link Film injects a twist into steroid issue By JEROME SOLOMON Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle CHRIS Bell's girlfriend of some seven years warned him that if he attempted to enhance the guy he is by injecting steroids into his body, she would leave him. How odd, he thought, considering she has undergone a surgical procedure to enhance certain parts of her body. "It's all a matter of what people deem acceptable," said Bell, writer and director of the film Bigger, Stronger, Faster. Steroids, one of the longest four-letter words in our language, are deemed unacceptable in polite society. Hence, here in America, artificially augmented breasts good; unnaturally augmented muscles bad. Some fair questions Why is that? Perhaps it is time to elevate the steroid debate from "Who did what?" to "What is what?" and "What makes what so bad?" In his superb documentary, which opened in Houston last weekend, Bell asks these questions and hopes you leave the theater asking many more. Why does the Air Force openly give amphetamines to fighter pilots to help them stay alert, while Major League Baseball suspends players for use of same? How can Tiger Woods have Lasik surgery to give him better than perfect vision and be celebrated, while the NFL suspends Patriots safety Rodney Harrison for taking human growth hormone to aid his recovery from career-threatening surgery? Why is disgraced Tour de France winner Floyd Landis labeled a cheater for having unusually high testosterone levels, yet his sleeping in an altitude chamber to produce a high count of red blood cells is not considered cheating? Double standard lurks "If you have rules in sports, players should abide by the rules. But you have to ask why these rules apply in some areas of American life and not others — in some sports and not others," Bell said in a phone interview. If you live in America, where big is bad, and winning is everything for some and the only thing for others, there is an inherent conflict between being the best and doing the right thing. Steroids are the wrong thing. Or so we've been told. That message has been driven home so strongly that when it comes to steroids, we seem to punish athletes even if rules don't or didn't exist. Forget the slew of embarrassing information (some true, some not) that has found its way onto the sports and gossip pages; the biggest hit to Roger Clemens' reputation was his being linked to steroids in the Mitchell Report. To many, he will always be a cheat. Barry Bonds is arrogant and self-centered. But were he not deemed a cheater, his arrogant, self-centered behind would be on a major league roster. Supersized G.I. Joe Our demonization of steroid use is seriously challenged, however, by our desire to reward victory in sports and our lustful worship of the body beautiful. One humorous yet stunning part of the film is a comparison of the original G.I. Joe action figure to his modern counterpart. Guess which one looks like it is on steroids? Bell says his documentary wasn't made to make a grand statement or moral judgment about steroid users and abusers. Or about those who have fueled the paranoia that dominates the discussion of steroids these days. He just wanted to present information that many have never heard before, to give us something to think about, and his film delivers. It's funny, informative and emotionally touching, and whatever your opinion is of steroids, you will leave the theater with something else to ponder. "Let's just re-examine the issue," Bell said. This isn't as much a film review as it is a recommendation. If you have children who are involved in sports, you need to see this film. If you have children who don't play sports but like wrestling and action films and admire muscles, you really need to see this film. You might be surprised to learn that, according to the film, 85 percent of this country's steroid users are not athletes, but gym rats, guys who want to walk around "flexing." Your sons could easily view the world as Bell's two brothers, who are currently using steroids. Bell was on steroids for a time, too, though much like Andy Pettitte's claim about human growth hormone, he didn't feel right using them. "I tried steroids, but I felt so guilty I had to stop," Bell said. Americana? Of course, Bell's heroes as a youngster — Hulk Hogan, Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger — all have admitted to or been implicated in the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Those drugs served them well. When Bell learned of his idols' failings, he realized the America he grew up in wasn't quite what he thought it was. Sen. Joe Biden says steroids are un-American. Perhaps Greg Valentino, an engaging character who sports a pair of deformed, somewhat disgusting looking 27-inch biceps, was closer to the truth when he said in the film that steroids are "as American as apple pie." Bell says he and his steroid-using brothers are all-Americans. "For me and my brothers, steroids are not the problem," he said. "They're just another side effect of being American."
Sorry, when I glanced at the thread title, my tired old eyes though it said 'Why are Asteroids so bad?' And I was all ready to come in and say 'Because they could destroy all life on Earth if one hits us.' Steroids are not as bad as that though. Doctors prescribe them for people all the time, so they can't be that bad. Just like anything else, abusing something leads to trouble. It's probably just the overhype and the stigma of 'cheating' it carries with it. Usually, if the media is in hysterics about something, you can bet that it is not actually anything to really worry about.
Other than the fact that steroids are really terrible for one's health, they are also addictive. Finally, you have teenagers using them now, and they are especially bad for teens healthwise. The idea of putting one's health at risk for athletic glory is pretty disturbing and it's a great thing the NFL and MLB are moving against their use. putting yourself in a low oxygen tank to build up red blood cells is one thing - it's not going to damage your joints and cause mental illness.
Mainly, because of kids and teenagers. And the message that it sends if people use in athletics, because I guess people look as cheating or giving you advantage in way. To me, steroids shouldn't be illegal. Nobody should going to jail over them, especially, since they aren't as dangerous as advertised. It's overhyped, like weed. Really not dangerous, mostly fervor from lobbyists.
Steroids in sports and steroids for personal use are two different issues. I agree with the stand to ban in sports for the sake of a level playing field. If a real advantage can be had by taking steroids, then all athletes would have to take them in order to compete. And, given the health impacts, I wouldn't want sports to create a situation where athletes must jeopardize their health to participate (ignoring for a moment all the other jeopardies athletes already face from traumatic or repetitive injuries, stunting growth, etc.). As for personal use, steroids are still a pharmaceutical with a possible negative impact. If a doctor can prescribe it in good conscience, fine.
Bigger, Strong and Faster is a great film. Went in there with low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised. It's educational on the steroid issue, but is also funny, thoughtful and even a little moving towards the end. I'm not sure how I view steroids anymore. I think the two main reasons people oppose them are because of health reasons and athletic integrity. For both reasons it seems arbitrary that steroids are singled out. The health risks of steroids are largely overblown. The film interviewed a few doctors who state that the negative side effects of steroids are generally unknown. There just hasn't been any long term testing of the drug. But a lot of the dangers of steroids seem to be almost urban legend. There is nothing that links Lyle Alzado's cancer to steroids. The Arnold Schwareneggers and Barry Bonds of the world aren't dropping dead after years of steroid use. Like any drug, it's benefits and dangers are related more to it's use than the drug itself. It's been used medically for decades and for some sick patients it's a wonder drug. I wouldn't want my teenage son or daughter taking steroids, but I wouldn't want them putting on 100s of lbs to play the offensive line either. I wouldn't want them taking cortisone shots to play in tomorrow's game. I wouldn't want them getting surgery for athletic enhancement. There are a lot of things in our society that are dangerous for children, but that we allow adults to do. Not all steroids are banned by professional sports. Cortisone steroids are allowed by just about every major sports organization. Cortisone steroids are used by athletes for performance enhancement. They also have known health risks that are much more serious than anabolic steroids' health risks. Why is one type of steroid banned while the other is not? And if you support the ban on steroids for health reasons how can you justify supporting a sport like football? The health risks of playing football at a high level have to be much greater than taking anabolic steroids (especially if you are taking them under a doctor supervision). The average life span of a nfl player is 50 something years old. The sport, especially for lineman, literally takes years off their lives. It also influences and promotes unhealthy habits in children. How many Texas high school players weight 250+ lbs in an attempt to play at a high level. Weighing that much at a young age (or any age) is incredibility dangerous. So if it's solely health reasons (or negatively influencing children), where is the movement to ban 300lb linemen in the NFL? Hell if that's the rationale, where is the movement to ban alcohol for adults? If you oppose steroids for health reasons would you stance change if it were allowed for adults under a doctor supervision? If a medical expert gave her okay for that adult player to take it? Ignoring health reasons, I think there is even less of an argument for banning them on competitive integrity grounds. Like the film states, taking EPO and sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber provide the same benefit. Ignoring health reasons, why would one be allowed and the other not. Ignoring health reasons, why would getting lasik surgery to get superhuman vision be allowed?
If you believe some people in sports, drug use is already rampant. In some sports like cycling, weight lifting, or track and field, you basically already have to use PED to compete. And if it is already going on, wouldn't it be safer and healthier for an athlete to be able to go to a doctor to take them rather than have to get shot up in a stall by Jose Canseco?
Instead of letting people risk their health further, why not just bring credible oversight to reduce the rampant use? I'm sure there are any number of athletes that would rather be clean but feel compelled to use steroids to be able to compete. They'd be happy to go clean -- but only if a credible oversight could compel others to be clean as well. You're right there are inconsistencies in what is allowed and what is not. But I don't see that as a reason to drop regulation either. They can also reconcile inconsistency by regulating more things.
I'm sure that's true and that may be ideal, but is credible oversight even possible? From what I understand testing is (always will be?) far behind the drugs. If that's the case and credible oversight is not possible, then by banning the drugs doesn't it create a more dangerous black market situation where athletes take these drugs without medical supervision?
Totally agree. If you allow steroirds in sports, then it becomes about who can find the best drug regimen, rather than who is the most skilled and hardest working.
Well, you were arguing earlier that they are not that dangerous. I'm not sure that the danger is much different whether it is supervised (or really "advised" since the doctor isn't literally watching) or not. But, if it is dangerous, you may still eliminate more problems than you cause with regulation. Some individuals may take on higher risk with illegal drugs. But, that'd be offset by the reduction in risk taken by others who don't do drugs at all because (1) it's harder to get, (2) it's stigmatized, (3) there's a danger of being caught, (4) there is some small confidence that you can compete without them, and (5) the small incremental benefit derived for competition is lower than the cost in risk of using drugs.
I was arguing that the side effects of steroids are largely overblown, not that anabolic steroid use is completely safe. Like the saying goes: there are no good drugs, only good and bad relationships with a drug. As with any drug I'd imagine that both obtaining the drug from a reputable source and having a doctor prescribe and advise in the drug use would be safer. To what degree, I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to say. I see what your saying about regulation. I'm just not convinced that it will have much of an effect on drug use at the highest levels. Especially considering that careers, lives and millions of dollars are on the line for many of these athletes.
Anabolic steroids should not be regarded as safe and there are many side effects of long term use that are known. If the movie even mentions the use of corticosteroids and anabolic steroids in the same breath, then I would be very skeptical of the validity.
It's a really great movie and the director handles the material in a very even-handed way. It's more than a steroid doc, it's also about american culture and a very moving family portrait. It's really one of the best documentaries I've seen in awhile. You should check it out. As for coricosteroids vs. anabolic steroids, as I stated earlier, the movie uses the comparison only to point out the inconsistence of our view of anabolic steroids. It states that Cortisone shots are used by athletes at times for performance enhancing effects. As are anabolic steroids. Both have documented negative health side effects. Is there anything left out that makes this comparison invalid?
