
Originally Posted by
Montgomery
To be honest, I do have an ethical issue with using banned substances. I suppose I just have a bigger problem with kissing my scholarship and my future in track and field goodbye because the athelets in lanes 1-7 juiced and I got left in the blocks in lane 8.
Furthermore, the only reason steroids are banned is they WORK. There are hundreds of other compound stacks containing substances that are not banned, and numberous other recovery/body maintenance techniques that are not banned, yet all these have been emperically demonstrated to have effects on body biochemistry and/or hormone levels, muscle and tendon strength, muscle twitch speed and flexibility, etc.
Eg., creatine, trib, ZMA, IMS, ART, etc.
Somehow the line is arbitrarily drawn between the substances that work and the substances that really work.
I believe you only have the right to comment on this thread if you can answer yes to ALL of the following questions. Otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion but you haven't got a clue about the types of decisions some atheletes have to make.
Are you an elite athelete?
Do you have the potential to medal at a world championship/olypmics if and only if you take advantage of all available resources? (just like every other athelete at the olympics)
Do you have scholarship money riding on your athletics success?
Does the continuation of your post-secondary career depend on that funding?
Do you find it difficult to watch your teammates and competitors run past you due to their pharmacological regimens?