Lance Armstrong: Dope or Nope?

[bigb]

Clearly Marcus isn't willing to look at steroids possibly causing the deaths. There's no possibility according to him. Steroid user perhaps?

 

[Scat]

I'm not sure why you've become so argumentative. Perhaps it was because of my first rant. Without going further, let me ask you this. Are you implying that steroids have no negative health ramifications?

Not at all. Just not the horrific ramifications that everyone ascribes to them. Look at your earlier comment, "But could the work that Congress does help in the long run, saving lives of children who may have otherwise begun to use said drugs?" You imply that children are dying from the use of steroids. This is simply not the case.

You ask most people and they can't tell you anything about steroids beyond they make your muscles big and they are bad for you. Both of which are incorrect. That said, probably the most extreme negative health ramifications are gynecomastia and premature closure of growth plates stunting growth. There are other issues that can arise from steroid use but it is not directly due to the steroids themselves but rather how a person's body processes them. Everybody is different.

A new study on the effects of testosterone in the male body was recently released and it is very interesting. Something that every male should know about.

Armstrong's comment that you paraphrased is actually quite funny. "Why would I put that in my body? I almost died from cancer." To most people, him saying such a thing lends credence to his denial in that people really believe that steroids can give you cancer when in fact, steroids can be a very important tool in helping people recover from cancer and in helping aids patients fight off the ravages of said virus.

The sad part is that most doctors don't even know much about steroids and how they work in the human body. Most will tell you the exact same thing as the general public, "Steroids are bad for you. Stay away from them".

 

[Scat]

Clearly Marcus isn't willing to look at steroids possibly causing the deaths. There's no possibility according to him.

Clearly.

I've done a fair bit of research on the subject. The extent of the public's knowledge appears to be whatever you read in the mainstream media, including yourself.

I never said there was no possibility. I just said that you'll likely not find a single documented case where steroids were the direct cause of death. Every example that has been given here has failed to even come close to providing conclusive information linking steroids to the death of said person.

Steroid user perhaps?

I think every man should consider supplementing their natural testosterone levels, especially as they age. The heath benefits of keeping your test levels elevated are huge including greatly reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and developing Alzheimer's. There is little to almost no downside in keeping one's test levels elevated. As mentioned above, it is sad that most health practitioners know very little about the subject.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Not at all. Just not the horrific ramifications that everyone ascribes to them. Look at your earlier comment, "But could the work that Congress does help in the long run, saving lives of children who may have otherwise begun to use said drugs?" You imply that children are dying from the use of steroids. This is simply not the case.

You ask most people and they can't tell you anything about steroids beyond they make your muscles big and they are bad for you. Both of which are incorrect. That said, probably the most extreme negative health ramifications are gynecomastia and premature closure of growth plates stunting growth. There are other issues that can arise from steroid use but it is not directly due to the steroids themselves but rather how a person's body processes them. Everybody is different.

A new study on the effects of testosterone in the male body was recently released and it is very interesting. Something that every male should know about.

Armstrong's comment that you paraphrased is actually quite funny. "Why would I put that in my body? I almost died from cancer." To most people, him saying such a thing lends credence to his denial in that people really believe that steroids can give you cancer when in fact, steroids can be a very important tool in helping people recover from cancer and in helping aids patients fight off the ravages of said virus.

The sad part is that most doctors don't even know much about steroids and how they work in the human body. Most will tell you the exact same thing as the general public, "Steroids are bad for you. Stay away from them".

Are you aware of how well your body would or wouldn't process steroids?

 

[Scat]

Are you aware of how well your body would or wouldn't process steroids?

There are clues to how your body will react to certain steroids. If during puberty you had oily skin and acne certain steroids will "enhance" these characteristics.

If during puberty you had puffy nipples your chances of developing gyno does go up.

There are steroids that have no side effects whatsoever. They typically are not as androgenic but do enhance performance.

I would never advocate that anyone under the age of 21 take steroids without the consent of a doctor for very specific reasons. I'll be the first to admit that most kids in high school don't look into this stuff and take whatever is given them. However, at the doses given these kids most side effects will be non-existent. Certainly nothing that would cause death.

 

[CareySkyScurry]

Back to the original question, I hope that Armstrong did not use steroids because I admire him mostly for his resiliency and research funding that helps cancer patients. Both of my grandfathers died of cancer and I appreciate that Armstrong's brought increased attention to the disease.

To our knowledge, Armstrong has never tested positive. I also remember reading, I'll look for the link, that Armstrong's lung capacity is almost 3x that of a normal person and helped him race.

As far as PEDs go, you cannot rule out anyone in any sport, though I want to believe someone (Derek Jeter for example) is playing clean.

 

[bigb]

I've done a fair bit of research on the subject. The extent of the public's knowledge appears to be whatever you read in the mainstream media, including yourself.

I never said anything about my knowledge of steroids. I was just making fun of you. I'll be the first to admit, I know almost nothing of steroids. Never taken them, never researched them.

I think every man should consider supplementing their natural testosterone levels, especially as they age. The heath benefits of keeping your test levels elevated are huge including greatly reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and developing Alzheimer's. There is little to almost no downside in keeping one's test levels elevated. As mentioned above, it is sad that most health practitioners know very little about the subject.

So...you ARE a user. Addict.


Back to the original question though. While Armstrong (to the best of my LIMITED knowledge) has never tested positive, I'm not convinced. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but how does someone win that event SEVEN times and not use PEDs? Time alone should have a huge effect on the body in that span.

 

[Scat]

Back to the original question though. While Armstrong (to the best of my LIMITED knowledge) has never tested positive, I'm not convinced. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but how does someone win that event SEVEN times and not use PEDs? Time alone should have a huge effect on the body in that span.

Every time the powers that be come up with a new way to test, the chemists find a new way to mask use or just develop a new drug. That said, for Armstrong to win 7 years in a row while being tested 2-3 times per year and never have a run in is damn impressive. I think you'll start to hear more and more about blood being frozen and then tested for illicit substances several years later once testing catches up to past doping techniques. Armstrong has already run into this on one occasion.

Speaking of time, a well trained dedicated athlete can compete at the top of their sport for 7 years in a row. I like using Stockton as an example. 7 years for him was nothing as he was in such great shape and so dedicated to keeping his body finely tuned. Now 15-20 years, yeah, that'll start to show.

 

[kwb]

I totally agree that if he said he didn't do it, then he didn't do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAxo4pCITRM

 

[bigb]

Speaking of time, a well trained dedicated athlete can compete at the top of their sport for 7 years in a row. I like using Stockton as an example. 7 years for him was nothing as he was in such great shape and so dedicated to keeping his body finely tuned. Now 15-20 years, yeah, that'll start to show.

While I agree that an athlete can compete at a top level for seven years in a row, I compare it to someone winning the MVP 7 years in a row. Somebody should come along and beat you at some point in time during that stretch.

 

[Gameface]

I don't really understand what congress has to do with this. I think it is the best interest of professional sports to not allow their athletes to use PEDs. If there are serious health concers (I don't really know and Marcus surely knows much more about this than I do) it would be terrible to have a rash of superstars drop dead on the court/field/track, etc. Even if there are "safe" PEDs now, if they are allowed there will always be the next wonder PED that hasn't yet been tested and might be dangerous. Also, it does make records much less meaningful, which takes a lot of the drama out of someone breaking one of the all-time greats record. Then there are all the kids that aspire to be pro athlets. If a person needs to take PEDs to compete in pro sports, and the leagues allow them, then you can bet your *** HS kids are going to start taking them in droves.

Again, this seems like something the leagues would want to police. Congress doesn't seem to be the right place to confront this issue.

 

[Scat]

Also, it does make records much less meaningful, which takes a lot of the drama out of someone breaking one of the all-time greats record.

I don't understand this line of thinking unless you are a purist that thinks players should still be using the same equipment as when the sport first came into being.

For whatever reason PED's get targeted as cheating but when their are advances in equipment, nutrition, training, etc. these are all OK. Do you really think that football would be the sport it is today if they still wore leather helmets and pads? How about the use of graphite in tennis rackets and golf clubs? How about the size of the gloves that baseball players use now? What about the use of arm, shin and face guards that allow players to crowd the plate with little fear of getting dinged? How about bike racing using extremely light, graphite frame bikes compared to the old, heavy metal framed models?

How about the use of glucose ploymers to enhance edurance? Cross flow micronized whey protein to increase strength? Simple increases in knowledge regarding nutrition and excercise? They used to teach that muscle slowed you down and certain sports frowned on the lifting of weights.

All the above listed are simply tools that athletes have used to increase their performance. Why single out PED's?

This is what makes players such as Mickey Mantle, Babe Ruth, Bobby Jones, Jim Thorpe & such so amazing. They did what they did when none of the above advances were available. Just think what they could have done with today's technology on all fronts.