Steroids.. how bad are they really?

• Ironman92

  

  I believe Alzado before he died did an interview and blamed his terrible health on steroids and what they eventually did to his body.
  
  
  What are Ken Caminiti's thoughts on this?
• eersandbeers

  Glory Days wrote: except when i am paying for your medical bills, but we can save that for the politics forum.

  I pay my medical bills. Simply because the insurance companies use hte excuse that my actions raise your medical costs doesn't make it true. I pay my bills, so whatever I choose should go into my body.
  

  HitsRus wrote:
  
  Only because it was done surreptiously and no one knew and for that matter it is only suspect. Barry Bonds however, is in disgrace....and even then it is not proven to where they can strip his records.

  Which was the ultimate hypocrisy in my opinion. Bonds was also just a piece of garbage as a person so it made people more hard on him for using steroids.
• dlazz

  From the reading I did on the matter I think they're fairly safe in moderation. I saw a statistic where most of the common "users" of steroids are those with bachelors degrees or higher in the medical field.
  
  I'm too lazy to look that up right now though.
• Glory Days

  

  tcarrier32 wrote: you dont pay for my medical bills. so there is no need to save it.

  eersandbeers wrote:

  Glory Days wrote: except when i am paying for your medical bills, but we can save that for the politics forum.

  I pay my medical bills. Simply because the insurance companies use hte excuse that my actions raise your medical costs doesn't make it true. I pay my bills, so whatever I choose should go into my body.

  but how do you know it isnt true? but either way, i am referring to when the new health care bill is passed.
• HitsRus

  

  serious cardiovascular effects.
  http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/10/1576
• captvern

  If you take one medical cycle a year you are more healthy then someone who did not take them.
• dwccrew

  

  pmoney25 wrote: Well if you want your nuts to disappear, go ahead and take them.....or get married...Wakka Wakka Wakka

  If someone takes the proper dosages and also takes the anti-estrogen afterwards, they'll be fine.
  

  sleeper wrote: I've always said they should be legalized and then let the market decide if they should be accepted in society.

  This
  

  NNN wrote:
  This is like the dumbasses that back legalization of pot on the basis of "how many people overdose on pot?" Well, none overdose on tobacco (which is the next closest thing) either and there are a hell of a lot more people that smoke tobacco than reefer.
  
  Tampering with hormones is an easy way to develop a hell of a lot more problems. Tampering with testosterone in the insane amounts that anabolic compounds do is a bad idea. It's funny...the first birth control pills contained five times as much estrogen as now and everyone raises an eyebrow when they hear that. But a single dose of an anabolic compound contains anywhere from 10-1000 times the weekly natural dosage and we're supposed to seriously consider legalizing and opening up the marketplace to them? You must be insane.

  Horrible points. Tobacco isn't as bad by itself, but cigarettes have so many cancer causing carcinogens that marijuana doesn't have. Marijuana has never been documented as causing cancer.
  

  captvern wrote: If you take one medical cycle a year you are more healthy then someone who did not take them.

  Exactly.
• Cat Food Flambe'

  

  You'll very, very seldom see a coroner's report with "cause of death: Ingestion of Steroids"
  
  The "roids" cause long-term, permanent damage to several body systems if taken at very high doses over a long period time - but you actually die from a heart attack or liver failure, an aneurysm, or a stroke. Think of it like driving a half-ton pickup truck around with two tons of gravel in the bed for five years - even if you eventually unload the gravel, the engine, clutch, springs, or frame are very likely to give out long before they would have otherwise.
  
  When we write health insurance risk programs for employer groups, we actually have a factor for steroid use. It's a very real consideration for certain groups like professional athlete's unions.
• This_DJ_3

  My uncle blames the fact that he's had two failed shoulder replacements and cant even wash his own hair on all the juicing he did back in the day. saying it caused him to push his body past points he should have and he'd still feel like a million bucks, but over time, it broke him down.
• jordo212000

  

  I really can't believe some of the opinions here. Wow. I thought I was libertarian but jeez you guys are making me look bad. (I agree about pot, not sure why its illegal) but steroids?
  
  I cringe at the idea of this being legal and encouraged in sports.
• krazie45

  

  NNN wrote:This is like the dumbasses that back legalization of pot on the basis of "how many people overdose on pot?" Well, none overdose on tobacco (which is the next closest thing) either and there are a hell of a lot more people that smoke tobacco than reefer.

  Well no shit sherlock, more people smoke cigarettes because it's legal and you can by them at your neighborhood gas station. I guarantee that number would change if weed were legal.
  
  And you contradicted your own argument. No one has overdosed on tobacco. No one has overdosed on weed. No one has overdosed on jelly doughnuts. For some reason, two of these items are legal and one is not. What sense does that make?
• Trueblue23

  

  To each his own I guess...
  
  Bud Selig sure as hell wasn't complaining when millions of people were watching EVERY Bonds at-bat..
• eersandbeers

  jordo212000 wrote: I really can't believe some of the opinions here. Wow. I thought I was libertarian but jeez you guys are making me look bad. (I agree about pot, not sure why its illegal) but steroids?
  
  I cringe at the idea of this being legal and encouraged in sports.

  
  You might be missing the whole point of being a libertarian.
• jordo212000

  

  eersandbeers wrote:
  You might be missing the whole point of being a libertarian.

  you mean anarchist?
• eersandbeers

  jordo212000 wrote:

  eersandbeers wrote:
  You might be missing the whole point of being a libertarian.

  you mean anarchist?

  
  No. There are libertarians who are anarchist, but that is not the true underlying belief.
  
  Libertarianism means you believe people have the right to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. That means allowing someone to do steroids and ruining their life.
• queencitybuckeye

  eersandbeers wrote:
  
  Libertarianism means you believe people have the right to do as they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. That means allowing someone to do steroids and ruining their life.

  Where is that line, though? Do the people willing to take PEDs basically get to shut out of playing sports those unwilling to do so?