A Philosophical Defense of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use (Part 3)

by Sidney Gendin, Ph.D.

More Steroids, Please!

V - THE ARGUMENT FROM UNFAIRNESS

Some people use steroids and some don't. Most athletes don't. Many of the athletes who don't use drugs are fond of trotting out the hackneyed objections they have been taught and memorized. They like to brag that they are "clean". They like to say, self-righteously, "Look, I don't care what you do; just do it in your own confines and don't mix with us." This, "I don't care what you do" is just a smug way of saying "I'm right and you're wrong; go away."

This won't do. It won't do at all. Most people unthinkingly suppose something like this: "If a certain kind of behavior is illegal then it is wrong. Using steroids is illegal so it is wrong. Good people abide by the law and those who don't are taking unfair advantage." That is all there is to this slender argument. But if it were valid then any other argument structured like it would also be valid. Yet I think no one would accept the following: "If a certain behavior is illegal then it is wrong. Helping runaway slaves is illegal so it is wrong. Good people abide by the law, and slaves who escape their masters have an unfair advantage over those who get caught and are returned." As most people should know, the infamous Dred Scott decision made it illegal not to return slaves to their "masters". Thank goodness we know now know better. In the late 1930s and early 1940s in Nazi Germany, certain Jews were picked not to be sent to death camps because they pleased the Nazis in some way. That they should have been saved while others weren't could be considered unfair, but was it wrong? Would it have been better had they, too, been made to suffer and die? No sensitive person can believe that. Thus, we must always consider whether the laws are right or wrong, stupid, cruel, or discriminatory, or in many other ways, moral failures. Suppose taking steroids was legal but using vitamins was not, and suppose vitamins are, as they seem to be, essential to good health and hence to superior performance. Now some people abide by the law and some don't. Those who don't abide by the law take unfair advantage of those who do but they do no wrong.

The great eighteenth century philosopher, Immanuel Kant, said no law should be obeyed. None whatsoever. This sounds absurd but it isn't once you understand Kant's meaning. Kant did not mean we should disobey all laws. That way leads to chaos. Kant claimed - rightly, in my view - that the most important possession of humans is their autonomy, the right to determine their own fate. Obedience is always the surrender of autonomy. But Kant distinguished between obedience - the blind following of law just because it is law - and conforming one's conduct to the requirements of the law when one grasps the rationality and the rightness of the law. There is a law that we should drive particularly slowly in a hospital zone and most of us understand the point of it. Kant would say we conform our conduct to the law because we understand the rationality of it. Kant would despise anybody who followed the law blindly. Right behavior requires acting for the right reason. If I don't shoplift because I know I am being watched by a store detective then I deserve no credit for conforming my conduct to the requirements of the law because I did it only to avoid going to jail, not because I grasped the reasonableness of the law that condemns shoplifting.

Imagine, if you will, Little Jack, a twelve-year-old child with below-average intelligence. His parents discover that a certain drug, associated with modest risks to his health, will raise his ability to study for hours on end as well as increase his powers of retention. The child wants to try the drug. The drug is expensive and not many parents can afford it. Would it be unfair for Jack to try it just because some other children can't? Would you deprive Little Jack of the chance to become an average to above-average student on the grounds that his access to the drug was not shared by others? I hope not. Even if Jack's drug is not legal and others don't have easy access to it, there is no good reason why he should wallow in the underclass while waiting for a more enlightened age. In short, we must get beyond the hackneyed accusation of unfairness. We must get around the hackneyed accusation that the law is being violated. We must be certain that the laws are as they should be.

What should a competitive athlete do about substances that are banned by certain sports federations even though their use is not illegal? Assuming he rationally has weighed the costs and benefits of the use of those items and has decided they are worth using, then he should ignore the ban and quite simply cheat, if he can. Right now those substances are such things as androstenedione and norandrostenedione but they could just as well be zinc or selenium. A federation might decide these substances give an "unnatural" boost in performance and proceed to ban them. Athletes who continued to use them would be taking "unfair advantage" of those who abided by the rules of the federation but it would the ones who abided by the rules who deserved our condemnation for relinquishing their autonomy. What if zinc and selenium were made illegal by the government? The issue seems more complex but is it, really? To see why the principle is the same, consider more realistic possibilities. Suppose it is discovered that among the many "contaminants" in cigarettes is a substance essential to any cigarette and which contains an energy or strength booster. That would be the nail in the coffin for cigarettes, I assure you. Within a couple of months they would be illegal. Now, as a nonsmoker, I have no personal stake in the matter but I would be sorry about this. We already know that cigarettes are bad for the health and we permit people to smoke so long as they can do so in places that don't endanger others. The fact, if it should turn out to be a fact, that cigarettes also contain a strength booster, could not possibly be a good reason to ban them if we haven't sufficient reason al ready. Even more realistically, consider caffeine. The pros and cons of caffeine have been debated in the medical world for decades. Suppose, without any new knowledge to make matters decisive, the government makes caffeine illegal. How could it be that drinking coffee was right one day and wrong the next merely because a bunch of people voted, 51-49 perhaps, that henceforth it is wrong? Personally, I would not feel obliged to conform my conduct to the requirement of the law and would stock up secret stores of all the coffee I could lay hands on.

There is a curious idea that, generally speaking, if one person runs a risk that others refuse to run then the gains the risk taker makes are unfair. In general this just isn't so. If I run the risk involved in all brain surgery in order to reduce my Parkinson's Disease symptoms and you refuse to then I should be congratulated if the operation is a success. I do have advantages over my fellow Parkinson's sufferer but those advantages are fair, not unfair. So on with a million things, in sports or otherwise. If a downhill skier dashes down a hill at what all his competitors regard as a stupidly unsafe speed and he wins the race, why should he be condemned? If the ruling sports federation insists that no one ski above 60 MPH but I do anyhow, I should be praised for my courage and you shouldn't be rewarded for your docility.

So what about steroids? The law banning their use is wrong. That is plain and simple. That is the whole point of the call for decriminalization. Of course, one might want to decriminalize certain behavior even if it is wrong on the ground that there are better ways of dealing with "the problem". But steroid use is not like that. It is a problem only because it is illegal. Nearly all of those who abide by the foolish anti-steroids rule have not examined the issue for themselves. There is no credit that attaches to blind obedience, and blind obedience is no basis for criticizing others. So what to do? Obviously, I cannot advise people to ignore the law for my advocacy could land me in deep trouble. (Harmless people used to go to jail for fruitlessly advocating the overthrow of capitalism.) Still, those of us who are in a position to scream out to the world, "That man did nothing wrong!" should do so. We need to be loud and vociferous. Calling for decriminalization is too timid because it gives the wrong impression - namely, that we accept the wrongness of steroid use as we accept the wrongness of heroin use but we only believe there is a better way to deal with "the problem". I don't want steroid use to be thought of as akin to heroin use, and neither do you.

VI - THE ARGUMENT FROM UNNATURALNESS

Sometimes the argument that using steroids is unfair rests on some curious idea about their being unnatural. Last year I received a letter from a young man - I believe a long distance runner - who was very angry at me. I had sent a letter to some track magazine defending steroid users. The young man was very proud of the fact that he was a hard worker who was achieving all he could achieve without artificial intervention. He told me in his bitter outpouring of emotions that I was a disgusting cheater, a physiological freak and a moron - and these were the nice parts of the letter! With due respect to the young man's sensibilities, I plead not guilty.

The young man had no clear idea of what "natural" means nor why it should have any moral significance. "Unnatural" is a charge levied against most abused minorities. Homosexuals are told their sexual practices are unnatural. Women are told that to serve in the infantry is unnatural. Side show "freaks" who eat glass are unnatural and are therefore condemned as abominations. Racists claim that blacks have natural rhythm and actually hold that against them! So, in this case, having some alleged natural advantage is bad. So "natural" and "unnatural" cut both ways.

Now "natural" may mean many things. "He is a natural" said of an athlete means he is gifted and didn't have to work hard for his accomplishment. Surely there is no moral virtue in that. A person who is a high achiever despite his lack of natural gifts deserves praise, not condemnation. When I was a kid, those who were smart without working at it were praised and those who worked hard to get good grades were nerds. As adults, I hope we all know better.

Many things are good that are not natural. We don't want to halt technology. In track and field we now have fiber-glass poles instead of the "natural" hickory shafts of eighty years ago. No one would dream of demanding that vaulters go back to hickory. Once upon a time fiber-glass poles were state-of-the- art technology and precious few athletes could afford the "unfair" advantage they provided. Even today, Mr. Sergei Bubka gets his poles at no cost because the company supplying him with them wants to try out the latest and wants the good publicity that attends Mr. Bubka's many triumphs. Technology cannot be halted and it shouldn't be, for, in sports at least, eventually it comes around to the benefit of all. In 1928 a runner set a world record in the 100 yard dash but it was disallowed because he used gadgets he called "starting blocks" instead of digging "natural" holes in the ground. Within eight years it became illegal to dig holes in the ground. What had been an unfair advantage was now a requirement.

When Jacques LaPlante, the Montreal goalie emerged one evening with a grotesque mask on his face, players, officials, and fans were outraged at this display of synthetic unnaturalism. Today every goalie is obliged to wear face protectors. There is no doubt that the security and relaxation that he gained, gave LaPlante a definite advantage. In a word, there is nothing wrong with something merely because it is unnatural. Technology has also struck home in powerlifting where one finds the most outcry over steroids. The principal example is the use of the bench shirt, a shirt so tight that a person needs at least two strong men to help him don his shirt and it takes over three minutes. He needs the same help removing it when he is done. The shirt permits an initial thrust that allows the lifter to lift as much as twenty pounds more than he could do "raw". How ironic it is that no sinister steroid has yet been discovered that gives the same pluck for the buck that this entirely legal shirt gives. The shirt is expensive and most people who do not use it choose not to use it because it costs about $100. Some of these people can't readily afford $100 and so they bitch, under their breath, about "unfair" advantage. Crazily, the people running the lifting shows have capricious rules. You can wear denim shirts but not canvas or you can wear canvas but not denim or you can wear a single ply shirt but not double or you can wear double but not triple. Eventually they will have rules like "You can wear them on Saturdays but never on Sundays and you can only wear them on Saturday provided it didn't rain on the Friday preceding Saturday unless that Friday was the last day of the month of June or October." You think they won't go that far and that I am being facetious? Maybe they won't and maybe they will, and, in any case I am only partly facetious. Take a look at track and field. The Fosbury flop, (almost no one uses any other technique today), in which the high jumper goes over the bar backward, was invented by Richard Fosbury and Debbie Brill in the late 1960s but was inspired by a method the "authorities" ruled illegal a few years earlier. Certain athletes had discovered that by bounding back ward like gymnasts and taking off on two legs instead of one they could add almost a foot to their jumps. No new technology was invented. It was a matter of clever innovation but the powers- that-be didn't care for it. It is still "illegal". So get ready, boys for the Sunday ban on your bench shirts.

Advantages are sometimes called unfair because they may not have been earned. It is often overlooked that unearned advantages may still be legitimate. Genes yield unearned advantages. Most competitions are won because of some advantages that cannot be compensated for. Steroids do not work like magic. They give straightforward physiological advantages but the main advantage is that they increase the capacity for hard work. Take steroids all you want but never exercise and your body will still look like that of the skinny kid in the Charles Atlas ads - the one who always got sand kicked in his face. Does anybody imagine that if he matched Mr. Ronald Coleman, the reigning Mr. Olympia, workout for workout, supplement for supplement, he would challenge him? Even if you added steroids to your diet and he abandoned them, he'd still beat you. To think otherwise is as crazy as thinking that if you practice like Michael Jordan and use his fancy custom-made sneakers and he plays in street shoes then you will challenge him. Mr. Coleman's so-called "unfair advantage" over the rest of the world has more to do with his natural genetic gifts. What he does to accentuate his gifts he does mainly because he likes looking the way he does and not because he has figured out how to beat you.

In truth, the objection to the "roid" look is aesthetic, not moral. Most people unconnected to the world of "iron pumping" find the look of exaggerated muscles very displeasing. To this, there is only one good reply: Don't look! Who needs you? Some thing like 90% of people who pump iron in gyms are noncompetitors. They do like big muscles. They like to admire their muscles in the mirrors. Some people regard that as egomaniacal. The simple answer to them is this: "Good! Don't look. Who needs you?" Since most bodybuilders are noncompetitors, no one can cheat them by using steroids. The steroid users like the way they look and the only reasons other bodybuilders do not use steroids is that they are afraid they may be jailed and they are afraid of the dire physical consequences the government propagandists promise will batter their heads (or else crush their testicles). Instead, they subscribe to bodybuilding magazines that are filled with ads for exotic supplements that promise them "the anabolic look". Many of these ads brag that their legal drugs are better than steroids. Indeed, one company advertises a product as having "the feel of Deca". This is a reference to the popular steroid "Deca-Durabolin". I find this ironic and amusing for doesn't it seem that if it looks like Deca, feels like Deca and works like Deca then perhaps it ought to be banned like Deca? Persons who use this product are falling into the trap of thinking that since one substance is legal and the other is not that it is okay to use one and wrong to use the other. I have already disposed of this fallacy. Furthermore, the fact that very few people complain about the advantage these expensive mystery products allegedly yield shows that the arguments from unfairness and unnaturalness are not taken all that seriously. I suspect the reluctance to use steroids is simply a mask for concern over their safety combined with a "Don't challenge authority" mentality. If the public were assured that steroids were as safe as the "feel like Deca" drugs and they were made legal then all com plaints would cease.

Now, as I have admitted, it is true that steroids don't succeed merely because they enable a person to work harder. They do have an ergogenic effect. That is, all by themselves, when combined with an exercise program, they enhance muscle growth. This seems no worse than enhancing mental growth in little Jack, especially if I am right in thinking their dangers are exaggerated. Hence any advantage they provide would not be unfair if steroids were legal. Since there is no good reason why their use should not be legal, the "unfairness" is as trivial as it is in the case of Jack. If steroid use were legal - as it should be - it would be each person's choice to use them or not but it would not be his right to whine like a crybaby if he elected not to use them. The fact is that competition imposes high standards for success. As the means required for excelling evolve, the standards evolve. No one is required by law to compete; no one under goes serious social pressure to go to the gym and prove himself the best. If someone elects to compete then he should take his conditions as he finds them and not bellyache - especially once the conditions are legal and not underground. It is also important to keep in mind that if I am right in thinking steroids would be a lot safer if they were not black marketed, then fewer persons would refrain from using them. In time, as the technology became more commonplace, even fewer would find steroid use unnatural. After all, are there people left who nostalgically call for digging holes in tracks and bemoan the use of starting blocks?

Powerlifting, much more than most sports, has no real external rewards. Powerlifters measure their success one trophy at a time. Steroid-using powerlifters, like "clean" powerlifters, still end up in the red at the end of the year. Even in the world of bodybuilding, (which must be distinguished from powerlifting because money is at stake), where steroids are used by a higher percentage of athletes than in any other sport, athletes use steroids mainly because they like the effects and not because they are trying to keep up with the Joneses. Rest assured that if all the world used steroids except the top fifty bodybuilders, nothing much would change. Possibly the order among these top fifty would be slightly altered but they'd still be the top fifty. Does the word "genes" ring a bell?

Speaking strictly for myself, I would not hesitate to use steroids if the use was legal so that I didn't have to worry about the risks that inevitably attend black market drugs. As a sixty-six year old man, without a prayer's chance of winning any thing I am certainly not looking for "an edge". Oh, sure, I might gain a trivial victory over the one or two other sixty-five and over men who, like me are stupid enough to compete. As it is, for my $55 entry fee plus $400 travel expenses, steroids costing $450 per month might help me get a trophy that probably cost the meet director $5. Whose business could that be but my own?

As things now stand, those who don't use steroids are using every legal trick they know to get that "roid" look. (That includes me.) They spend so much money on their supplements that, if they added steroids to their budget they would hardly notice the increase. Here is a partial list of what they buy: creatine ($30/month); protein powder (recommended doses three times per day at about $2 per shot, when dissolved in milk - $180/month); androstenedione; 19-androstenedione; 4-androstenediol; 5-androstenediol; 19-norandrostenediol; tribulus terrestris; DHEA; enzymatic conversion accelerators; growth hormone stimulators; hormone-releasing peptides; you don't want to know the cost of all these exotica. Then, too, there are high protein candy bars ("only" $3 each); superfuel drinks; testosterone "boosters"; yohimbine and a dozen other herbs; ten dedicated vitamin supplements in addition to the de rigueur multi-vitamin, and a wide variety of alphabet magic like HMB and others I can't remember. Bill Gates should be grateful he is not trying to sneak around steroids. Thus, confounding everything is the fact that the majority of those "serious" athletes who don't use steroids and bitching about those who do use them are using every conceivable trick they can come up with to gain the same results. Their means just happen to be legal. Big deal. Remember Al Capone's wise expression "the legitimate rackets", by which he meant to call attention to the fact that the government was no better than he was. Beware, self-righteous people. Almost everything on that above list is susceptible to capricious removal from legitimacy by the power brokers. Then, where will you be? Up the creek without a paddle. In the meantime I am considering having a T-shirt made to order for me. It will read:


source: meso-rx