1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

HGH different from steroids

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by jakewriter82, Mar 26, 2007.

  1. jakewriter82

    jakewriter82 Active Member

    My apologies if this is a D_B...but I read an interesting article on Slate about how human growth hormone isn't as dangerous a drug that reporters have claimed it to be.
    It says in the story,
    "In the sports version of the war on drugs, Bonds was shooting heroin while Hairston was smoking marijuana."
    Referring to Bonds' steroid use and Hairston's HGH use.

    If it doesn't do anything why is it a banned substance? And then why are so many athletes using it?
    How much does anyone know about it's longterm harm?

    Should reporters not make as big a deal over HGH compared to steroids?
  2. LiveStrong

    LiveStrong Active Member

    paging DocTalk...
  3. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    Yes, they should make a big deal, because those that do it are enhancing thier bodies to gain an unfair advantage over those who don't.

    It doesn't matter what you're taking, whether it's good or bad for you. It's against the spirit of sport if it gives you an advantage you wouldn't ordinarily have.
  4. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    The thing is, if it's the same Slate article that was in the Post yesterday, this guy says that HGH doesn't appear to give anyone an advantage.
  5. Balls.
    Without the "health of the athlete" fig-leaf, the use of HGH is no more or less moral or immoral than the use of any particularly sophisticated training method. Any painkilling injection "gives you an advantage you wouldn't ordinarily have."
  6. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    But hasn't HGH been shown to allow athletes to build their bodies bigger and in faster time? Or is the term growth a misnomer in the name of the drug?

    Either way, I've yet to hear of a painkiller that enhances performance, only one that allows you to play at diminished performance.
  7. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    His argument was that it did that for men who were more in their 50's and 60's. But that athletes in their primes don't have nearly the same depletions at their ages, and thus don't get as many benefits as someone older would get.
  8. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    They may not get as many, but they still get benefits from it's use. And it could be argued that a player towards the end of his or her career may benefit just as much as older regular people since the wear and tear on an athletes body is hardly comparable with that of a normal working man or woman.
  9. So it's immoral to take a perfectly safe drug to make a performance better, but moral to take a marginally dangerous one to make that performance possible?
    "Incoherent" only begins to describe it.
  10. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    I'm not saying using painkillers is right, but it is legal. I've yet to see a painkiller that enhances performance.

    Or should we just make it all legal and see what happens?
  11. Beef03

    Beef03 Active Member

    What mariginally dangerous one are you referring to?
    Regardless of how safe it is for you, it should be banned. It sets a horrible precident if they allow. It's a slippery slope. Suddenly more and more high school atheltes feel they need it to compete, and who really knows the long term effects of HGH. For some reason I have a feeling it can't be all that good for the heart – I'm not a doctor (hell I barely graduated high school) but increased muscle mass to me means the heart has to work harder to distribute blood. I'm sure there are other banned substances on WADA's list that really aren't that harful to you.
  12. Really?
    You think Kirk Gibson hits that home run against the Dodgers without a syringe full of painkiller? Repeated use of corticosteroids has been shown to cause severe clotting problems. Hence, marginally dangerous.
    "Regardless of how safe it is for you, it should be banned."
    Please explain that one more fully -- especially since you dive right into "what if it;s NOT safe for you?' and, gawd, "what about the children?" right after making what, to me, is an indefensible assertion.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page