Bodybuilders who use anabolic steroids are very familiar with this problem; it is widely recognized and widely discussed in the bodybuilding community. Various doctors, writers and bodybuilders have offered possible solutions. It is accepted within many bodybuilding circles that ASIH can be largely minimized if not completely avoided.
But nowhere in the article is their any suggestion that the ASIH can be avoided or treated. It is not necessarily the fault of the author; the medical profession does not recognize the treatment of ASIH; the government does not recognize treatment of ASIH. Consequently they do not approve of treatment for the side effects related to the cessation of anabolic steroids.
This just baffles me! Why would the side effects that come along with stopping steroid use, especially if they are as dangerous as claimed, be left untreated especially if that treatment is readily available? I mean it is no secret that Taylor Hooton’s parents and doctors took him off of anabolic steroids and within 6 weeks he committed suicide. Texas has passed legislation claiming “clinical depression [occurs] when steroid use is stopped.” Kirk Brower, M.D. has told Congress during the baseball hearings that “depressive episodes and suicide attempts are most likely to occur within three months of stopping AAS use.”
If there is a treatment to prevent or eliminate the side effects associated with cessation of anabolic steroids, it should be promoted and encouraged by the government and medical community. But why isn’t it?
(1) The steroid prohibition movement is about morality and not about health. To paraphrase Radley Balko, it is better to let a steroid user suffer (and even die) rather than administer a medical treatment that could eliminate steroid side effects and remove threat of suicide. The war against steroids has taken on the characteristics of the overarching war on drugs. Balko explains the drug policy:
This is the mentality of your modern drug warrior. We’re fighting drug use not because it’s dangerous or harmful, but because they believe drug use is, in and of itself, immoral.
Today’s drug war isn’t about saving lives, it’s about saving souls.
(2) If the side effects of steroids are successfully treated, it would encourage steroid users to continue using steroids. This is probably correct, but is that a worse outcome than making steroid users suffer for making a supposedly immoral choice? The Office Of National Drug Control Policy has a strong moral philosophy and opposition to harm reduction when it comes to drug use.
These so-called “harm reduction” strategies are poor public policy because their underlying philosophy involves giving up on those who can successfully recover from drug addiction.
Let’s abandon this morality play and truly focus on the health consequences of anabolic steroid use.
The video of the debate is available at Steroid Report. The unedited audio of the debate over anabolic steroid use by athletes that we reported earlier is now available from NPR. The steroid debate was hosted by Intelligence
Squared and featured
Radley Balko,
Norman Fost, and Julian
Savulescu arguing for the motion “We should accept performance-enhancing
drugs in competitive sports.” There is also an
edited download available but I recommend the
unedited audio for the completed steroid debate.
Radley Balko - senior editor and investigative journalist for Reason magazine,
Norman Fost, M.D., M.P.H. - professor of pediatrics and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, and director of the Bioethics Program which he founded in 1973;
Julian Savulescu - Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and of the Program on Ethics and Biosciences in the James Martin 21st Century School.
I highly recommend that you download and read the transcript of the entire debate. Here are some excerpts with compelling arguments from Norm Fost why we should change the “rules of the game” to permit anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances:
1. Steroids Give an Unfair Advantage to Athletes
…advantages are only unfair if they’re unequally distributed. The usual solution is to expand access. When Bob Seagren showed up at the ’72 Olympics in-, with a fiberglass pole, it was not banned, but, a-, uh, there was a time to allow others to practice with it, and it was incorporated. When Kenyan runners were found to enhance their performance by raising their hemoglobin by training at altitude, the reaction was not to ban abnormally high hemoglobins, or to prohibit others from training at altitude, but to encourage everyone to do it.
2. Steroids are Harmful to Athletes
Two, critics say these drugs are harmful, but they rely on information that’s wiley-, wildly exaggerated or just fabricated. We are told repeatedly that these drugs use heart disease, cancer, and stroke, while human growth hormone has been given to almost a million children for fifty years, and there’s still no real serious side effects that have been discovered… I ask you in the audience to quickly name, in your own minds, a single elite athlete who’s had a stroke or a heart attack while playing sports… But sport itself is far more dangerous, and we don’t prohibit it. The number of deaths from playing professional football and college football are fifty to a hundred times higher than even the wild exaggerations about steroids. More people have died playing baseball than have died of steroid use.
3. Athletes are Coerced into Using Steroids
Three critics say that allowing their use is coercive, that you’re forced to use them… Coercion is the use or threat of force that’s never occurred in this country to the best of my knowledge. There is no entitlement to play professional sports; it’s a privilege requiring an enormous sacrifice and taking on enormous risks, with or without steroids. Many walk away from it and choose not to do it, and no one is forced to take it on.
4. Steroids Undermine Fan Interest
Four, critics claim that steroids undermine fan interest, and this is simply empirically false, baseball attendance has ridden steadily in the steroid era, professional football is even more popular, and Barry Bonds, widely assumed to be a steroid user, is the biggest draw in sports, adding ten thousand fannies in the seats everywhere he goes. Chicks love the long ball, guys love the long ball, they don’t care what they’re using.
5. Steroids Undermine Integrity of Records
This is naïve, the records are not comparable with or without steroids or growth hormone. Baseball fences are shorter, the mound is lower, the ball is livelier, and Coors Field is a mile above sea level. By one estimate, Babe Ruth playing in today’s ball parks would hit a thousand home runs, not the mere seven hundred and fifty that Hank Aaron and Bonds have hit. The only valid comparison is with peers playing in the same arenas with the same equipment against the same opponents, and Ruth hit more home runs in one season than any other team. He is in a league of his own, and no one has come close.
6. Steroid Use by Athletes Bad for Children
Finally, critics claim that steroids present bad role modeling for children - Everyone agrees these drugs should be banned for children. The adverse effects are different, they stunt growth, they are not competent to make informed choices. I support testing in schools, not to punish the kids, but to catch the peddlers. Anyone caught selling drugs to children should be hung, followed by a fair trial. In closing, when you go out to dinner tonight, enjoy the wine that relaxes you, or start your day tomorrow with a double mocha latte that gets you going, but please be less critical of others who, like you, try to enhance their performance in a variety of ways. Thank you.
