Bloody Elbow: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Network Bar & Login
Section Navigation
Main Blog Content
Secondary Sidebar: Links to Recent Stories, FanPosts and FanShots
Masthead

New Blog: RSL Soapbox for Real Salt Lake Fans!

Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

by Michael Rome on May 7, 2008 1:45 PM EDT in News Comment 29 comments

I am going to leave the legal issues of state action and government drug testing alone for now. Realistically the laws would probably be upheld as regulations of commerce under current (misguided) jurisprudence, but it is not a sure thing, because there are challenges to workplace drug testing going on in many states as we speak.

I want to talk about steroids. I received numerous emails and complaints that this is what is necessary to stop "cheating," and that fans want their fighters "clean." I understand all of this, I just think this view of cheating is short-sighted.

For today's top mixed martial artist, someone who is steroid-free is anything but "natural." The typical athlete hires a personal trainer to train every day, meals consist of meal replacement powders, energy bars, shakes, and boatloads of supplements. Athletes use products like ZMA to combat all sorts of vitamin deficiencies as well. The amount of drugs pumped into athletes to achieve peak performance is truly staggering (and dangerous), and to act like we're really fighting for their health by waging a war on steroids is self-congratulatory and bogus. I submit that the combination of all these supplements with alcohol and pain killers is far more dangerous to atheletes than steroid cycling will ever be.

There are now, of course, certain surgeries that can accomplish things that no "natural" athelete could do on their own. Consider Kerry Wood, who said a ligament surgery and came back throwing the ball faster than ever before. What if Forrest Griffin got the "Tommy John" surgery, came back with devastating right hand power, and KO'ed Quinton Jackson in the first round. Would this be cheating? Would it be better or worse than steroids?

I don't have the perfect answer to any of this, but it is clear that sports technologies are constantly changing and improving to promote peak performance. The technology is used to modify the human body, and picking out one and claiming it is "cheating" is fairly arbitrary and senseless. I'm well-aware it is illegal, which is reason enough to judge someone negatively for using, I just question the logic behind this steroid crusade.

Please comment away, it's impossible to respond to 20 different people while studying for finals, so I won't be able to, but I'd like your thoughts on why steroids are especially evil.

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

I think it is important to note that we're constantly seeing sups pulled off shelves because of health problems they are found (or supposedly found to cause) so I don't buy into the "protecting their health" angle for why steroids have to be regulated. I also don't buy into the "some day someone is going to get killed because they were fighting someone who was all jacked up on steroids" as I don't thing that HGH, roids or anything else provide such a sudden "superman" difference to where suddenly you're crushing skulls where you weren't before.

I will however say that anything that gives an athlete an unfair unnatural advantage over another fighter should be regulated. Something like the surgery you mentioned is unable to be controled, that is a case of "a surgery to improve overall health and quality of life" whereas Steroids (generally) are not necessary to provide standard levels of health.

by Brent Brookhouse on May 7, 2008 1:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

I think a lot of people have defeated your argument reasonably and logically. Enough that I don't need to and enough so that you have lost credibility. It is for safety, fairness, and legitimacy. End of story. You don't have a legal or moral leg to stand on. You sound like a bumbling idiot.

by szucconi on May 7, 2008 2:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Dude, seriously, my one rule about commenting is simple: ad hominem attacks are not allowed. Please follow it. You can attack his arguments until your fingers bleed, but you MUST keep some level of decorum here.

I haven't had to take any action against anyone who posts here and I don't want to start.

by Luke Thomas on May 7, 2008 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Nothing I said was an ad hominem attack. I genuinely like this site, but this opinion and mostly this aversion to logic kind of makes me sick. Kid Nate gained a lot of credibility in my book the other day with his follow up on Roger Gracie. Rome's argument keeps shifting and trying to prove the same point with weak declarations.

by szucconi on May 7, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

I absolutely appreciate your support of this site and I'm not singling you out, but for everyone's benefit here's how I interpret "ad hominen":

ad ho·mi·nem Pronunciation[ad hom-uh-nuhm‑nem, ahd-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

You can't call someone "an idiot" or suggest they "sound like an idiot" here. It's just not cool. I understand that you're pulling your hair out over Rome's arguments, but you gotta leave that kind of stuff out.

It's my one request.

by Luke Thomas on May 7, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Meta-comment, since we're discussing the discussion:

Not that Luke is perfect in this regard: he won't call you an idiot, but he will attack your qualifications, even if they don't relate to the matter at hand. I give you "Do you train, sir? I don't think you do." Is it an insult? Nope. Is it an ad hominem argument? It certainly is (simplest definition: "to the man"). It might be a more subtle, more civil attack, but that doesn't make it right. N'est-ce pas?

As for steroids: does anybody remember that "pouring his brain out" comment from the autopsy of the murder/suicide pro wrestler (I REFUSE to remember their names)? Mmmmm - healthy-licious.

-- Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ

by jemaleddin on May 7, 2008 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Yeah, maybe. I dunno. Training doesn't do a lot of things, but it seems hard to dispute those who train don't have a better understanding of the technical aspects to MMA than those who don't. As a general rule, anyway.

by Luke Thomas on May 7, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

See! Being civil on the internets is harder than it sounds! My problem:

http://xkcd.com/386/

And if I had the time or money handy to train, I would. Instead I just pester my friends who train to show me what they've learned and watch the UFC PPVs with a couple BJJ instructors.

-- Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ

by jemaleddin on May 7, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Nice. Usually anyone who comments that "somebody else has already refuted this so I won't bother" is simply saying, "I can't really think for myself enough to respond to any of your points, so I'll just call you names instead."

If it is for "safety" then how is it that cycling steroids is more dangerous (or less safe) than taking any immeasurable combination of over the counter supplements, vitamins, and other pills? Perhaps an argument can be made that at least some percentage of the supplements, vitamins, etc., are regulated with quality and safety controls, whereas illegal steroids aren't, but any regulations and quality controls in place are generally going to be limited to the individual supplement, and not to combining it with 100 different ones -- kind of like prescription drugs are "safe" but not necessarily so if you combine them with a variety of other medications.

If it is for "fairness" then why not just make cycling steroids legal and allow everyone to do it? Wouldn't that be just as "fair"? Right now fighters can choose to take as many legal supplements as Sherk does or choose not to -- is it "unfair" if Sherk takes more supplements than BJ Penn? If it's equally available to all, then where is the "fairness" problem?

If it is for "legitimacy" then why not start putting massive restrictions on other supplements that allow these athletes to become unnaturally athletic and competitive in the first place? Crusading against illegal steroids in mma is a matter of legitimacy only in the sense that the other major sports crusade against steroids, so mma needs to do the same to project an image of being like the more mainstream big boys. But that doesn't answer the core question of what makes steroids any worse or more worthy of crusade than all of these other things.

I guess I don't read Rome's article as some kind of an argument that steroids should be ignored as much as questioning why steroids are singled out apart from all of the other similarly dangerous/unfair/illegitimate performance enhancers out there, beyond just the pure "illegality" of steroids. To that end the question is valid, and your shallow response really doesn't make him sound like a bumbling idiot.

by Realhoops on May 7, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Your arguments are valid. If you have been following Mr. Rome's posts then you would have seen the rebuttals. You are right to be critical of the safety, fairness, and legitimacy arguments when fighters will take what ever will give them an edge over the counter. The line is drawn at legality for the most part. I think there are some fighters that would take anything if it gave them an edge. The line must be drawn somewhere and by someone. I am just acknowledging that it has to be drawn and the governing body of the sport, the athletic commission is the proper authority to make the call. Do they get stuff wrong? All the time, but the system is still young. If you don't like a rule then you can start a movement to get it changed. I hate that Nick Diaz got the biggest win of his career taken away, but he knew the rules. He can't say after the fact that it's a stupid rule. Don't get me wrong, it's a stupid rule, but it is still a rule. Sorry that was a tangent. Anyway, thank you for making a good argument. And for the record, I am a bumbling idiot. Ask anyone who knows me.

by szucconi on May 7, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

The whole surgery argument is incredibly specious. If I blow out a knee and get a knee replacement done, it doesn't mean I'm going to come out of surgery and run a five minute mile--it just means I can walk again.

Tommy John surgery isn't an "enhancement" surgery; it doesn't create a bionic man, it just replaces a damaged ligament. Furthermore, there's no improvement in pitch velocity or arm strength over a natural level. The "increase" is just a correction of any decrease in velocity that would have resulted from pitching with a distended or frayed ligament.

It took Kerry Wood 18-24 months of recovery time to fully get his arm strength back (as is true of all pitchers), and he returned at the same 95-97 MPH range that he pitched at throughout his minor league career.

by leno40 on May 7, 2008 2:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Fair enough. But I know a fighter at a local gym who recently had his arm broken in a fight. To repair the injury, they covered his elbow in titanium. EVERYONE of his training partners told me his elbows hurt significantly more than they used to. Granted, he can't throw as many as he'd like by the time the third round comes around from soreness, but in the process of surgery to repair damage, they made him stronger than he was before.

by Luke Thomas on May 7, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

There's documented proof that TJ surgery can improve one's velocity, though I agree that it's a pretty weak argument on Rome's part.

by MikeyPatriot on May 7, 2008 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

I've never seen any documented proof that it improves velocity rather than merely returns it to a normal or pre-injury level. There's been amazingly little study dedicated to it, really. You'll hear pitchers claim they "feel stronger" or what have you, but that's just relative to the time they were pitching with a damaged ligament. It's all anecdotal evidence, at best.

Any boost in velocity, if it existed, would come solely from the post-op rehab focused on strengthening the arm. Or improved mechanics following the injury.

Dr James Andrews himself said:

"The increased velocity isn't true by any stretch of the imagination. For the ones that do it, the reason is all the hard work, all the throwing exercises and the development from all the exercises they'd probably never done before."

by leno40 on May 7, 2008 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

I think maybe finals are diluting your normally lucid train of thought my friend. Finish up your schoolwork, clear your head for a few days and recollect on these entries and the comments that have ensued as a result. Hopefully then you will see why these comments are completely and utterly ridiculous. You cannot even compare protein shakes to steroids. Synthetic food does not equal synthetic hormones. I'm not going to list the reasons why, I know you are smart enough to know why.

by Method on May 7, 2008 2:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

I watched a show about the Olympic Committee and their inability to pick up HGH and most designer steroids that are on the market today in their routine tests, so it would surprise me more if someone wasn't on HGH or roids than if they were, at this point.

Straight from World Anti-Doping Agency:

"hGH in urine is found in extremely small quantities (less than 1% than that found in blood)."

There has never been an HGH positive test.

by DirtyML on May 7, 2008 3:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

"Consider Kerry Wood, who said a ligament surgery and came back throwing the ball faster than ever before."

Or it could because he had a prolonged period of rest the heal himself that is not typically afforded to a professional athlete. Also, as part of the rehab process special strength and conditioning attention was paid to the arm in question, thus strengthing it beyond what it would've been before.

They take a ligament from another part of there body and weave into the elbow joint. They don't give you a cybernetic arm. Nor are they implanting a "super tendon."

by ghettoiam on May 7, 2008 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

who knows how long that arm was bothering her as well, so that after the surgery was the first time she was able to pitch pain free.

by riley on May 7, 2008 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

I don't know what would be funnier. You not knowing Kerry Wood is a guy or You knowing it and making fun of his name.

by szucconi on May 7, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

^^^^LOL

by Luke Thomas on May 7, 2008 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Oh the not knowing would be far funnier. I do hope that's the case.

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard Wade on May 7, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

You got your wish, I have no idea who the fuck Kerry Wood is. I assumed it was a female baseball player because I couldn't imagine any man on the planet naming his son Kerry. If it aint MMA I don't watch it.

by riley on May 9, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

I'm gonna stick with mike on this one, he makes a good argument.

Everyday hundreds of "AVERAGE" people are prescribed steroids and hormones for many different reasons. And who's to say that the athletes that compete on this level couldn't have a reason other than "SUPER POWERS" to use them.

all you gotta do is...

by imapimp08 on May 7, 2008 3:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

It's one thing to have a prescription for steroids to fight an infection. It's another to use it for unnatural gain against a competitor.

I'm seriously lost here. Either Rome is temporarily devoid of reasonable logic... or this is a fairly Coulteresque attempt to draw traffic to this site.

by Method on May 7, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Rome's hardly a polemicist.

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard Wade on May 7, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Here's my two cents. Steroids have been proven to cause significant damage to the body, to make something legal when we know it is going to cause injury to the athlete is unacceptable. Someone stated that more and more supplements were being taken off the shelves as they are found to cause injury and I say that is exactly how we should decide what is allowed and what is not. Now I realize that we are talking about a sport where people punch each other in the head but that doesn't mean we should just let these guys damage their bodies any more than necessary and let's face it most of these supplements don't live up to their hype and don't give the same results steroids do anyway.
I think the most interesting part of the argument is really what is the point of competition in the first place. Should golfer's all use the same club so we can see who is truly better without outside factors like different equipment? Should fighters be allowed to cut weight and come into a fight 10 or more pounds heavier then their opponent?

by riley on May 7, 2008 4:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

The Tommy John surgery argument is terrible. Most doctors, if not all doctors, would point out that any extra 'umph' gained by athletes who have the surgery is not a result of all the cutting and slicing, but rather a result of the year-long (or more) rehabilitation period that they must endure afterwards. Would it be cheating if Forrest Griffin worked out like a madman for a year and gained sick KO power? No.

by ilostmydog on May 7, 2008 4:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Anyone know if they test for HGH with blood samples or if they are just using urine testing with the NSAC?

If they are just testing urine they might as well concede that HGH is legal to use in the UFC, because there is no way to pick it up through urine samples.

by DirtyML on May 7, 2008 6:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Steroids: Evil By Natural Law

Hmm, you make a few valid points but there are still flaws. The bottom line is that steroids in MMA are unfair to the clean fighter. I understand you might just be trying to play the devil's advocate, but there is no reason to think that steroids in general are o.k. to use and fair to everyone. Also, the whole "taking a billion different supplements at the same time is more dangerous than steroids" argument is null because if most if not all fighters do that, then logically they would be doing that ON TOP OF using steroids, which would just be utterly destructive to their health.

by Jburg on May 7, 2008 7:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

Search

Recent Posts