Drugs in sport

[lhprop1]

Yesterday, I received this PM from a board member:

I've searched a bit on the internet for the answer to this question but have not found anything too substantial. I know you are knowledgeable about aspects of athletic training and athletics so I thought you could point me in the right direction.

I am taking a class that analyzes various aspects of sports from the perspective of economic theory. One of the things we are talking about is cheating in sports, more specifically the use performance enhancing drugs. My question is, how easy is it to evade these tests? Roughly 2.5-3% of tests turn up positive across all sports but I am not sure how representative that number is of actual steroid users in pro sports. If the tests are easy to evade or not truly random then the number would obviously be higher than that. This information would be relevant to looking at potential utility from cheating. If you have free time I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

My response:

Personally, I've never had to take a test for steroids, so anything I tell you is more anecdotal. I've also never used them, so I don't have a risk/reward perspective to speak from in regards to getting caught.

What I can tell you is that the drug is always one step ahead of the test because you can't test for something that doesn't exist yet. It is kind of a cat and mouse game, but not as much of one as it might sound, though. There isn't a mad scientist in a hidden lab constantly working on the newest steroid and there isn't any Inspector Gadget constantly tracking him.

There are certain steroids, namely the orals, which have a very short detectible time in the body. Other ones have longer lives. Each has a different function. If an athlete is not subject to year round random testing, that is, if the testing is random, yet somewhat predictable, the user can time their cycles so that they will be clean when the tests are expected to be administered. It is often said that those who get busted were careless with their timing.

As far as masking agents, I don't know if there are any.

Other things, such as hGH (somatotropin) don't have a reliable test as of yet. However, just because it's naturally occuring in the body doesn't mean there aren't harmful, and even life-threatening side effects.

I'm feeling a bit poor about my response, though. I know I covered some of the basics, but I also know that I'm missing a lot and it would be healthy to expand on this.

Continue this discussion. DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT weigh in if you can't speak intelligently on the matter. If you want to express an educated opinion that addresses some of the points in the question, that's fine. Do not turn this into a debate about who does or doesn't use drugs. Approach this as an academic discussion.

[TheDog]

There are certain steroids, namely the orals, which have a very short detectible time in the body.

Not to derail, but aren't oral steroids pretty much worthless? I've heard from more then one source that the only way to truly benefit from steroids is to inject them.

[lhprop1]

Not to derail, but aren't oral steroids pretty much worthless? I've heard from more then one source that the only way to truly benefit from steroids is to inject them.

Arnold's bread and butter was Dianabol, an oral. It works, but it completely ravages your liver, but that's part of the reason it's out of your system so quick.

[TheDog]

Arnold's bread and butter was Dianabol, an oral. It works, but it completely ravages your liver, but that's part of the reason it's out of your system so quick.

No shit. Gary Sheffield is a huge liar then, although I actually believed him because I've heard from other (wrong) sources that oral roids don't work. In an interview with Bob Costas:

Costas: Were you not given a pill by *so and so coach*

Sheffield: Oral steroids don't do nutin, you got to inject.

[geigs]

I am waiting with some interest for the day when steroids and hormones become antiquated technology.

Pretty soon (if not already) people will have synthetic analogues of molecules that directly effect genes involved in muscle biosynthesis. Inhibitors of genes that prevent muscle growth, or direct stimulators of genes that turn on muscle growth are likely going to be here pretty soon. I know of an inhibitor of Myostatin (a gene that inhibits skeletal muscle growth) that when given to mice results in some huge increases in muscle mass. I have heard from some bodybuilder friends of mine that within days of him publishing this study, he had hundreds of guys emailing him wanting the drug, and, if it isnt bullshit, one dude actually got it and packed on some mad muscle.

Here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16330774&ordinalpos=20&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) is the link, with the relevant text:

Here we describe a potent myostatin inhibitor, a soluble form of the activin type IIB receptor (ACVR2B), which can cause dramatic increases in muscle mass (up to 60% in 2 weeks) when injected into wild-type mice.

A 60% INCREASE IN MUSCLE MASS, IN 2 FUCKING WEEKS.

The time of non-specific steroids is likely almost over.

[Rutabega]

Other things, such as hGH (somatotropin) don't have a reliable test as of yet. However, just because it's naturally occuring in the body doesn't mean there aren't harmful, and even life-threatening side effects.
[/b]

I am going to throw another question into the mix, but what do you think of the way Cycling reacts to their tests? They seem to flag way more body chemistry changes than every other sport. Do people feel that is fair?

That seems like a really interesting economic model. While it does definitely deal with the same inherent risk aversion that any company would have vs doing something illegal, it also takes into account a much larger effect on health and reputation. At the same time the performance is so heavily tied into such a short period of time that any and all gains are so very important.

The MMA threads have been having a nice discussion about the PRIDE fighters coming over and looking lack luster in some cases when coming from an athletic body that does not test to one that does. From an economic standpoint there really is no reason not to use steroids if you aren't going to get caught, as long as you know you will not have disastrous negative health side effects. Game theory would dictate that everyone is using in that case. But, in fighting there are definitely styles that may or may not be helped by steroids, and a myriad of other possible side effects (making weight, keeping maximum coordination while gaining strength, the theory that steroids don't help cardio) that need to be examined.

This discussion could practically be broken down for every single sport based on their testing procedures.

[yakbutter]

A 60% INCREASE IN MUSCLE MASS, IN 2 FUCKING WEEKS.

The time of non-specific steroids is likely almost over.

Wouldn't that type of gain lead to a lot of connective tissue injury? Seems if you got muscles that size that quickly that you'd flex your bicep and snap a ligament.

[PJR808]

Arnold's bread and butter was Dianabol, an oral. It works, but it completely ravages your liver, but that's part of the reason it's out of your system so quick.

D-bol, winstrol, certain other AAS's are classified as c-17aa. The relevant effect of a steroid being 17aa is that it can pass through your liver, and steroids like test, deca, etc... cannot. This is a highly simplistic approach to explaining the differences, but it answers the oral question. You can drink Winstrol, d-bol, anadrol etc... or take it in pill form and see some effects (although it is debatable how it compares to simply injecting it). Drinking test or deca will do nothing for you.

As far as causing mass liver damage, again, it's debatable. When taken properly, for no more than 6 weeks, liver damage doesn't seem to be a major problem. There is also some debate over whether or not an increase in certain liver values is equivalent to liver damage. The fact is, AAS's are certainly bad for you, but you won't find many studies on their long term effects at the levels at which they are taken by athletes because those levels far exceed anything that would be prescribed by a doctor under any circumstances.

[T-Bone]

There are certain steroids, namely the orals, which have a very short detectible time in the body. Other ones have longer lives. Each has a different function. If an athlete is not subject to year round random testing, that is, if the testing is random, yet somewhat predictable, the user can time their cycles so that they will be clean when the tests are expected to be administered. It is often said that those who get busted were careless with their timing.


This is the greatest area of MSM mis-understanding about steroids and human physiology. If you continue to work at the elevated levels (poundage, intensity, etc) after you have gained the muscle mass, you can maintain some/all of the gains. The body should have adapted to the new stresses and produced tissue capable of handling the load. You may not be able to progress further without another cycle, but you should maintain.

Thus you can be a chemically-enhanced athlete with clean piss/blood if you cycle around the testing windows.

Not to derail, but aren't oral steroids pretty much worthless? I've heard from more then one source that the only way to truly benefit from steroids is to inject them.

Absolutely untrue. "Truly benefit" is a vague statement. I'm sure lots of people notice benefit from Winny tabs, they're a huge seller for a reason. Gain are much harder to maintain, and as mentioned these are liver killers. Rule of thumb: If you can't spell 17-alpha-alkylation, you shouldn't be anywhere near an anabolic. Overall I believe they're a much more transient and less-potent option, but of course they have an effect.


Wouldn't that type of gain lead to a lot of connective tissue injury? Seems if you got muscles that size that quickly that you'd flex your bicep and snap a ligament.

Yes.

[geigs]

Wouldn't that type of gain lead to a lot of connective tissue injury? Seems if you got muscles that size that quickly that you'd flex your bicep and snap a ligament.

As T-bone says, yeah. But used properly, at a far lower dose over a longer period I see the effect being similar to that of steroids, ie., you get the muscle growth over a period of time, with no toxicity.

Whether you can actually control the rate of muscle synthesis is the million dollar question. Repressing myostatin enough that you get an effect without it being over the top will be the hard part.

[Doormat]

My latest research foray has been into the world of oral steroids and the dangers and effects that come with a cycle. I've had to use steroids (prescribed) for a little while because my huge fat loss completely killed my testosterone levels. The number one key to how toxic an oral steroid is, is whether or not it is methylated. If the steroid is methylated, that's some heavy fucking artillery barrages against your liver. Non-methylated steroids have lower toxicity, which can usually be suppressed with pro-liver supplements like stinging nettle root, milk thistle, and various other fun stuff.

Also, the tradition cycle of steroids is being ditched in favor of "pulsing", which usually entails an on/off cycle intraweekly. For example, rather than using the steroid every day for 4 weeks, pulsing would be something like 3 days on 4 days off for 8 weeks, with your peak doseages between weeks 2 and 7. Some clinical studies have shown this to be less toxic than straight cycling, and the peak muscle mass gain is usually higher (at the cost of a little extra time).

Whether you use steroids or not, there is 1 think every user must understand. YOU MUST TAKE THE PROPER SUPPLEMENTATION WITH THE STEROIDS. You need a cycle support during the cycle and liver protection. You need a SERM, an AI, and some kind of test booster (tribulus or some such thing) for your post-cycle. You must taper the SERM. If you don't do this, kiss your liver and your natural hormone levels good fucking bye.

[Uncouth]

A 60% INCREASE IN MUSCLE MASS, IN 2 FUCKING WEEKS.

The time of non-specific steroids is likely almost over.

I can think of a few freaky side effects other than the fact that your connective tissues would lag. If EVERY MUSCLE in your body grew 60%, that would include the muscles in your face, hands, abs, etc. Not just the ones you'd want to grow.

Think if the muscles in your face were suddenly 60% larger. Yeah, it'd be kind of hard to hide that.

Not saying they couldn't get around it, just kind of a funny thought.

Also, it would be interesting to see if steroids offered athletes advantages above and beyond the muscle mass. Some have said that the increased aggression and energy are useful in contact sports.

[Uncouth]

The number one key to how toxic an oral steroid is, is whether or not it is methylated.

Anavar, aka Oxandrolone, is supposed to be very mild on the liver. Also, it doesn't aromatize into estrogen from what I've been told. On the downside it's not immensely powerful and quite expensive.

[geigs]

I can think of a few freaky side effects other than the fact that your connective tissues would lag. If EVERY MUSCLE in your body grew 60%, that would include the muscles in your face, hands, abs, etc. Not just the ones you'd want to grow.

Think if the muscles in your face were suddenly 60% larger. Yeah, it'd be kind of hard to hide that.

Not saying they couldn't get around it, just kind of a funny thought.


I think that myostatin is specifically expressed in the larger skeletal musculature thus the effects should be restricted to these muscles. Different muscles have different transcriptional control; heart muscle for example is completely different from striated skeletal muscle.

[ebm]

This is definitely a much more in depth discussion than I would have ever had with that professor. He pretty much just took the 2.5% number at face value and left it at that. It just seems that with such a massive incentive to do them, combined with in many sports relatively light punishments for first time offenders, if there is any way to game the system then the actual number of users would be much higher.

On another note, has anyone seen the Real Sports episode that deals with steroids?

[CDx]

This is definitely a much more in depth discussion than I would have ever had with that professor. He pretty much just took the 2.5% number at face value and left it at that. It just seems that with such a massive incentive to do them, combined with in many sports relatively light punishments for first time offenders, if there is any way to game the system then the actual number of users would be much higher.

On another note, has anyone seen the Real Sports episode that deals with steroids?

In college football, at least in the late 90's, there was no drug testing during the summer.

I've seen the Real Sports episode and thought it was objective and well done.

[ebm]

In college football, at least in the late 90's, there was no drug testing during the summer.

I've seen the Real Sports episode and thought it was objective and well done.

From the reading I've done it looks like few leagues test during the off season. If this is true, from a utility perspective it would imply that steroid use is rampant given that 2.5-3% of tests turn up positive in season, assuming that steroid use in the off season would confer close to similar benefits.