Drugs in sport: Why are recovery drugs illegal?

You may be right about Sandor, I am not aware of the details of the case any longer, its slipped from my mind. He's done, and I've forgotten about it a bit. Sandor would have to in this case prove he's been really put out by the article and its affected his life. I am not sure this article will have that impact.

Thanks for reading. I dont know where that particular post went, prob got pulled down or something. That stuff is interesting and its just the start, you hit on the issues stemming from that. Such an ambiguous area and everyone has different reactions to drugs. Between the lost post and your post, it makes for the only logical outcome which the people overseeing drug prevention programs have arrived at. So I think what we have right now is a good thing. There is no other way. I can only speak for my own moral guidelines; I get uncomfortable with any competition thats not grounded in natural ability. Such a competition does not really interest me in terms of a spectator. I doubt I could so cheaply compete like that either. The winston churchill quote is a classic one - yes, take it easy on oneself. Thats another method of 'just getting by' in the environment rather than trying to excel in it. The don't flog a car mentality but run it to keep it fresh. - We know for instance our bodies are not built for muscle mass, the muscle is just there to move our limbs, not be massive. Neandethals were different. They had wider rib cages, a different collar-bone setup, they were stubbier and had wide hips, very solid. Their voices we have discovered must have been higher-pitched, like a howl, because of the way the rib cage is and how the voice box would have been. They almost surely did not have a complex language like us. The sound was played to me once and it was chilling, like a banshee and something to be feared. The weapons they were buried with were not as good as ours (remember they are relatives only in cousins, we are not directly related to them, though similar).....our weapons did not rely on strength, rather our early weapons would have been like javelins that you threw with a kind of sling. The Neanderthals weaponry was literally a short spear. Theirs was like a shotgun, ours like a rifle. Because their hips were much wider than ours (though their body is much shorter in length), their legs were like tree trunks, slabs of muscle. So they were much more muscular all over. They lived in the forests, so they did not do much running, and their favorite thing to do was to attack creatures up close, like hunting a bear to its cave and attacking it head on. Our slender frames are not usually meant to do that, so no muscles. We came along more when the great plains were appearing, so we were into running, leaner, and smarter - but remember eating meat attributed to our cleverness, but did not 100% lead to it, merely allowed it. But marketing has people in gyms all over the world striving for it. Do note, someone like Sam Burgess or Brad Thorn obviously lends himself to larger muscle mass by his sheer makeup, but these people are the exception not the norm. - So In a bush scenario, where you need to live off the land, you can't support large muscle mass, even if our bodies are flexible and good at adapting. Also, if you were in the bush you would take it easy as much as possible to conserve energy. You dont know when your next meal is, and you don't know the hassles you will face in any given day. - The same thing for EPO and Lance Armstrong - it would be totally useless in the wild because of the extra use of energy it allows. Exerting oneself like a tour de-france rider would likely lead to death, unless of course you were somehow running away from death. : Therefore, in light of this drugs issue, everything is suggesting to us drug use in sport is not palatable. Our bodies don't like it, and morally and ethically it just stinks. You're right about the high protein diet. We are not even sure if protein was a massive part of our diets throughout history. I read at some stage in the past that you may only need as little as 10grams a day to stay fit and healthy. While I am sure Churchill liked to drink a fair bit of alcohol, whats the bet him and people like him didn't load up like gluttons on carbs and protein powders. His kidneys probably worked pretty well for a very long time. In our society today even young people are getting premature irreversible damage just from the food they buy at the shops. So I am glad for the current rules. We don't need 'at the edge' supposed "sports scientists" coming in and selling their snake oil to clubs. The separater has always been and should always be natural ability, genetics, call it what you will. Your post was interesting to me too.

Exactly.Daniel, I really think you should change your article . It is misleading and potentially libellous , making statements that are not true and could damage Sandor's reputation. I'm sure that wasn't your intent.

Kirk, Thanks for the reply mate.

Just because medication is 'medically accepted' does not mean that it is guaranteed to do you no harm. I personally believe that it is only a metter of time before a player dies due to ingestion of prescription medication, with the problem being that the drugs were not prescribed to them, for a specific purpose. I read that the NZRL are investigating the use , or misuse , of sleeping tablets and high caffeine drinks by their World Cup players. I also recall the Q'ld Origin team being investigated several years ago for the same thing. I had an intensive care nurse staying with me when Heath Ledger died, and within ten seconds she rattled off the tablets he would have taken. She was correct on every one. If players or anyone else for that matter want to take medication incorrectly, that is their choice, however ( as Terry suggested ) if they lose the ability to produce children or they suffer other problems, do not cry about it.

LOL...nope...know EXACTLY where I stand ;-)!!!

Internal Fixation...I am well aware of the increase need for water intake when one is using creatine...and the cramping consequences if they do not...along with the possible stresses on the kidneys. And I am NOT suggesting that they are benign by any stretch of the imagination. HOWEVER...it did seem to me that you were drawing a comparison...and any comparison between that substance and say testosterone or other anabolic steroids is simply not congruent with their actions and possible consequences. I do apologize if that is not what you meant. Secondly...this is a bold statement..."The sort of anti-inflammatories taken by most athletes are not OTC though." What level are you talking? Does the terms "most athletes include" youth down to say 5, 6, 7 year olds? Junior high school? High school? Collegiate? National, Olympic, professional, and elite caliber? What are we talking here...for the answer might be very different as a whole and for each individual group. Are we taking it up many notches to say the anti-inflammatory aspects of cortisone...yes, have had teammates who had injections of those to reduce inflammation. Again...however...no comparison (from my perspective) to anabolic steroids. There is a big difference to me between treating an injury in order to get one back to normal functioning...and finding ways to advance (illegally) ones normal genetic potential. Muzz...I believe that there is some research that points to the idea that there are residual effects (albeit much smaller) to the use of illegal PED's even after one...say...stops taking them completely. However, it would be inappropriate to put a number on that. In addition, I cannot point directly to "facts" that stat that as true.

Terry , if you knew what you were talking about your comment could be taken seriously . The article talks of "MEDICALLY ACCEPTED , AND SO APPROVED , MEDICATION " Not something that is going to grow you an extra leg or head .

Sandor Earl did not supply drugs to other people. He has been charged for trafficking because he picked the drug in question up drove 5km accross town for it to be administered

Von Nuemann - Very interesting - I know from some of your previous posts you do have a good knowledge of bio chemistry something which i don't. There seem to two issues here one is moral (the concept of cheating) the other is health and both seem pretty complex. For example back in the days of absolute amateurism even practicing was considered a form of cheating - sport was about pure natural abilty. Then comes the health issue - there is a multibilion dollar industry of gymnasiums personal trainers etc proslytising the idea that extreme physical exercise is good for your health but the science doesn't back it up. We know that extreme physical exercise can damage the immune system with all the possible consequenses (including cancer) that come with it.We also no extreme exercises causes oxidisation so on the one hand people pop antioxidants and then engage in an activity that defeats there very purpose.Remember Winston Churchils quote that one should never stand if one can sit and never sit if one can lie down.He lived into his nineties despite avoiding exercise his whole life and he is far from the only one. So before we even consider what athletes put in their bodies there are question marks about whether the intense training they engage in is harmful to their health. Then we come to diet - athletes looking to bulk up are encouraged to eat a high protien diet - but there are question marks about the long term health effects of this kind of diet especially for the kidneys. Then we hit the really grey area of vitamins/supplements/drugs.For a start what do we define as a drug just because a product is "natural" does not mean it is not a drug is creeatin a drug arguably it is?.Marijauna, opium etc are all natural they are also drugs.There is a massive industry out there trying to find products that allegedly enhance peformance (just like training and eating right do) but are not banned by WADA.Much of this industry is not directly aimed at sport but human vanity people wishing to look good but the crossover into athletic peformance comes quickly. Most are probably not real good for you if you take enough of them for long enough but I doubt that interests WADA. What they are probably looking at is which of these substances might actually work but exactly how they define that I would have no idea.But for all the health questions and moral ambiguities the WADA code while far from perfect is the only realistic alternative to total biochemichal warfare so there is no alternative but to be guided by it and punish those who transgress.

I also would like to please mods, add something about the ASADA scandal. Did you note the soft tissue injuries occuring down at the bombers? Thats a prime example of my post. The recovery was there, but it was negligent. The body is made up of many tissues and not all your tissues are stimulated by the drugs one may take. And I am not specifically talking about the bombers, thats its own situation.....and as I stated, its not a simple matter of extra recovery speed - your body's efficiency can't be equal across its range ::: when you heal and go into a catabolic (or anabolic) state - which is your bodies way of trying to find equiliberium/balance again, your nervous system (which drugs don't even get designed to touch really) kicks in, adds hormones, ect. Its a massive juggling act, trying to get everything back to the baseline (overtaxed) AND still keeping you breathing, pumping blood and alert. Now, we evolved one thing then another, or many at once then a break, whatever it was: but think about it...our bodies have no real purpose in mind - they exist only to survive - and when you cease to survive you cease to exist.....so the big question is why do people want to treat their bodies *as if* they are fully/perfectly functioning and equalizing? They are not. You can't keep all the plates in the air at once for any decent period of time, something will give. Some things you will see commonly: Soft tissue injuries, lining on artery walls, cancer, tumors, reduced functioning of organs, heart attack, and many more besides. As I said, our bodies should not be treated as well-oiled machines that respond as such - our bodies should be treated like beaten-up survival machines that keep on kicking (no matter how good or fit you are). Bodies do not excel in the environment - bodies simply survive -- and any training who treats you like you are a lab, is not as good as he thinks he is. What happened in the past couple of years is negligence in the extreme. Bodies do not excel in the environment, they are rust buckets that power on in IN SPITE of the environment ---- and all those ills I mentioned (heart attack, ect) they are the body surviving, not thriving. Its one thing to be healthy, but the body does not understand 'healthy', it only responds how it does. It does not understand reps, sets, distance, ect. It only knows intensity and when healing the main thing is time.

I wasn't comparing anabolic steroids to Creatine - rather discussing both ends of the spectrum. The sort of anti-inflammatories taken by most athletes are not OTC though. BTW Creatine causes muscle cells to take on more water and chronic anti-inflammatory use certainly does change many renal and gastric processes. Not as benign as you seem to be suggesting.

Kirk, Lets say that a player who's ability and contribution to the team would rate at a 7 out of 10.He then starts a Steroid or illegal PED's program for 1 year and his rating then jumps to a 9.....Where would he be at if he then stops taking the illegal performance enhancing drugs???would he likely drop back to being a 7 or could he maintain his rating of 9 without the gear???

Kirk, are you sure you are not sitting on the fence on this one?

Lance was using them to give him an edge he did not have without them. Please do not compare Anabolic Steroids, or other illegal PED's for that matter, to substances like Creatine or any anti-inflammatory over-the-counter drugs. They are NOT comparable by any stretch of the imagination. Neither of those you mention actually change the biological chemistry of the body. Yes there are certainly possible side effects to any drug one might take...and that includes antibiotics, vaccines, and what have you...even improper use of vitamins/minerals. Drugs are neither good or bad in-and-of-themselves...it is the manner in which they are used (the WHY!!!) that makes all the difference. And Lance (as well as a large number of others in a variety of sports) use them to give themselves an advantage in order to "WIN." The issue we face in sports centers on dealing with this "why"...not necessarily on the substance itself.

John Papalli doesnt play for the Raiders

Anabolic steroids are an excellent "recovery" substance. They allow more rapid muscular repair and therefore allow the user to train at a higher intensity. They also aid recovery from injury where muscle bulk is lost. Lance wasn't using them to look like Arnie - he was using them to recover after training hard and from injury. Substances like Creatine and anti-inflammatory drugs are legal but may also have harmful side effects. Kidney disease in pro athletes has been linked to both of these. As many have mentioned there is a lot of grey but open slather is dangerous for our young athletes who are under more and more pressure to perform. Unfortunately drawing the line is a tough job as people will always try pushing limits.

As opposed as I am of the use of PED's in sports (very much in support of WADA and the principles behind their efforts), I would have to admit that the use of legal, prescribed PED's ONLY for rehabilitation purposes should a consideration. However, once the body had reached its point of normal functioning (healthy recovery)...abstinence should then apply. This would be the only flexibility I would find acceptable. Say, for example, it was discovered that HGH injected into a surgically repaired knee (blown ACL) increased and improved healing...then it should be allowed, through medical supervision and prescription, only for said use. Once the player is fully recovered...the use of HGH MUST be eliminated. The whole idea of banning illegal PED's centers on several factors: 1. Obvious health consequences of said use. 2. The inherent environment it creates for the athlete. If legalized (even under controls), it would basically FORCE ALL athletes to engage in such activities to reach the upper levels of their sport. What some look at as a "choice" an athlete makes, and they believe have a right to make, becomes a necessity in order to compete. In a sense...not a choice at all…you want to be a top level athlete...you will HAVE to use. 3. The argument of comprehensive medically supervised and monitored legalization simply put…will not work. It would only create an environment (as mentioned above) where ALL would have to use to stay competitive. Sports would almost assuredly become much more about having the best "chemist" and chemical combinations of drugs rather than the intrinsic components most (including myself) find intriguing, as well as rewarding, about competitive sports participation. 4. The lesson our young athletes would learn from all this use of PED's (something that is already an issue...but would be MUCH worse if PED's were legalized) is that their use is the road to sports success. This I will NEVER support...it is the WRONG message...one that leads to a strongly supported "winning at all costs" attitude and loss of perspective in sports. Something I believe WADA is trying to help correct. 5. Any discussion that illegal PED's don't help athlete's get better is a complete and utter false premise. If they did not help...they would not be worth the risk to use. And NO...they are NOTHING what-so-ever like proper nutrition, new and better training techniques, training at elevation, surgical repairs of injured muscles, joints, or tendons, or any other sound concept, strategy, or method for reaching one’s potential. These things DO not truly change your biological chemistry, allowing one to actually change their genetic potential as they give advantages you simply did not have without them. You, as Lance Armstrong discovered, become something you are not, better than you ever could be, and, actually, someone (based on biological chemistry) different than who you really are. Winning using illegal PED's is not really "winning" at all as YOU aren't YOU anymore (again, from a biological/chemistry standpoint). 6. Make no mistake...legalizing them even under medical supervision...changes NOTHING. The issue and reason behind their use boils done to something I mentioned in #4 above..."winning at all costs" and a real loss of perspective, thus, the reason for flexibility in any of these rules ONLY applies to rehabilitation and recovery back to normal functioning. Even if legalized, the internal mindset of "why one uses PED's" isn't changed. Athletes with that mindset WILL still look for an edge over their competition. Those types...they don’t care that something is illegal...and it is that mindset that needs to change. Any notion of legalizing PED’s as a solution is completely illogical…that would make no difference to cheaters. Limits set by the medical community and supervising staff would be broken just like the rules they have now. That is what a "winning at all costs" mindset does...it accepts "cheating" as, well, acceptable. And I must repeat that our youth WILL look at this as a viable means to success in sports...the current sports environment is already heading them down that path. Lastly, you talk to successful elite level athletes...Professional, National, and elite level athletes...and you will find that the vast majority would much rather compete in an environment without PED's. There are a good number of MLB players in the U.S. who have voiced this...it is one reason why their union is now pushing for more testing and controls. Athlete's themselves would rather their sport be "clean"...it is just that the money, fame, scholarship, etc., has gotten so big that there are some who see PED’s as viable. As a former competitive athlete, coach, teacher, parent of former high level athletes...I am fully in support of keeping illegal PED's just that ILLEGAL. The only exception is for recovery/rehab to the point of healthy functioning...that is all. The message their use sends, the risks involved to all (especially our youth), is much too great to think otherwise. Kirk Mango Author: "Becoming a True Champion"

@Muzz Kennedy is being charged (reportedly) with possession,which means they have a bucket load of evidence against him or they don't,in which case it wouldn't have been a news story..you want to talk about fairness with the same breath you isolate an entire club over the actions of 2 men..one who still professes his innocence and the other who was employed and morally supported by the Eels till his ultimate disqualification...and yet we have people still believing that because the Sharks were found guilty of poor governance and no other club has,then they must be the only club involved..isn't there an ounce of scepticism in you regarding the under currents of any of the incidents I've presented ?

They were alleged to have taken Stilnox and RedBull....That formula was started at the Vinyl Room and doesn't breach the World Anti Doping Code unlike Peptides : )) Kennedy is innocent until proven guilty and it is not fair to put him in the same sentence as Earl...