cheating, then this is a license to do so.
Never Take a Drug Test You Can't Pass "Knowing" you'll test clean is critically important administratively as well as for the chemist involved. This is done by finding a lab that will expeditiously conduct a test on your urine sample, or blood, or both and give you the results. It might take a good song and dance, a pile of money or a trip to another country to get your testing done, but it's something we do all the time.
I would never let a high-profile athlete take a drug test unless we already knew he would pass it.
Testimony from a Female Ex-Steroid User
Remember, on our side this is a far simpler process than on the other side. We only need a test for the drug we know you're taking. They are testing you for a laundry list of drugs they don't know you're taking, so they have to test for quite a few and it's expensive. It's also pointless if you already know the answer. In the words of Sun Tzu, "Never fight a battle you cannot win. On the Olympic level this is the most difficult aspect of the game. It has recently been made even more difficult since WADA added an extra veil of difficulty.
High-risk pool athletes are required to provide a detailed quarterly whereabouts report that not only accounts for every day of their lives, where they spend the night, work, train, etc. Things could be done in a specific manner that makes the test a non-issue. Just pee in the cup. What you're taking is either not on the test or there's not a currently acceptable test for it. If circumstances are such that you're taking all or part of what I'll later describe as the "fast-acting cocktail," then you're going to have to buy yourself some time to clean out.
You'll need to shoot for an extra 10 to 15 days from the time they contact you until you finally find your way back from bunghole Egypt and into the presence of a collection officer.
This would be an optimum timeframe to make sure you're clear of everything and pass a "test" test. If you find yourself in need of that cleanout window, you're going to have to employ what's known as the "duck and dodge. Depending on the timeframe needed, this little charade could go on for several days to a couple of weeks.
When the athlete comes back to civilization, all the fast-acting gear he was using will have cleared his system before he shows up to the testing center, where he either will or will not be tested. He will, however, be marked down for a missed test. Three missed tests in an 18 month period will equate to a doping violation and subject the athlete to ineligibility pending adjudication of the matter.
However, if WADA allows for certain excuses to delay out-of-competition testing, then I'm sure your legal council — well versed in drug testing issues — can petition CrossFit to at least follow WADA and excuse the missed test based on any of the following: I imagine if you were in such a location where they don't have such a person, they'd be hard to locate.
Completing a training session. A two-week cross country trek in the mountains of Montana, sorry no cell service. Receiving necessary medical treatment. Damn if I didn't twist my ankle in Montana! Wallet was stolen while traveling. Can't get new ID until I get back. Can't take a drug test without picture ID. Any other exceptional circumstances which can be justified and documented.
An emergency trip to see a dying relative counts and you can document it. Any decent coach working with an athlete, who he knows has an almost certain likelihood of being tested while on cycle, will have either designed the protocol around substances for which there is no test or are not on the list as yet undiscovered designer steroidsor around quick-clearing substances.
A butterfly pull-up performed with correct form, is safer than a strict pull up with broken form. The form argument is another discussion. Think about running a mile. Which is more intense: You are going to get two very different experiences and your body will get two very different workouts.
Running probably didn't start out as a competition until someone defined a set distance Once people had a definition, a competition was born. The sport of CrossFit, the athletes and the coaches Yes, I called it a sport. Sooner or later it will be in the Olympics. If you were to look at the TV ratings for Olympic events, the top rated events are the most intense: In the winter Olympics the top rated events are also the most intense: People want to watch intensity.
Because the more intense a sport is, the more difficult it becomes. People like to see how far you are able to push the human body and that comes from intensity.
You will see the difference: Lets look at some of the elements of CrossFit: A mix of Olympic lifting, running, rowing, gymnastics and more. Are any of those in the Olympics? As for the coaches, this is where you have to be smart and do a little research. All coaches are not created equal.
Good coaches and bad coaches. If you wanted to go to the Olympics for gymnastics, you probably would look around your area to see who the best coaches are. If one of your local coaches has taken someone to the Olympics, that would probably be the coach you would want to pair up with even if it was a commute to get there. My recommendation to find a good coach: If a box is consistently producing top results year after year, they are more likely to have good coaching.
Men and women who do bodybuilding workouts have great bodies.