Thread: Testosterone-Fueled Panic
01-24-2004, 10:16 AM #1
Another good read on how OTHER People view steroids...RTB
The cry-wolf effect may have as much to do with the boom in steroid use as anything else. Athletes were inclined to be skeptical of warnings about steroids because their own experience contradicted what critics were saying. When use of Dianabol and other anabolics began to surge in the 1960s and '70s, opponents decried them as ineffective. The message was: They don't work, so don't take the risk. But steroids did work, and users knew it. Once weightlifters, bodybuilders, and other athletes realized they were being lied to about the efficacy of steroids, they were less likely to believe warnings about health hazards, especially when the evidence backing them up was vague or anecdotal.
One of the chief drumbeaters for the steroids-don't-work movement was Bob Goldman, author of the hysterical anti-steroids polemic Death in the Locker Room. Goldman, a former competitive power-lifter turned physician and sports medicine specialist, was an early, and shrill, critic of performance pharmacology. In his 1984 expose, Goldman attributes steroids' tissue-building qualities almost entirely to the placebo effect. His agenda may have been morally sound, but his conclusions ran counter to the preponderance of scientific evidence at the time. Today, his claims are even less supportable. Goldman is working on a new edition of the book, one that he says will better crystallize current scientific thought on the subject. Of his 1984 edition and its seeming histrionics, Goldman says the book was intended "as an educational tool to warn high school students of the possible hazards of drug use, but then it became something else."
Whatever his intentions at the time, Goldman's views played well in the media, which cast the book as a sobering empirical assault on performance-enhancing drugs. Its warnings soon gained traction with lawmakers. Although the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 had already made it illegal to dispense steroids for nonmedical reasons, Congress, ostensibly out of concern over reports of increasing steroid use among high school athletes, revisited the matter in 1989.
Congressional hearings convened to determine whether steroids should become the first hormone placed on Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, reserved for drugs with substantial abuse potential. Such legislation, if passed, would make possession of anabolic steroids without a prescription a federal offense punishable by up to a year in prison. Distributing steroids for use, already prohibited by the 1988 law, would be a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. What's usually forgotten about these hearings, or perhaps simply ignored, is the zeal with which many regulatory agencies, research organizations, and professional groups objected to the proposed changes.
The American Medical Association (AMA), the FDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and even the Drug Enforcement Administration all opposed the reclassification. Particularly adamant was the AMA, whose spokespersons argued that steroid users did not exhibit the physical or psychological dependence necessary to justify a change in policy.
Nevertheless, Congress voted into law the 1990 Anabolic Steroids Control Act, which reclassified steroids as Schedule III controlled substances, placing them on legal par with barbiturates and narcotic painkillers such as Vicodin, just one step down from amphetamines, cocaine, and morphine. Now even first-time steroid users faced possible jail time.
01-25-2004, 11:35 AM #2Junior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Copperhead Road
hmmm....... since i've been addicted to valium, xanax, vicodin, morphine, etc.... in an earlier decade of my life, i can say that off cycle does not even compare to withdrawl. furthermore, after a couple of months post cycle, i question whether to do another cycle or not. there is no addictive push like there is with benzo's or conjugated alkaloids. the classification scheme is a joke. try quitting smoking, or drinking coffee if you've never been a classifed addict. BUT, and i say BUT, if your under 25, minimum, you have no business using. welcome to another example of an obsessive/compulsive, media hyped society. govern that, bicth!!!
sorry, that state of the onion address still pisses me off!!!!
god, i love tren . i'm gonna go drink a pot of coffee and drive around in mall traffic. see ya on the news.
Last edited by curiousdude; 01-25-2004 at 11:38 AM.
01-25-2004, 11:39 AM #3
I agree with you on more of the 'harder rec' drugs having a greater withdrawal, but I also know many juicers who do suffer withdrawal symptoms when they're off. I read a study on Testosterone withdrawal, I'll see if I can find it and post it up.
01-25-2004, 11:54 AM #4Junior Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- Copperhead Road
please do. that would make a good read. over at "SE" i have found info confirming the test cyp depression syndrome. many vets and pro's over there swear to god cyp leads to post cycle depression. deca also, they're not particularly fond of either. peace to the bull, CD.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)