Congress to Investigate Steroids use in MLB

[Weird Harold]

A Congressional committee has invited Jose Canseco, Bary Bonds, Mark Magwire, and other current and former major league basebll players to testify about steroid use in Major League Baseball.

Why?

What justifiction can the government give for Congress investigating a a professional sports league for anything? Why just investigate steroid use in baseball; why not investigate Olympic Athletes and MLS Soccer and NHL Hockey and all of the other professional and amateur sports?

Are Steroids, in fact, "cheating" in any sport? Where is the line between diet and excercise or natural supplements and exercise or artificial supplements (steroids) and exercise that determines what is an unacceptable and unfair advantage?

Isn't the Justice Department the branch of government tasked with investigating crimes? If the justification is that "Steroids" are a controlled substance, shouldn't the DEA be doing the investigation?

If the justification is "steroids are cheating" shouldn't the Federal (Interstate) Trade Commission be the ones to investigate?


Let's explore the many aspects of "performance enhancing substances" and who should investigate and regulate their use?

 

[elsol]

Personally...

I think steroid use should be right up there with the viscosity of ketchup as things the government needs to look into.

How about they spend their time, energy, and brain cells on something important like Iraq, Social Security, the national debt, or whether an asteroid can hit earth and extinguish all life...


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

The problem with no one applying the brakes to the use of artificial stimulants and drugs in professional sports is that eventually all sporting competitions will resemble Nickelodeon’s Robot Wars, only using flesh and blood instead of steel and microchips.

The body investigating the problem should be the league administration and the owners, but as in many other industries, their eyes are fixed so steadily upon each quarter’s bottom line, they can give little consideration to the long picture.

As for this particular investigation, it has all the earmarks of a Washington dog and pony show. Congress is investigating steroid use in baseball for roughly the same reason HUAC investigated communist sympathisers in Hollywood.

 

[Weird Harold]

Personally...

I think steroid use should be right up there with the viscosity of ketchup as things the government needs to look into.

As for this particular investigation, it has all the earmarks of a Washington dog and pony show. Congress is investigating steroid use in baseball for roughly the same reason HUAC investigated communist sympathisers in Hollywood.

Those were pretty much my first thoughts as well. This investigation is an excuse to getpictures tken with professional athletes and present the appearance to the unwashed masses tht they're relly doing somthing important.

The problem with no one applying the brakes to the use of artificial stimulants and drugs in professional sports is that eventually all sporting competitions will resemble Nickelodeon’s Robot Wars, only using flesh and blood instead of steel and microchips.

How so?

I haven't done a great deal of research on exactly what IS known about the effects of Steroids, but what little I hve red indicates to me that Steroids don't really do anything that genetics, exercise, and a tightly controlled diet can't do except they do it faster by skipping a couple of metabolic steps.

The body investigating the problem should be the league administration and the owners, but as in many other industries, their eyes are fixed so steadily upon each quarter’s bottom line, they can give little consideration to the long picture.

Coincidently, the radio report that prompted this thread was the piece immediately following the report that MLB Baseball's newly negotiated steroid testing program began today.

Sounds to me like not only is Copngress investigating something that is none of their business, they're doing it only AFTER the people who should be doing something about it start doing something.

 

[Boota]

The extent of the government involvement should be DEA at most. Possibly FBI in as much as a lot of steroids cross borders. Particularly Mexico. A lot of them come from there because pretty much anything you can think of is "sort of" legal in Mexico. I would think most arrests could be made at the state and local level.

I do think it is cheating when an athlete uses a banned substance to enhance his ability. I wouldn't consider it cheating if everyone was allowed to use it, I would just consider it really fucking stupid. After all the years I've spent in the gym I have seen first hand many horror stories from steroids. Anyone who says it is safe is liar or an idiot. Possibly both. Jose Canseco says that they are actually good for you. To me, saying that is unconscionable. To the kid who was wondering if he should take steroids, that is the answer he is looking for. No matter all the other evidence to the contrary, he has someone in the limelight saying they are good for you.

I think if they could prove that an athlete, Barry Bonds for example, has been using steroids they should pull his records out of the books, ban him from the game and look into criminal prosecution for use/possession of a controlled substance. Why are these guys any better than other drug abusers who are in prison?

 

[Weird Harold]

I do think it is cheating when an athlete uses a banned substance to enhance his ability. I wouldn't consider it cheating if everyone was allowed to use it, I would just consider it really fucking stupid.

How do you feel about things like the "designer steroids" companies like Balco develop -- which as I understand it aren't precisely steroids nor are they on the controlled substances list by name.

From the few technical details I've seen, the so-called designer steroids are pre-steroids that cause the body to produce natural steroids -- like testosterone -- in greater quantities than normal. Unless they can be lumped in with the general grouping "steroids" -- which is debateable -- they're not technically "steroids" or "banned."

How about supplements like "andro" and "creotine" (sp) that aren't illegal and only recently banned by MLB (after Magwire was found to be using andro during the season he broke the Homerun record. Is that record tainted because "andro" was banned after it was set?

 

[steve w]

I have a question and a couple of general points -

As a part-time observer of baseball (as befits a Blue Jays fan - it's too painful for regular exposure), I have to ask - what possible benefits could steroids give a baseball player? Besides giving them a body that might win them some endorsements or get them lucky in a nightclub, what does it add to their baseball performance? Does it give them better hand/eye co-ordination? Does it make them time the ball better? Does it make them better decision-makers? It doesn't seem to be a sport where brute strength or huge endurance is a major issue.

As a general point, I find the biggest problem lies with what is banned and what is not. Like many sports fans, I don't want to see the spectacle I love become a battle of chemistry sets, where will to win, determination, natural talent and the ability to respond to pressure are undermined by a bunch of chemicals.

However, take two scenarios -

a) An athlete has pulled a muscle and can barely walk. He takes a Cortisone injection and, two hours later, wins a gold medal

b) An athlete, three months before a big race, has a cold and takes a cough medicine available from any pharmacy in the world, without prescription.

I find it laughable that scenario a) is totally legal, while scenario b) is a failed drug test and disgrace.

Can anyone explain why that should be so?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

to Steve: Anabolic steroids increase muscle mass. If you have good hand ye coordination, you can be a good player. If you add artificially hopped up strenght, your power numbers will soar as well. If you check the recent great sluggers, pre steriods scandal and post, you will see an average drop in body mass of at least twenty pounds and a decline in power numbers that shows a definte material advnatage to jucing up.

Possbly Interested Authoritys:

DEA, if the steroids are a controled substance.
FBI, if they were moving across stae or national borders.
CDC, if their use is endemic as some believe and there are associated health risks.
IRS, if BALCO dosen't show the dollars taken in by providing illegal drugs off the books.
SEC, if Balco was publicly traded and was cooking the books to hide income.
OSHA, if their use provides a workplace hazard.
FTC, if they are being traded across state lines.
DEA again as well as the regulatory bodies of the medical profession, if allegations that team doctors & trainers were giving them out.
FTC again, if their use is found to constitute fraud.
The insurance agencies regulatory bodies, if their use is found to provide significant health risks.


With as many potentially interested bodies, the excuse is there for congress to hld hearings. I believe the primary motivator is just for PR however.

 

[An Awful Cad]

I haven't done a great deal of research on exactly what IS known about the effects of Steroids, but what little I hve red indicates to me that Steroids don't really do anything that genetics, exercise, and a tightly controlled diet can't do except they do it faster by skipping a couple of metabolic steps.

Even if that were the sole extent of the effect of steroids, it would still be cheating. Baseball, like most professional sports, has a long and grueling season. The ability to recover quickly from the exertion and injuries of the season is apparently one of the primary reasons steroids are so popular among baseball players. When one player can take some "juice" and pitch more effectively on limited rest than another player, that's unfair.

Personally, I think the statistical evidence speaks clearly for the impact of steroids. The way modern players hit 50 or more home runs - a number which used to be reserved for hall-of-fame caliber players - makes me think that it's not the ball that's juiced

Sounds to me like not only is Copngress investigating something that is none of their business, they're doing it only AFTER the people who should be doing something about it start doing something.

You think MLB would have done anything without external scrutiny? The league and the owners have been complicit in the spread of steroids throughtout the game up til now, and in fact have pretty good incentive to look the other way or even condone the use of steroids. Chicks aren't the only ones who dig the long ball.

 

[cantdog]

I'm afraid I don't see where it's any of the feds' business. It's grotesque that anyone would waste their time. But I feel that way about a lot of things people do.

 

[R. Richard]

I haven't done a great deal of research on exactly what IS known about the effects of Steroids, but what little I hve red indicates to me that Steroids don't really do anything that genetics, exercise, and a tightly controlled diet can't do except they do it faster by skipping a couple of metabolic steps.

WH:
What an athlete can do with steroids is to overcome limits normally imposed by genetics. Levels of hormones such as testosterone can be pushed to levels the body simply cannot achieve normally. Such an overload of testosterone can result in much greater muscle mass development than genetics would normally permit. Whether or not such development is unfair I leave to others to decide.

Once the muscle development has been achieved, it is practical to maintain the extra muscle, provided that the extra muscle is exercised to the max frequently. If enough time lapses between the steroid use and testing, the steroid use may well not be found.

The problem is really the "if some is good, more is better and too much is just right" mindset often found in athletes. "If 10ccs of the stuff makes me big, then 20ccs should make me huge and 30ccs will make me into Mr. Olympia!" Of course, the effects, particularly long term effects in the steroid users body are not good.

The reflexes and hand-eye coordination are not improved by steroids. However, the ability to move faster, due to increased muscularity, is enhanced. Thus, a baseball player can hit the ball harder and further, assuming he can hit the ball in the first place. The same baseball player can also run faster and further, enhancing his ability to field.

 

[Weird Harold]

As a general point, I find the biggest problem lies with what is banned and what is not. Like many sports fans, I don't want to see the spectacle I love become a battle of chemistry sets, where will to win, determination, natural talent and the ability to respond to pressure are undermined by a bunch of chemicals.

The ability to recover quickly from the exertion and injuries of the season is apparently one of the primary reasons steroids are so popular among baseball players. When one player can take some "juice" and pitch more effectively on limited rest than another player, that's unfair.

Which brings us back to one of my orginal questions, "where do we draw the line between therapy and cheating?"

Why aren't cortisone injections "cheating?"

How about acupuncture? Is a player with a personal acupuncturist cheating?

How about a personal nutritionalist or herbalist?

How about a personal hypnotist?

There are a lot of different methods for overcoming injury and/or increase strength and conditioning. Why just settle on "steroids" as being cheating?

What's the line between steroids as legitimate therapy under a doctor's supervision and steroids as cheating?

With as many potentially interested bodies, the excuse is there for congress to hold hearings. I believe the primary motivator is just for PR however.

Wouldn't a joint investigative task force and "intelligence sharing" among the various interested agencies work better than a congressional committee that habitually grants "immunity from prosecution" for every bit of juicy gossip be more effective?

I hadn't really considered the concept of Congress as a "coalition investigation," but that's probably because they've never shown any particular tendency to share the results of their investigations or folow the rules of evidence that make what they turn up useful in court in the past.

 

[Boota]

The line is easy to draw between cheating and therapy. There are rules and lists of banned substances. If the rules have been violated or a banned substance has been used, it's cheating, plain and simple. At the point of discovery massive fines should come down and possible expulsion from the league.

In the case of andro and creatine, they weren't listed as banned at that point, so in my opinion it's not cheating. While the results may be the same and they are virtually steroids for all intents and purposes, everyone else had the opportunity to take them and if they chose not to, that's their decision.

 

[Weird Harold]

The line is easy to draw between cheating and therapy. There are rules and lists of banned substances. If the rules have been violated or a banned substance has been used, it's cheating, plain and simple. At the point of discovery massive fines should come down and possible expulsion from the league.

So the "designer steroids" aren't cheating until somebody sees the results and objects so they get put on a list?

Whose list is the defining list? Steroids have been controlled substances, requiring a doctor's prescription and supervision to use legally for years, but weren't on MLB's list of "banned substances" by name until just recently -- althoughthey could be covered under the "use of illegal drugs" clause in the players' contracts.

The problem is really the "if some is good, more is better and too much is just right" mindset often found in athletes. "If 10ccs of the stuff makes me big, then 20ccs should make me huge and 30ccs will make me into Mr. Olympia!" Of course, the effects, particularly long term effects in the steroid users body are not good.

One of the Sports-talk hosts I listen to regularly broughtup the point that there is a lot that is not relly known about the true effects of steroids.

For example, "Lyle Alzado blamed his terminal cancer on steroids, but there really isn't any definitive evidence to support his contention."

How much of what is "known" about steroid use is hype or myth and how much is supportble, verifiable scientific data? A few high profile athletes who blame their health problems on steroids does not a scientific study make, and from what I can see, there is some justification in believing that the "long-term bad effects" might just be less than is commonly believed.

Overuse of ANY substance can't be good, and the "more must be better" mindset certainly contributes to the perception of a serious problem. Of course, there are also possible long-term ill effects from simple over-development and excessive excercise without the benefit of "steroids" -- althoughI don't know of ny specific study that documents what they are that tries to separate natural from artificially enhanced "over development" related problems.

Any averge athlete of today -- without benefit of steroids -- would likely be a super-star when pitted against the great players of history. The average athletic population is simply better fed and more knowledgeable about the benefits of good diet, nutrition and excercise than athletes of the past were; that's why "records are made to be broken."

 

[Boota]

MLB baseball would make the final decision on whether something gets put on the banned substances list. You're overthinking this. It doesn't matter what the substance is. If they decide that Gatorade is a banned substance than it is cheating to use Gatorade. Regardless of any properties Gatorade may or may not have in performance enhancement. The point isn't whether a substance is legal, or even safe. It is about whether it is banned or not. Very simple. If it's banned, to use it is cheating.

Steroids are bad for you. There is no question about it. The people who are raising these issues are very uninformed as to the dangers of steroids if they are saying it is safe. As far as whether it caused Lyle Alzado's cancer, that is neither here nor there when compared to the devastating physical effects that are known to come from steroids. Bringing up Lyle Alzado's claim in this argument is sort of a red herring. It is arguable that steroids may have played a part in his disease, but it is not proven, and therefore not valid to use for either side in the argument for or against steroid use.

I've seen firsthand the effects of steroids on people. From roid rage to muscle and tissue deterioration, and worse. I went to school with a guy who died in his early 20's from steroid use as a competition bodybuilder. Aside from the argument against MLB banning steroids and punishing players, I am deadset against steroid usage. The price is too high. There are far more bad things that happen because of steroids than good things. Not all of them are physical, either. Roid rage is very serious issue. A guy in the prison where my dad works is in because he beat his wife to death when she forgot to wash the dishes before he got home from the gym. He wasn't a violent man until the increased testosterone turned him into one.

 

[Weird Harold]

MLB baseball would make the final decision on whether something gets put on the banned substances list. You're overthinking this. It doesn't matter what the substance is. If they decide that Gatorade is a banned substance than it is cheating to use Gatorade. Regardless of any properties Gatorade may or may not have in performance enhancement. The point isn't whether a substance is legal, or even safe. It is about whether it is banned or not. Very simple. If it's banned, to use it is cheating.

That's a rather simplistic reasoning, but I do agree with your basic idea. The problem is, that until recently, steroids were NOT banned by MLB and records and individul achievement from theperiod when they were NOT banned are being denigrated because they're the result of "cheating" and artificial enhancment.

Steroids are bad for you. There is no question about it. The people who are raising these issues are very uninformed as to the dangers of steroids if they are saying it is safe.

So Athma Inhalers are bad for you? Some of the stronger ones contain "steroids" and almost all of them contain ingredients that show up as "banned substances" to most sports drug tests.

As far as whether it caused Lyle Alzado's cancer, that is neither here nor there when compared to the devastating physical effects that are known to come from steroids. Bringing up Lyle Alzado's claim in this argument is sort of a red herring. It is arguable that steroids may have played a part in his disease, but it is not proven, and therefore not valid to use for either side in the argument for or against steroid use.

Still, the tlk-show host's point was that Lyle Alzado is one of the primary sources of the anti-steroid movement in sports -- he was and is the "poster child for steroid abuse" in many minds.

I've seen firsthand the effects of steroids on people. From roid rage to muscle and tissue deterioration, and worse. I went to school with a guy who died in his early 20's from steroid use as a competition bodybuilder. Aside from the argument against MLB banning steroids and punishing players, I am deadset against steroid usage. The price is too high. There are far more bad things that happen because of steroids than good things.

Are you really against steroid use or steroid abuse?

You argue that steroids have long term effects, but use examples of short-term to immediate effects to support your opposition.

Steroid ABUSE is definitely a problem -- especially "roid rage" as a danger to people other than the user -- but a blanket condemnation of steroids because they can be abused ignores the fact that "steroids" are a wide variety of substances that have legitimate uses which are beneficial -- as in controlling asthma attacks or speeding recovery from non-sports injuries.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I was three-weeks-on/two-weeks-off for a season with steroids while I played football. I went from 221 to 248, benchmax went from 190 to 235, my 4-40 time saw improvement by .3 (as an MLB, I wasn't quick to begin with, that's a huge jump). I felt better. I felt stronger. I took less damage. I dealt more of it. I was quicker, stronger, didn't tire as easily.

Steroids were great. I could see how people got to depend on them

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Personally, I live within th EU, where the top politicians spend most of their time thinking of ways to steal money from the poor, but sometimes also find time to discuss the really IMPORTANT issues, like...

...how crooked should a banana be allowed to be? 60 degrees? 50? 45?

...what should be the minimum lengthfor a cucumber? 8"? 7"? 6"?

 

[BlackShanglan]

A Congressional committee has invited Jose Canseco, Bary Bonds, Mark Magwire, and other current and former major league basebll players to testify about steroid use in Major League Baseball.

Why?

What justifiction can the government give for Congress investigating a a professional sports league for anything? Why just investigate steroid use in baseball; why not investigate Olympic Athletes and MLS Soccer and NHL Hockey and all of the other professional and amateur sports?

Are Steroids, in fact, "cheating" in any sport? Where is the line between diet and excercise or natural supplements and exercise or artificial supplements (steroids) and exercise that determines what is an unacceptable and unfair advantage?

Isn't the Justice Department the branch of government tasked with investigating crimes? If the justification is that "Steroids" are a controlled substance, shouldn't the DEA be doing the investigation?

If the justification is "steroids are cheating" shouldn't the Federal (Interstate) Trade Commission be the ones to investigate?


Let's explore the many aspects of "performance enhancing substances" and who should investigate and regulate their use?

Actually, I'm with WH on this one. Thank God Congress has solved all other pressing problems and have time to devote to this crucial issue

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Personally, I live within th EU, where the top politicians spend most of their time thinking of ways to steal money from the poor, but sometimes also find time to discuss the really IMPORTANT issues, like...

...how crooked should a banana be allowed to be? 60 degrees? 50? 45?

...what should be the minimum lengthfor a cucumber? 8"? 7"? 6"?

And don't forget legislating the precise weight of a loaf of bread.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

And don't forget legislating the precise weight of a loaf of bread.

I heard they were having problem with the French (who doesn't?) since baguettes are so light in spite of the heavy usage of flour. Apparently, the French want their own category.

And then there's the difference between bread and pastry. Should a sandwich cake fall into the cake category, the bread category, or the finished products category?

It's a very complicated issue...

 

[Boota]

My reasoning was simple because the answer is really that simple. No matter what it is, a banned substance is a banned substance, and use of it is cheating. No matter who thinks it should be allowed or disallowed. No amount of gray area eliminates such a clear cut black and white issue. If M&M's were a banned substance and someone ate some, then that is a violation of the rules. As far as I know the records are all going to hold, but I think everyone realizes that the records were only broken because of someone using artificial means to achieve their power. I consider them pussies of the lowest order, but that's just me.

The steroids used in asthma inhalers are nowhere near the same thing as the ones used in athletic cheating. A big part of it is also the difference between inhaling and injecting, and the amount used per dosage. I don't know anything about anyone being accused of steroid use because they used an asthma inhaler. I would imagine very few professional athletes are asthmatic.

I understand that some people use Lyle Alzado's cancer in the argument, but I'm saying that that is a bullshit argument for either side. It is inconclusive and anyone trying to use it to support their argument, for or against, is being disingenuous. Sure, it's definitely worth more research to see if there is any correlation between cancer and steroid use, but as of right now they have no clue as to whether there is any connection.

As far as I'm concerned, steroid use IS abuse. Particularly in the realm of sports, and after it is listed as a banned substance. Taking any drug that is not to treat an illness is abuse. Relying on a drug to make you competitive is weakness. I would never fall into that. If I couldn't do it naturally I would just admit that I wasn't good enough and work harder. I used to get accused of using steroids all the time because I naturally put on muscle very fast and my strength grew in leaps and bounds. That was just genetics, coupled with the fact that I worked my ass off. I won't even take aspirin, I'm not about to take a steroid shot.

I don't recall specifying about long term effects versus short term. I have only spoken about overall effects, the length of time of used hasn't come up. The guy I know who died from steroids was using them for less than five years. He started at 18 and was dead by 23. That's a relatively short term effect. Are long term effects going to be less severe? As to the guy who killed his wife, I have no idea how long he was using steroids. My friends father, who is in prison for several crimes, including roid fueled violence, is dying from the damage it did to his liver. That is a long term effect. Seems like the liver pays for all of our indiscretions, doesn't it? LOL.

Joe said that he could see how someone could become dependent on them, and that is what he saw through his football experiences. It's even worse for bodybuilders. Steroids are psychologically addictive, but especially for bodybuilders. They are so body conscious that they are hyper aware when they start to lose ANY of their muscle. What happens with them is that on their off weeks they can see the difference. Maybe they are a little softer than they were, maybe it's just their perception. So what they do is cut their off weeks short and start back early. On top of that there is the drive for size and vascularity. In that sport size definitely matters.

It's the same principle with other sports. The drive to be stronger and faster and tougher is identical to the drive to be bigger, and a lot of people begin slipping off their schedule. You might argue the point that staying on the schedule is safe, and that is really the question. But one answer, when you factor in the psychological addiction, is how dangerous would heroin be if used on a rigid schedule? Exchange psychological addiction for physical addiction and you have an appropriate analogy. At some point, the schedule seems less and less important. It's all about the feeling, whether it's being all warm and fuzzy in a heroin daze or being strong and aggressive in a steroid rage. Addiction is addiction and it will strive to feed itself whether it is psychological or physical.

I think your point about medicinal steroids is a bit disingenuous. Taking medicinal steroids to fight asthma attacks or heal injuries is totally different than shooting an illegal substance in order to cheat at sports. You're changing the argument, and it doesn't follow logically. The question is about steroid use in sports, particularly MLB. Using steroids for muscle growth and sports performance is abuse. Using them after they are banned is cheating. I think everyone caught using such substances should be removed from the league and their records stricken from the book. Or at least have an asterisk beside their name with a notation about their steroid use.

Roger Maris hit 61 home runs in a single season without steroids. That is more impressive than Bonds or McGwire. That is human achievement at it's purest level. Without steroids Barry Bonds wouldn't even be close to Hank Aaron's all time record. It will be interesting to see how much lower the numbers are this year with the new policy in MLB.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'll have to diverge from some of the opinions here and say that I'm glad that the government is taking measures to eliminate harmful performance enhancing drugs out of our sports arenas. We may like to say "well, it's no more important than how fast ketchup runs... ahahahaha--look at me belittle the government so well!" but its much more serious than that.

I put it up there with tobacco legislation, drunk driving, insider trading, etc. Which is to say, these things are obviously not as high press as the War in Iraq or the Deficit or Gay Marriage... but, they're not negligable. And if there wasn't any work being done now to curb or identify how much a problem it is, twenty years from now a new generation of bitchy people will berate them for ignoring it for twenty years.

Steroids are drugs. They're harmful. They're dangerous. They're a threat to the health and well-being of the person taking them. They're a threat to the safety of the people around that person. They're a threat to the success of honest athletes who have to compete unfairly with those athletes that are juicing. They're a threat to the development of kids who might look on and say "oh, if Conseco did it and nothing happened, then I can too".

I did steroids because I remember Lou Ferigno talking about it in the 80's and making a flippant comment about how it was rampant and nobody cared and how much they worked--very little being said at the time about detrimental effects.

Sure, we want the government to solve all of the problems on Meet the Press... but let's not knock them for trying to solve the ones that might be in the future.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Steroids are drugs. They're harmful. They're dangerous. They're a threat to the health and well-being of the person taking them. They're a threat to the safety of the people around that person.

If you could win me over on that last one, then I would tend to agree with you. I'm not trying to be flippant - just tend to think that the government is best out of things that only affect the individual. Once the behavior has serious impact on others, then I tend to be with you. What affect do steroids have on those around the user?

Shanglan

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

If you could win me over on that last one, then I would tend to agree with you. I'm not trying to be flippant - just tend to think that the government is best out of things that only affect the individual. Once the behavior has serious impact on others, then I tend to be with you. What affect do steroids have on those around the user?

Shanglan

In the short term, steroids are addictive--psychologically and some studies suggest a physical addiction might be occuring as well. Addiction is dangerous, but not conclusively harmful to others (that goes for any kind of addiction, really, it can harm others but doesn't necessarily). For those with low standards of what is dangerous to others, that much alone might suffice.

Case reports of hypomania, and schizophrenic and psychotic episodes has been noted during use of anabolic steroids. For a long time they were used to treat depressive and other mood disorders, and these were thought to be generally acceptible problems. Self-administered steroids for performance enchancement (AAS) have been linked to aggression quotas (a little problem) and continue to show relations to hypomania and psychotic episodes (possibly due to the aggression and personality-altering).