Doping discussion

[Aircool]

2 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

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. 

Okay, I'm done wasting my time... I'm convinced at this point you don't read what people say.

[Art Vandelay]

12 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Okay, I'm done wasting my time... I'm convinced at this point you don't read what people say.

I have 6 years of university education. My reading comprehension is fine. However, you are not expressing your self very well. 

 

I was originally trying to clarify the anti-PED stance that you said you "don't understand the anti-PED position to an extent".

The stance is that PED's have negative health implications (all PED's), that creates an unethical culture in sports.

[MikeBossy]

Interesting debate - if you get a chance google "Sports on Fire - All the rage" - its a HBO documentary - very informative 

 

[peaches5]

8 hours 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.

It definitely does benefit players. Steroids are used by a lot of junior players and there is basically no testing for them. I know my brother played Junior and many of the kids used steroids, you pretty much have to if you want to compete, there is a reason why these kids look like "men". The ones who aren't using steroids are using ban supplements which make it easier to gain muscle. There is absolutely no one policing them and then to assume they magically stop once they get drafted.. I doubt it. The NHL drug testing is a joke.

 

 

[Slegr]

I would be very surprised if the NHL was clean. I watched Pavel Bure throughout his tenure as a Canuck, and always suspected he used performance enhancing drugs. He was just too much faster than everyone else. I feel like Ovechkin is in the same boat. I think he went a few seasons off the drugs and then he got back on them.

[Aircool]

4 hours ago, Art Vandelay said:

I have 6 years of university education. My reading comprehension is fine. However, you are not expressing your self very well. 

 

I was originally trying to clarify the anti-PED stance that you said you "don't understand the anti-PED position to an extent".

The stance is that PED's have negative health implications (all PED's), that creates an unethical culture in sports.

Okay.. I will give this one more effort and specify that I qualified everything I said in that post, with something along the lines of, "as long as there aren't adverse health issues" not that exact wording, but that sentiment. I understand that portion of it. But let's not be melodramatic and pretend that PEDs are a guaranteed death sentence, they can be lethal. No doubt. I'm sure that steroids can be used in a less voluminous and judicious way to provide benefit to athletes with negligible to non-existent health effects... All of this being optional for the athlete.

[SabreFan1]

2 hours ago, peaches5 said:

It definitely does benefit players. Steroids are used by a lot of junior players and there is basically no testing for them. I know my brother played Junior and many of the kids used steroids, you pretty much have to if you want to compete, there is a reason why these kids look like "men". The ones who aren't using steroids are using ban supplements which make it easier to gain muscle. There is absolutely no one policing them and then to assume they magically stop once they get drafted.. I doubt it. The NHL drug testing is a joke.

 

 

That's a shame then.  I wouldn't pigeon hole the majority of players though.  Almost my whole football team used steroids, but the hockey teams that I was on, even the couple years at university, I never saw anyone popping pills or injecting themselves.  Might be one of the reasons why I never went past high school in football.  Granted though, I played hockey in the 80's and just under half of the 90's.  The steroids back then almost always just gave you muscle mass along with bloating. 

 

Muscle requires much more oxygen than any other tissue in your body besides your brain.  The steroids back then would have definitely hurt your stamina.  Maybe the HGH and PEDs of today are better than the ones from back then.  I know from reading about the use of them in the other sports like MMA, they are basically cocktails now that make it much much harder to detect if the dosages are correct and they are taken exactly when they are supposed to be.

 

It's a totally different game now than it was when I played so I guess the steroids may be a different story as well.

[Art Vandelay]

5 hours ago, Aircool said:

I'm sure that steroids can be used in a less voluminous and judicious way to provide benefit to athletes with negligible to non-existent health effects... All of this being optional for the athlete.

Using PED's carefully or less often is completely not possible. I assumed you wouldn't make that ridiculous argument.

 

The way anabolic steroids(other types of PED's are generally not used for sport enhancement) change the levels of testosterone, estrogen and any other androgens, is harmful in the short term with some irreversible side effects. You also have to take another type of steroid after, to return your hormones back to natural level (what Brock Lesner and Jon Jones were caught having in there system, recently).

 

If you inject intravenously, you also have to take other supplements daily or you will have horrible reactions to the injection, and those supplements damage your liver and effect blood pressure/flow. If you take them orally, the same will happen to your liver and heart. There is also side effects of depression, addiction, aggression and many others associated with altered levels of hormones. These are just the immediate effects of steroids. Add to that, in order to actually gain a long term gain from steroids you have to use them in cycles and for long periods of time; in order to allow you time to build the muscle in the gym/eating well. The long term health effects are much worse.

 

You cannot change hormone levels without getting some irreversible problems right away; and using them for a short time is not beneficial at an athletic performance standpoint.  

 

 

 

 

[Pears]

Wouldn't doubt it. Would explain Keith's temper tantrum's perfectly. 

[peaches5]

11 hours ago, SabreFan1 said:

That's a shame then.  I wouldn't pigeon hole the majority of players though.  Almost my whole football team used steroids, but the hockey teams that I was on, even the couple years at university, I never saw anyone popping pills or injecting themselves.  Might be one of the reasons why I never went past high school in football.  Granted though, I played hockey in the 80's and just under half of the 90's.  The steroids back then almost always just gave you muscle mass along with bloating. 

 

Muscle requires much more oxygen than any other tissue in your body besides your brain.  The steroids back then would have definitely hurt your stamina.  Maybe the HGH and PEDs of today are better than the ones from back then.  I know from reading about the use of them in the other sports like MMA, they are basically cocktails now that make it much much harder to detect if the dosages are correct and they are taken exactly when they are supposed to be.

 

It's a totally different game now than it was when I played so I guess the steroids may be a different story as well.

This is current. My brother can still play junior if he wants to. Have you seen hockey players now? Pretty much every single one is ripped, minus a few like kessel, lol. You see the kids at the draft and they are behemoths there is no way they are getting that big from just working out.

[SabreFan1]

1 hour ago, peaches5 said:

This is current. My brother can still play junior if he wants to. Have you seen hockey players now? Pretty much every single one is ripped, minus a few like kessel, lol. You see the kids at the draft and they are behemoths there is no way they are getting that big from just working out.

It may be naive of me but I'm just reluctant to say that a significant amount of NHL'ers use peds. 

[peaches5]

Just now, SabreFan1 said:

It may be naive of me but I'm just reluctant to say that a significant amount of NHL'ers use peds. 

How can you say that when the drug testing is in favour of supporting PEDs. Every single player should be tested multiple times at random through the year and playoffs.

[SabreFan1]

Just now, peaches5 said:

How can you say that when the drug testing is in favour of supporting PEDs. Every single player should be tested multiple times at random through the year and playoffs.

If it was up to me I'd have USADA testing them.  They don't play around.  We'd know for sure then.

[joe-max]

I disagree with both statements on so many levels, I don't even know where to start. I'll try:

 

On 27.8.2016 at 10:59 PM, Stelar said:

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. 

On 27.8.2016 at 11:45 PM, 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.

1. Rules are rules and you have to play within them. There is a Prohibited List and if you use substances on that list, you cheat and you have to be taken out of the competition, simple as that. You can not ignore the offside rule or a penalty call just because it suits you. Where do you draw the line to what extents you can violate the limits set by a sport/league? If taking performance enhancing drugs is okay, what about weakening an opponent, e.g. by drugging him? What about trying genetic experiments to enhance performance? Why not hire someone to cripple the opponents goalie?

 

2. The doping lists have not been jumbled together over night. They are compiled by experts and I trust that there is a reason for each substance on that list. That's why certain substances are only illegal in certain sports. Alcohol in minor doses increases accuracy and is therefore banned in shooting/archery, in hockey you can play as wasted as you want. Stimulants make a lot of sense in hockey, not for long term use but for specific games.

 

3. Call me old-fashioned and/or naive, but in sport I want honest competition. If professional sport can't deliver that anymore, it is not for me. Obviously business and entertainment are part of the deal of having a professional league, but if they dominate and the game is nothing but an "on-ice product", the sport itself, the game of hockey loses its value. Then the NHL is another WWE, a circus. The game that I love would be dead.

 

4. Not every doctor is of the responsible type, whose main interest is the athletes long term health, but others who are willing to take long term risks to maximize performance during a player's short career. Also we are not (mainly) talking about recovery of an injury, but about substances that increase stamina and resilience to help your body cope with the extreme strains of an NHL schedule and to train more frequently and harder, about substances that cheat your brain into believing the body is not tired, about hormones that make your body develop in a way that it was genetically not designed for.

 

5. I say "one good reason why an athlete shouldn't be allowed to use whatever medicine a doctor feels is necessary and safe" is that "necessary" (in the sense of minimizing recovery times and maximizing performance) and "safe" are mutually exclusive. No medication has only one effect. Cortisone is helpful in a number of ways, but also weakens bones, ligaments and tendons. Narcotics may help you overcome pain, but they also increase the risk of worse injury. Others may affect your veins, your heart, cause cancer or make you infertile. Of course it is impossible to backtrack where certain conditions 20 years after a player's career come from, therefore it is easy to ignore. If a league really cares about the players and does not only see them as laying hens, it is their responsiblity to make sure that certain standards are followed by everyone.

 

6. I want to see the best, most talented and hardest working athletes, not the ones who are most willing to risk their health. If you want to maximize performance, live professionally, eat well, sleep well, train hard. There are also several legal substances, e.g. creatine, that can be used. If it is not enough for the big league, pity for you, but that's life. Don't use PEDs. Who knows, maybe the Bruins and Kings were only able to trample their way through the playoffs to the cup, because they had the "more progressive" doctors.

 

7. Legalising doping is an option. I believe there would always be harder, more dangerous substances that desperate, ambitious people would use to gain an advantage, therefore the playing field would never be really level. The race would then not only be about the best training methods, the best coaches, the best tactics, but also about the best labs and the most creative chemists. There is still an entire filed of genetic doping to be explored. Not my world.

 

The bottom line is: What kind of hockey do I want to see? Do I want faster, stronger, quicker at all costs or do I want honest competition? Do I want business and entertainment or do I want pure sport? Do I want perfect, drugged up behemoths or athletes with flaws and weaknesses? In all cases I would take the latter. Without PEDs.

 

[Art Vandelay]

1 hour ago, joe-max said:

If taking performance enhancing drugs is okay, what about weakening an opponent, e.g. by drugging him?

 

My roommate and myself play against each other in our league about 5 times a year... thanks for the advice. 

 

Also, you probably read what Aircool wrote, wrong. 

 

 

 

[Fan since 82]

On 27/08/2016 at 8:55 PM, 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.

One of the 'positive' effects for the peds user is greater endurance and quicker recovery during exertion. That would certainly benefit hockey players. Not saying it's rampant but that would be something that might tempt them to use. I am certainly not an expert though.

[Fan since 82]

On 27/08/2016 at 10:45 PM, 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.

I hear ya but don't really agree. It's the purity of sport that appeals to most people/fans. Testing ones natural ability against against others natural ability. Weight training and endurance training - without peds - just enhance natural muscle and cardio performance. Obviously if you remove the restrictions on certain peds then it's up to the individual as to whether they use them but they won't really be able to compete if they want to go au naturale while others are juiced up. I'm certainly not an expert either, but this is my thoughts on it.

[SamJamIam]

Given that the title is about doping, I'm surprised all the talk is of steroids and PEDs.  Doping (that is blood doping, injecting oxygenated blood into an athlete to increase their performance) is widespread, almost untraceable and extremely useful for hockey.

 

Doping effectively means you can play longer shifts.  You'll recover quicker on the bench.  You'll hit harder, skate faster and shoot better.  All without affecting muscle mass.  But the signs of long term use are very detrimental and we're seeing a dramatic uptick in players suffering from the effects of doping, namely blood clots.

 

It's not some miracle that blood clots and strokes are popping up across the league.  It's guys, particularly in playoff series, who want to boost their performance in big games.  Do it over and over, and they build up red blood cells and platelets which increase their clotting risk.  Add in the internal bruising from concussions and high speed impacts and you have a perfect recipe for brain clots and ensuing strokes.

 

It's a serious health issue and should be erased from the game.  There really is no argument for doping as a clot in the wrong place will kill, paralyze or mentally devastate athletes.

[joe-max]

On 31.8.2016 at 5:31 AM, SamJamIam said:

Given that the title is about doping, I'm surprised all the talk is of steroids and PEDs.  Doping (that is blood doping, injecting oxygenated blood into an athlete to increase their performance) is widespread, almost untraceable and extremely useful for hockey.

 

Doping effectively means you can play longer shifts.  You'll recover quicker on the bench.  You'll hit harder, skate faster and shoot better.  All without affecting muscle mass.  But the signs of long term use are very detrimental and we're seeing a dramatic uptick in players suffering from the effects of doping, namely blood clots.

 

It's not some miracle that blood clots and strokes are popping up across the league.  It's guys, particularly in playoff series, who want to boost their performance in big games.  Do it over and over, and they build up red blood cells and platelets which increase their clotting risk.  Add in the internal bruising from concussions and high speed impacts and you have a perfect recipe for brain clots and ensuing strokes.

 

It's a serious health issue and should be erased from the game.  There really is no argument for doping as a clot in the wrong place will kill, paralyze or mentally devastate athletes.

For clarification: PEDs ("Performance Enhancing Drugs") as superordinate term includes all kinds of substances, blood doping as well as steroids, stimulants, hormones and all the other things from the prohibited list.

 

You're right, blood doping can be dangerous. Blood clots are probably a result of thicker blood caused by a high number of red blood cells. There is a reason that in some sports there is an upper (50%) limit of the so called hematocrit (= the percentage of blood cells), e.g. in cycling. If an athlete's hematocrit is higher he is removed from the competition.

 

According to Wikipedia former NY Rangers prospect Alexei Cherepanov "was engaged in blood doping for several months before he died [at the age of 19] on October 13, 2008".