Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
August 11, 2005
Legal Steroids

I pretty much agree with this article by Nick Gillespie.

What about player safety? There's little doubt that, like most drugs, steroids can be used responsibly. As Charles Yesalis, a Penn State epidemiologist and steroid expert, has put it, "We know steroids can be used with a reasonable measure of safety." Yesalis, author of The Steroids Game, also pooh-poohs poorly documented tales of "'roid rage," noting, "What's perhaps just the intensity that's common to many athletes gets perceived as steroid-linked outbursts." In fact, if player safety is an issue, then it makes more sense to make steroid use fully legal and above ground. Whether we're talking about booze in the '20s or Dianabol in the locker rooms of today, prohibition creates or intensifies all sorts of safety issues by stymieing the flow of information and creating impediments to treatment. If steroids were used in the light of day, players and owners alike would be far more likely to regulate their use in their longer-term interests.

Posted by David Pinto at 05:23 PM | Cheating | TrackBack (1)
Comments

If I was a player, I would not agree at all with this point of view. What does "reasonable measure of safety" mean? As with any drug, benefits and side effects will vary. There is no way to predict the long term effects of the drugs on any particular person. By legalizing their use, you are effectively applying pressure on all players (especially marginal players) to take the drugs so they are not at a disadvantage (real or perceived). I would be for a stringent testing program with real teeth in it to provide strong disincentives for use. This levels the playing field for all while eliminating the potential for long term health consequences.

Posted by: Kirk at August 11, 2005 10:12 PM

I'll use the example of birth control pills. When the pill first came out, there were side effects. Over the years, researchers found that a much lower dose was effective and the side effects became close to non-existent. The pill is so safe that women take it to fight acne.

Steroids are given therapeutically now. If steroids were legal, we might find that a very low dose was effective in helping players weight train and survive the day to day rigors of sport. And that low dose may turn out to be safe.

Posted by: David Pinto at August 11, 2005 10:23 PM

Steroids in this context are used in an effort to improve performance, not to treat a medical condition, which in my mind is an important distinction. I would be against workplace rules that would have the tendency to coerce me to take drugs to keep my job and not to treat any underlying disease.

Posted by: Kirk at August 11, 2005 10:58 PM

The booze analogy doesn't work because you can have a completely productive life without it. Drinking alcohol does not positively affect your job performance in a way that not drinking alcohol does not. Birth control doesn't quite apply, either. It's a right to use birth control, not a coerced obligation, and I can't imagine a situation in which you would lose out on employment because you weren't taking birth control (absent of having kids and being a full-time mom, obviously).
Steroids, on the other hand, do increase your performance in a way that cannot happen without the use of them. If their use were to be encouraged, then essentially, by not taking them players would be not giving their all. It would be making steroids equivalent to an off-season workout program or weight-lifting, in which not participating is not being a team player and leaves you subject to disciplinary action.
And where's the line drawn with regards to age and lower levels? Making steroids an 18-and-older substance? Or 21-and-older? Cause that's worked really well with cigarettes and alcohol.

Posted by: James d. at August 12, 2005 03:28 AM

What is the deal with the author of this site being so pro steroids? Did he take them in the past or something? Seriously, I rarely see an article on here that doesn't tell us how useful steroids are...followed up by an article about how roids don't significantly improve performance.

Posted by: Masked at August 12, 2005 01:58 PM

I was just thinking, even if there was proven to be a low level of steroids that was safe for players, as David says, that still doesn't remove the need for the stringent program with teeth to prevent the many players who would circumvent the rules.

Posted by: James d. at August 12, 2005 03:28 PM

man what is it with people u think that steriods are so bad. But the thing is u will go about in your everyday life and put stuff into your system that isnt suppose to be there. U will take asprin for your headache and drink coffee for your energy. But if a athlete trys to enhance there genetics all of a sudden they are bad guys. but a athlete can take pain killers to play there next game but dont do anything that will enhance it.

Posted by: menace at September 13, 2006 05:18 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?