Doping discussion

[joe-max]

After watching the Olympics, I'd like to discuss doping. What is your stance on performance enhancing substances in hockey/the NHL?

 

The official side

• The NHL claims to test randomly during off-season (up to a maximum of 60 players), once during training camp and randomly (but only once per team) during season and playoffs.
• Since 2007 the NHL has issued five suspensions for using performance enhancing drugs (PED).
• There is no distinction for drug abuse (e.g. cocaine) and use of PEDs. Consequences are the same.

 

The controversy

• Doping makes a lot of sense in hockey. Strength enhancement (e.g. by steroids) helps not only fighters (legs, core, arms), improved healing/recovery (e.g. by HGH) during a long season and stimulants for improved performance (e.g. ephedrine) can be very useful.
• Former player George Laraque admits openly to knowing “a lot of players, including some of the league's top performers” that used PEDs during his career. (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-has-performance-enhancing-drug-problem-laraque-1.1088453)
• Only fringe players have ever been caught, never a star or superstar.
• The penalties are ridiculous. 20 games suspension for substance abuse? On international level that’s two years.
• Current head of NHLPA, Donald Fehr, was head of the players union in the MLB during their “doping years”; things changed rapidly after he left.
• Certain incidents must make you suspicious, e.g. the case Bryan Berard (who was tested positive for steroids as part of the American National team, however did not face any sanctions by the league) or the fact that the NHL does not allow tests by the World Anti-Doping Agendy during the World Cup.
• There is a lot of money to be made in hockey, way more than in other sports that have severe problems with substance abuse.

Interesting articles

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/why-the-nhl-drug-program-just-isnt-good-enough/

http://www.latimes.com/sports/kings/la-sp-with-nhl-drug-policy-20150929-story.html

http://www.si.com/nhl/2016/03/09/jarred-tinordi-nhl-doping-suspension-drug-policy

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl-doping-policy-slammed-1.586125

 

Is hockey (just like soccer) a cleaner sport than baseball, cycling or track & field and do players have higher moral standards? Is the NHL turning a blind eye on the issue? Or are they actually supporting/protecting substance abuse to keep their image clean and improve the on-ice product? What do you think?

[Shift-4]

Lots of dopes around this place.

You should get good feedback.

[SabreFan1]

15 minutes ago, joe-max said:

After watching the Olympics, I'd like to discuss doping. What is your stance on performance enhancing substances in hockey/the NHL?

I can't imagine the bulk and retained water weight being that helpful to most NHL players.  If there were still many enforcers in the game then I could see a decent amount of PEDs in hockey.

[Dazzle]

9 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

I can't imagine the bulk and retained water weight being that helpful to most NHL players.  If there were still many enforcers in the game then I could see a decent amount of PEDs in hockey.

PEDs don't necessarily have to do with the muscles needed to bash people out. Look at Olympians, specifically sprinters or swimmers. Those two athletes tend to be caught doping more often than other athletes, unless I am mistaken. You wouldn't normally associate their muscles as being used for enforcing purposes.

[SabreFan1]

Just now, Dazzle said:

PEDs don't necessarily have to do with the muscles needed to bash people out. Look at Olympians, specifically sprinters or swimmers. Those two athletes tend to be caught doping more often than other athletes, unless I am mistaken. You wouldn't normally associate their muscles as being used for enforcing purposes.

I dunno.  I just don't see it benefiting most NHL players.  I never took steroids when I played hockey so I can't speak with first hand knowledge as to its effects on a player.

[Dazzle]

29 minutes ago, joe-max said:

After watching the Olympics, I'd like to discuss doping. What is your stance on performance enhancing substances in hockey/the NHL?

 

The official side

• The NHL claims to test randomly during off-season (up to a maximum of 60 players), once during training camp and randomly (but only once per team) during season and playoffs.
• Since 2007 the NHL has issued five suspensions for using performance enhancing drugs (PED).
• There is no distinction for drug abuse (e.g. cocaine) and use of PEDs. Consequences are the same.

 

The controversy

• Doping makes a lot of sense in hockey. Strength enhancement (e.g. by steroids) helps not only fighters (legs, core, arms), improved healing/recovery (e.g. by HGH) during a long season and stimulants for improved performance (e.g. ephedrine) can be very useful.
• Former player George Laraque admits openly to knowing “a lot of players, including some of the league's top performers” that used PEDs during his career. (http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-has-performance-enhancing-drug-problem-laraque-1.1088453)
• Only fringe players have ever been caught, never a star or superstar.
• The penalties are ridiculous. 20 games suspension for substance abuse? On international level that’s two years.
• Current head of NHLPA, Donald Fehr, was head of the players union in the MLB during their “doping years”; things changed rapidly after he left.
• Certain incidents must make you suspicious, e.g. the case Bryan Berard (who was tested positive for steroids as part of the American National team, however did not face any sanctions by the league) or the fact that the NHL does not allow tests by the World Anti-Doping Agendy during the World Cup.
• There is a lot of money to be made in hockey, way more than in other sports that have severe problems with substance abuse.

Interesting articles

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/why-the-nhl-drug-program-just-isnt-good-enough/

http://www.latimes.com/sports/kings/la-sp-with-nhl-drug-policy-20150929-story.html

http://www.si.com/nhl/2016/03/09/jarred-tinordi-nhl-doping-suspension-drug-policy

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl-doping-policy-slammed-1.586125

 

Is hockey (just like soccer) a cleaner sport than baseball, cycling or track & field and do players have higher moral standards? Is the NHL turning a blind eye on the issue? Or are they actually supporting/protecting substance abuse to keep their image clean and improve the on-ice product? What do you think?

I don't have proof but I really do think it is the case. I just try not to think too much about it. As you pointed out, none of the superstars have been detected, which I honestly feel is suspicious. None at all? What about the other ones that are less known (but not fringe)?

 

I can't imagine what the repercussions would be if any of the NHL 'stars' were caught doping. The ones that they have heavily marketed and then caught cheating. It would make the league look very bad.

 

I also don't trust Donald Fehr, as you have correctly noted that he was head during the times when baseball cheating was REALLY bad.

[Dazzle]

2 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

I dunno.  I just don't see it benefiting most NHL players.  I never took steroids when I played hockey so I can't speak with first hand knowledge as to its effects on a player.

Quicker recovery during training?

Stronger leg muscles = faster acceleration?

Strong arms = harder shot?

 

You still have to train of course, but having enhanced growth seems like summer training would be easier than normal.

[SabreFan1]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

Quicker recovery during training?

Stronger leg muscles = faster acceleration?

Strong arms = harder shot?

 

You still have to train of course, but having enhanced growth seems like summer training would be easier than normal.

Definitely helping recovery.  More muscle mass doesn't always mean faster acceleration.  Most people on steroids add extra weight.  Strong arms definitely would help a slapshot if you're a d-man.  Most of the better forwards these days utilize wrist shots and backhanders.

[joe-max]

26 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

I can't imagine the bulk and retained water weight being that helpful to most NHL players.  If there were still many enforcers in the game then I could see a decent amount of PEDs in hockey.

There are so many ways of using illegal substances to increase performance - some that might not be widely known yet - steroids being merely one possibility.

 

Quote

Doping makes a lot of sense in hockey. Strength enhancement (e.g. by steroids) helps not only fighters (legs, core, arms), improved healing/recovery (e.g. by HGH) during a long season and stimulants for improved performance (e.g. ephedrine) can be very useful.

[SabreFan1]

Just now, joe-max said:

There are so many ways of using illegal substances to increase performance - some that might not be widely known yet - steroids being merely one possibility.

Definitely.  Just look at the athletes that are getting busted for using meldonium.

[Stelar]

I personally could care less if all athletes took PED's.  The only drawback would be those that didn't want to take them would not be on a level playing field. PED's enhance a player, they don't make a player...

 

Some of the things they ban are silly. Especially stimulants.

 

Sports are a business and entertainment. 

[Art Vandelay]

 

This graph was selective; to star wrestlers and wrestling, but if this is representative of steroid use for any athlete than you cannot argue for steroid use. Steroids were used by everyone in this industry back then.

 

Steroids may make it more entertaining in the sense that the players are better. However, I rather not support the Immoral culture to take steroids in order to compete. 

 

 

[Aircool]

I don't understand the anti-PED position to an extent.

 

What are PEDs used for? Building muscle and recovering from injuries/fatigue. Should we ban athletes from working out in the gym? They are building muscle, that's a competitive advantage!! Or should we limit the amount of time they are allowed to work out to level the playing field, since some players just don't work as hard?

 

None of you can name me one good reason why an athlete shouldn't be allowed to use whatever medicine a doctor feels is necessary and safe to recover from whatever injury he may have. Why is a player's medical health/treatment any business of any professional sports league?

 

There are obviously many PEDs out there that are detrimental to people's long term health, but not all are. If you were to have an approved list of substances designed to make building muscle and recovering from injuries better/faster, I see no problem with that. Players should have no opposition to using them, and no one would force them. As if somehow having people in better shape would ruin the quality of any sport... Players immediately would stop using any sort of outlawed PED that potentially does have significant health risks, because why risk your salary, when you have "legal" alternatives.

 

I won't claim to be educated on the medical aspect of any PEDs really, but this is just how I feel.

[Art Vandelay]

59 minutes ago, Aircool said:

I don't understand the anti-PED position to an extent.

 

What are PEDs used for? Building muscle and recovering from injuries/fatigue. Should we ban athletes from working out in the gym? They are building muscle, that's a competitive advantage!! Or should we limit the amount of time they are allowed to work out to level the playing field, since some players just don't work as hard?

 

None of you can name me one good reason why an athlete shouldn't be allowed to use whatever medicine a doctor feels is necessary and safe to recover from whatever injury he may have. Why is a player's medical health/treatment any business of any professional sports league?

 

There are obviously many PEDs out there that are detrimental to people's long term health, but not all are. If you were to have an approved list of substances designed to make building muscle and recovering from injuries better/faster, I see no problem with that. Players should have no opposition to using them, and no one would force them. As if somehow having people in better shape would ruin the quality of any sport... Players immediately would stop using any sort of outlawed PED that potentially does have significant health risks, because why risk your salary, when you have "legal" alternatives.

 

I won't claim to be educated on the medical aspect of any PEDs really, but this is just how I feel.

PED's have harmful health effects when you take them for a long period of time. Some steroids are used to repair muscle and tissue and help heal quicker when the athlete is hurt, but those are not very good for what an athlete would be looking for in muscle growth, and are still harmful if you take them long enough.

 

The idea that steroids and working out are the same because they both give a competitive advantage is a very juvenile philosophy. Steroids do not build muscles. Constant resistance training and eating very well does. When you take PED's, you are able to work out harder, longer, and recover much faster. You also take these PED's in cycles to limit health effects, which will come. To me that is very different than hard work and training. You are taking the health and ethical nuances out of the equation. They are not the same.

 

IMO, allowing PED's only creates an environment where steroids are necessary to stay competitive, and with health implications, that is immoral. Also, IMO what makes sports so entertaining is when athletes are so unbelievably good. Once steroids become the reason for excellence, it makes it less unbelievable, and rather unspectacular. 

 

 

 

 

[mpt]

They are all dirty in every sport

[Aircool]

28 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

PED's have harmful health effects when you take them for a long period of time. Some steroids are used to repair muscle and tissue and help heal quicker when the athlete is hurt, but those are not very good for what an athlete would be looking for in muscle growth, and are still harmful if you take them long enough.

 

The idea that steroids and working out are the same because they both give a competitive advantage is a very juvenile philosophy. Steroids do not build muscles. Constant resistance training and eating very well does. When you take PED's, you are able to work out harder, longer, and recover much faster. You also take these PED's in cycles to limit health effects, which will come. To me that is very different than hard work and training. You are taking the health and ethical nuances out of the equation. They are not the same.

 

IMO, allowing PED's only creates an environment where steroids are necessary to stay competitive, and with health implications, that is immoral. Also, IMO what makes sports so entertaining is when athletes are so unbelievably good. Once steroids become the reason for excellence, it makes it less unbelievable, and rather unspectacular. 

 

I think you are oversimplifying my position, which is admittedly rather simple. I'm just saying what are competitive advantages in sport? I mean, we are all different genetically, and players put in different amounts of effort. Is a better coach a form of steroid for a players skill, as opposed to the worse coach? The playing field isn't inherently level, although many people would like to think so. 

 

 

At the end of the day, the greatest separator of success in sports is the mental aspect of the game, not the physical. Things like decision-making, the ability to read the game, a player's breaking point in terms of effort/stamina, effort level in general... These are the reasons why players like Johnny Gaudreau can succeed in a league that values the big and fast player, instead of the small and faster player. Your physical strength / physical skills are a HUGE asset to any and every player, they give you options within the game. You can't play without them. The reality is though that PEDs will allow players to consistently perform physically, and maintain their bodies better, yeah it might give them more physical capacity, but it's not making any superstars. Barry Bonds wasn't a product of steroids... Although he certainly hit more home runs due to them, he was still fundamentally a legendary hitter in every way.

 

[Silky mitts]

there is always going to be some ped users in any sport

[Art Vandelay]

1 hour ago, Aircool said:

I think you are oversimplifying my position, which is admittedly rather simple. I'm just saying what are competitive advantages in sport? I mean, we are all different genetically, and players put in different amounts of effort. Is a better coach a form of steroid for a players skill, as opposed to the worse coach? The playing field isn't inherently level, although many people would like to think so. 

 

 

At the end of the day, the greatest separator of success in sports is the mental aspect of the game, not the physical. Things like decision-making, the ability to read the game, a player's breaking point in terms of effort/stamina, effort level in general... These are the reasons why players like Johnny Gaudreau can succeed in a league that values the big and fast player, instead of the small and faster player. Your physical strength / physical skills are a HUGE asset to any and every player, they give you options within the game. You can't play without them. The reality is though that PEDs will allow players to consistently perform physically, and maintain their bodies better, yeah it might give them more physical capacity, but it's not making any superstars. Barry Bonds wasn't a product of steroids... Although he certainly hit more home runs due to them, he was still fundamentally a legendary hitter in every way.

 

When the competitive advance directly affects your physical health (heart attacks, stroke, liver cancer.. etc.) and has been linked to higher rates of mortality, it stops becoming a question of "Whats a competitive advantage". If you do not see the difference between that and having a coach, working out, genetics, economic situation, HP machines...etc.,  then you are not looking out for the best interests of the athletes, which is not what sports should be about. 

 

To me, the argument of steroids being comparably unfair(like other advantages), is completely ignorant. These athletes are people, and making anyone hurt themselves to be one the same playing field, is not constitutional to sports and supersedes the entertainment value of it.

 

Also, PED's make your reactions quicker, your hand-eye better, your endurance longer, your recovery shorter, your tolerance better, and most importantly it has a gigantic effect on functional muscle strength. It has way way way more advantage than you are giving it.

 

  

 

 

[Aircool]

6 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

When the competitive advance directly affects your physical health (heart attacks, stroke, liver cancer.. etc.) and has been linked to higher rates of mortality, it stops becoming a question of "Whats a competitive advantage". If you do not see the difference between that and having a coach, working out, genetics, economic situation, HP machines...etc.,  then you are not looking out for the best interests of the athletes, which is not what sports should be about. 

 

To me, the argument of steroids being comparably unfair(like other advantages), is completely ignorant. These athletes are people, and making anyone hurt themselves to be one the same playing field, is not constitutional to sports and supersedes the entertainment value of it.

 

Also, PED's make your reactions quicker, your hand-eye better, your endurance longer, your recovery shorter, your tolerance better, and most importantly it has a gigantic effect on functional muscle strength. It has way way way more advantage than you are giving it.

You clearly haven't read my thoughts very well, I've very clearly said that it shouldn't be allowed in ways that would be detrimental to a player's health. However, some drugs that are considered PEDs are banned from even medical use under the advisement of doctors. I don't think it PEDs should be banned as a matter of principal, I think it should be banned as appropriate given scientific information. I'm just stating that PEDs could, if done in the correct way, be yet another tool to helping players improve/maintain their performance, as opposed to being considered an unfair and immoral advantage, there are plenty of advantages in sports besides PEDs.

[Art Vandelay]

27 minutes ago, Aircool said:

You clearly haven't read my thoughts very well, I've very clearly said that it shouldn't be allowed in ways that would be detrimental to a player's health. However, some drugs that are considered PEDs are banned from even medical use under the advisement of doctors. I don't think it PEDs should be banned as a matter of principal, I think it should be banned as appropriate given scientific information. I'm just stating that PEDs could, if done in the correct way, be yet another tool to helping players improve/maintain their performance, as opposed to being considered an unfair and immoral advantage, there are plenty of advantages in sports besides PEDs.

With your response, I clearly have no idea what you are saying. PED's have adverse health effects because of what they do, not what's in them. If they make new drugs that improve someones athleticism and do not harm the athlete, then there can be an argument of what is a performance enhancer. So no matter what you are actually trying to say, the health effects make PED's unethical, from my standpoint.