Allen Vs. PEDs - Part 2 1:51 PM

I last left off with my opinions addressing what actually constitutes a PED. Sain commented regarding marathons. He wrote:
What about marathons, where you basically need to eat something or risk hitting the wall? I suppose you could argue you could eat regular foods, like banana, but then that's enhancing as well, no?

Great question and more relevant than you can imagine. In fact, I do believe that eating any "regular" foods are a form of "enhancing" as well. Marathons are the most popular "endurance" race and should be judged based solely on a body's abilities to endure the rigors of 26.2 miles. There is nothing that make marathons any different from another endurance race. Why allow people to draw a shroud over their true performance and spread the lies of a finish time aided by supplements? Sain writes about the risk of hitting "the wall". Well, if you hit "the wall", then fuckin' deal with it. This is what should separate the best from the great from the good from the mediocre.

Now that I've addressed "what constitutes a PED?", I'd like to address the question of "how much do PEDs really matter for you and I?".

How much impact does a PED have on a person like you or me?
This more or less stems from a big pet peeve of mine. What annoys me more than anything is the statement(or what I'd like to call an excuse) some people make regarding their running, swimming, cycling, etc. Have you ever heard this?

Sorry, I can't run X miles without some Gu.

Oh man, I forgot to bring my Gatorade. I should probably just run for a little while.

Crap, forgot my cycling gloves. I NEED those to cycle.

Let's get something straight. You don't NEED anything. It's not the end of the world to do any of these things without your precious special equipment, apparel, or drinks/foods. Can you run those X miles without Gu. I guarantee it. Sure, it won't be as cozy, but maybe your worthless spoon-fed Nicole Richie mindset can use a good kick in the ass. There's an excellent anecdote in the December 2009 issue of Runners' World that tells the story of a guy who forgot his running shoes and ended up running a marathon in his dress shoes. Now that's what I'm talking about. All this fancy pants gear or apparel made of special NASA expedition fabrics are completely over the top. Running is purely just that. Get outside and run. Cycling is just that. Get on your bike and start pedaling.

So back to OTC PEDs. I say, to hell with all the supplements out there. I should be able to perform just as well with or without them. They certainly aren't helping our friend, Big Papi. Unless VitaminWater has changed their beverage direction to "helping you play baseball like crap".


I contend that the average person can achieve exactly the same results with and without these so-called PEDs. It may take the average person more work and time to do so. But, there's satisfaction in it. Accomplishing a goal or feat without succumbing to the world-wide hoodwink driven by both the consumers and producers of these PEDs.

So far, this has all been a lot of hearsay and conjecture. I should put my money where my mouth is. Challenge accepted!

My dear friend, Melvin, is a newly avid runner. He has just completed his first marathon (The Seattle Marathon) and is a strong lobbyist for all manufactured energy/sports ingestible substances. Before the Seattle Marathon, he went as far as to say something to the effect of "One should bring his/her own Gu in case they're giving away different kinds at the race stations". Are you fuckin' kidding me?! Read that again! If this isn't a PED, then I don't get it. It's gotten to a point where there are preferences.

Anyway, I've agreed to a slapbet. Within one year's time, I need to run a marathon(my first). If my time is faster than Melvin's, then I win. Otherwise, Melvin wins.

1. Slapbet commisioner is Rob Blankenship.
2. The marathon I choose should be comparable to the Seattle Marathon. In all likelihood, I'll just run the Seattle Marathon next year to put to rest any balking at the marathon that I choose.
3. I have to beat a chip time of 3:53:12.
4. During the race, I cannot ingest anything other than water.

Let it be known that this slapbet was a done deal before Melvin's marathon, so it's not like he loafed it at all. This will essentially pit a well-oiled machine with PEDs against another well-oiled machine. In the end, we'll know if my claims are true. I fully intend to exploit that this is all nonsense.

Of course, I already see a number of fallacies in this experiment:

1. It should be me versus me with PEDs. But, that's gonna take too long, so we'll just go with this. On the bright side, it brings a competitive nature between Melvin and I.
   
2. I'm kind of in a catch-22 with my own arguments. If I win, I essentially deem PEDs worthless, but also denounce that they indeed are performance enhancing drugs. If I lose, I prove that they are performance enhancing drugs. Well...yes and no...I'd still consider them performance enhancing drugs regardless of the outcome, because we don't know how I would have finished using them.
3. It's not a totally controlled experiment because of weather, age, and physical structure. We're doing the best we can! Give us an A for effort....at least a participation award.
   

So this basically concludes my small diatribe against PEDs and a year's worth of marathon training to look forward to. I've started to run again as of last week. Watch out, Melvin!

Allen Vs. PEDs - Part 1 9:29 PM

Performance Enhancing Drugs, otherwise known as PEDs, have settled in as the resident king of sports scandals. Outside of the recent Tiger Woods fiasco (really...who hasn't had intimate relations with him?), sports fans have been treated to a decade of steroid and PED potpourri. For me, it all started with the 1998 and 1999 MLB seasons where Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa had captivated America with their homerun hitting race. Unfortunately for them and all the other drug-sucking douches out there, suspicions quickly rose and brought steroid and performance enhancing drug use to the media forefront. Shortly after, the BALCO saga was brought to light and history started to write itself.

MLB and the NFL were under heavy scrutiny for their drug testing policies. A number of players (past and present) were outed for their involvement as peddlers and users. Just as a side note, I do not understand the public's lax attitude towards PED usage in the NFL compared to the MLB. Shawne Merriman, Julius Peppers, and Rodney Harrison all tested positive, but were hardly chastised outside of a 4-game suspension. Merriman was even in the running for Defensive Player of the Year despite being exposed for steroid usage the same year. Although as of late, I am seeing that there are instances in the MLB (i.e. ARod) where the same "turn the other cheek" mentality has surfaced. Still, it's all puzzling.

Anyway, in summary, steroids are bad and I haven't even mentioned cycling, the olympics, or Caster Semenya.

So why is this post, entitled Allen Vs. PEDs? That, my friend, is a grade A question, but can only be followed up by two other questions. To what extent can we call something a PED? How much impact does a PED have on a person like you or me?

To What Extent Can We Call A Substance A PED?
Most substances are pretty straightforward. If it starts with "ste" and ends in "roid", it's likely a PED. If you bought a 2-stage athletic supplement called the "cream" and the "clear", you're probably taking PEDs. If it comes with syringes with large block letters printed on the side saying "ANABOLIC", then yeah, your nuts are gonna shrink.

But what about over-the-counter stuff? Things that you and I can buy readily and are widely accepted to ingest during a sporting contest. Sports drinks(Gatorade, electrolytes, etc) and energy supplements(Gu, Clif shot blocks, etc)...can they be considered performance enhancing drugs?

A quick search brings me to a definition that a performance enhancing drug is any substance taken to increase a particular skill-set. I read this on the internet, so it must be true!

From this point on, I'm going to use running as an example because it is relevant(you'll understand later) and because it's simple. By the definition, all of those over-the-counter sports drinks and energy supplements would fall into the category of a performance enhancing drug. A Shocker!


And you know what? I fully agree. Did people in the 1950s suck down some Gu during a footrace? Hell no. They just ran. The virginity of a sport like running is getting deflowered by all the energy supplements and sports tablets out there trying to get you to the next level faster and easier. Getting faster should just be a lot of work and sweat. Instead, here are electrolytes and straight glucose to boost your performance.

I can see a few arguments against these claims. One being that "but, these are only replenishing essential components(electrolytes, vitamins, glucose) that are being lost during the competition". Well, I say stop being such a pussy about it and man up. The reason why long distance running is hard is because it's a test of ENDURANCE. Last time I looked up the definition of endurance, it wasn't a picture of a fat piece of shit in a head band drinking gatorade. You train to condition your body to be able to handle the rigors of an endurance race. A half-marathon-plus distance is supposed to be about pure physical endurance for that distance. It's not supposed to be about who has the best physical endurance WITH these extra substances.

Another poor argument is that "these are available to everybody, so it shouldn't be considered a PED". Hey asshole, wrong again. Human growth hormones are available to everybody too, but to you they're different. I say you're guilty of PED bigotry.

The only semi-plausible argument that I can see is that banned substances differ in their abilities to alter the physical nature of a person for the long-term whereas everyday OTC substances make short-term differences. Like I said...this is plausible...just like going into that massage parlor at 4am is plausibly a good idea. I would still contend that using these OTC supplements during training and competition does boost the long-term performance of a person, albeit more slowly than banned substances. But for entertainment's sake, let's say that OTC supplements have no long term effects on altering a person's physical nature. The illusion of performance is still an act being performed in the short-term(during the event) and that's what counts the most.

All of this clearly matters quite a bit for elite athletes trying to get that edge to top one another, but how much does it really matter for an average person like us?

Stay tuned for the next post...

Long Time Coming 9:26 PM

Haven't posted in a long time. This is mostly because of traveling(Central Alpine Lakes, Peru, Israel, etc) that I've been doing recently. On top of that, I'm a very proud owner of a home in NE Portland.

I'll probably be doing some "backposting" eventually.

I'm quasi-settled into my new place and am getting back into the swing of a normal routine now.