A full blown steroid program replete with syringes, corrupt MDs and Mark McGwire-style results seems to have the same sanction as taking a supplement like "Endura Shred."
Frequency should also seems relevant. Somebody doing something for a year should - in my mind - be treated differently than someone who tries something for the first time due to recovering from an injury, for example.
I don't know the details of Grier's case, and it may be as bad as they come. We will never know.
But it seems that the reasons we banned steroids (the deleterious health effects and the pressure on others to accept those health risks or become non-competitive) don't really apply to SARMs.
True, a PED enhances performance by definition. So does an antibiotic by getting rid of an infection. So does Demerol, by letting a player play through pain. So do the weight room and the training table.
From looking at SARM double-blind studies, it seems pretty questionable that they actually enhance performance. Here is one on MK-0773:
"Both groups showed significant improvement from baseline at Month 6 in physical performance measures, but there were no statistically significant differences between participants receiving MK-0773 and placebo."
It seems an awfully thin line to me. If a PED is not harmful and its beneficial effects are questionable, why punish it with the same severity as steroids?
-Zeb
No comments:
Post a Comment