The considerations behind the rationale for drug usage and anabolic steroid use in an athletic context are based on the violations of legal rules and the nature of the sport itself. Sport is defined as an activity governed by the rules and physical capabilities of competitors. The sport aims to determine the strongest and psychically developed competitor. Even though the specific risk behaviors may differ, the common thread for all adolescents may be exposed to such risk factors. Researchers in prevention began to recognize that all prevention programs, however different in focus (e.g., avoiding tobacco, illegal drugs) may all be connected by the same set of factors that enhance sportsmen’s susceptibility to engage in high-risk behaviors.
Steroids are hormones that are made in the laboratory, and they have the same muscle- and tissue-building effects as the male sex hormone testosterone. Using steroids in Sport can be compared with cheating. Today, according to some drug experts, perhaps a million Americans, including some 250,000 high school seniors who want to make themselves look like Mr. or Miss Body Beautiful, spend millions of dollars a year on the illegal hormones.
There is no denying that the use of any performance-enhancing drug is contrary to the basic spirit and intent of athletic competition; it distorts the very nature of the sport. The competition should be decided based on who has done the best job of perfecting and utilizing his or her natural abilities, not based on who has the best pharmacist. If the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports is so widespread, and other athletes feel they must use them to compete successfully, why not drop the prohibition against these drugs and let everyone use them? (Mottram 2003).
That would certainly eliminate the need for testing, with all of its attendant problems and costs, and everyone would then presumably be on an equal footing again in competition. The answer to this argument is complex, involving a number of medical, ethical, and philosophical considerations. It comes down partly to health and safety considerations, but primarily it is a question of whether the basic nature of sport should be maintained or drastically changed (Voy and Deeter 2001).
These analyses suggest that the pattern involving the use of various anabolic steroids may differ among ethnic and racial groups and should be considered in prevention programs. Such profiles add a level of complexity to the conceptualization of gateway substances. In particular, this research appears to suggest that there is no general gateway substance, but rather that gateway substances may differ among various individuals and groups. “Many athletes take anabolic steroids at doses that are much higher than those prescribed for medical reasons. The effects of taking anabolic steroids at very high doses haven’t been well studied” (Taking performance-enhancing drugs” 2006).
The main problem is that anabolic steroids lead to short and long-term damages. While they may increase body weight and strength, the jury is still out on whether they improve performance — and that is what those who use them illegally think they will do. People who take steroids regularly probably know that already. Some studies have shown that there is no real difference in performance between athletes who took steroids and those who took fake steroid pills. The steroid takers might have been better off taking a multivitamin pill once a day. But there is more to steroids than whether they’re valuable as a performance builder.
They are not aspirin, though some kids take them as though they were. Doctors know those young boys who use steroids stop growing before their time. The drugs can also stop young bodies from producing the hormone testosterone, which is responsible for a boy’s deep voice, hair growth, and the development of sexual organs. Not only kids are affected by steroids. They cause changes in liver function in all age groups, can bring on acne, and when used by women are responsible for male traits and smaller breasts. The emotions are also affected. Many people become aggressive or violent after taking steroids (the condition is known as “roid rage”, or depression (Mottram, 2003).
Of more concern, though, is the recent finding that when anabolic steroids are taken regularly in large doses, they can be addictive, just like other drugs. One reason is that besides fattening muscles they seem to produce a high and also make people with low self-esteem feel better about themselves (Mottram, 2003). The problem is that steroid users generally load up on hormones for four to eighteen weeks, then take a “drug holiday” for a month or a year.
After the “holiday” they go back on the drugs until the next “holiday.” As happens in cocaine dependence, for example, intense craving for the hormones may develop during the “holiday” period. Not only that; hormone users also often crave other drugs, including cocaine, during their off time. After a while, the steroid user may be no better than a heroin junkie who needs a fix. “One anabolic steroid receiving a lot of attention is tetrahydrogestrinone (THG). Until recently, THG was marketed as a dietary supplement for enhancing athletic performance” (Taking performance-enhancing drugs, 2006).
As the clinical outcomes associated with poor adherence have become more salient and the costs have an impact on a cost-conscious health care system, the interest in adherence has increased. The newer measurement technologies permit a more refined and specific assessment of adherence problems and patterns, which is contributing toward a finer understanding of this significant problem in health care.
The limited studies detailing the problems of adherence, the paucity of intervention studies, as well as the variability created by the coarser view of adherence that has characterized research in the field all point to the need for further focused research in this difficult problem affecting all aspects of health care. “Led by the international Olympic movement, organized sport has attempted to prevent the use of performance-enhancing drugs by banning them, establishing testing programs, and punishing athletes caught using prohibited substances” (Mehlman, 2005). Another investigation currently being conducted by the research group employs a planned behavior-action control perspective that pays close attention to the role of social influences in the use of harmful substances as related to at-risk behavior.
Consistent with the discussion, it can be inferred that the initiation of drug use is best regarded as relationally determined, that is, not only does it require the presence of another person risk), but the actions of that other person occur within a social context having an impact on the quality of one’s decision-making processes vis-a-vis. So a general guideline is not developed concerning whether interventions should focus on the prevention of the use of one harmful substance or should address various harmful substances simultaneously (Voy and Deeter2001).
In sum, the use of steroids and other drugs in sport violates basic rules and aims of sport based on fair competition and the physical abilities of competitors. Certainly, an important reason not to drop the prohibitions against performance-enhancing drugs involves the long-term health and safety of the athlete. The use of anabolic steroids, particularly the extremely large dosages used by athletes, carries with it a great risk of a number of adverse side effects, ranging from mild to deadly.
References
Mehlman, M. (2005). Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports. Web.
Mottram, D. (2003). Drugs in Sport. Routledge; 3rd edition.
Taking performance-enhancing drugs: Are you risking your health? (2006). Web.
Voy, R., Deeter, K. D. (2001). Drugs, Sport, and Politics. Human Kinetics Publishers.