Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

    Cheaters Do Prosper:

    Scientists in Sweden Make a Stunning Claim:
    The Benefits of Steroids May Never Go Away --
    Even When Athletes Quit Taking Them
    By REED ALBERGOTTI

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1207...tml?mod=sports

    This 'finding' seems to argue for a longer ban for Steroids than for EPO and stimulants. Based on thin but interesting observations.

    I do recall Marion claiming that she really felt the training difference when she was no longer taking The Clear, which argues that at least some of the effect is ephemeral, IF you can believe her (but her performance curve is consistent with this).

    In the cited baseball study, the design is flawed in that comparison data is from 1920s on, and the general medical, sports training, and financial aspects make it more valuable to continue to work hard and be more athletic.

  • #2
    Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

    Originally posted by 26mi235
    The Benefits of Steroids May Never Go Away --
    Even When Athletes Quit Taking Them.
    I remember trying to make that point when Mikhnevich came back after his suspension and won the WC SP in '03. The base strength he acquired while on the juice gave him a huge advantage when he came back, even if he was clean. I was pooh-poohed at the time.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

      Originally posted by Marlow
      Originally posted by 26mi235
      The Benefits of Steroids May Never Go Away --
      Even When Athletes Quit Taking Them.
      I remember trying to make that point when Mikhnevich came back after his suspension and won the WC SP in '03. The base strength he acquired while on the juice gave him a huge advantage when he came back, even if he was clean. I was pooh-poohed at the time.
      I am not sure, but I think that I might have been among those pooh-poohers :wink: .
      I remain just as skeptical about this study.
      "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
      by Thomas Henry Huxley

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

        Originally posted by Pego
        I am not sure, but I think that I might have been among those pooh-poohers :wink: . I remain just as skeptical about this study.
        You're the doc, but wouldn't common sense corroborate the findings. When M got busted, what was the incentive to get off the juice? Out of comp testing? . . . *snicker*

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

          Originally posted by Marlow
          Originally posted by Pego
          I am not sure, but I think that I might have been among those pooh-poohers :wink: . I remain just as skeptical about this study.
          You're the doc, but wouldn't common sense corroborate the findings. When M got busted, what was the incentive to get off the juice? Out of comp testing? . . . *snicker*
          Common sense should have nothing to do with medical studies. The placebo effect is very, very strong. Compare this study to the one a week or two ago that showed HGH, at normal physiologic doses, had no effect on performance. The answer is still out there, wanting for a Level I RCT that can now never be performed because of the politically correct opprobrium that has spread even to the politicians.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

            Originally posted by bambam
            Compare this study to the one a week or two ago that showed HGH, at normal physiologic doses, had no effect on performance.
            Which is hardly the case with drug 'abusers'. They use dosages far beyond 'normal'. I too believe in the strong effects of placebos, but I also strongly believe in the very real 'benefits' of PEDs also.

            Comment


            • #7
              Does the semi-lifetime ban (meet promoter effect) alter this in T&F?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

                Originally posted by Marlow
                Originally posted by bambam
                Compare this study to the one a week or two ago that showed HGH, at normal physiologic doses, had no effect on performance.
                Which is hardly the case with drug 'abusers'. They use dosages far beyond 'normal'. I too believe in the strong effects of placebos, but I also strongly believe in the very real 'benefits' of PEDs also.
                The biggest problem with your view is the lack of controls.
                When you take a drug user and measure the performance, what do you compare it to? His "virginal" state, post use, his buddy or what? Even, if you find something to compare it to, you are facing a huge error of small numbers.
                That's why what we know about the effects of steroids on performance is more or less an anecdotal, rather than comprehensive knowledge.

                BTW, the study referred in the cited article could be done, fairly easily, on rats. Human applicability will still remain somewhat uncertain, but it would be a lot more, than what we have now.
                "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                by Thomas Henry Huxley

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

                  Originally posted by Pego
                  The biggest problem with your view is the lack of controls.
                  I understand your professional skepticism, just on principle, but do you really doubt that HGH, testosterone, anabolic steroids or EPO don't have a very real PE effect?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

                    Originally posted by Marlow
                    Originally posted by Pego
                    The biggest problem with your view is the lack of controls.
                    I understand your professional skepticism, just on principle, but do you really doubt that HGH, testosterone, anabolic steroids or EPO don't have a very real PE effect?
                    Testosterone and anabolic steroids, no doubt, they are PED's. A hard working athlete on steroids will outperform a hard working athlete without them. I am skeptical about the anatomical changes in the muscles that are supposed to give the user excessively long benefits.

                    HGH alone, perhaps, perhaps not. It may be a potent company of steroids, though.

                    EPO is hardly more effective than any legal or illegal methods of raising the hematocrit. I'd take EPO, transfusion etc. off the banned list.
                    "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                    by Thomas Henry Huxley

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

                      Originally posted by Pego
                      I am skeptical about the anatomical changes in the muscles that are supposed to give the user excessively long benefits
                      If you had identical twins and only put one on weight training for a year, wouldn't he be permanently stronger than the other? So if you put both in the weight room and one was on PEDs, wouldn't he get stronger, also permanently?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        Originally posted by Pego
                        I am skeptical about the anatomical changes in the muscles that are supposed to give the user excessively long benefits
                        If you had identical twins and only put one on weight training for a year, wouldn't he be permanently stronger than the other? So if you put both in the weight room and one was on PEDs, wouldn't he get stronger, also permanently?
                        1. No. Benefits of the training would wear off fairly quickly.
                        2. The quoted study says "yes", I am skeptical, leaning toward "no".
                        "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                        by Thomas Henry Huxley

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

                          Originally posted by Pego
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          Originally posted by Pego
                          I am skeptical about the anatomical changes in the muscles that are supposed to give the user excessively long benefits
                          If you had identical twins and only put one on weight training for a year, wouldn't he be permanently stronger than the other? So if you put both in the weight room and one was on PEDs, wouldn't he get stronger, also permanently?
                          1. No. Benefits of the training would wear off fairly quickly.
                          2. The quoted study says "yes", I am skeptical, leaning toward "no".
                          Of the four major components of fitness - strength, speed, endurance, flexibility - strength has actually been shown to be the longest-lasting and to decrease the slowest when one stops training.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

                            Originally posted by Pego
                            Originally posted by Marlow
                            Originally posted by Pego
                            I am skeptical about the anatomical changes in the muscles that are supposed to give the user excessively long benefits
                            If you had identical twins and only put one on weight training for a year, wouldn't he be permanently stronger than the other? So if you put both in the weight room and one was on PEDs, wouldn't he get stronger, also permanently?
                            1. No. Benefits of the training would wear off fairly quickly.
                            2. The quoted study says "yes", I am skeptical, leaning toward "no".
                            I'm confused. So weight training has no permanent benefit? So if a body builder stopped training, he'd become a 98-pound weakling again? My body changed in my early 30s, when I got into heavy lifting. It stilll manifests those changes.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Cheaters Do Prosper: WSJ 4/4/08

                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              Originally posted by Pego
                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              Originally posted by Pego
                              I am skeptical about the anatomical changes in the muscles that are supposed to give the user excessively long benefits
                              If you had identical twins and only put one on weight training for a year, wouldn't he be permanently stronger than the other? So if you put both in the weight room and one was on PEDs, wouldn't he get stronger, also permanently?
                              1. No. Benefits of the training would wear off fairly quickly.
                              2. The quoted study says "yes", I am skeptical, leaning toward "no".
                              I'm confused. So weight training has no permanent benefit? So if a body builder stopped training, he'd become a 98-pound weakling again? My body changed in my early 30s, when I got into heavy lifting. It stilll manifests those changes.
                              This is a classical example why one has to be so careful about a cause/effect.
                              You never stopped being active. You continued training, in different ways perhaps, but that does not matter. There is plenty of ways to skin a cat.
                              If you became a couch potato, yes, the body builder would lose all the benefits. He would look like me, hey, that's not bad :shock: :wink: .
                              "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                              by Thomas Henry Huxley

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X