Discussion: Why are steroids considered cheating 100% but supps like creatine not at all? - Page 4

Adam Knowlden · #31 08-06-2006, 04:31 AM

This arguement is very similar to doping and endurance sports. After all how much more natural can you get than your own blood? Mind you, enhanced with a lot more red blood cells. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I would state that supplements can have a lot of health benefits independent of bodybuilding. For example, creatine can actually promote brain health. Glutamine is great for your immune system. Protein is essential for living.

Can the same be said for steroids?

[ QUOTE ]
Who is to say that steroids are unnatural. I mean, when you break them down, they are just atoms like you and me and whey and creatine and everything else in this world. How can someone say that anything on Earth is unnatural?

[/ QUOTE ]

But clearly this logic is self-defeating. It tends to assume we can't distinguish fantasy from reality.

[ QUOTE ]
‘If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true … and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’

[/ QUOTE ]

Venom · #32 08-06-2006, 04:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I would state that supplements can have a lot of health benefits independent of bodybuilding. For example, creatine can actually promote brain health. Glutamine is great for your immune system. Protein is essential for living.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a philisophical, and practical standpiont, I think this is the key to everything.

Ultimately, the goal is to be healthy and optimize performance. But we should not optimize our performance at the expense of ones health; steroids compromise health, and pressure others to do the same. For this reason I think they should be illegal for all sports. How badly do I wish bodybuiding would do this. :/

tetz8again · #33 08-06-2006, 05:02 AM

Venom/Old School, if there were no bad side effects of steroids, would you think it is alright to take them? I think the only reason they should be banned is because they are bad for you, so if they weren't unhealthy, but everything else was the same as it is now (how they are made and used, still "unnatural", etc.), would they be alright?

Venom · #34 08-06-2006, 05:23 AM

I don't see why not... heck, I'd probably use them haha. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I'd be interested in others opinions on this as well. Good question!

tetz8again · #35 08-06-2006, 05:40 AM

I really like the second paragraph of that article about unfair advantages. I never thought of it on the humans genetic level, but earlier when book said that it is cheating for average gym goers to use steroids because it produces results easier, I got to thinking that if that were true, then it must be cheating for any one to even be lifting weights in the first place because it gives you an unfair advantage over people who don't lift weights but would like to look better.

[ QUOTE ]
A common argument in support of banning steroids is that they give athletes an unfair advantage over their opponents. However, Roger Gardner points out numerous
flaws in this argument. When analyzing sports, there are numerous advantages athletes have. Certain athletes have accessibility to more technology, better equipment, better
trainers and scientific training methods, greater genetics such as height and a higher ratio of fast to slow twitch muscle fibers, and so on. Yet, we do not consider athletes unethical for having these various advantages over their competitors.

[/ QUOTE ]

This paragraph is beautiful and I agree with every word of it.

Btw, are there any fatal genetic diseases where steroids can be treated or atleast used to help slow down the process? I was thinking Lou Gherigs disease, but I'm not sure.

tristan_v1 · #36 08-06-2006, 06:16 AM

i think that anything that has a million side effects
like steroids should be considerd cheating.where as
the supplements are natural and can be found in
our daily meals.

we all know the side effects of steriods but there are
some people that are still debating wether or not they
are legit.

this topic should be put to a rest.

Venom · #37 08-06-2006, 04:46 PM

I am glad you like the article, tetz [img]/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Steroids can be prescribed by a doctor for certain medical conditions. For instance, muscle wasting conditions such as aids. Or, for hormonal replacement, when one has abnormally low levels of testosterone.

tetz8again · #38 08-06-2006, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i think that anything that has a million side effects like steroids should be considerd cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that anything should be considered cheating if there aren't any rules against it. If by "considered cheating", you mean that you think steroids should be against the rules, then I agree with you. But if you stand by the exact wording of this sentence, then I think you are wrong.

Adam Knowlden · #39 08-09-2006, 01:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Venom/Old School, if there were no bad side effects of steroids, would you think it is alright to take them? I think the only reason they should be banned is because they are bad for you, so if they weren't unhealthy, but everything else was the same as it is now (how they are made and used, still "unnatural", etc.), would they be alright?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is such a huge hypothetical I'm not really sure how to answer bro.

dueno8 · #40 08-10-2006, 04:00 AM

the last time i checked humans, especially men have hormones within them, isn't that what the endocrine system is for?!

tetz8 made a good point about the steroid thing, but the fact is that they had to draw a line somewhere and they picked steroid, i personally am grad so one day when/if i do a comp. i won't have to juice myself just to keep up with the competition.

and just on a tanget, tothe whole horse pee thing, since no water on earth is 'new,'its just recycled, for all you know the glass of water you just drank could be your toilet water from last year!