Congressional hearing thread

[jackie hayes]

The problem is that there are no real clinical studies showing the effects of steriods on humans. No researcher can ethically or legally give someone a substance to see if it hurts them. All the research has been done on animals. We can infer what hapeened to the animals may happen in humans and we are probably right. This however just gives more ammunition to the opposing opinion.

Not completely true. Just looking for some stuff (some google, yes, but also searching NIH), I found one study. It seems like there have been some controlled studies done. And probably some using other methods, I'd have to read them more closely to be sure how they did the analysis.

 

I'm not hoping to change TRU's mind, I know that won't happen. But if there's something wrong with these studies, he should point that out. Just saying that nothing can possibly be learned in medicine without doing it to yourself, that's something that I don't buy for a second.

[ptatc]

I don't know about anyone else but there really wasn't a whole lot new in the hearings. However, if it helps MLB as a whole get more done about banishing steriods it was worth it.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Damn, I thought I could exit.

 

Personal experience of a substance gives you immediate knowledge of it's effects. Collective experience of a substance gives you long-term knowledge of it's effects. It's common sense to consider both before deciding to use a substance.

 

Though there are no clinical trials available there are independant observations that have been recorded. When the size of these observations grows large enough that sample data becomes worthy in terms of making analysis similar to that of clinical trials. We have reached that point after 30 yrs of roid usage. There are several good books encompassing the analysis of the data if you are interested.

 

Now I can exit. I'll check on Fri to see if any one's interested.

 

Thank you & good night

[ptatc]

Not completely true.  Just looking for some stuff (some google, yes, but also searching NIH), I found one study.  It seems like there have been some controlled studies done.  And probably some using other methods, I'd have to read them more closely to be sure how they did the analysis.

 

I'm not hoping to change TRU's mind, I know that won't happen.  But if there's something wrong with these studies, he should point that out.  Just saying that nothing can possibly be learned in medicine without doing it to yourself, that's something that I don't buy for a second.

 

Really, I haven't seen a contolled study. Any chance of posting the link? I'd really like to see it.

[ptatc]

Really, I haven't seen a contolled study. Any chance of posting the link? I'd really like to see it.

 

Sorry, I didn't realize the underlined was a link. I'm going to check it out.

[Steff]

I don't know about anyone else but there really wasn't a whole lot new in the hearings. However, if it helps MLB as a whole get more done about banishing steriods it was worth it.

 

 

 

IMO, showing Shilling and Mark's ignorant sides was something new, for me anyway. I definitely think Mark making an ass out of himself was worth the decline in my work production today.

[ptatc]

Not completely true.  Just looking for some stuff (some google, yes, but also searching NIH), I found one study.  It seems like there have been some controlled studies done.  And probably some using other methods, I'd have to read them more closely to be sure how they did the analysis.

 

I'm not hoping to change TRU's mind, I know that won't happen.  But if there's something wrong with these studies, he should point that out.  Just saying that nothing can possibly be learned in medicine without doing it to yourself, that's something that I don't buy for a second.

 

I have seen that study. The thing is it was a well done study however it measured only the behavioral effects of a short 2 week cycle. It addresses neither the physical or long term effects of anabolic steriods. I'm sure it made it by the IRB because it was short term with no invasive measures required to examine the physical effects.

 

Let's get one thing straight, I am dead set against steriod use. We just don't have hard sceintific evidence to convince everyone of this.

[Heads22]

 

^

The look of a man who realizes he's dug himself in deep. Also, the look of a man who realizes his bracket is screwed when he put Bama in the Elite 8.

[ptatc]

 

^

The look of a man who realizes he's dug himself in deep. Also, the look of a man who realizes his bracket is screwed when he put Bama in the Elite 8.

 

UWM beating Alabama...I picked it!!! (only because I know the trainer and was rooting for him)

[jackie hayes]

I have seen that study. The thing is it was a well done study however it measured only the behavioral effects of a short 2 week cycle. It addresses neither the physical or long term effects of anabolic steriods. I'm sure it made it by the IRB because it was short term with no invasive measures required to examine the physical effects.

 

Let's get one thing straight, I am dead set against steriod use. We just don't have hard sceintific evidence to convince everyone of this.

Well...no clinical trials on the long-term effects. But TRU was also arguing that there are no short term effects. And there is some evidence on the long-term effects, even if it isn't from clinical trials. (Historical + survey studies exist, I'd guess, which can still be scientifically done. You may know this literature better than I would.) Just saying, even if the evidence isn't as clean and perfect as we'd like, doesn't mean it can be dismissed.

[Steff]

Well peoples... I have to get going as I have to get my fat butt up very early and do the running that I didn't do tonight.

 

Good time discussing this with you guys today. See ya's tomorrow.

[ptatc]

Well...no clinical trials on the long-term effects.  But TRU was also arguing that there are no short term effects.  And there is some evidence on the long-term effects, even if it isn't from clinical trials.  (Historical + survey studies exist, I'd guess, which can still be scientifically done.  You may know this literature better than I would.)  Just saying, even if the evidence isn't as clean and perfect as we'd like, doesn't mean it can be dismissed.

 

True enough.

 

There are retrospective studies about the long term effects but they are mostly anecdotal and don't stand up to research standard rigors. Unfortunately as the people who used them in the US (the boom time was the 70's-early 90's) get older we will be able to collect more data.

[jackie hayes]

True enough.

 

There are retrospective studies about the long term effects but they are mostly anecdotal and don't stand up to research standard rigors. Unfortunately as the people who used them in the US (the boom time was the 70's-early 90's) get older we will be able to collect more data.

I don't know about how those studies were done, but I wonder how much of that is because "research standard" in medicine is such an incredibly high standard. Studies that were 'improperly performed' in medicine would in many other fields be considered lead-pipe-cinch convincing.

[ptatc]

I don't know about how those studies were done, but I wonder how much of that is because "research standard" in medicine is such an incredibly high standard.  Studies that were 'improperly performed' in medicine would in many other fields be considered lead-pipe-cinch convincing.

 

That's partly true. The most statsical rigorous research deals with pure number such as the SABR people in baseball. they like them becasue they are clean. In medicine it is the direct cause and effect that is the best. I take two groups and give one steriods and give the others a placebo. I run them though the exact same exercise program and see what happens. Use a double blind method so I don't know which person is in which group. If I do this for 20 years I will hve my strong research study. Most drugs go through Stage I, II and III research which last around 7 years or so. This is why drugs cost so much to invent and produce. Again no one will allow a researcher to do this to a person so we are left with just watching what happens to people who have admitted to taking them. Most of it is from the NFL. This is tainted because many researchers believe NFL player die sooner because of all o fthe impact they suffer in the game. Again confounding factors which cloud our view on steriods.

 

A great book I read was on the East German female swimmers of the 60's-early 70"s. They put the physician's on trial who gave them massive amounts of steriods against their knowledge. It isa great read and very revealing. However, in the end the physician's didn't have any real penalties because the evidence is anecdotal and circumstantial

[WilliamTell]

And the thread is dying, the longest thread in 1 day I've seen here.

[hammerhead johnson]

steroids are cool and I would reccomend all young people looking to get bigger to take them..

 

You have completely lost your mind.

[sox-r-us]

I've never taking opium either but there is a mountain of information that tells me it's pretty bad for me & the risk of addiction is very high.  Of course the fact that I can describe it's chemical breakdown & most aspects of its impact on the human body, it's history, & it's current growth span today I guess is meaningless because I've never tried it :rolly

 

You are taking yourself seriously so I'll just ask some questions to maybe get you to pause & think differently. 

 

Why would my personal experience with say smoking weed have greater value than clincal research covering say 10's of 1000's of persons smoking weed? 

 

In the same likeness why would your personal experience with performance enhancers have greater value than 10's of 1000's of others accounts.

 

The best knowledge is collective knowledge because it filters out biased opinion.

That's why the internet is the best tool mankind has ever invented.

 

Mankind did not invent the internet. Al Gore did

[sox-r-us]

Steff

 

Replying to your question about how others feel about Jose, even before this hearing I became a huge fan of Jose for coming out and spilling the beans. Sure he wrote he book for the money, but I rather they solve this darn thing right now. And thank God he came out with this to get some pressure on MLB. The fockers deserve this.

 

If HRs go down, baseball will be more fun to watch when they play it the right way.

 

Also, Mark M is an asshole. And Soso is a freaking idiot too.

 

Big Frank deserves to get props. He should hopefully get his first ballot HOF when he comes up for induction.

[Steff]

I agree sox-r-us... Jose's method wasn't exactly the best.. but it sure was effective.

[YASNY]

McGwire is taking a public beating after the testimony and I'm not sure its deserved. Do you believe Sosa and Palmeiro? I damn sure don't believe Sosa as he is a proven liar (leaving game early). Raffy, I'm undecided on yet. He never appeared on the steroid horizon till the Canseco book came out. Raffy seemed to be very adamant about his denial and looked right at the congressional panel as emphatically denied using. I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, at this point. But, back to McGwire. The one thing you know he didn't do yesterday is lie. He said nothing of substance, so he couldn't have lied. For the moment, the panel let him get away with and did not even force him to either answer the question or invoke the fifth. I believe MM did exactly what he was told to do by his attorney, and he can't be faulted for that. The congressmen could have and should have forced McGwire to either s*** or get off the pot.

[greasywheels121]

The only thing that is goofy about all of this is maybe they're just expecting the American public to trust their word over Canseco's etc. However, if what was said about them in that book truly was false, do something about it!

[southsider2k5]

A lot of interesting things here.

 

I do really wish that Frank got to testify. I think he would have come off with PR coup sitting up there with all of the rest of the scumbags, liars, and evaders. With all of the bad press the big fella has had this would have been a nice reward for all of the years he stayed on the straight and narrow.

 

I also wish they had granted immunity to the ballplayers, because I really would have liked to seen these guys come clean. It became worthless to have Mark McGwire there, because he couldn't answer anything without it possibly getting him in trouble.

 

Baseball's leaders came off as complete assclowns. Bud Selig gave some of the most self-serving answers of all of them. He didn't want this issue in public just as much as anyone else. He could have made this a public issue, or at worst, he has the ability to enact these kind of rules for the good of the game, without subjecting them to collective bargining. If he really wanted something done, he could have done it. And as a former used car salesman, he knows all of the backdoors.

 

And finally with the whole using steroids arguement that went on, the "if you never did it, you don't know it" arguement is a joke. With that logic Soxtalk has one member that I know of who is qualified to talk about major league baseball because he is playing it right now. None of the rest of us should be able to comment about it, because we have never played, or are playing.

[Dick Allen]

The deal with Palmiero pointing his finger and staring was obviously coached. Sosa using language as a barrier was laughable considering he has been interviewed and speaking English for 16+ years at least. I would be willing to bet that the reason his attorney read his statement was Sosa was not capable of doing that. As far as players suing Canseco for writing lies, if what he wrote are lies, my wife is a partner in a law firm, and a litigator. She told me defamation suits are very difficult to win. Even if Canseco's claims are all lies, which I doubt, the legal ramifications are not as cut and dried as you would think.

Edited March 18, 2005 by Dick Allen

[Steff]

[Yossarian]

haha, you give me your "numbers" but yet you have no experiance with this what so ever..

 

You sit there and tell me "good luck in life" like im pulling s*** out of my ass or im like some 15 year old who is clueless..

 

I have friends that have used steroids, I have used illegal substances and if you abuse it you will get in trouble.. but like I said.. if you have never taken it you dont know what your talking about, simply put

 

you can show me all the anti steroid articles you want, doesnt mean I dont know what Im talking about

In other words don't confuse you with the truth. None of us are doctors here (to my knowledge), and you won't accept the links other posters have offered to you. Why not just consult a physician who has experience in this regard and then call that doctor a liar when he or she tells you what you don't want to hear. Really, you sound childish and foolish.