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.........