Cortizone, is it a PED?

quote:

Originally posted by Eric G:
I hear athletes all the time talking about getting a shot of cortizone to get them through the game and NOONE talks about it being a performance enhancing drug. HOW CAN IT NOT BE? If I have to get the shot to enable me to play then it IS an enhancing drug. Am I missing something?

I believe cortizone is better described as a performance enabling drug, not a performance enhancing drug.

With all this attention to PED's I've become more impressed with Babe Ruth's achievements while playing under the influence of Performance Inhibiting Drugs.

Is Advil, Ibuprofen, Tylenol, etc PEDs? Biofreeze, Flex-All, Atomic Balm, Tiger Balm?

I'm going to say no because it gets you back to where you were if you weren't hurt. It doesn't take where you were before the injury and enhance it.

I tore my meniscus back in August right at the start of football season. I thought I could suck it up and make it through the season but I was a weenie and couldn't. I went to the doctor and he gave me a cortisone shot on the hope it would allow what's wrong to heal. But here is it almost time for baseball to start and the cortisone is wearing off and my knee is killing me again. So I'm going to try and get another one to get through baseball and see if I need surgery after school is out.

Granted I'm not exactly an elite athlete but the cortisone got me back to normal rather than enhance me.

It's a way to possibly help the healing process or mask the problem until the time comes (after the season) to fix what is wrong and allow you to function normally.

Plus it's not illegal or banned by anybody that I know of.

I think strictly speaking no.

Hydrocortisone is a steroid but it is in the class of drugs called glucocorticoids. It tends to be associated more with wound healing than it does muscle buildup. In reality, using large amounts of cortisone leads to muscle wasting, not buildup. In addition glucocorticoids increase serum glucose levels and have other nasty side effects so they aren't used us a performance enhancing drug.

Anabolic steroids are a different matter of course. Cortisone isn't really even closely related to HGH or Testosterone.

But it never hurts to check the rules governing authorized medications and those not allowed.

No way is cortizone a PED. I had cortizone injeections for heel spurs and did squat for me. It wasn't even until my third and last injection where I even felt any relief and struggled to play softball thru it and the relief was minimal to none and my game was still hampered by the injury.

quote:

With all this attention to PED's I've become more impressed with Babe Ruth's achievements while playing under the influence of Performance Inhibiting Drugs.

Well stated Jimmy03! I couldn't agree more.

I still have seen no proof that taking PED's will enable one to improve their eyesight therefore hit a baseball more square on the bat. They are all saying they took the steroids to come back after injuries quicker than normal, to me that is the same as the cortisone excuse.
I am sure they are not taking it to "bulk" up, in no way would that enable you to have the flexibility to hit a ball 400 ft. Did it put mass on the likes of Bonds and Mark, of course. Did that mass equal a massive amount of HR's, I dont think so. They have great hand-eye coordination and phenomenal swing mechanics.

I have had mutliple cortisone shots in my ankle. From my experience I would say that it also is a "further damaging" drug (in some cases). It makes your joint feel great when it may not be healed all the way. After my first shot I went back to the field and re-injured my ankle. Stuff wors great, you just have to make sure you are healed 100%.

This thread brings up a point that I have been trying to make for a long time. The technology today enables players to play beyond what they did in the old days. Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb et al did not have ANY of what they have today to help recover from injuries. There was no ibuprophen, cortizone, icy hot, Tommy John surgery, shoulder surgery - the list goes on and on. According to McGuire, he used the steroids to help him recover from injuries. It was the technology of the time. Suppose he just got cortizone shots instead? Would he have been viewed differently? Should any athlete who uses something to recover quicker be viewed as tainted as compared to the athletes of the past?

This goes WAY beyond just the above. Science did not know about the energy carbs could give you. They did not know about protein and diet. They did not know about weight lifting and specific weight training programs. The list is infinite. If the athletes are using technology and knowledge that was not available back then, are they cheating compared to athletes of yore? You could make an argument for that. Should John Smoltz not go to the Hall because he had TJ surgery and that was not available back then? I don't think so.

Same could be said for steroids. They were not against the rules of MLB when these guys took them. They are essentially just another technology that was not available back then. Performance enhancing or performance enabling - is there really a difference?

Many athletes back then may have used alcohol or greenies to make it through the pain and enable them to "get through the rigors of the long season", but if what is available today was available back then, would those guys not have taken advantage of it? Especially if it was not against MLB rules?

I don't think these guys should be judged as harshly as they are. But that is just my opinion.

This is an interesting discussion. One could defend the position that ANYTHING an athlete uses that enables him (or her) to train or compete at a higher level than he could in his most pure, natural state is "performance enhancing".

How about athletes who wear contact lenses to improve their vision? Or athletes who wear specialized braces to help secure a joint? For that matter, you could list pine tar as a performance enhancing substance (and there are rules governing its use -- ask George Brett).

To me it comes down to:

-- What is permitted within the specified rules of the sport, for training and competition?

-- Of those things that are permitted, what is each athlete willing to do/use to help his performance? (ex: Although I competed many times with broken bones, the most I was willing to take before taking the field was Extra Strength Tylonal; I wanted to be able to feel my body if something were to break down.)

-- What long-term risks to health and safety is each athlete willing to accept from using a performance enabling/enhancing substance or device?

-- Since it is impossible for the rules to cover every possible medication, method, or device; what performance enablers/enhancers fall within the spirit of the rules, and which do not? This is as much a measure of ehtics, character, and integrity as anything else.

Under this mindset, Cortizone, Aspirin, Flex-All, Pine Tar, Anabolic Steroids and HGH are all performance enablers/enhancers. The real questions are: What is specifically permitted or prohibited under the rules? What is permitted or prohibited under a commonly accepted ethical interpretation of the rules? Within these confines, what is each athlete willing to use to help them prepare and compete to the highest level possible? And what standards/methods will be used on a consistent basis to insure the integrity of the game?

Let me be clear: It has been proven that whatever short-term gain might come from the use of anabolic steroids comes with potentially devastating long-term risks. For my money, they should be banned in all sports. For that matter, I would ban the use of pain blocking agents that allow athletes to compete with severe injuries, and can mask the pain of new injuries.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with not allowing competitors in the Olympic games to take over-the-counter cold medications. That seems a little harsh.

Bringing us back to the idea that the governing body for each sport has the responsibility of setting clear, comprehensive standards (with penalties for violating these standards); and the individual athlete must choose what he is willing to do/use within a commonly accepted interpretation of these standards, or that he will bear the risks and punishment of violating the standards.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
This thread brings up a point that I have been trying to make for a long time. The technology today enables players to play beyond what they did in the old days. Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb et al did not have ANY of what they have today to help recover from injuries. There was no ibuprophen, cortizone, icy hot, Tommy John surgery, shoulder surgery - the list goes on and on. According to McGuire, he used the steroids to help him recover from injuries. It was the technology of the time. Suppose he just got cortizone shots instead? Would he have been viewed differently? Should any athlete who uses something to recover quicker be viewed as tainted as compared to the athletes of the past?

This goes WAY beyond just the above. Science did not know about the energy carbs could give you. They did not know about protein and diet. They did not know about weight lifting and specific weight training programs. The list is infinite. If the athletes are using technology and knowledge that was not available back then, are they cheating compared to athletes of yore? You could make an argument for that. Should John Smoltz not go to the Hall because he had TJ surgery and that was not available back then? I don't think so.

Same could be said for steroids. They were not against the rules of MLB when these guys took them. They are essentially just another technology that was not available back then. Performance enhancing or performance enabling - is there really a difference?

Many athletes back then may have used alcohol or greenies to make it through the pain and enable them to "get through the rigors of the long season", but if what is available today was available back then, would those guys not have taken advantage of it? Especially if it was not against MLB rules?

I don't think these guys should be judged as harshly as they are. But that is just my opinion.

Very thoughtful and well-put bballman. Echoes my thoughts. I'm sure that we are in the minority here as we are about to find out.

And who decides what technological and medical advances are ok and which ones are not? Athletes at the highest levels always have and always will look to gain every advantage possible. That is part of what seperates most of them from the rest of us. They will push the limits until they are told to stop, and even then some will cross the line.

I could almost throw up every time I see some of these self-rightous, self-serving players from the 70's and 80's - when greenies were as available as M & M's in clubhouses and the snow was everywhere if you know what I mean - chastise 90's and 00's players for steroids.

BTW-I've had 3 cortizone shots in my life, for 3 different issues. Each one, after a couple days it was like magic. As good as new or better!

For those who want to equate cortisone, provided under medical supervision to alleviate inflammation(but still with side effects especially is over administered) caused by a medically diagnosed condition with anabolic steroids, which do not function in the same medical way and are not prescribed or administered by a physician, I think the real question at the core of this issue is this: if your son came to you and said he wanted to take anabolic steroids, how would you respond?
It seems to me if an argument is to be made to equate legally prescribed and used cortisone with unlawfully procured and used anabolic steroids, as is being done for McGwire in some of these posts, then it would logically follow that it would be okay for a son to use the anabolic steroid?
If not, what is the distinction, because I am missing it.

If cortisone is a PED then so is ice. They are both used as anti inflammatories. Neither enhances your perfomance, makes you stronger, faster, quicker. There is no "enhancement" from cortisone, only healing.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric G:
Did that mass equal a massive amount of HR's, I dont think so. They have great hand-eye coordination and phenomenal swing mechanics.

It increased muscle strength dramatically. If you don't think it increased HR numbers, then why did HR numbers drop off after the MLB steroid ban and shrinking athlete? All the evidence you need is contained in the stats.

Essentially, we are not talking about what I would want my son to do. I would prefer my son not drink as there is history of alcoholism in my family. I will, to the best of my ability, steer my son away from drugs, including marijuana (whether it is legal or not). I will also steer my son away from steroid use. I don't think I would even promote a cortizone shot. To my knowledge, that is just masking the condition, rather than dealing with it. I have been playing sports my whole life and have never had a cortizone shot. I would also steer my son away from taking "greenies" to help him through whatever. Does that mean we should ban those who took greenies in the 30's to 60's from baseball or the HOF? I don't think so. What I would or would not encourage my son to do has nothing to do with whether or not I should judge others on those same standards.

What we are talking about in this thread is technologies and knowledge that is available today that was not available in the "hallowed" days of baseball. As I stated earlier, there are an unlimited number of things available today that were not available back then that give todays athlete an advantage over those earlier players. I just personally think that steroids fall into the same category as the other things we are talking about. They are now banned by MLB and should not be used. They have been judged to be (IMO) too much of a performance enhancer/enabler to be used by the players. I just don't think the other things are not performance enabling. I think a lot has been made about steroid use being cheating. Why? Because it is something that was not used back in the day, therefore records cannot be compared. It skews the baseline for performance. Well, all the other things also skew that baseline. ANYTHING that is available today that was not available or used back then skews the baseline. I don't think steroids any more than anything else.

Baseball outlawed steroids (and any illegal drugs) in 1991.

McGwire and all those guys knew they were cheating.

The union was so strong they never dreamed there would ever be testing.

Yeah Eric G; you are missing something.

You get a shot at your doctor's office or you buy needles out of a van in the parking lot at Gold's Gym.... you don't see a difference?

McGwire (and Clemens et. al) they always brag about how much 'legal' medicine they had to take to keep going... (poor *******s had to go out and make millions playing baseball)

then they never make a peep about the illegal drugs they took.... because they knew every time they were cheating.

Trojan-Skipper,
I think you might be missing something as well. Research some of the testimony and interviews done over the last decade or so. This is far from some needle in a van stuff. MLB execs, team execs, agents, media, doctors, team docs & trainers, the players, and to some extent the fans are all complicit in this. Here's an article to get you started.

NY Times

Ok, how about this one? I'll bet 95% of the posters here consume a substance on a daily basis that could find them in trouble if they were NCAA athletes and I believe Olympic athletes as well. Anyone want to take a guess? Is it wrong? It could be considered a "performance ehancer" in our everyday lives as well as in athletics...

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
I believe cortizone is better described as a performance enabling drug, not a performance enhancing drug.

With all this attention to PED's I've become more impressed with Babe Ruth's achievements while playing under the influence of Performance Inhibiting Drugs.

Now thats funny.........

quote:

Essentially, we are not talking about what I would want my son to do.

Why not?
This is a HSBBW site. It is frequented and read by high school students and their parents and coaches. It is frequented and read by students who play baseball, many of whom regularly hear from adults/coaches that they need to get "bigger and get stronger."
Most everyone of these high school and college age students/baseball players are highly competitive. They want to succeed. Maybe on a smaller scale for some, but they burn for competitive success.
If anything, the players most affected by the words "you need to get bigger and get stronger" are those for whom this site was created.
Why would we want to create what I view as a fictitious argument comparing cortisone use, ice therapy and the like, with anabolic steroid use to justify what McGwire did, knowing players who need to get bigger and stronger are reading this site.
On the Costas interview, McGwire acknowledged hearing the groans of the Hooten family sitting behind him when he "testified" before Congress. Their son died, trying to be bigger and stronger, from reasons associated with anabolic steroids.
McGwire readily acknowledged he knew what he did was wrong.
Why argue in favor of making it right or "justifying it", if it isn't right for our son's?

I blew my knee out 30 years ago. MCL and meniscus. Whenever they drained my knee (with that two foot long needle) I always got a cortisone shot. Works wonders for pain, but it doesn't do anything to promote healing. I wound up having two surgeries in less than a year.

Antz, actually the cortisone doesn't do anything for pain. It removes inflammation.
Most cortisone shots do, however, also contain some type of pain medication.

I thought you could only have 2 cortizone shots max in a joint. Then it starts to screw up the joint. (that's a medical term)

quote:

Antz, actually the cortisone doesn't do anything for pain. It removes inflammation.

That's half the battle usually. Inflammation causes a good percentage of the pain oftentimes. The inflammation causes pressure on the nerve endings. Removing the inflammation can help relieve that pressure therefore the nerves are not constantly firing..

quote:

I thought you could only have 2 cortizone shots max in a joint. Then it starts to screw up the joint. (that's a medical term)

There does not appear to be a "drop-dead" limit however some physicians do set their own..

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

quote:

Essentially, we are not talking about what I would want my son to do.

Why not?
This is a HSBBW site. It is frequented and read by high school students and their parents and coaches. It is frequented and read by students who play baseball, many of whom regularly hear from adults/coaches that they need to get "bigger and get stronger."
Most everyone of these high school and college age students/baseball players are highly competitive. They want to succeed. Maybe on a smaller scale for some, but they burn for competitive success.
If anything, the players most affected by the words "you need to get bigger and get stronger" are those for whom this site was created.
Why would we want to create what I view as a fictitious argument comparing cortisone use, ice therapy and the like, with anabolic steroid use to justify what McGwire did, knowing players who need to get bigger and stronger are reading this site.
On the Costas interview, McGwire acknowledged hearing the groans of the Hooten family sitting behind him when he "testified" before Congress. Their son died, trying to be bigger and stronger, from reasons associated with anabolic steroids.
McGwire readily acknowledged he knew what he did was wrong.
Why argue in favor of making it right or "justifying it", if it isn't right for our son's?

As I said in my earlier post, I would not encourage my son to use steroids. There are a lot of things I would not encourage him to use. I would not encourage him to get a tattoo. Does that mean I would not vote for anyone with a tattoo into the HOF? No. I would not encourage my son to use illegal drugs. Does that mean that anyone who ever used illegal drugs should not be in the HOF? Don't think so. What about the players who drank during prohibition in the 20's. Should they be banned from the HOF for using illegal drugs? It certainly isn't something I would encourage my son to do.

I just think there are a lot of things used today that also enhance the performance and endurance of the players that were not available back when. I'm not sure why there has been such an outraged emphasis on steroid use. Like I have said, Tommy John surgery was not available back then. It is an unfair advantage to the pitcher today that he can have this surgery to prolong his playing career? Back in the day, he would have been done. Now, he can continue his career to rack up whatever numbers he may be capable of. Why is that fair? Is it because Cy Young's win record has not been broken? Is it because Bob Gibson's ERA record has not been broken? Is is because Nolan Ryan's strikeout record still stands? What if a pitcher comes along that breaks Ryans K record and he had TJ surgery at some point to prolong his career? Will that record be tainted because he did something to enhance his career? I'm just saying that it may be a big deal about the steroid use because some big records were broken. What if the records weren't broken? Would we still be having this conversation? Will we have the same conversation when some other big record is broken due to technology that was not available back in the day? I don't know. Is there a player from the 40's or 50's or 60's sitting around angry that guys are cheating and doing better than him because he blew his arm out and there was nothing that could be done, but these guys now can fix it and keep on going? Maybe.

Once again, I would never encourage my son to use steroids. I am just trying to put this into perspective with many other advantages players have today that they did not have back then. Steroids are just one of those advantages. Amplified due to some of the big, high profile records being broken.

There are indeed limits on the number of shots within a defined time period. I have some recollection of 3 within a 6 or 12 month time frame, not sure which.
If I remember right, the side effects include weakening of tendon structures.
If anyone wants one obvious difference between cortisone and anabolic steroids, you only need to look at activity post administration.
With cortisone, the athlete cannot perform activity with the involved area, usually for a minimum of 3-5 days.
With the anabolics, you use them to promote muscle mass by being able to do more, the very next day, unless of course that shot in your butt hurts to much and you need to avoid sitting..

No one is saying that cortizone and steroids fall into the same category of drug. They do, however, fall into the same category of medical technology that were not available to the athlete of yore.

lol, this was 1978, 1979. I must have had at least four shots. All I know is that gigantic needle was a welcome sight, because I knew I was gonna feel better in the end.

As I said, it did nothing as far as making my knee better. It was only presented to me as pain relief.

PEDs are any substance that increases strength, bulk or speed. Steroids are PEDs, Creatine is a legal, accepted PED which IMO should be banned. Prohormones such as Superdrol or Mdrol which are usually actually designer steroids are PEDs. Caffeine which I believe someone referred to obliquely does have some minor PE effects but is so widely used I don't believe it gives anyone an edge, although Vince Van Patten used to drink copious amounts of coffee while playing tennis in order to stay "up".

Corticosteroids such as cortisone reduce inflammation but do not enhance performance. Same goes for NSAIDs such as aspirin, Aleve, etc.

HGH is in the grey for me. I don't know if it actually enhances performance. It may delay the effects of aging. Of course it is banned and therefore shouldn't be used.

Why do I say creatine should be banned? Bulk adds to bat speed as long as there is sufficient strength to rotate the body at or near the same speed. Creatine helps create bulk, even though it doesn't directly help with strength, that wouldn't be there without it. Therefore it is a PED. BTW, the main way that steroids increase bat speed is bulk and not strength. McGwires argument that steroids didn't add to his talent is delusional. Without the steroids McGwire was Dave Kingman at best.

Cortisone has been around for a long time. Aspirin has been around even longer, first patented in the US in 1900 and available without a prescription in 1915. Many feel that overuse of cortisone contributed to destroying Koufax's elbow.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
No one is saying that cortizone and steroids fall into the same category of drug. They do, however, fall into the same category of medical technology that were not available to the athlete of yore.

I remember watching cortisone injections being administered when I was a student athletic trainer in college...in 1968.
To say they are the same category of "medical technology" is a point with which I cannot agree. As I posted before, cortisone is legally administered through an injection by a licensed physician who has diagnosed a condition. The treatment is regulated and medical proven to be effective in certain situations when properly used by the doctor.
For anabolics, I am not reading anywhere that McGwire had a prescription for it, that any doctor prescribed it, or that is was lawfully administered. While he denies, it, Canseco said they were shooting up in the bathrooms.
McGwire knew what he was doing was wrong. He said so. Why try and justify what he did by suggesting they are the same medical technologies when they are not and when he admits it was wrong?
Antz, you are correct and have great recall...very long needle that the doctor moves in and out until they find the very point/focus of the pain. Man, I hated watching them.

quote:

Originally posted by infielddad:

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:
No one is saying that cortizone and steroids fall into the same category of drug. They do, however, fall into the same category of medical technology that were not available to the athlete of yore.

I remember watching cortisone injections being administered when I was a student athletic trainer in college...in 1968.
To say they are the same category of "medical technology" is a point with which I cannot agree. As I posted before, cortisone is legally administered through an injection by a licensed physician who has diagnosed a condition. The treatment is regulated and medical proven to be effective in certain situations when properly used by the doctor.
For anabolics, I am not reading anywhere that McGwire had a prescription for it, that any doctor prescribed it, or that is was lawfully administered. While he denies, it, Canseco said they were shooting up in the bathrooms.
McGwire knew what he was doing was wrong. He said so. Why try and justify what he did by suggesting they are the same medical technologies when they are not and when he admits it was wrong?
Antz, you are correct and have great recall...very long needle that the doctor moves in and out until they find the very point/focus of the pain. Man, I hated watching them.

I misstated. I should have said they are in the same general category of technology that were not avilable to the athelete back in the early days.

Although cortizone is only an anti-inflamitory, it is still performance enhancing. Would an athlete be able to perform as well or recover as quickly without it? If that athlete has a bum knee with a ton of swelling in it and does not take a shot or medication to get the swelling to go down, will he be able to perform as well that day as the athlete who takes the shot? I don't think so, therefore, he increased his performance. What if that player hit 3 home runs that day he took the shot. If he didn't take the shot, he would have had to sit out. Should there be an asterik next to those HR's since he used something the Babe did not have available to him? Not the same, but a similar concept as steroids IMHO.

But, Honus Wagner could have been (legally) blown away on cocaine, for all we know.

" One of the first five players inducted to the Baseball Hall of Fame, he (Honus Wagner) led the league in stolen bases on six occasions, finishing his career with a total of 722 steals. Wagner retired with more hits, runs, RBI, doubles, triples, games and steals than any other National League player."

First of all, as I posted before, you are almost always restricted in your activity for 3-5 days, minimum, following a cortisone injection. Not true with anabolics.
Second, the cortisone does not change the pathology in the joint that is producing the inflammation. If you had a meniscus tear before the shot, you have it after. If you had labral damage before the shot, you have it after.
What the shot does is to reduce inflammation so an athlete can perform at his usual level of skill, not impeded by pain, by swelling. It does not enhance his performance beyond the base level. It may, but does not always, allow him to get back to, or reasonably close to, his base level...until the pain/inflammation recurs from the existence of the pathology. In some cases, it allows the athlete to perform and play at 70%, 80% and maybe even 100%. It does not allow the athlete to be better than they were before.
You don't use anabolics for pathology or inflammation on these types of conditions.
As CADad posted, anabolics are used to get bigger and stronger and faster by increasing bulk. They increase your performance beyond the base level.
To equate a short course of cortisone, which does not always work by the way, that allows the athlete to play at his baseline level, or maybe close to it, with chronic use of anabolics just does not work for me. Sorry.

bballman,
Performance enhancement is considered an increase in peak performance. Anti-inflammatories do not increase peak performance, they simply allow one to operate at one's natural ability.

The use of anti-inflammatories and analgesics has long been accepted and they are so widely used that no one has an unfair advantage because of them.

infielddad and CADad. What you guys are saying makes sense. I'll just make two points. This could be an endless argument.

1) Regardless of whether something "enhances" performance or "enables" performance, if it was not available in the early days, does it make it unfair to compare the players stats to those of the old days? If a player now plays in 500 more games than a player from back then because he was able to get back to normal quicker than one from back then, is it unfair to compare?

2) What about technologies and knowledge now that the player did not have back then that does increase strength and stamina that are not considered PED's. Most players now are on some type of weight lifting program to increase strength and bulk without steroids. How many players back then did not lift weights? They didn't even think about it. Just went out and played. How many players now have changed their diet and eat more protein, fewer carbs, take vitamins to make up deficiencies found through blood tests that were not available back then. All these things which are perfectly legal and considered ethical were not available or practiced back then. Yet, they increase a players strength, bat speed, recovery time, running speed, conditioning etc. Is it fair that today's players have this knowledge available to them and the old players didn't?

I'm not saying steroid use is OK. I'm saying that there are many other things that factor into comparing the athlete of today with the athlete of yesteryear. In retrospect, steroids are frowned upon. At the time, they really weren't. Why is it viewed so much more harshly than those players who use other means to gain an advantage over the athletes from long ago who did not have the same knowledge or technology?

This may be dumb but this is how I understand it after you guys start using these big words.

On a performance scale from 1 (terrible) to 10 (awesome) I look at it like this

A player may normally be in the 4 - 6 range when he is healthy. He gets hurt and he's now a 1 or 2 but he takes a cortisone shot and he goes back up to the 4 - 6 range. No harm no foul in my mind.

But if the player isn't hurt then he takes PEDs then he goes from the 4 - 6 range to the 7 to 9 range without the work / practice that goes along with getting better.

Sports have to be able to evolve and change with the times, technology and information out there. Yes players today have an advantage in terms of diet, exercise and things like that over older players but that is the natural evolution of the game. If we stick to the everything is a enhancement then NASCAR would still be on dirt tracks in vehicles going 80 MPH.

All athletes want to be bigger, stronger and faster but there is a work ethic involved that puts everyone at and equal chance. Player A can bust his butt and work out but he's got a ceiling as to how good he's going to get as compared to Player B who does the same thing. But when Player C takes a PED and surpasses both of them without hardly any of the work involved it's wrong.

Bulldog 19,

I'll bite. What is the answer to your quiz?

Bulldog 19 posted:

"Ok, how about this one? I'll bet 95% of the posters here consume a substance on a daily basis that could find them in trouble if they were NCAA athletes and I believe Olympic athletes as well. Anyone want to take a guess? Is it wrong? It could be considered a "performance ehancer" in our everyday lives as well as in athletics..."


Julie

Caffeine?

quote:

Bulldog 19,

I'll bite. What is the answer to your quiz?

quote:

Caffeine?

Absolutely. It's considered a stimulant and having a certain amount (don't know specifics offhand) in the system can lead to a positive drug test at least in the NCAA. Caffeine shows up in many drinks that Americans consume large amounts of--coffee, most sodas, energy drinks. Also, isn't caffeine in chocolate?