Allen Vs. PEDs - Part 1

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...