ptatc

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 10:12 PM) Well...no clinical trials on the long-term effects. But TRU was also arguing that there are no short term effects. And there is some evidence on the long-term effects, even if it isn't from clinical trials. (Historical + survey studies exist, I'd guess, which can still be scientifically done. You may know this literature better than I would.) Just saying, even if the evidence isn't as clean and perfect as we'd like, doesn't mean it can be dismissed. True enough. There are retrospective studies about the long term effects but they are mostly anecdotal and don't stand up to research standard rigors. Unfortunately as the people who used them in the US (the boom time was the 70's-early 90's) get older we will be able to collect more data.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 10:08 PM) ^ The look of a man who realizes he's dug himself in deep. Also, the look of a man who realizes his bracket is screwed when he put Bama in the Elite 8. UWM beating Alabama...I picked it!!! (only because I know the trainer and was rooting for him)

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:55 PM) Not completely true. Just looking for some stuff (some google, yes, but also searching NIH), I found one study. It seems like there have been some controlled studies done. And probably some using other methods, I'd have to read them more closely to be sure how they did the analysis. I'm not hoping to change TRU's mind, I know that won't happen. But if there's something wrong with these studies, he should point that out. Just saying that nothing can possibly be learned in medicine without doing it to yourself, that's something that I don't buy for a second. I have seen that study. The thing is it was a well done study however it measured only the behavioral effects of a short 2 week cycle. It addresses neither the physical or long term effects of anabolic steriods. I'm sure it made it by the IRB because it was short term with no invasive measures required to examine the physical effects. Let's get one thing straight, I am dead set against steriod use. We just don't have hard sceintific evidence to convince everyone of this.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:57 PM) Really, I haven't seen a contolled study. Any chance of posting the link? I'd really like to see it. Sorry, I didn't realize the underlined was a link. I'm going to check it out.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:55 PM) Not completely true. Just looking for some stuff (some google, yes, but also searching NIH), I found one study. It seems like there have been some controlled studies done. And probably some using other methods, I'd have to read them more closely to be sure how they did the analysis. I'm not hoping to change TRU's mind, I know that won't happen. But if there's something wrong with these studies, he should point that out. Just saying that nothing can possibly be learned in medicine without doing it to yourself, that's something that I don't buy for a second. Really, I haven't seen a contolled study. Any chance of posting the link? I'd really like to see it.

I don't know about anyone else but there really wasn't a whole lot new in the hearings. However, if it helps MLB as a whole get more done about banishing steriods it was worth it.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:50 PM) I'm 5'6" and some of those weight things say I should weigh 130... if I weighed 130 I would kill myself. Exactly, those things are decent for references but a healthy lifestyle with regular health check ups is the most important thing.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:46 PM) Yea.. myself. I got a BMI analysis done reciently and from it, and it claims for my height and weight I should have a BMI in the 18 to 20 range....?? Like most of the standards in use today they are out of date and don't apply to reality. My favorite is the % body fat scale at 5'8' I should weigh about 160 pounds. I run marthons and I haven't been below 175 since 8th grade.

Was that the guy over McGwire's left shoulder? I was noticing that for most of the testimony.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:36 PM) Thanks WT. Unfortunately I know a lot about it from seeing the damage first hand. Sad.. I wish it was zero tolerance. I agree also

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:35 PM) OT.. is a BMI of 14.4 good for a 31 year old..??? I assume your refrring to yourself? If you are it's good for a female. For male it should be a little lower.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:19 PM) Any of you folks that weren't here earlier today and didn't yet comment.. care to comment on Jose's testimony today..? Anyone's opinion change about him? Think his motives are sincere? I still believe his only motive is money. He admits he could write this book because he has no friends in baseball so it didn't matter. Side note: I saw him at an ST game one year when he was playing for Texas. He was giving autographs to kids. He was giving them two each saying" keep one for yourself and see that guy over there he'll buy the other one for 50 bucks. Take and go buy lunch for your family." He sat there for an hour after the game for the kids. In my dealings with hime he wasn't a bad guy.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:20 PM) But you're saying that all medical studies about steroids are utterly useless. So why aren't all medical studies utterly useless, since they use similar methods? Btw, since no reputable doctor would prescribe steroids for a healthy athlete, technically ANY such use constitutes abuse. The problem is that there are no real clinical studies showing the effects of steriods on humans. No researcher can ethically or legally give someone a substance to see if it hurts them. All the research has been done on animals. We can infer what hapeened to the animals may happen in humans and we are probably right. This however just gives more ammunition to the opposing opinion.

QUOTE(T R U @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:04 PM) ptatc - My friend did a small cycle and gained 17 lbs, and went from benching 225 9 times to benching 225 15 times Thats not a bad increase for one cycle. That won't last long however and to keep it up he'll need to continue the cycles. See how long the increse lasts without continuing the cycles. This is where the health problems will arise, the continued use. It's the true conundrum of steriod use. The gains don't continue without the continued cycles and the problem and side effects increase with increased cycles. The psychological effects are inherent also. Your buddy may say "this little cycle helped me this much, it won't hurt if I do a little more and a little more won't hurt me much." As I stated before I've seen too many professional and college athletes fall into this and would strongly suggest that you or your buddy shouild stop this. However as I tell all of them I can give advice but you are your own man for better or worse.

QUOTE(T R U @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:52 PM) not true my friend has made huge gains on bench press, without abusing, and without getting acne The acne part was a joke. What were the gains and the level and the length of use that will determine the abuse? If the gains were less than a 40% gain in the 1 time max rep than it wouldn't be sufficient to make a difference on an athletic field. You will not see the side effect for at 8-10 cycles. If he has been using it for less than that ( if its an oil based steriod) he won't have them yet. Steriods make the person feel good in the short term. It's the effect it has on the body long term that is the problem.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:50 PM) Yeah, absolutely, we're mostly just disagreeing on semantics, anyway. Tried the subliminal mssg, but I don't know how to make it as small as I want! It was a good try though!!!! I tried to make a come back the same way but I couldn't get it to work that well so I gave up.

QUOTE(T R U @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:40 PM) yeah key word in there... ABUSE The only way to get the radical gains in performance is to abuse them. If you use them at low dosage, you only get marginal improvements in performance and a real bad case of acne.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:31 PM) Okay, but then it's the players making the real choice every time they vote him back in. They value money over better policy. Not saying it wouldn't be a common choice in any circle, but it's not like he's brainwashing them. I agree but as I said earlier he makes them a ton of money so they keep him in. As Steff pointed out he doesn't negotiate the contrats but he does things such as refusing to go for the salary cap, keep in the arbitration process which artificailly increases their pay when he negotiates the CBA. Just from my dealings in the different professional sports the players in the MLB follow him more than any other sport follows what their respective leaders say. You may very well be correct but as Steff said we can agree to disagree

QUOTE(T R U @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:31 PM) did I say those other things were cool? No I did not.. I dont understand where you get operating machinery while under the influence from what I said, I think I made it pretty clear what I was talking about.. Give me a list, with the EXACT percentage of wrestlers who have died from steroids since the Hogan era with proof it was caused from steroids.. without that I dont believe that bulls***.. so far, from what I have witnessed with my friends.. it has not "decreased" any qulaity in their life.. Listen to Steve Courson talk. He has had a heart transplant and a liver transplant due to his abuse of steroids in the NFL. How about Lyle Alzado who deid of a brain tumor caused from the steriods. While its true that there has been no clinical trails to definitively state steriods will kill you (as stated at the hearings) the evidence is growing as the NFL players from the late 70's to early 90's get older. We will see how many die early. Todd Bell from the Bears in the 80's died of a heart attack at the age of 46. While this does occur in the normal population it shouldn't occur in a man of his fitness level at the time of death. I'm not saying he was on steriods for sure butt watch the deaths of NFL players from the time period when they had a minimal steriod policy and it may change your mind.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 08:21 PM) Since the players, vote the guy in, I agree with Steff on this. It'd be pretty easy to replace him if they actually wanted a different style. It's true they vote him in, however I think he dictates the policy and they follow it. Because of the money he makes for them the don't attempt to vote him out. Regardless of who is leading the lemurs, I agree with you that the union is a little at fault then the owners, although the owners didn't try real hard in these negotiations.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 07:33 PM) The players are the road block. Fehr is their puppet. I don't believe Fehr is the puppet. Like Marvin Miller, the head of the union convinces the players this is the right thing and they follow. Remember when the Sox as a team were going to skip the drug tests to make sure the minimum amount of negatives were found? Fehr went to Az and convined them not to do this because it may hurt other players. He has a great deal of power and the players as a group listen. I truly believe most players believe that tougher testing would be good but the union leaders have fought against it.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 01:52 PM) Guess I'm alone on this one. I just think he's arrogant and irritating. Whatever. Schilling is a great guy. Just ask him, he'll tell you.

Sosa is sitting between his attorney and interpreter. If he doesn't speak English very well, how will he know what his attorney is saying? Does his attorney speak Spanish?

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 01:10 PM) Testing for high school athletes seems like a no-brainer to me. When I played high school football, & swimming we were required to pass physicals. The school didn't administer it but we had to have the paperwork from our physicians to be eligible to play those sports. It seems like a no-brainer to me to simply include blood testing for not just doping but also std's & blood related diseases in these physicals for high school athletes. It seems to me that this would help greatly with those kids who grow an additiction to doping. Aside: They only made a special case for Thomas. All the rest have to appear in person. Big Frank via tele-conferencing from Tucson. Maybe Sosa doesn't understand the full range of substances that fall under doping. This a great point however the reality comes down to cost. With the trouble most state's schools are in, who is going to pay for it. The testing process and the lab fees are not cheap.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 12:58 PM) Both sides are assholes.. but I lean more towards the players being at fault for the sissy drug policy. I agree