Athletes are lying to us. They are laying and we believe their is situated. Well, almost all of us do. You see, many Athletes that test positive for prohibited substances are blaming nutritional supplements as the cause for the positive test. Lets examine the following declaration from Iowa State linebacker Matt Robertson who was recently kicked off the Iowa state football team for testing positive for a banned substance.
"I take full responsibility for taking an over-the-counter supplement that is banned by the NCAA, " Robertson said in a declaration released Monday. "I am paying a heavy price for a very bad decision, as I can never again wear an Iowa Express uniform. I hope my example will serve as a warning to others contemplating use of nutritional supplements. "
Statements like these are leading to an unnecessary hysteria amidst the public regarding dietary supplements. Within Stanozolol Cycle Mr. Robertson's quote, specifically spot the term "dietary supplements". Health supplement is a very broad term, it covers literally thousands of different varieties of products. There is merely one kind of dietary supplement that will cause a positive result for steroid tests. These supplements are called pro-hormones. Did a pro-hormone cause Mr. Robertson's positive result? Possibly, but we will never know the truth.
Pro-hormones are being used to raise the human body's testosterone levels, just like steroids, but at a much lesser effect. Any kind of athlete who takes a pro-hormone knows what it does. They already know pro-hormones are designed to elevate testosterone producing it more muscular mass and greater athletic performance. Upon top of that, pro-hormones say directly on the bottle something to the impact of "Professional and beginner athletes subject to performance boosting substance testing should talk to with their sanctioning body before using this product as use of such could cause a reactive drug test. " Pretty clear isn't it? A person can't tell me that Mr. Robertson can't read, he is "an academic all-Big 12 performer who was as good in the classroom as he was on the field, inch according to his instructor Dan McCarney.
Blaming a positive test on one of those products may be true because they can cause a positive on a steroid test. However, it would also be very easy to blame a positive test over a dietary product when they athlete was actually by using a steroid. Because the actual supplements are rarely made public, it is straightforward to blame an optimistic test on a dietary supplement.
It doesn't make a difference because a positive test is a positive test, right? Wrong. By these athletes blaming their positive test on dietary supplements rather than steroids they are in effect "passing the buck" That is, they are claiming ignorance, rather than taking responsibility, and they are hurting the multi-billion money dietary supplement industry at the same time. This is not ok, not because it creates false beliefs one of the public about supplements, but additionally because it gives the federal government reasons to further restrict what you can purchase without a prescription.
Would you like to have to go to your doctor to get a prescription for a multi-vitamin? Imagine if you needed to buy a proteins supplement? Would you want to have to visit your doctor for that? I actually didn't think so. These athletes and their organizations are being extremely irresponsible by using broad conditions like dietary supplements when describing positive drug checks.
The NCAA and other governing organizations should be forced to reveal what exact compound these athletes are testing positive for. By not doing so these organizations are allowing athletes to save face at the expense of an entire multi-billion dollar industry. By forcing the NCAA and other governing bodies to name the specific substance that was tested positive for they would eliminate all confusion on what is and it is not the cause of positive tests. Either that or governing bodies including the NCAA and the press should be educated in the proper terminology of the dietary supplement industry. Painting reactive tests with the term "dietary supplements" is inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible.
Take for example Rafael Palmeiro, everyone remembers his overly compelling money hill testimony. How ironic that only a few weeks later Rafael tested positive for Stanozolol, a steroid. Palmeiro tried hard to move the blame. He held responsible "tainted" dietary supplements, and when that didn't take flight he blamed a vitamin B12 shot. Well stanozol is a very specific and popular steroid. Right now there is no possible way that a positive for stanazolol can be from vitamin supplements or B12. Following people started realizing this, Palmeiro started claiming lack of knowledge, saying he never knowingly took steroids. Well I actually guess Rafael will be making a good dwelling after baseball considering this individual is the only person in the world that knows where to find pills that jump off the desk into your mouth on their own. Such a cool idea, the little blue pill could be come the little blue leaping pill. That would be neat to see.
"I take full responsibility for taking an over-the-counter supplement that is banned by the NCAA, " Robertson said in a declaration released Monday. "I am paying a heavy price for a very bad decision, as I can never again wear an Iowa Express uniform. I hope my example will serve as a warning to others contemplating use of nutritional supplements. "
Statements like these are leading to an unnecessary hysteria amidst the public regarding dietary supplements. Within Stanozolol Cycle Mr. Robertson's quote, specifically spot the term "dietary supplements". Health supplement is a very broad term, it covers literally thousands of different varieties of products. There is merely one kind of dietary supplement that will cause a positive result for steroid tests. These supplements are called pro-hormones. Did a pro-hormone cause Mr. Robertson's positive result? Possibly, but we will never know the truth.
Pro-hormones are being used to raise the human body's testosterone levels, just like steroids, but at a much lesser effect. Any kind of athlete who takes a pro-hormone knows what it does. They already know pro-hormones are designed to elevate testosterone producing it more muscular mass and greater athletic performance. Upon top of that, pro-hormones say directly on the bottle something to the impact of "Professional and beginner athletes subject to performance boosting substance testing should talk to with their sanctioning body before using this product as use of such could cause a reactive drug test. " Pretty clear isn't it? A person can't tell me that Mr. Robertson can't read, he is "an academic all-Big 12 performer who was as good in the classroom as he was on the field, inch according to his instructor Dan McCarney.
Blaming a positive test on one of those products may be true because they can cause a positive on a steroid test. However, it would also be very easy to blame a positive test over a dietary product when they athlete was actually by using a steroid. Because the actual supplements are rarely made public, it is straightforward to blame an optimistic test on a dietary supplement.
It doesn't make a difference because a positive test is a positive test, right? Wrong. By these athletes blaming their positive test on dietary supplements rather than steroids they are in effect "passing the buck" That is, they are claiming ignorance, rather than taking responsibility, and they are hurting the multi-billion money dietary supplement industry at the same time. This is not ok, not because it creates false beliefs one of the public about supplements, but additionally because it gives the federal government reasons to further restrict what you can purchase without a prescription.
Would you like to have to go to your doctor to get a prescription for a multi-vitamin? Imagine if you needed to buy a proteins supplement? Would you want to have to visit your doctor for that? I actually didn't think so. These athletes and their organizations are being extremely irresponsible by using broad conditions like dietary supplements when describing positive drug checks.
The NCAA and other governing organizations should be forced to reveal what exact compound these athletes are testing positive for. By not doing so these organizations are allowing athletes to save face at the expense of an entire multi-billion dollar industry. By forcing the NCAA and other governing bodies to name the specific substance that was tested positive for they would eliminate all confusion on what is and it is not the cause of positive tests. Either that or governing bodies including the NCAA and the press should be educated in the proper terminology of the dietary supplement industry. Painting reactive tests with the term "dietary supplements" is inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible.
Take for example Rafael Palmeiro, everyone remembers his overly compelling money hill testimony. How ironic that only a few weeks later Rafael tested positive for Stanozolol, a steroid. Palmeiro tried hard to move the blame. He held responsible "tainted" dietary supplements, and when that didn't take flight he blamed a vitamin B12 shot. Well stanozol is a very specific and popular steroid. Right now there is no possible way that a positive for stanazolol can be from vitamin supplements or B12. Following people started realizing this, Palmeiro started claiming lack of knowledge, saying he never knowingly took steroids. Well I actually guess Rafael will be making a good dwelling after baseball considering this individual is the only person in the world that knows where to find pills that jump off the desk into your mouth on their own. Such a cool idea, the little blue pill could be come the little blue leaping pill. That would be neat to see.
No comments:
Post a Comment