IF steroids are dangerous, what about football?

[Millard]

If anabolic steroids represent the greatest risk to athletes participating in sport, how does one characterize sport itself which is arguably more dangerous than mere steroid use.

Matt Chaney discusses the risks associated with American football. I find it hard to believe that even the most ardent anti-steroid advocate could argue that steroids are more dangerous than the sport (football) itself. (I think the same applies to cycling for different reasons than football.)

I don't think we should go so far as to banning (certain) sports. We celebrate the freedom to engage in risky activities. I'd just like to see some consistency. IF society "allows" (and even encourages) us to engage in a more risky activity why should considerably less risky activities be demonized and stigmatized?

Researchers at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, recently concluded football-related injuries among youths increased 27 percent over an 18-year period from 1990.

In the study’s final year, 2007, hospital emergency rooms treated 346,772 injuries of players ages 6 to 17, including about 97,000 serious orthopedic cases such as bone fractures, joint dislocations and tendon tears. The ERs handled 8,631 diagnosed concussions, per the report.

“Adolescents aged 12 to 17 years old suffered a greater proportion of the injuries (78 percent),” a release states, “and were more likely to sustain a concussion or be injured at school when compared to younger players.”

Hospital ERs treated a daily average of almost 2,000 juvenile injuries during football season 2007, and investigators condemned the average of 57 concussions. “The potential long-term consequences of this type of injury make this an unacceptable rate,” said study co-author Lara McKenzie, professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University College of Medicine.

Annual concussions are incalculable in close terms, but an estimated 43,000 to 67,000 occur in high-school football, according to the National Athletic Trainers’ Association.

Catastrophic injuries involve the central nervous system, trauma to spinal cord, brain or both. Last year at least 7 American football players were paralyzed of spinal injuries without complete recovery, 5 at high schools and 2 at colleges, while at least 4 were brain-injured without full recovery, all at high schools, according tor the annual report by the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research at University of North Carolina.

http://blog.4wallspublishing.com/2011/06/29/the-unsafe-game-at-schools-and-colleges.aspx

 

[Sworder]

dan·ger·ous/?d?nj?r?s/
Adjective: Able or likely to cause harm or injury

Steroids are not directly dangerous if administered properly. They can inhibit the HPTA and I believe that is the biggest cause of concern when using steroids. Steroids and football are not comparable seeing as steroids are a chemical and football is an activity. Sure, I see how you are saying that more people get hurt by football each year but if we are going to argue this I believe we should do it to something it can be argued against, perhaps alcohol.

I see how my response doesn't directly correlate to your post. I am just saying..

 

[Millard]

dan·ger·ous/?d?nj?r?s/
Adjective: Able or likely to cause harm or injury

Steroids are not directly dangerous if administered properly. They can inhibit the HPTA and I believe that is the biggest cause of concern when using steroids. Steroids and football are not comparable seeing as steroids are a chemical and football is an activity. Sure, I see how you are saying that more people get hurt by football each year but if we are going to argue this I believe we should do it to something it can be argued against, perhaps alcohol.

I see how my response doesn't directly correlate to your post. I am just saying..

Steroid use is very much an "activity" just like participating in football or skydiving or any other behavior. Steroids don't just happen. The use of steroids involves a conscious and deliberate course of action.

If a person was killed due to participation in football OR cycling OR drug use, does it really matter what caused it? The end result is the same.

 

[Sworder]

Steroid use is very much an "activity" just like participating in football or skydiving or any other behavior. Steroids don't just happen. The use of steroids involves a conscious and deliberate course of action.

If a person was killed due to participation in football OR cycling OR drug use, does it really matter what caused it? The end result is the same.

Ok, you are right. Football should be illegal. Cars should be illegal as well seeing how many people die in those every day. Steroids don't kill people and therefore they should be legal. I stand corrected.

 

[Millard]

Ok, you are right. Football should be illegal. Cars should be illegal as well seeing how many people die in those every day. Steroids don't kill people and therefore they should be legal. I stand corrected.

I think you must have overlooked my statement about this in my original post:

I don't think we should go so far as to banning (certain) sports. We celebrate the freedom to engage in risky activities. I'd just like to see some consistency. IF society "allows" (and even encourages) us to engage in a more risky activity why should considerably less risky activities be demonized and stigmatized?

IOW, I fully support the individual freedom to engage in risky activities including driving cars, playing football and using steroids.

 

[Sworder]

If a person was killed due to participation in football OR cycling OR drug use, does it really matter what caused it? The end result is the same.

If we were looking at the end result and trying to avoid DEATH. That is what my comment was about.

 

[BBC3]

This brings me back to all the WWF type related deaths and the recent point in controversy where someone pointed out the pro football players have a high death rate similar....

I dont think we have a chicken or egg argument here. But I do wonder genetic propensities with regard to size and build type. I dont think we will see Jerry Rice going out of steroid suspected death any time soon.

You also have to classify the event. Benoit was a SPECIMEN!!! And his death had other circumstances many do not. I do think you will find a corrolation with the size and body composition of the individuals though....

 

[Millard]

If we were looking at the end result and trying to avoid DEATH. That is what my comment was about.

I just want to be clear that I don't support prohibition (of driving, sports, drugs, etc.) as the best way to achieve this objective. I take the approach that the best we can offer is harm reduction with education concerning the risks associated with various activities along with steps that can be undertaken to minimize/avoid harm.

 

[Bill Roberts]

As personal opinion but from what I've seen, I really don't think that the zealots against PED use in sports have their position because they are so concerned about the health or lives of the athletes.

But rather, they have made idols for themselves out of the sports, a matter of worship really, and they find the PED's personally offensive to their sports "religion."

I really, really, really don't think it's out of caring much about harm to the athletes.

 

[BarbellBeast]

As personal opinion but from what I've seen, I really don't think that the zealots against PED use in sports have their position because they are so concerned about the health or lives of the athletes.

But rather, they have made idols for themselves out of the sports, a matter of worship really, and they find the PED's personally offensive to their sports "religion."

I really, really, really don't think it's out of caring much about harm to the athletes.

Well said. :tiphat

 

[sassy69]

Like they keep saying... "Show me the bodies."

What about deaths among sprinters or cyclists? what about all the gearheads you see at the typical dungeon gym? I'm not saying there aren't potential health issues, but it seems there are probably more people w/ issues related to too much ibuprofen use than steroid use.

 

[Millard]

As personal opinion but from what I've seen, I really don't think that the zealots against PED use in sports have their position because they are so concerned about the health or lives of the athletes.

But rather, they have made idols for themselves out of the sports, a matter of worship really, and they find the PED's personally offensive to their sports "religion."

I really, really, really don't think it's out of caring much about harm to the athletes.

I agree. I don't think the argument that it is for reasons of "health" is defensible yet this is often used in rhetoric used by anti-doping advocates whether they believe it themselves or not.

 

[Millard]

Like they keep saying... "Show me the bodies."

What about deaths among sprinters or cyclists? what about all the gearheads you see at the typical dungeon gym? I'm not saying there aren't potential health issues, but it seems there are probably more people w/ issues related to too much ibuprofen use than steroid use.

There are many deaths in cycling every year.

There are many deaths in football every year.

They are just not from steroids.

They are from participating in the sport itself.

The comparison I'm striving for is "death from steroids" vs. "death from sport itself".

 

[sassy69]

There are many deaths in cycling every year.

There are many deaths in football every year.

They are just not from steroids.

They are from participating in the sport itself.

The comparison I'm striving for is "death from steroids" vs. "death from sport itself".

That's pretty much what I'm saying. W/ all the fear the media, the medical community, the govt is pushing about steroid use.. show me the bodies. There a million other things that people die from that are more common / commonly accepted as part of whatever that person does - i.e. cycling, football, baseball, etc. It doesn't seem like you can make a statistical argument for death by steroids vs death by sports-specific whatever. And then even if you removed the elite-level athlete aspect from your study group, and kept it to just your typical gymrat audience (who statisticall probably still are made up of a decent representation of steroid users), you're still going to have a hard time finding the bodies.

 

[Sworder]

This is how it works: Little Tommy died from steroids, Tommy's Mom goes out with a sign. Steroids killed my son! *insert picture of teenager with ambition, girlfriend, friends and good grades* Then Tommy's Mom goes and tells people what happened to her son. People listen and "oh gosh gee we can't have them steroids legal, look what they did to Tommy we don't want this happening to our son". So they make it illegal. I also want to express the lemming mentality that comes along with being American as it is too prominent in this society. After Japan's earthquake was there anybody else getting emails from their local supplement store saying they had run out of iodine pills?*slaps palm of face*

 

[zkt]

If anabolic steroids represent the greatest risk to athletes participating in sport, how does one characterize sport itself which is arguably more dangerous than mere steroid use.

Matt Chaney discusses the risks associated with American football. I find it hard to believe that even the most ardent anti-steroid advocate could argue that steroids are more dangerous than the sport (football) itself. (I think the same applies to cycling for different reasons than football.)

I don't think we should go so far as to banning (certain) sports. We celebrate the freedom to engage in risky activities. I'd just like to see some consistency. IF society "allows" (and even encourages) us to engage in a more risky activity why should considerably less risky activities be demonized and stigmatized?

Its not about health, dangerous activities or the greater good for the society.
Its all about some people feverently convinced that THEY know what is better for the rest of us than we do.
Historically, the mindset can be traced back to the Puritans, the Monarchys, The Church, and the Pharoahs; to name a few.

 

[Bill Roberts]

Out of curiousity: why conclude that the Pharaohs presented that they knew what was better for others than they did?

Perhaps they just made people build pyramids, hand over their gold to them, and so forth out of pure force, or force combined with a religion wherein the gods would be offended if the Pharaoh were not obeyed.

It actually is an interesting question as to how the Pharaohs may have manipulated people and in what way.

A little bit off topic perhaps, but interesting.