 |
||
 |
|
||
|
I always find it funny that in cases like this, people only want to know what anabolic substances these athletes are taking, and not what kind of training they're doing!In any event, the word "fair" really does not apply to the world of sport, does it? Is it fair that Michael Jordan has more type II (fast twitch) muscle fibers than 99% of all basketball players? Is it fair that Lennox Lewis has longer arms than Mike Tyson? Is it fair that vegetarians have to compete with carnivores? You may be thinking, "Charles...you've really lost it this time! What the heck does muscle fiber, arm length, and dietary preference have to do with Mark McGwire's supplement schedule?" What I'm saying is that there are numerous factors that contribute to performance — some are under our control, some are not.Androstenedione is a precursor to testosterone. Some studies have shown short term elevation of testosterone for up to three hours after taking androstenedione. Is it cheating to elevate testosterone? If so, you may want to consider banning sleeping, eating, and exercise: all are shown to elevate testosterone levels. As for creatine monohydrate, this substance contributes to the adenosine triphosphate pool, lengthening the time an athlete can exert maximum force before suffering fatigue. Is it cheating to lengthen the natural duration of a pathway of muscular energetics? If so, you may want to consider banning carbohydrate loading, and high altitude aerobic training, both shown and used to extend the duration an athlete can naturally endure. The lay-media has an amazing way of glorifying nutritional supplements when they're used for health purposes (remember the recent buzz over DHEA?) and demonizing them when athletes are using them for enhanced sports performance.Often, both stances are taken without credible evidence. I read an article recently in the L.A. Times entitled "Power Powder." In the article it referred to creatine monohydrate as a "muscle building" supplement. Then on the next page, in enlarged text, a high school student (and presumably a creatine expert, right?!) is quoted saying "Creatine pulls water out of your muscles." Then the article rambles on suggesting that creatine use can lead to steroid abuse (I guess that’s tantamount to marijuana leading to more serious drug use).Maybe the L.A. Times could really nip this phenomenon in the bud by exposing the potentially toxic muscle builder, protein! In another creatine crackdown, a student interviewed on campus at his high school was asked if creatine use was "RAMPANT" in his high school. I wonder if STUDYING was rampant in that high school? Now, andro is in the news, being characterized as a "highly toxic" chemical. Before being sucked into media conjecture, see what the scientific world is saying. For information on current research I suggest the International Sports Sciences Association's web site, or the advanced Medline page on the Internet. A final observation: If professional sports were designed around fairness, every competitor would receive a medal, like we see in the Special Olympics or PeeWee league baseball.We (the fans) don't want that. To paraphrase "Wide World of Sports," there would be no thrill in victory without the agony of defeat. Enamored by competition, it is only natural for society to live vicariously through the awe-inspiring performances of our record setting athletes. There is a very simple place to draw the line between fair and unfair— the law. Anabolic steroids enhance performance. The fundamental difference between the ethics of taking anabolic steroids and anabolic aids approved by the FDA is that you can be prosecuted by the law, and punished by certain sanctioning bodies of sport for usage of anabolic steroids. References: ISSA web site: www.issaonline.com
|
|
||||||
|
|||||||
