• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

SMH - Doctor sanctions steroids

Legion

New member
Article in the SMH.
Technical difficulty

Not sure what the SMH difficulty is but here is the article.

Doctor sanctions steroids

Date October 28, 2012Adrian Proszenko

A FORMER Australian Commonwealth Games team doctor has called for sporting authorities to give up on their war against drugs, claiming steroids don't cause harm if they are administered properly.
The Lance Armstrong doping scandal has put the issue of drugs in sport back into the spotlight, with most commentators calling for more stringent testing of athletes.
However, Dr Tony Millar, the founder of Australia's first sports medicine clinic and St George's doctor for eight of their 11 straight rugby league premierships in the 1950s and '60s, believes athletes should be allowed to take performance-enhancing substances if they are administered by a health professional. ''It doesn't hurt them if they do it properly,'' Millar said.
''The thing they have told me was that they were unfair. Well, they were given to everybody - and that's more than you can say about the world's best coaches and best equipment. They say that people won't watch things but we all know that drugs are used in sports and they're building bigger and bigger stadiums.''
Millar was the team doctor for three Commonwealth Games campaigns and was about to stand down from the 1986 campaign, his fourth, for health issues. However, he was sacked before he had the chance after a controversial article he wrote on steroid management was picked up by a medical journal.
The 87-year-old, who practised medicine for 67 years before his retirement last year, claims to have administered steroids to as many as 5000 clients as part of a ''harm reduction program''. He denies ever providing steroids to the great Dragons teams he oversaw or to any Commonwealth Games athletes, saying that ''very few'' of his clients were professional athletes.
''I would prescribe these anabolic steroids, monitor you and bring you back when you finished to follow you up to see what happened," said the inaugural City2Surf doctor. ''I didn't have any deaths, no heart problems and I did this for some 20 years. It all depends on what you do with whatever it is. Guns are very dangerous - if you put them up to your head and pull the trigger. But they're not dangerous if you put them in a drawer.
''There are more steroids taken now than there were 30 years ago and there's no evidence of an increased death rate from them.''
The seven Tour de France titles which Armstrong won have been erased from the record books and the cyclist ordered to repay the prizemoney he has won. But as International Cycling Union officials attempt to restore the public's confidence, Millar said testing athletes was a worthless exercise. ''I think it's a waste of time and money when you think how many billions a year it costs,'' he said.
''And we're to give more money to ASADA from the government to test these things. They say they are unfair but you can get them and I could get them. I can't see what's unfair about that. With all that money spent on drug tests, think of what we could have done for the poor. It's become pretty plain to me that [drugs] were being used on the advice of uneducated people. We should be able to do a hell of a lot better with an educated person [administering them].''
 
Last edited:
So how will this stop athletes from taking bigger and better doses of drugs than those who only use the administered drug and dosage?
Back to square one.
 
You can't stop people from using drugs. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.
I don't know the Australian stats but in the UK 30% of people admit to smoking weed in their life. 3 million people admit to smoking it once a month. That's just the people that admit it

The idea that we can prevent people using it is nonsense.

We waste billions every year on police, court and prison resources when a large proportion of athletes use drugs without any problem at all. In fact, the only real problem with drugs is that they're illegal.
 
You can't stop people from using drugs. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.
I don't know the Australian stats but in the UK 30% of people admit to smoking weed in their life. 3 million people admit to smoking it once a month. That's just the people that admit it

The idea that we can prevent people using it is nonsense.

We waste billions every year on police, court and prison resources when a large proportion of athletes use drugs without any problem at all. In fact, the only real problem with drugs is that they're illegal.

You wouldn't be a bit biased would you Oni?
 
Hard to not be when the counter argument is "OH WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN"
 
believes athletes should be allowed to take performance-enhancing substances if they are administered by a health professional.
so how are we going to test for that? seems as Darkoz said, back to square one.

The other argument: let em take whatever they like, "he who dares wins" the chemical games.

I guess theres a reason for the current way things are.
 
You can not buy champion in a bottle
There is no stack or combination of any drugs that will win you a title. "He who dares, wins" does not apply in any sport.
 
You can not buy champion in a bottle
There is no stack or combination of any drugs that will win you a title. "He who dares, wins" does not apply in any sport.

but if it was a free for all, wouldn't you admit that the amounts taken would be alot higher, the substances used alot broader and the athletes willing to risk their health the most would have a significant advantage?
 
No I wouldn't say that at all
You don't win anything if you're in poor health or dead
 
So how will this stop athletes from taking bigger and better doses of drugs than those who only use the administered drug and dosage?
Back to square one.

Don't even waste time arguing something that doesn't even have a chance of happening. Have a look at the uproar over Armstrong. As if there is even the slightest chance that they will legalize steroids in sport.
 
Exactly.

Also, not sure if you guys no or not, larger doses doesn't always mean larger results, so guys that maybe using 500mg,won't suddenly be taking 10g.
 
war on drugs being unwinnable? What about Armstrong, Marion Jones and Ben Johnson?

Will never be perfect, but life is certainly getting harder for those cheating in drug tested sports and federations.
 
No I wouldn't say that at all
You don't win anything if you're in poor health or dead
sure, but that's the fine line...
as a cyclist you should remember the guys who had hear attacks from various doping and other things..
had they not died, they probably would have done pretty well on the tour :D

carl lewis... never took anything illegal :)

there will always be people so driven that they are prepared to f#ck up the rest of their life (or to nearly die), just to have that moment of glory (or payout)

with PED's it's either open slather, or nothing...
for easily available things like caffiene, still there are testable limits
 
Last edited:
Every high level athlete is already on something....

Just make it legal and regulate it, Stupid fucks holding back science cos a few morons die...
 
sure, but that's the fine line...
as a cyclist you should remember the guys who had hear attacks from various doping and other things..
had they not died, they probably would have done pretty well on the tour :D

carl lewis... never took anything illegal :)

there will always be people so driven that they are prepared to f#ck up the rest of their life (or to nearly die), just to have that moment of glory (or payout)

with PED's it's either open slather, or nothing...
for easily available things like caffiene, still there are testable limits

Look at louie simmons openly admits to 36 years on anabolics without anytime off, doesn't look that healthy but still strong as fuck and looks alot better then he should considering he has been on a nearly four decade blast.

Just stop testing be done with it. Sell gear at the smokes counter at woollies
 
i reckon they should test at the olympics (for amatures and young'uns)
then open slather for the Golden League or other professional paid sports :D
why should we pay good money to see second rate athletes :D

do they test professional boxers atm?
 
i reckon they should test at the olympics (for amatures and young'uns)
then open slather for the Golden League or other professional paid sports :D
why should we pay good money to see second rate athletes :D

do they test professional boxers atm?

Not sure probably depends on the fed. I know there has been a bit of an uproar about therapeutic use of test in mma with loose dr's prescribing trt to anyone that asks.
 
Seems to me that the core arguments against steroids are that its cheating and that it will kill you.

Given that these drugs are used clinically to treat various health issues the drugs risks and benefits are generally well known.

So if you're not a professional athlete and the health risks are minimal what is the problem?

Medical procedures are performed to increase breast size which subjects the patient to risk purely for cosmetic reasons.

How is the taking of steroids any different?

I wonder if an aging population can actually benefit from steroids by increasing muscle mass in the years where there is normally a steady decline.
 
Seems to me that the core arguments against steroids are that its cheating and that it will kill you.

Given that these drugs are used clinically to treat various health issues the drugs risks and benefits are generally well known.

So if you're not a professional athlete and the health risks are minimal what is the problem?

Medical procedures are performed to increase breast size which subjects the patient to risk purely for cosmetic reasons.

How is the taking of steroids any different?

I wonder if an aging population can actually benefit from steroids by increasing muscle mass in the years where there is normally a steady decline.
Drugs in professional sport and drugs for personal use are two different issues.
As for aging population, HGH.
 
Top