Athletes are lying to us. They are lying and that we believe their is situated. Well, the majority of us do. You see, many Athletes that test positive for restricted substances are blaming diet supplements since the cause for the positive test. Allows 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 health supplement that is banned by the NCAA, " Robertson said in a assertion released Monday. "I was paying a heavy price for an extremely 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 triggering an unnecessary hysteria between lots of people regarding dietary supplements. Inside Mr. Robertson's quote, specifically notice the term Stanozolol Cycle "dietary supplements". Dietary supplement is a very broad term, it covers literally thousands of different sorts of products. There is merely one kind of dietary supplement that will cause a positive result for steroid tests. These products 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 body's testosterone levels, just like steroids, but at a much lesser effect. Virtually any athlete who needs a pro-hormone knows what it will. They already know pro-hormones are designed to elevate testosterone ensuing it more muscle mass and greater athletic performance. About top of that, pro-hormones say right on the container something to the effect of "Professional and amateur athletes subject to performance improving substance testing should check with with their sanctioning body before using this product as use of such may cause a reactive drug test. " Fairly clear isn't it? You 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 trainer Dan McCarney.
Blaming a positive test on one of those products may be true because they can result in a positive on a steroid test. However, it would also be very easy to blame a positive test on a dietary supplement when they athlete was actually utilizing a steroid. Considering that the actual supplements are hardly ever 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 sports 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 buck dietary supplement industry in the process. This is not okay, not only because it creates false beliefs among the public about supplements, but in addition because it gives the federal government reasons to further restrict what you can buy without a prescription.
Would you like to have to go to your doctor to get a prescription for a multi-vitamin? What happens if you wanted to buy a proteins supplement? Would you want to have to visit your doctor for that? We didn't think so. These kinds of 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 have to reveal what exact compound these athletes are screening positive for. By not doing so these organizations are allowing athletes to save face at the expense of an entire multi-billion money industry. By forcing the NCAA and other governing bodies to name the particular substance that was analyzed positive for they would eliminate all confusion on what is and is also 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 recalls his overly compelling capital hill testimony. How sarcastic that only a couple weeks later Rafael tested positive for Stanozolol, a steroid. Palmeiro tried hard to complete the blame. He blamed "tainted" dietary supplements, and when that didn't take flight he blamed a nutritional B12 shot. Well stanozol is a very specific and popular steroid. There is no possible way that a positive for stanazolol can be from dietary supplements or B12. Right after people started realizing this, Palmeiro started claiming lack of knowledge, saying he never knowingly took steroids. Well I guess Rafael will be making a good living after baseball considering this individual is the only person on earth that knows where to find pills that jump off the stand 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.