There Will Be Blood: The Broncos Face a New Future in Drug Testing

I highly doubt PEDs are going to go away. Perhaps it might be wise to use structured and supervised voluntary administration of things like hHG in high level athletics. Yes, I know, even my knee-jerk is to say “no”, but I have not heard a good debate on the topic. All I ever hear is “Steroids bad!”. From what I can tell, links between PED use and long term health problems are anecdotal, and in fact, steroids can have beneficial effects if used properly. A program of supervised use could have the some other benefits as well.

1. Supervised implementation could allow systematic data collection and analysis that could allow more definitive statements about risk and reward for PED use. Considering the likelihood that significant numbers of high level athletes are using anyway and in an unsupervised context you could argue that a supervised program would be in the interest of player safety.

2. An open program could undermine arguments that monitoring techniques like blood tests are invasive. If you are letting the medical staff stick you to inject, then how can you protest letting them stick you to monitor?

3. An open program could actually lead to decreased overall use. Imagine that you are the ILB that has to use PEDs to keep up with more “naturally” gifted athletes. If your use is known to teams, other players, and the public then it’s entirely possible that pressure will emerge for you to stop using and compete fairly. Basically a public program could allow the age old control mechanism of shame to enter into the equation.

4. It could level the playing field overall. Athletes would know who is using and how it is affecting their game allowing them to make more informed decisions about whether or not they want to participate in monitored programs.

5. Open use of PEDs could protect the historical integrity of the games by allowing the public to make informed evaluations about athletic accomplishment in both non-PED and PED eras in particular sports. It could also shed light on shadowed areas of PED usage in sports up until this time. For example, if monitored use of hGH became part of baseball and suddenly you had the same types of numbers as you had in the “steroid era” you would have empirical evidence on which to evaluate that period of baseball history.

6. It would remove the ability to cheat by using PEDs. The reason that PED use constitutes cheating is that some players use and gain a benefit against players that obey the rules. If PED use becomes open, monitored, and accounted for by the rules then it is no longer cheating. It would also allow a known and empirical base from which to notice outliers. If NFL performance is at a particular level in a monitored PED era then someone that suddenly appears to be above and beyond even other enhanced athletes would justifiably attract additional scrutiny for perhaps using an unapproved PED variant that could then be investigated and brought within the context of the rules.

For those of you who want to argue that PEDs undermine the purity of human competition based on what is naturally achievable by human bodies I would point out that humans are by nature technological animals. Like other areas of nature, our bodies have always been the subject of technological manipulation. In that sense, a technologically enhanced body is as natural as the body you were born with. In fact, it can easily be argued that in technologically advanced societies we are likely born with technologically enhanced bodies based on application of medical knowledge of proper nutrition and the use of technologically developed supplements and medications.

And finally, we clearly use technology to enhance athletic bodies already. We use advanced nutrition. We use technologically enhanced supplements. We use advanced surgical techniques to put bodies back together when they’ve been broken. Why do we draw the line at PEDs?

I don’t necessarily buy all the arguments I’ve made, but I would like it if we actually debated the issues rather than assume that the argument is not worth having.

Therapeutic doses for bone marrow growth, increased appetite, increased muscle mass, increasing (low) testosterone would be for medically specific reasons and generally smaller doses/limited time period.

Doses used solely to increase muscle mass are larger &/or more frequent. Severe side effects of hypertension, bad lipids, acne, baldness, liver damage, sex specific changes, rage and aggression are associated with larger doses.

The amount of steroids needed for an already fit athlete to markedly increase his muscle mass is in the second paragraph. Doses also have to be repeated to maintain the added muscle mass.

It probably is possible to medially supervise a cyclic steroid program that would avoid most of the serious side effects. It would be expensive and (imo) most users wouldn’t bother with the doctor part.

For these reasons I think steroids should continue to require a doctor’s Rx. If the NFL wishes to ban the use of certain drugs they need random blood testing done by an outside agency. I know, lots of smuggled steroids but putting them on the drugstore shelf isn’t the answer either.
 .

I have never actually posted a comment on here before but I felt I had to this time.

I am an English Broncos fan. I also support the Bradford Bulls rugby league team who Terry Newton (the above mentioned rugby player in the article) used to play for before he was found to have tested positive for HGH.

In his last season for the Bulls he was injured and missed the end of the season. Knowing he was not getting a new contract he took it upon himself to start taking HGH to help him get ready for the next season with Wakefield Wildcats.

The club clearly had no alternative but to sack Terry straight away.

Several months later Terry hung himself.

Now I doubt many of you followed this story over there but I just wanted to try put a little different point to it.

Obviously as a Broncos fans this past year we know all about the pain caused when a player with undoubted talent takes their own life due to problems they see no way out of.

I certainly do not condone the use of drugs in sport but having seen previous NFL players come off the rails a number of times when their career ends a system should also be put in place to help any player who may be found guilty and are subsequently banned.

The cynic in me would say they will be many NFL players using this at the moment. Especially any towards the back end of their career looking for a little boost to help recovery week to week maybe prolong a career by 2 or more years.

If these players are not up there in the ‘star’ bracket or have more than questionable friends (as some have) we could easily see more of the same instances occurring in future.

Yes the NFL must have a HGH program but we must also be aware of the issue that will follow if/when anyone is found guilty.

Why you said it would effect Denver Broncos, I doubt it is specific to Broncos alone.

I’ve always been amazed at the NFL’s lax drug policy. I’m also a cycling fan which has a reputation for being one of the dirtiest sports around. However when you compare the testing programs and discipline programs I find it hard to believe that the NFL is anywhere near as clean as people think. If cyclists are risking 2 year bans for a single positive test for the $200,000 purse at the Tour how hard is it to believe that NFL players will risk a 4 game suspension for a million dollar contract. Everyone focuses on steroids and HGH but I suspect that EPO and blood doping are much more prevalent then is widely thought., very difficult to impossible to detect with urine tests and how advantageous would it be to pick up some free endurance during the offseason.

there is resons to take steroids and hgh. The body builders and football players are taking 1,000 times the prescibed dose. that’s why they are banned. They probably should allow injured players to take steroids or hgh under a doctors care.They would help them heal faster but the chance for abuse won’t allow that to happen