Musburger: Steroids misunderstood by media

[HanSenSE]

Or, we're looking live at someone trying to cling to relevancy ... epic fail!

Right, Herbie?

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_ff977c10-d101-11df-92b3-001cc4c03286.html

 

[TrooperBari]

"Let's go find out. What do the doctors actually think about anabolic steroids and the use by athletes? Don't have a preconceived notion that this is right or this is wrong."

The rules of the game ban steroid use, no? That would seem to make it fairly "wrong" in a sporting sense, regardless of what the doctors or journalists think.

If a league doesn't think steroid use is wrong, then let it change its rules.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

How about we let the federal government dictate those rules, too?

 

[Boom_70]

They might be. It's such a polarizing issue that you can never really have the other side of the discussion. There are medical benefits to both steroids and HGH that needs further investigation.

Today you have a better chance of having a discussion about race that steroids.

 

[cranberry]

I've been saying since the beginning of the so-called "scandal" there will be a day when drug-testing is more about ensuring players stay within specific (safe) ranges of substances. The media, in a general sense, has been absolutely horrible on this topic. First, missing it altogether, then the silly mea culpas, then going overboard as if that somehow makes up for missing it in the first place. It comes down to the fact that moralizing (Steroids are bad! They use needles!) is easier than doing research and understanding fairly complex issues.

 

[YankeeFan]

Today you have a better chance of having a discussion about race than steroids.

That's a great line.

 

[Boom_70]

How about we let the federal government dictate those rules, too?

The federal gov't says that Steroids are not illegal. They have limited but legitimate medical uses.

 

[93Devil]

The game says no, then no.

I'm sure some pitchers could pitch and smoke at the same time as well or smoke in the dugout. It is legal, but the game says no.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

They might be. It's such a polarizing issue that you can never really have the other side of the discussion. There are medical benefits to both steroids and HGH that needs further investigation.

Today you have a better chance of having a discussion about race that steroids.

If I'm not mistaken, there has yet to be any medical proof of negative effects of using HGH. Granted, we could find out in a couple years that those who used it will have big issues, but we don't know that yet.

 

[RickStain]

Of course they shouldn't break the rules. But should the rules be examined? Why are PEDs against the rules in the first place?

If it's to protect athletes from the health effects, then we are reaching the point where that may not be necessary soon.

 

[RickStain]

They might be. It's such a polarizing issue that you can never really have the other side of the discussion. There are medical benefits to both steroids and HGH that needs further investigation.

Today you have a better chance of having a discussion about race that steroids.

If I'm not mistaken, there has yet to be any medical proof of negative effects of using HGH. Granted, we could find out in a couple years that those who used it will have big issues, but we don't know that yet.

There's a very convincing argument to be made that there's no medical proof of positive effects from HGH for athletes, either.

 

[cranberry]

They might be. It's such a polarizing issue that you can never really have the other side of the discussion. There are medical benefits to both steroids and HGH that needs further investigation.

Today you have a better chance of having a discussion about race that steroids.

If I'm not mistaken, there has yet to be any medical proof of negative effects of using HGH. Granted, we could find out in a couple years that those who used it will have big issues, but we don't know that yet.

There's a very convincing argument to be made that there's no medical proof of positive effects from HGH for athletes, either.

Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of wealthy middle-aged men swear by the stuff.

 

[RickStain]

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

 

[Point of Order]

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

 

[Azrael]

How about we let the federal government dictate those rules, too?

The federal gov't says that Steroids are not illegal. They have limited but legitimate medical uses.

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

 

[cranberry]

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

No need to get defensive, son.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

They might be. It's such a polarizing issue that you can never really have the other side of the discussion. There are medical benefits to both steroids and HGH that needs further investigation.

Today you have a better chance of having a discussion about race that steroids.

If I'm not mistaken, there has yet to be any medical proof of negative effects of using HGH. Granted, we could find out in a couple years that those who used it will have big issues, but we don't know that yet.

There's a very convincing argument to be made that there's no medical proof of positive effects from HGH for athletes, either.

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

 

[Twoback]

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?

 

[cranberry]

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.

 

[LongTimeListener]

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?

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 **** 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.