Musburger: Steroids misunderstood by media

True. But from a purely scientific standpoint, we don't know if that's the placebo effect or not.

 

Brent lost me with "the journalism youngsters" in the second graf.

 

Like any Schedule II or III controlled substance, they're illegal without a prescription.

 

No need to get defensive, son.

 

You should see the linebacker I used to cover who told me he was taking it.

 

A prominent physician in the GQ article about concussion syndrome suggested that there might be more of a link to steroid use than concussion issues to some of the more prominent meltdowns by former NFL players.
And that position was shouted down and dismissed by those who've gotten behind the concussion issue.
Is there a steroids link? Who knows? But nobody even wants to consider it because they've invested in another position.
How can the media be expected to have a rational, reasoned position on steroids when even the scientists don't want to bother with it?

 

Good medical journalists should be able to sort out which physicians/scientists support their theories with solid research from those who don't. They should be able to tell us which physicians/scientists have conflicted interests and which are being objective.

Of course all of that would require actual work when it's easier to just say there's two sides to a story and I'm not smart or energetic enough to dig deeper and discern the facts. It's much simpler to go get a quote from a Gary Wadler or some other publicity hound and ignore that he has a vested interest in the way the story plays out.

 

I asked a similar question to a scientist one time and he gave me a great explanation: It's not that scientists don't want to touch it, it's that they can't, at least not in a way that would make for a scientifically enlightened study. Once they go to the review board and say "my hypothesis is that steroids really really fuck you up, and to prove that I want to load up a bunch of people under a controlled environment for 30 years," it's impossible under ethics guidelines to allow and fund research with that expected outcome of hurting subjects. So the whole "there's no proof that steroids do anything" is always going to be a useful excuse because it can't really be disproved.

 

Sure, if you propose a stupid hypothesis with a potentially harmful study it's not going to get funded. But what if the hypothesis changes to:

Steroids really really fuck you up can be beneficial at low dosage (therapeutic index levels), and to prove that I want to load up provide low dosages to a bunch of people under a controlled environment for 30 years.

 

A few years ago, I was covering a NFL team and a first-round pick who had had a solid, but unspectacular career to that point was entering his contract year. He was always in good shape, but he showed up looking like he'd packed on 20 pounds of muscle. He had been battling an injury suffered the previous season, so we hadn't seen him since December.

I said, "So what are you weighing these days?"
He said, "What does it say on the roster?"
I said, "It's the same you were listed at last year and you're clearly a lot bigger than you were last year."

He told me off the record that he was 20 pounds heavier. I said very sarcastically, "Been hitting the weights?" and he laughed and said, "Among other things, but nothing that will get me suspended."

He told me later that he had been taking HGH for six months. He had his best season and got an eight-figure signing bonus before the season was done.

 

He just happened to tell you later on that he was taking HGH? Very believable, I would love to read the story you wrote on this superstar NFL player who admitted to using HGH. I guess I'll just hit the google.

 

Biggest steroid abuser of all time?



From Wikipedia:

If THAT'S not what steroids are all about, I don't know what is!