BIGGER, FASTER, STRONGER.

Interestingly enough Migs, the documentary pointed out that 85% of steroid users are regular gym goers – guys in their 20′s and 30′s that just want to look better. I was shocked at that stat thinking that the usage would be mostly limitted to professional athletes. Worry not though, we’re juice free at CPC and will stay that way. Mostly I’m just curious as to people’s thoughts on the matter.

This topic seems to be coming up a lot in the CrossFit world, and I find the responses somewhat bewildering. There has been a large amount of decrying the use of performance enhancers (PE) and steroids in particular. What there hasn’t been, or at least I haven’t come across are the reasons that people are taking this position. From what I have read and heard there seems to be four basic arguments against PE use; that they are illegal, that they pose a health threat, that they create or factor into creating unfavorable role models, and that they give individuals an unfair advantage. I believe that all of these arguments fail, and I intend to outline the basic flaws in each of them. Please don’t mistake this as necessarily an argument for the use of PE, but a call to either accept their legitimate place in sport OR for arguments with clear empirical data to be the foundation of their rejection as opposed to what now seems to be a predominantly emotional response. I believe that the need for a conclusion who’s premises can be empirically validated, or not as the case may be, is in keeping with the spirit of CrossFit.

The first concern that I would like to address is the health issue. While certain government agencies espouse the dangers of PE use, none of the independent studies that I have come across (and I’ve looked) have been able to establish a direct corollary between PE use and adverse health effects beyond the cosmetic ones. While I fully admit that there is a possibility that PEs may aggravate certain preexisting conditions, there needs to be more research before it should be accepted as fact. Before anyone jumps in with “But the government said…” let’s remember that they are the ones telling us that we need to eat more whole grains and less fat to stave off heart disease and obesity. Also, I would argue that the case of the East German Women’s Swim Team is not a case to be used against PEs, but against unethical clinical practices and deception.

Another popular argument is that PE use is wrong because they are illegal. This, however, begs the question: why are they illegal? Is it because they pose a health risk? That hasn’t been proven. ‘Roid rage’? No studies have been able to even demonstrate the existence of ‘roid rage’ so that can’t be the case… From what I have uncovered it stems from an arrangement between pharm companies and government aid agencies that went awry.

Perhaps the reason is that the use of PEs create poor role models for the children. I will concede this point if, and only if, the premise that PEs are banned is already established; since, these individuals would then be prospering through deception and willful breaking of their agreements. However, I reject said premise as a starting point. What I am looking for is the underlying reason that we should be against PE use, not the conclusions that can be derived from it.

I’ve saved for last what I believe to be the most widely accepted reason for the anti-PE position: that PEs provide individuals with an unfair advantage. I find the whole line of reasoning to be disgusting in that it ascribes a certain position of privilege to the genetic ‘cards’ an individual was dealt while simultaneously downplaying, if not outright disregarding, the importance of human intellect and innovation. I don’t recall anyone demonizing Tiger Woods when he had Lasik to improve his vision which provided him a marked advantage in his sport of choice. What is the difference between his use of science and Barry Bond’s? I argue that there is none. In neither case was skill or hard work negated, nor any other attribute that we find (or claim to find) admirable in an athlete. So why the difference in how the two are received? Furthermore, if we are going to take the argument that we should not employ science and our intellects to performance to it logical extreme; we should reject CrossFit and everything that it stands for.

This has post has gotten longer than I intended, so I’m going to stop there unless someone brings up another point. I hope that this post does get responded to. I’m not so much interested in which side prevails, pro or con, but that real reasons and not emotions are expressed in defense of whichever position. And for the record, no, I don’t take steriods- I just don’t like opinion paraded as fact.

Thoughts Traver?
*I didn’t proofread this, and apologize if reading it was painful.

Damn that guy in the pic is hot!

Sean R’s arguments on this topic are powerful, compelling, and airtight. I have had the pleasure to speak with him about it only a few times, but he has since opened my mind about the topic.

Sorry Traver, I should have written “most pro-athletes are using steroids for sport specific reasons”

If regular people want to use steroids to look better, fine. But then again, I’m as confused by this type of steroid usage as I am by cosmetic surgery. Work with what your given has always been my belief.

If “regular” people are trying to use it gain some type of “advantage” in a sport, it’s just kind of sad. There is a reason you’re not a pro-athlete, deal with it and move on.

If pro-athletes want to use steroids, fine. In the ultra-competitive endorsement driven world we live in, I would actually consider you a bit of a chump if you weren’t trying to gain an advantage. I wouldn’t do it, but I’m not pulling in 5-10 mill a year. But let’s just admit it to the public and move on.

I think the question, “What is gaining an advantage?”, is the actual debate starter. Sean and Jeff both make several very valid points in this regard. I think if the use of performance enhancers was accepted/legal then the argument would become more objective i.e. “How do we separate out the ‘clean’ athletes from the ‘modified’?”

But, unfortunately, we do not live in a world where “logical extremes” exist, so this becomes a moot point. As it stands now, PE’s bad. Right or wrong or hypocritical, that’s how the world is rolling right now.

“Wow, I did that, and I did that through hardwork…allows for more …(personal growth)…”

Beautifully stated. I want to be smart like Traver some day…

It’s a really slippery slope Sean, but my gut feeling is all I can really go on with this one. Yes, I took a lot of NO EXPLODE and honestly look back at a lot of those times and reps and think,”yeah, but I was all hopped up on NO EXPLODE” – it’s just not the same feeling of satisfaction that I get from walking into a workout after a good night’s sleep and a solid meal and just ripping the thing apart. I remember having workouts like that and remember walking out of them totally exhausted and thinking,” wow, that was pure – that was awesome.” It’s obviously different for everyone, as I said, it’s a slippery slope. Good debate though.

I’ve never taken steroids or anything to enhance my performance, but I lived with models in the 90′s who would do ANYTHING to stay thin (girls) and be ripped ( guys). I dated for 3 years a German guy who’s dad was the doctor for the East German Judo team…he gave his son steroids and would give him shots of cortisone if his shoulder was bothering him. When he was doing the roids he was jealous and had a bad temper. I would ask him about the effects of these little pills he would take and he would say, it’s all perfectly fine, safe and legal. He didn’t get any more or less jobs when he wasn’t taking them…I doubt he is still doing them as he doesn’t model anymore, and I don’t know what effect they have had on him (we haven’t talked in years), but I know that when he was on them…I hated being around him and I always felt like I was on eggshells. Our culture is all about the quick fix…how to look like Megan Fox or Michael Phelps in 5 days!..steroids, diet pills, etc…we are bombarded with the advertising and the drive to win or be perfect…like Migs said, “it’s just the unfortunate way things are. Our culture’s collective inability to take or accept personal responsibility has lead us to the point where questionable behavior is the norm, or at least ignored.” But as Gandhi said, “be the change you wish to see in the world”. Just my two cents…

I’m going to assume that the mention of ‘pro’ comments is leveled at me, so let me respond. It isn’t that I am in the pro-PE camp, but I am definitely not in the anti-PE camp either. I believe that it should be a personal choice. As a personal choice, I don’t really care what your reason for using or not. I may wholeheartedly disagree and possibly think that you must ride the short bus, but in the end its irrelevant. What I am concerned with is the prescriptive nature of peoples opinion. A ‘gut-feeling,’ while in my mind a perfectly acceptable way to govern one’s self, is not an appropriate means by which to judge what others should do. So, if we’re going to tell people that PE use is wrong, I personally want solid grounds for that claim.

Dawn- Sorry to hear about your experience with what sounds like a jerk who happened to use steroids. I’ve been around guys who take steroids most of my life: friends, fellow sailors/soldiers, and opponents; and it has been my experience that such people’s personalities aren’t affected in that manner. That is not, by any means, to suggest that they didn’t use the steroids as an excuse to act that way… Then again, I may be wrong, not trying to come off like I have all the answers.

As far as long term health affects, there are plenty of older gents who we can look to regarding long term affects. However, I would be willing to hypothesize that if we are defining healthy as functionally capable, the PE using group may be the healthier. It would be an interesting study either way.

Personally, I would love to not be the black sheep anymore, but until someone can present a solid case against PE use that takes into account all of the other ways in which we view using science as acceptable, I’m going to keep questioning anyone who rails against it. Thanks for all the ideas though, I think this is a fundementaly important question facing society today: what is the appropriate use of science in our lives, even if we are only talking about one small portion of the situation.

PART DEUX (I warned you I had lots to say)

Okay, I think in the end, I don’t think Sean R. will ever be happy with the arguments against PE use simply because of this reason: There is no logical reason against it (until long-term health deficits can be proven). If it were meant to be treated as purely logical, you’d have a team of musclebound automatons with you.

But you see, the beauty of humans is that we are more than just logic. We are complex and contrary and have opinions about things like government, philosophy, religion and Michelle Obama’s fashion sense. This chaotic mess means that we have to make thorny ethical and moral decisions. Purely personal ones.

But just because something isn’t scientifically, logically proven doesn’t mean it’s not true. Fact is not truth. I love my parents. Can this be proven in any quantifiable way? No. And yet, who could really say it’s untrue? Doesn’t this also have value?

So, here are a couple of my arguments against the use of PEs using parallel examples based purely on what I find as truth in human nature (and no, they’re not meant to be logical … but they make sense to me):

Cliffs Notes – The student can still work hard, learn those Cliffs Notes, put in the hours and get a great result. But that’s not the point. Literature is meant to be enjoyed for its complexity, symbolism, ability to touch emotionally. Who even cares about the cheating issue. The student is missing out on the journey, the other rich things that experience brings. Are PEs a fast-pass shortcut? Not really; I acknowledge there’s still work to be done, but who knows what intangible growth a person is missing from not working through an experience all on their own? There’s value in pain and setbacks. They teach us.

Viagra – (Shoot, is this site PG? I better be circumspect here.) I’m actually not against this at all … but I think many men would agree that they’d rather keep their Viagra use hush-hush. Why is this if they’re able to last longer, perform well and hopefully please their partner? It’s simply human nature. A man would rather know he has the uh, Yahweh-given manliness in him to perform in the sack than having to resort to a drug. Yes, it’s a perception thing, a pride thing. Eventually men get over the pride issue because the benefits are so great … but the majority of men aren’t taking out a billboard to advertise the fact. You can’t discount human pride as a big factor in not using PEs.

Almost everyone is a hypocrite in some way because we cannot live by logical extremes. You know what I mean: the compassionate almost-vegetarians that still eats fish; the chain-smoking doctor … we must all decide where to draw the line for ourselves.

PART TROIS

But Sean R., let’s try it this way. Eff logic. Fight fire with fire. You were already using language and ideas that weren’t totally rational anyway.

Take every single point I picked apart above and present it not as logic, but as opinion, gut feeling, preference. That, to me, makes much more sense in this purely personal debate because PE users aren’t being 100 logical about this, and shouldn’t present themselves to be. I think that was the value of the documentary “Bigger, Faster, Stronger”: putting a human face and slant onto the pro-PE side.

As for where I fall in all this personally? I don’t really care about other people’s choices as long as they don’t harm anyone else or try to infringe on my right to make my own choices.