I've been passed up for several promotions at work over the last few years. The guy in the cubicle next to me got a huge one just 3 months ago. My performance has been great for a long time, but a few other employees have stood out a bit more than I have whenever a promotion becomes available. I recently found out why. Many of these guys I work with have been using different presciption drugs that help them perform better. Their productivity has been phenomenal and I just can't keep up. At first, I thought they were cheating to get ahead. I even asked HR about it. They told me that they have no official policy on these drugs and that they do not conduct any drug tests. Apparently, the company is thriving due to all the increased productivity and the powers that be are choosing to turn a blind eye while profits soar.
These drugs have become so popular, even the employees in entry level positions are using them. Apparently, kids fresh out of college are on the stuff in an attempt to compete for jobs. Our people want to keep their jobs very badly and will do whatever they can to hold off these youngsters that are trying to get their taste of the "big leagues". I can't be mad at them. They have families they need to provide for, and they aren't breaking any rules in our workplace.
I love my job. I want to be the best employee this industry has ever seen. Which is why I too have decided to start using these drugs. A friend of mine is a personal trainer and has access to some of the drugs that I've heard terrific things about. One of them is a balm that is supposed to help my knees heal from surgeries. If my knees are feeling better then I won't have to miss as much work as I have been.
I still feel a little bad about this, but it seems that it's the norm for our industry. Since it has been an accepted practice for several years now, I don't see how I'm doing anything wrong. I really hope people don't end up hating me over this decision.
Perhaps the place where you work hasn't outlawed them yet because they have been in a recession and now that profits are soaring, there are some greedy members of upper management turning a blind eye to the scandal? That doesn't mean it's okay. Perhaps these drugs are not outlawed by the place you work, but, if federal law enforcement agents were to find them in your possession, could you go to jail? If the answer to that question is 'yes,' I'd recommend that you bite the bullet and get your promotion the old fashioned way: harder work.
Jay this has nothing to do with your post, just a personal question if you don't mind. Is your icon really a picture of you? The person looks so familiar to me like maybe a famous actor or singer, but I can't put my finger on whom he reminds me of.
I don't remember the exact year, but you could ask Ultramega (he's the expert) about the year it became illegal to possess steroids without a prescription. I think it was 2002 or 2004, long after this post took place ('99). So this hypotetical situation doesn't raise eyebrows for you? You are still staunch in your beliefs?
You're wrong. Ultra may sound like an expert; he is afterall well versed and articulate. But he doesn't know what he's talking about. He claims that steroids weren't a felony until 2005. I cannot find a source to back that up, maybe Ultra will chime in and provide one to his own claim. But if you google the Federal Anabolic Control Act, you'll see that as of 1990 POSSESSION of steroids was illegal for non-medical purposes, and put in the same class as LSD and many other drugs. Google the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and you'll see that the SALE of steroids was made illegal 2 years prior. So, there's my sources, could you provide a reference to refute it?
Getting back to your situation at work though... Have you spoken with any doctors about the possible side effects of these drugs? Have they, by any chance, been found to cause depression, stress, and rage? What about sexual dysfunction? Are you aware of the possible negative side effects to joints and tendons? Or the heart? Do they cause insomnia, headaches, or acne? Memory loss? Homicidal rage? Could you be prosecuted and put in prison?
Is taking these drugs going to be part of the overall solution, or worsten the current problem?
Couldn't mere usage of these drugs in spite of all the negatives they bring with them cause your reputation to take a hit? Your peers to lose respect for you? Couldn't using these drugs be seen as selfish and degrading (to yourself and the place you work)?
Maybe, just maybe, from a personal standpoint, you should seek other alternatives.
Last edited by JCScheffres on July 12th at 12:54 PM.
What the hey, jay. If your boss has let this go on this long, I would say he should ultimately get the blame down the road, not you. Knock yourself out.
"Couldn't mere usage of these drugs in spite of all the negatives they bring with them cause your reputation to take a hit? Your peers to lose respect for you? Couldn't using these drugs be seen as selfish and degrading?"
Why would he think his reputation would take a hit? He's watching McGwire and Sosa get treated like kings. He's watching all these people around him turning into huge hulking beasts. And they are being loved for it.
And how would he lose respect from his peers when they all empathize with his situation? It was reported that players in general were most excited about all-star weekend because they got to play with Bonds.
And being selfish? This situation was about keeping up with the times. Not trying to get an edge on everyone else. Just having the equal opportunity.
The reason I can't be angry with Bonds is because I couldn't say that I wouldn't do the same things he did, given the circumstances. Somehow, millions of Americans CAN say that even though they haven't been in that situation. That's odd to me.
Yeah, I've read that already, and his dozen comments on my blog. He says that an act in 2004 made steroids a felony in 2005. Even if that's true (I can't find a source verifying that information), it was still ILLEGAL as far back as 1988 but was only a misdemeanor (that's IF ultra's information is correct; it could have been a felony then too, I don't know). At one point--I can't seem to find the link anymore--I had a site that said steroids were first made illegal in the 1970's. It doesn't matter what ultra says, possesion of steroids without a prescription was illegal at the absolute latest in 1990.
So even if Bonds had no reason to believe using drugs could lead to eventual loss of respect or damage the reputation of himself and MLB; and if he could not have imagined himself as appearing selfish to others; wouldn't you say he made a poor decision in hindsight? Clearly, all three of those happened. The only reason McGuire was in the spotlight was because he hadn't been caught. Anybody who would have been caught would have been ripped. Maybe Bonds just thought none of this information would ever come out. But, I submit the thought probably crossed his mind, and he did it anyway, which makes him even more selfish.
Actually I'm against steroid usage anywhere. The reason I defend Bonds compared to others is because I don't believe he took. But reading this made me think.
If, and I mean if it was true, I can understand. I mean I don't know what I would do in this situation. I can't no I won't 100%. I at least would think about. I have 2 choices. Losing my job or using it to save my job.
Ah yes...after the first paragraph, I had you figured out.
Unfortunately, your office place instituted the Tour de France drug tests, Barry, er, Sisko.
Unfortunately, you've been DQ'd from our planet. Please leave.
jaysisk, got to disagree with your scenerio. It doesn't matter what your co-workers are doing. What matters is what you are doing. It's a personal choice and a choice of a person's character if they wish to get ahead by cheating. If it's not safe for your kid's body it's not safe for your own. If your child cheated on his test to gain a better grade and no one found out. Would it still be cheating? Of course it would. They say character is what you do when no one is looking. Not what you do when the spotlight is on.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 12th at 7:59 PM.
"If your child cheated on his test to gain a better grade and no one found out. Would it still be cheating?"
If cheating was allowed on my child's test, as it appeared that steroids were allowed back in the 90's, then go for it. I'd compare it to being given an open-book test. Is my kid gonna say, "I don't think it's fair to use my book. I'm gonna take the high road." That's commendable and all, but if all the other kids get to use their book, my kid is at a disadvantage.
"It doesn't matter what ultra says, possesion of steroids without a prescription was illegal at the absolute latest in 1990."
The way I interpreted the information on the government site was that they made 27 different steroids illegal to possess without a prescription back in 1990. They also put in a clause to include steroids that would be developed in the future. They had a 4 part test to decide whether these drugs would fall under this law's guidelines. So there was a huge gray area. BALCO was developing new stuff that was not regulated at the time and fell into this gray area. Eventually they got busted. And the 2004 law helped close loopholes and turned possession without a script into a felony. That's my take on this stuff from what I read.
So now, should everyone who utilized their products be prosecuted for it? I'm sure after all the raids done by the feds on the BALCO labs, they have tons of names of clients. How many have been indicted for using? If they don't care to prosecute, I don't think we should either.
"I at least would think about. I have 2 choices. Losing my job or using it to save my job."
That's one of the biggest points that I've tried to make on this subject over the years. How can we possibly know what we would do in their shoes? If I'm a fringe player sitting on the bench of the Florida Marlins and there are guys fighting me for my job, and baseball is all I've ever done for a job, I'm doing whatever it takes to keep my position. ESPECIALLY if there's no rules against it and all of my competition is doing the same thing.
And in Barry's situation, he's always been great. But other guys in the league that everyone knows are using, are getting all the love, all the attention, and all of the accolades. He's probably thinking, if MLB isn't gonna keep these guys from using and upstaging me, I'm joining the club. And I can't fault him for that.
Not everything BALCO had going was in development or in the "gray area." It's true, the cream and the clear were new designer steroids, and HGH and testosterone were not against the law at the time. But, according to court papers and grand jury testimony, Bonds was also taking insulin he got from diabetics, and steroids that Greg Anderson purchased from AIDS patients. He was taking modafinil which is a prescription stimulant Anderson obtained from narcolepsy patients. That's at the bare minimum 3 prescription steroids he was taking without a prescription (illegal in all 50 states at the time).
You're using the "appeal to the people" approach. Everybody else is doing it, so it's ok. That's like the old question you ask grade schoolers, "if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" Or, what about this... if you lost your job and had no money to buy food to feed your wife and kids, you could steal a loaf of bread to save their lives. But you're still not exempt from jail time--it's STILL illegal even though you're intentions meant well.
I don't even want Bonds to go to jail though. I just DON'T want him to go to Cooperstown.
jaysisk you say it APPEARS that steriod were allowed in the 1990's. Allowed by who? It's your perception that MLB closed it's eyes to the problem. It's quite possible they were aware of the problem but that the technology in testing was not as advanced as it is today so therefore they could not in good conscience pursue the matter. And yes if your child cheats on a test it is still cheating. If your child grows up to be a Doctor and he becomes one because he cheated on his exams wouldn't it have an effect on his practice. Would he really be a doctor? He may have a piece of paper that says he is, but in reality he lacks the skills and know how to be a doctor. Most people know there are good Drs. and bad Drs. and they don't put where they graduated in their class on their diplomas. Some are at the top and some are at the bottom. Yes some would have become doctors if they didn't cheat. But what type of Doctor? Would he be a surgeon, which requires you to be in the top 10 percent of your field. Or a Doctor who can't perform surgeries? That's the problem with steriods. It's the same with ballplayers, there are good players and not so good players and without these performance enhancing drugs some of them wouldn't be ballplayers. Sure they may have some of the tools to be players and some players would have made it to the bigs regardless. But where would they rate without the steriods. Heart, talent, determination and hard work. Those are the things that make up a ballplayer. Not some synthetic steriod in a syringe, bottle, or tube.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 14th at 9:01 AM.
"Or, what about this... if you lost your job and had no money to buy food to feed your wife and kids, you could steal a loaf of bread to save their lives."
That's exactly my point. What would you do in that situation? I would steal the loaf of bread and deal with the consequences.
The Bonds situation is far less serious than theft. He may or may not have been doing something that may or may not have been illegal, and was definitely not against the rules of baseball.
socrates, you said: "you say it APPEARS that steriod use was accepted in the 1990's. Accepted by who? That's a statement you can't prove one way or another."
That's very true, I certainly can't prove it. But there is a ton of evidence leading me to believe that it is true. Just as the Bonds haters have evidence, but no proof, that he broke laws or cheated the game of baseball. So why should they be able to make their claims while I remain silent?
Give me the benefit of the doubt for a second and assume with me that it is true that steroids were running rampant and were generally accepted as part of the game among players, management, and the league in the 90's. If that were the case, would you still think less of Bonds, who allegedly began using after the success of other players?
I'm sorry jaysisk I had put the post in before I was done. My apologies. And I have not put one reference to Bonds, not only because you had none in your piece but this is bigger than Barry.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 14th at 9:07 AM.
Yes Barry would be a helluva player without the steriods? But at what level? Would he be a hall of famer? Probably? But would he be on pace to break all these records? Truth be known, nobody knows. And that's the whole point. In your write you are portraying this letter as B. Bonds. Not to assume you mean Barry Bonds but I will insert his name for argument sakes. Because we do not know the level in which steriods have played a part in the career, like how long was the use, or was it intentional or not. we can only look at the known facts. He has admitted to using steriods abet in his own words "unwittingly". To put records that have been exposed in even the slightest bit to steriods is unfair to the game. I doesn't matter what Sosa, McGwire, Brett, or others who have been accused of cheating have done in the past. By the way Aaron has not to my knowledge ever been accused of cheating by anyone except by people on these posts trying to support their arguments. If you can show me printed examples from newspapers or film clips that I could be directed to I'll be more than happy to look. But until then I'll consider Aaron's record as untainted. Baseball has got to keep it's records as honest as possible. And giving you your dues that most records probably have unknowingly at the time they were set tainted, by equipment abuse, scuffing, spitting, drugs and such, it still is in the GAMES best interest when a record has KNOWINGLY been set by circumstances outside the guidelines of the game that they should be cast aside.
"If you can show me printed examples from newspapers or film clips that I could be directed to I'll be more than happy to look. But until then I'll consider Aaron's record as untainted."
Pick up a copy of this book, "I Had a Hammer: The Hank Aaron Story" by Hank Aaron. In it, he admits to amphetamine usage. Is that a good enough example?
"...it still is in the GAMES best interest when a record has KNOWINGLY been set by circumstances outside the guidelines of the game that they should be cast aside."
Again, steroids were not outside the guidelines of the game at the time Bonds was allegedly using. I believe 100% that since the steroid policy is NOW in place, and testing is fairly thorough, anyone with links to steroids or other performance enhancing drugs from here on out should definitely be scrutinized. And anyone testing positive for such substances should be punished accordingly to their rules.
For arguments sake I'll give you the Aaron amphetamine usage. But at the time he took the drugs did MLB know he was doing them for fact? Or did that revelation come out years afterwards? Because if it happened years later (the book was published in 1992, 18 years after the record was set). MLB didn't know it AT THE TIME the record was set. If they found out 18yrs later how can you go back and punish an infraction like that. It's not like he killed someone. Unlike now, Bonds has not broken the record as of yet. He's on the verge. But as of this Date MLB KNOWS he took steriods. There is a difference between knowing beforehand or not knowing. I respect your view and you put up some valid points. I still don';t think it adds up to giving anyone who uses illegal substances a free pass. Also I might add steriod use without a prescription was illegal in this country long before MLB enacted testing. And long before this discussion of Barry. So even though it wasn't OFFICIALLY banned from MLB it still was a crime to do them illegally. Which would make them outside the guidelines of the game.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 14th at 1:07 PM.
I think we proved each other's point, jay. You "would steal the bread and deal with the consequences." Just because you think Barry meant well (I say "you think" because I have to disagree, I think he was doing it because he's selfish, stupid, ignorant, jelous, and pompous, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now) doesn't mean there are no consequences. Action: Bonds broke the law. Consequences: Be labeled a cheater and never be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Yeah, I'd steal the bread too... with full knowledge that consequences could be heavy. Would I have taken steroids though, that is a better question. I wouldn't, because in the bread scenario somebody's life is on the line. Bonds was already a 3-time MVP and earning $8.9 mil a year in 1998. It wasn't necessary to cheat but he did (because he's stupid, selfish, jelous, etc...).
Slshusker, BALCO was in my view set up as a front to dispense drugs that would be normally illegal to obtain to professional athletes. And the only why for them to push their products was to disguise them as creams, flaxseed oils etc..to throw off law enforcement. It's the same as a street dealer selling dope in the form as sugar cubes. Both the dealer and the user know what's up. There's no I was only buying sugar cubes excuse. YEAH RIGHT. BOOK 'EM DANO!
"Also I might add steriod use without a prescription was illegal in this country long before MLB enacted testing. And long before this discussion of Barry. So even though it wasn't OFFICIALLY banned from MLB it still was a crime to do them illegally. Which would make them outside the guidelines of the game."
Earlier in this very same post I try to explain why these drugs were not illegal federally, or in baseball. Only 27 specific steroids were illegal to possess without a prescription.
"Does anyone disagree that BALCO existed to cheat?"
I could make the case that BALCO helped level the playing field by providing drugs to players that wanted to keep up with the curve. Don't you think latino players were taking stuff hand over fist in the offseason? Back in their home countries they faced almost no regulation. BALCO was an opportunity for players in the states to get the same advantages they had.
"Would I have taken steroids though, that is a better question. I wouldn't, because in the bread scenario somebody's life is on the line."
How about if you are in the shoes of the fringe player? All you have ever done for a job is play baseball. It is your life. 7 years in the minors and you've finally made it to the big leagues, but dozens of players in your organization are juicing and getting better than you. You have a wife and 2 kids to provide for. Baseball has no official policy against these drugs, and your trainer tells you it's no big deal...everyone is doing it.
That's a pretty broad statement there jay. So let's see in the Dom. Rep., Venezula, Panama, Puerto Rico, Mexico, all these places and leagues had unchecked drug use? Where's your proof on that? You just can't make a statement and have any credibility without facts. Honestly jay, I've been flexible and tried hard to see your view. I know you like Bonds but can't you at least be a little impartial? And it doesn't matter if the player is a fringe player or not. It doesn't matter if it's his dream or not. What matters is it's illegal to do regardless if MLB or any sport for that matter has a drug policy in place. It's called a CRIME. And there are laws against it. That's why CONGRESS is involved. Otherwise they would let MLB sort through the mess themselves. They would have NO JURISDICTION to look at the matter because baseball is exempt from anti-trust laws. Meaning it is a private enterprise and the U.S. Congress could not and cannot by LAW get involved unless crimes have occurred.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 14th at 3:59 PM.
jay, when you break the law you become a criminal. And although these are minor crimes in the scope of things, do we let criminals dictate what records should be set? Also in those latin countries you are referring to. If the drug use is as rampart as you say it is, it doesn't matter. MLB or any other agency has no jurisdiction to go after those offenders. So it is a moot point. If we had the ability to change what's going on in those counties that would be different. But WE don't.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 14th at 4:13 PM.
"So let's see in the Dom. Rep., Venezula, Panama, Puerto Rico, Mexico, all these places and leagues had unchecked drug use? Where's your proof on that?"
I can't show you proof that the sun will come up tomorrow, but it will.
I've read and watched many news stories over the years from many reputable sources. I could probably google up a dozen articles in less than 60 seconds. But I'll leave that to you if you are interested enough. One, for example, will tell you how easy it is to cross the border into Mexico and get cheap drugs without a prescription. Many steroid users do this.
"jay, when you break the law you become a criminal. And although these are minor crimes in the scope of things, do we let criminals dictate what records should be set?"
Who committed crimes here? I'm pretty sure if there was SOOOOO much evidence that Bonds or any other player broke the law, they'd be prosecuted for it. People are out to get Bonds, but he has yet to be indicted for anything.
So which criminals do you refer to that are dictating what records should be set?
But still the FACT remains we have no jurisdiction over their affairs. So do you say ban all latino players? That's discrimination. If MLB could do anything about drug use in other countries your argument would have merit.
Well Giambi's talking, Palmeiro's tested positive, I'm sure McGwire might be sweating, and then there's Canseco. Canseco's got a record. That makes him a criminal and I'm sure when everything is said and done alot of records will be jeopardized.
I don't think we should ban anyone. Now that there is testing in place, and a steroid policy in effect, everyone will be treated equally (hopefully). Latino players that used in the 90's didn't break any rules, just like American players who used in the 90's didn't break any rules.
The LAW are rules of conduct in society. MLB's Code of Ethics state you will follow those laws. At least jay I can say I feel you come by your position honestly. You put up a good fight and this has been spirited.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 14th at 4:51 PM.
O.K jay, I like your fight but it's time to throw the knockout punch. If you don't go down now you never will.
In 1990, the U.S. passed the Anabolic Steroid Act. This act listed anabolic steroids as a schedule #3 controlled substance in the U.S. Controlled Substance Act making POSSESSION of such material punishable by 7 seven years in prison. The same act also put higher criminal penalties for offenses involving the distribution of Human Growth Hormones or HGH. This led Pharmecutical companies like Ciba, Syntex, and Searle to stop making steroids. They were BANNED by all MAJOR SPORT BODIES IN THE U.S. MLB 1994, NBA 1993, NHL 1994, and the NFL 1995. The Olympics also banned them in 1992. To get verification go to:
The Anabolic Steroid Act of 1990
The laws were on the books and they were in MLB's bylaws. They may not have been enforced. But they were there. Look it over for awhile. I'll be back in a couple hours. Enjoy
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 14th at 5:22 PM.
Where were you when we discussed this earlier? Scroll up about half a page and you'll find links that I posted to real information. If you don't want to read it all, here is just part of what I said again:
The way I interpreted the information on the government site was that they made 27 different steroids illegal to possess without a prescription back in 1990. They also put in a clause to include steroids that would be developed in the future. They had a 4 part test to decide whether these drugs would fall under this law's guidelines. So there was a huge gray area. BALCO was developing new stuff that was not regulated at the time and fell into this gray area. Eventually they got busted. And the 2004 law helped close loopholes and turned possession without a script into a felony. That's my take on this stuff from what I read.
If you see it differently and you still think laws were broken, then call your congressman and ask why noone is being prosecuted. They will probably tell you that there isn't enough evidence that a crime was committed. Thus, you lose the debate.
jay, as I stated above the only time that congress can get into the fix is if LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN. Because MLB falls under Anti-Trust Laws the Feds just can't go in there because they THINK something has happened. MLB falls under these Anti-Trust Laws because each team is a separate entity individually. But they also are special because they also fall into a conglomerate under the umbrella which is called MLB. So the Feds can't go in there and scrutinize the White Sox if the Red Sox have done something illegal. They have to go after only the Red Sox in that situation and not the whole league. Just like if MLB does something illegal they can't go after individual teams. And also the Feds can't hold the league or teams responsible for the players actions. Unless it can PROVE the players have been directed by the TEAMS or LEAGUE. That protects them from lawsuits. Now the Feds can only get involved when a CRIME has been committed. The Congressional hearings are the investigative portion of these proceedings. They have NOT completed their investigation so therefore that is why no charges have been brought forth as of yet. They are sorting out at the moment who to charge and what charges to bring forward. They may include players, maybe not. With Balco and Victor Conte and Bond's trainer Anderson not co-operating with authorities it is taking longer for the facts to come out. Again because of Anti-Trust Laws the Federal government can't go on a witch hunt. They have to establish a crime has been committed to hold a congressional hearing.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 14th at 7:35 PM.
It looks like you used a lot of words to say, "at this time there is not enough evidence that any crimes were committed by Bonds, but someday their may be". Is that a fair summary?
I don't see why you are getting into anti-trust laws. Even after reading your post I fail to see what that has to do with the fact that there are no indictments in this case.
You keep saying BONDS. I'm saying baseball. Bonds is part of Baseball. Because Anti-Trust LAaws are in place and there are Congressional hearings that means charges WILL be brought forth. You can't have congressional hearings against a group that is protected by anti-trust law UNLESS there was A CRIME COMMITTED. The only reasons charges have not been pushed forward at this time is the congressional investigation has not been completed. They are investigating the scope of the crimes committed and who to indict, and what charges to file against them. This isn't a process that takes days or weeks to complete. Sometimes depending on the crime and its scope, it takes time. Consider Organized crime. They catch the middle man in a murder. Well they want more than just the middle man. They want the mob boss and who directed the hit. That takes time to gather the information to form a case against the individual. They know the crime has been committed because they have a dead body but no sure suspect. They want to make sure they have not only the right parties but also want the charges to stick. A police Department can go after civilians. But only Congress can hand down an indictment to a Grand Jury against an institution and it's properties protected by Anti-Trust Laws, Which MLB is.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 14th at 8:43 PM.
Well jay I give you this. You put up a good clean fight and I apprieciate that. We may differ on this issue but I respect your stance. Have a good night buddy, maybe we'll continue this scrap tomorrow.
Great point, and what a way to open eyes! and besides, I'm from Texas, it's either the Cowboys, or the Texans..... so I stayed with the best choice....
This blogger is a New Yorker, born and raised. I'm a huge sports fan, following pretty much every major sport out there. Sadly, this does not include hockey, NASCAR, or boxing. Hockey lost my affection during the lockout, NASCAR is not a sport, and boxing has become incredibly boring since the dawn of MMA. If you want to talk football, baseball, basketball, or MMA, then I'm your man. I could also debate NASCAR with anyone, but we would probably end up just going around in circles...
