Username
Password
The bigger they come - or do they?
By Swill July 21 2008
The bigger they come, the harder they fall. That was the old boxing adage, probably invented by a trainer who saw his man looking apprehensively at the monster standing in the opposite corner of the ring It’s reassuring news for those of us who would never be mistaken for a brick outhouse, but there is absolutely no truth in it.

The Bigger They Come

The harder they fall.

That was the old boxing adage, probably invented by a trainer who saw his man looking apprehensively at the monster standing in the opposite corner of the ring.

It's reassuring news for those of us who would never be mistaken for a brick outhouse, but there is absolutely no truth in it.

The bigger they come, the harder they hit.

And, boy, these days they come very big! Some centuries ago, I played quite serious rugby. I wasn't ever going to trouble the international selectors, but I played at County level and turned out against quite a few of the top-class clubs. I was a hooker and my playing weight was never more than 12 stones. My friend Steve Richards won 9 caps at hooker for England (and incidentally took 12 strikes against the head versus France!) and I swear he never topped 13 stones. Steve Thompson was half as big again as me, and taller, and stronger! For heaven's sake, I would have conceded a stone and a half to Johnny Howard!

There are several ways an athlete can build himself up. Working with the weights, hours in the gym, the correct nutrition; they all have a part to play. But additionally, there are some short cuts. And the most covert of these are steroids.


First of all, we need to understand what steroids are. And why do athletes use them? Anabolic steroids are a synthetic version of the male hormone testosterone. Testosterone in its normal state promotes and boosts muscle development and growth. When it is supplemented with steroids, you have an increase of muscle mass, reduction of body fat, and enhanced endurance. It is used by athletes to try to gain an edge on the competition.


What are some of the side effects? They range from psychological to physical. From a psychological standpoint, they can range from a feeling of well-being to depression, mood swings and even rage. Other adverse psychological effects can include intense aggression and violence.


From a physical standpoint, you can have all kinds of changes. You will have increased muscle mass and increased endurance, but the side effects can include a plethora of problems. The worst being organ damage, and cancer. You can have acne, excessive hair growth or loss, testicular atrophy (shrinking), etc.


On paper, the risks completely outrun the rewards. But this takes no account of the ferocity of many elite athletes' competitive drive to win, and to win at all costs.


This is why they show up on the training pitch before dawn, in all weathers, endlessly hitting the tackle bags, straining at the scrummaging machine, slotting kick after kick after kick. And for the young potentially elite player, every hour spent in the gym or on the training field brings him one step closer to where he may be forced to make a choice; to realise he must turn his back on his dream and all those hours and days he has invested, or decide to take a drug that could damage his heart, kidneys and liver, give him dangerously high blood pressure and cause impotence.


A few months back, I had a business meeting in Naples. My client was in the supplements business - a retailer selling products to enhance sporting performance and muscle mass. His father had been a Mr Universe and had encouraged his son into the business. I met him at his shop, crammed with Creatine and Whey and any kind of strength and endurance enhancers you could imagine. A stream of young men flowed in and out of the store while we talked. "Isn't it cheating?" I asked him. "They don't see it as cheating" he told me. "They consider it no more of an unfair edge than having a better calculator than the guy next to you in your maths class. It's just trying to get ahead"


There's little doubt that these things work. Look at Baseball, currently ravaged by accusations of steroid abuse. Back in 1961, Roger Maris set the home run record of 61 home runs in a season. The record stood untouched for all of 37 years. Incredibly after all this time, in 1998 two players, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, eclipsed the record with 70 and 66 home runs respectively. The next year they hit 65 and 63 home runs. Barry Bonds, who lifted the record to 73 in 2001, hit an average of 32 home runs per season up until 1999, and then averaged 52 per season in the following century, an improvement of over 62%.


All three players along with several other stars are under investigation by Congress. Jose Canseco, a contemporary of McGwire, claimed he had seen McGwire injected with steroids. Bonds was deeply connected with BALCO, a laboratory who gave Bonds' trainer two performance-enhancing substances for Bonds. Bonds did not deny using them, but states that he thought they were to treat his arthritis. You may remember BALCO were also implicated in the banning of the USA sprinter, Marion Jones.


So the drugs are available and sophisticated, and they are effective. More than virtually all sports, Rugby demands strength, endurance, durability and explosiveness. Consequently, can we really doubt that the temptation is available to current players and may well be in regular use?


So how do we handle this? Do we need to crack down hard, right now, with an iron fist, to ensure beyond any reasonable doubt that any player guilty of taking performance-enhancing substances is hounded from the game forever, so that we can look our children straight in the eye and tell them the great players they admire play the game with honesty and integrity.


Or must we accept that the desire to go beyond will not end? That we should embrace the future, rather than fight it? Will there have to be two standards for every sport? Because there is no way a "natural" will be able to compete with a player augmented by drugs, bionics and genetic engineering.


And even if we can find the solution to the harmful side-effects of steroids, who knows what unforeseen side-effects await these new biological techniques?


Perhaps the old adage will prove to be accurate. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

 

Bookmark or share this story with:

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: St.Rich Joe, Niamh and Sam's Dad (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:21:19:37:07

Interesting article Swill. With all the effort that goes in I've always wondered whether it's worth having separate competitions 'clean' and 'chemically enhanced' and don't forget lemsip is a banned substance!

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8205/dscf2325fo6.th.jpg
There are some things money can't buy!

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: OldPete (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:21:19:59:14

Interesting piece Swill , and very frightening - read a bit the other day about drugs in athletics in which the author contended that the only way to beat drugs in sport would be to render them obsolete by better science - eventually the answer will be to breed ( through genetic selection / engineeing ) the champions of the future.

The corruption of the honest sporting ethos is much more likely to occurr where the money is big- both for the athlete or player and / more so for the owners and investors

Fortunately we are not there yet where rugby is concerned - but some stories from the Indian sub continent are worrying - if it can happen in cricket ?

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: ChrisG (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:21:20:19:30

And its really nothing new. Swill touched on baseball. Well over a hundred years ago players were doped and given all manner of things to get them through injury and just playing.
The doping of horses has gone on for centuries maybe humans too and you can't lay it all at the door of cash and big business. Some people want to win, whatever, however.

As long as theres a way to cheat someone will do it till found out. And when found someone just moves on the next way around the process. I can't quite fathom out the mentality. Even if you got away witrh it there can be no real deep satisfaction knowing you didn't play it by the book.

Le Tour is a prime example. Despite France bringing in a law that means drug cheats (its viewed as fraud) can be imprisoned for a few years already there have been a handful of expulsions and arrests this year. Riders under the illusion that some new masking agent will hide traces of EPO at the testing stage but those wily chemists are just as quick at unmasking and the cheats are not prospering. Sadly though they keep trying, not only risking their career (and that of their team members) but also their long term health.

I really think tou'll never truely eradicate it completely.
You've got to keep trying though.

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: USP nli (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:21:21:16:17

As a keen cyclist and rugby player, as well as a medic, I can see both sides. EPO and anabolic steroids are in a different league to creatine. Both are banned substances, and either derived from, or replications of, legitimate medicines used in clinical practice.

Creatine is a naturally occurring compound found in meat, and as a non-red meat eater I have used it in the past to bulk up and compete on an equal level with carnivores. It is essentially a protein supplement, no different to whey. There are also no long term scientifically proven risks to creatine supplementation, unlike the use of EPO (which can predispose to heart attacks and strokes) and steroids.

The cyclists in the 2008 TdF have discovered a new version of EPO which binds to the same receptors, but has a slightly different chemical structure. It is more efficient in the medical environment because it needs to be injected less and has a longer lasting effect. They believed it was undetectable, but they were wrong. I honestly believe the positive tests in cycling are due in part to the rigorous testing procedures employed within the sport. Can we say the same about other endurance athletes, like Olympic marathon runners for example?

It seems we have only seen the tip of the iceberg with regards to sports doping. I do think we are catching up with the cheats though, and in that respect should not give up and licence a free for all.

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: Sarge (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:21:22:30:28

Drugs in sport have to be banned if for no other reason than the fact that they can be detrimental to the player's long-term health.

People come into professional sport at a young and relatively immature age. The team managers and trainers are in a position of trust - both to develop the player's skills and to minimise the risks to their health (whether on the field or off it).

If you allow any of these drugs into general use it will be case that some teams will put pressure on their squad to take them. Let's face it, if you're just starting out on your career and your choice is "take this or look for another club" what are you going to do? Then, ten years down the line your body is effectively suffering from an industrial injury you sue the club or the governing body of the sport.

To my mind there is no choice - all sports should be a drug free as possible in the best long-term interests of the health of the players.

Sarge.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:07:22:11:39:10 by Sarge.

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: ChrisG (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:06:31:02

I'm not 100% on this but i'm pretty sure creatine is banned in France as there has never been any recognised testing of it and its effects long term.

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: ChrisG (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:06:34:51

With the aid of Google.

"The French Food Safety Agency recently made the decision to ban the use of creatine monohydrate powder pending more definitive studies of its safety and efficacy. [French Report 2000] Further, there have been 32 adverse events reports to the FDA associated with creatine monohydrate supplementation including seizures, cardiac arrest and death. [FDA 2000] While the adverse events reported to the FDA are anecdotal and as such do not prove causality, they do comprise initial data from which significant side effects may be discovered, as there are no well controlled studies to date that evaluate the safety of creatine monohydrate supplementation in dosages currently recommended by numerous nutritional supplement companies."

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: St.Rich Joe, Niamh and Sam's Dad (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:07:05:31

Creatine banned in France? Interesting! The only side effect I've ever heard of is THIRST.

There was a series on discovery a few years ago when two groups of people had fitness training. One group had Army training the other group was trained by sports scientists. The sports scientists group were offered creatine and had a long talk about it before deciding whether to use it or not. Can't remember what the programme was called but it's the sort of thing I enjoy.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8205/dscf2325fo6.th.jpg
There are some things money can't buy!

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: ChrisG (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:07:15:51

Creatine

Though if you use it heavily don't click page 7.

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: tedge (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:08:50:58

Swill asks

"So how do we handle this? Do we need to crack down hard, right now, with an iron fist, to ensure beyond any reasonable doubt that any player guilty of taking performance-enhancing substances is hounded from the game forever, so that we can look our children straight in the eye and tell them the great players they admire play the game with honesty and integrity."

Sarge says

"Drugs in sport have to be banned if for no other reason than the fact that they can be detrimental to the player's long-term health."

Out of curiosity I looked up the definition of "sport" in a dictionary and a couple were:

"a game, competition or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job"

"all types of physical activity which people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment"

and a "sportman" is defined as

"someone who plays sport in a way that shows respect and fairness towards the opposing player or team"

In my view a player's long term health is largely in his own hands and if he/she decides to risk that to cheat at sport so be it. I know which of my opening quotes I concur with.

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: Saint Swill (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:09:40:31

Bob Goldman was the President of the National Academy of Sports Medicine in Chicago.

He conducted an informal questionnaire among Olympic-level U.S. athletes, asking: If you were offered an illegal substance that guaranteed you would win and not be caught, would you take it? The answer from 195 of 198 athletes was yes.

Asked if they would take a banned substance that would enable them to win every competition for five years but then kill them, more than half the athletes said yes

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: tedge (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:10:43:39

Of course the effectiveness of drugs in individual sports is far greater than in teams sports so hopefully,even on such a morally dubious premise, the tempation amongst team players is pretty minimal.

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: Saint Swill (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:11:10:55

One would hope so, Tedge.

But I can't help thinking that since the advent of professional rugby, and the more recent cranking up of salaries, there are some pretty colossal specimens out there, most of them taking an intense physical battering, week in and week out.

I'd like to think it's all down to better nutrition, training and working out with the weights, but sometimes I wonder.

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: St.Rich Joe, Niamh and Sam's Dad (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:11:17:13

Of course there wasa time when training was considered cheating

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8205/dscf2325fo6.th.jpg
There are some things money can't buy!

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: desbralass (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:11:19:41

Very good piece,Saint Swill.

desbralass
South Stand block L Row G 359

glass still overflowing

lesleyjay07@btinternet.com

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: Phil. (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:11:59:20

I have nothing to add to the debate but would like to thank Swill and all the contributors for an absolutely fascinating thread.

http://www.sportnetwork.net/mainadmin/img/991142635023.jpg
"It's not the despair, Saints, I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand."

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: oddshapedballs (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:12:00:49

Ah, the days when world rugby was dominated by New Zealand and Afrkaaner farmers.

We trained dogs to herd our animals, they just got stuck in and picked them up bodily and put them where they wanted them.

http://www.jonno.chilly-hippo.co.uk/sigs/osb.gif

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: SaintsDuncan (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:12:12:06

Very good piece.

I seem to recall an article in a motorcycle magazine some years back (just after a top Superbike rider was found guilty of using a banned substance) that entered the debate about performance enhancing drugs.

They didn't go into the exactitudes of potential for harm etc, but suggested (as a point for debate/discussion) that as some sportspersons were already using banned substances that there use became legalised and therefore open to all.

This, they concluded, would then remove any extra advantage in much the same way as technological advances only gain you one season at best before everyone else is using same.

They then continued to expand the hypothesis into the realms of added sponsorship/extra revenue created.

Personally, though, I'm a firm believer in hrash bans for anyone using banned substances.

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: ChrisG (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:12:22:08

Quote:
oddshapedballs
Ah, the days when world rugby was dominated by New Zealand and Afrkaaner farmers.
We trained dogs to herd our animals, they just got stuck in and picked them up bodily and put them where they wanted them.

Funnily enough Richard when we were in NZ the chairman of West Coast Rugby (one of the smaller unions) said the Quad Bike and the Vine would cause the death of a lot of rural rugby over there. When you have QB's they cover the ground of half a dozen men and vineyards are taking away good grazing and you don't get technique chucking grapes about instead of lambs and ewes. You don't even have to bother much with the physical exertion of fixing your fences because unlike sheep grapes don't run away and get lost.

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: St.Rich Joe, Niamh and Sam's Dad (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:17:36:55

So if NZ ever want to win the RWC they need to ban quad bikes and breed a 80kg grape that can escape?

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8205/dscf2325fo6.th.jpg
There are some things money can't buy!

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: ChrisG (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:22:19:24:38

They're too quick for us Rich. The geneticists at Taupo Uni have already been at work.

http://www.sciligion.net/sciligious_posts/images/2007/09/27/grapes.jpg

Re: The bigger they come - or do they?
Posted by: RedSaint (IP Logged)
Date: 2008:07:23:08:41:40

Now that is the clearest case of 'roids I've ever seen...

Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListLog In

Your Name: 
Your Email: 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.
CAPTCHA
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net