Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Why is HGH Cheating?

  1. #1
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    5,662
    Blog Entries
    11

    Why is HGH Cheating?

    As I post in FP, I sometimes do more research and change or modify my opinions. As I dig more on HGH I come to the basic conclusion. As best as I can tell, HGH doesn't give a NFL athlete any enhancement. This has been slightly tested at Stanford and elsewhere and I can't find any significant enhancement of a anyone already in pretty good shape.

    It may allow quicker recovery for injuries, though. This is the street wisdom that I hear anecdotally for several years. I see very few studies. A couple on animal injuries with positive results. One in spain on achilles tendon injuries. That's about it.

    Assume it actually does speed tissue and tendon injury recovery.

    Exactly why is that cheating?

  2. #2
    Substances aren't banned because of their positive effects, it's because of the negative ones. I don't know anything about the effects of HGH but I would assume it has negative consequences.

  3. #3
    Then why is deer antler spray banned? There are supposedly no negative side effects since it's made naturally.

    Or is the negative effect that everyone despises you for using it?
    If you ask me how I want to be remembered, it is as a winner. You know what a winner is? A winner is somebody who has given his best effort, who has tried the hardest they possibly can, who has utilized every ounce of energy and strength within them to accomplish something. It doesn't mean that they accomplished it or failed, it means that they've given it their best. That's a winner.”
    ― Walter Payton

  4. #4
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    5,662
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Freeland View Post
    Substances aren't banned because of their positive effects, it's because of the negative ones. I don't know anything about the effects of HGH but I would assume it has negative consequences.

    Andy, I don't think that is right.

    I conjecture that the reason a substance is banned is that:

    a) The enhancement is positive enough to be attractive to many, but the negative side effects are large enough, statistically and in severity, that the players/league, as a group, want to take away the temptation or the burden of keeping up. (anabolic steroids).

    b) Bad pr for the league (marijuana et al).

    Although in this PED debate, I would love to see this explicitly stated and possibly debated.

    ====================

    I assume HGH is under a).

    I have checked various studies and although HGH (and I am actually talking about rHGH, the synthetically created HGH first made by Genentech) is a normal powerful drug that has actual powerful effects and side effects, it doesn't seem that HGH has a lot of high stat/high damage side effects in young males.

    It gets even more interesting when contrasted with Toradol, which is administered on the sidelines.


    I will put up some studies on side effects of HGH.

  5. #5
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    5,662
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Docta View Post
    Then why is deer antler spray banned? There are supposedly no negative side effects since it's made naturally.

    Or is the negative effect that everyone despises you for using it?
    1) Let me crush an old wive's tale right now. Natural DOES not mean safe. See botulism, et al. Natural means "occuring in nature". You farm natural things, like rattlesnakes.


    2) Synthetic (the opposite of natural) DOESNT mean harmful. See PlayDoh. You MAKE synthetic things, in a factory, like Crayolas.


    Synthetic things, like Lionel trains, are made with elements found in nature. Like Iron (Fe).

    Natural things, like Tomatoes, are made with elements found in nature. Like Uranium.


    The basis for this is that if man has been exposed to (or eats) a natural product, he probably has done so for several generations. If that product was going to cause us to grow a second head, in a statistically significant number, we probably would have noticed it by now. Whereas we might be the first generation or two to consume a Synthetic molecule (like the Cheetos molecule) and thus its a crap-shoot.

    So "Natural" DOESN"T mean safe. I will take my chances with Cheetos over Scorpions all day long.


    ==========
    1) Antler Spray ISN'T banned. Human IGF-1 is banned (again....why???). It is rumored by the noted BioChemists of Sports Illustrated that New Zealand Antler Spray has deer IGF-1, which SI.com theorizes to be "sorta like" (to use the technical jargon) human IGF-1. The fact that the Human IGF-1 molecule is the size of a Buick, and cannot be absorbed into a normal human (or even Ray Lewis) by sub-lingual methods, is of course so obvious as to not be worth the mention.

    As to why human IGF-1 is banned in NFL players, I think you have hit upon a the crux of the matter. The list of banned substances should be set, and reviewed, by a panel of ex-NFL Players who also have PhDs in BioChemistry or PharmaKenetics. Who else could decide the issues of benefit/risk for the larger NFLPA population. I believe Mr. Lewis, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Sherman have advanced degrees in Molecular Biology. They need to step up and help out. {}

  6. #6
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    5,662
    Blog Entries
    11
    One study on HGH safety.
    http://healthpolicy.stanford.edu/pub...althy_elderly/

    Note that most of the significant risks are for existing conditions that can be present in elderly, but are absent in NFL.

    There are other studies on younger males.

    Remember this is deemed SAFE enough to give to children whose only problem is that they are 2.25 standard deviations too short. (Which is a SIGNIFICANT problem, but not life threatening).

  7. #7
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    5,662
    Blog Entries
    11
    I think we are coming to the conclusion that items are on the NFL BANNED list without hardly ANY test data. They are put on the list in secret, and without peer review, and without Player input.

    If the players want a clean, level playing field, then THEY need to define dirt. And justify their definitions to the Fans.

    For some reason, it seems that the League is making the list, keeping it secret, and justifying it to no one.

  8. #8
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    5,662
    Blog Entries
    11
    Here is the list of NFL Banned Substances.

    I do not have a date for it.

    http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaRe...nce%20List.pdf

    I especially love the "...and related substances" clause.

  9. #9
    D, I think the fact of the matter is, you have to make a cutoff somewhere for whats acceptable to inject into yourself. All sports have some sort of performance cap and it's not limited to just steroids but ANY performance enhancing substance/material to a point. Just take a look at a NASCAR race. Cars cant exceed a certain horsepower, at the big 2.5 mile tracks cars have restrictor plates so that the cars all stay in a pack together, etc. It's not that letting them go 10 MPH more is harmful, it's that there needs to be some sort of constraint for the whole idea of parity. NASCAR itself is already pretty boring with Jimmie Johnson, Tony Stewart, Jeff Gordon, Dale Jr., Carl Edwards, Kyle Busch, etc., winning all the races. Imagine if one or two of those teams were able to beef up their motors even more? NASCAR would lose fans by the millions. That's why, even though HGH may not be harmful and may not be extremely beneficial, the NFL stepped in and said "holdddd on." The NFL wants at least the IMAGE of its players getting bigger, faster, and stronger by more natural methods. Weight lifting, plyometrics, cardio conditioning, dieting, etc. I can understand why the NFL (or any other sport organization) wouldn't want their players using deer antler extract. It has been shown that if abused, people may have an increase in aggression. Even so, there isn't even solid evidence that it works. Why, as a professional organization, would you allow your constituents to use a substance that may or may not work, may or may not cause aggression, etc. I think that allowed substances should be ones we actually understand completely, don't you?
    Part owner of the 13-time world champion Green Bay Packers

    1929-1930-1931-1936-1939-1944-1961-1962-1965-1966-1967-1996-2010

  10. #10
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    5,662
    Blog Entries
    11
    The NFL drug lists seem to be a NFL/NFLPA released doc that was in 2007 and again in 2010.

    I will post a copy soon

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •