Steroids are old news, people are moving to peptides, they'll never be up to date with testing, they only catch the dumb ones. Testing doesn't work, there will always be cheats.
I would guess maybe HGH and Test-E??
I don't think HGH was tested for 6 years ago (can remember reading that the test forit was only new) and test-E is a horrible ester to pick for drug test evasion (A-Rod may have been that dumb, who knows), it has a long half-life, propionate is a much better choice and is undetectable 2-3 days after your last shot.
Also, I am unsure if the new HGH secretagogues (over 4 drugs now) and IGF-LR3 are detectable, I'd say not on the HGH secratagogues, but yes on the IGF as it's not so new now. That french swimmer Alain Bernard looked like he was on something at Beijing, he was hayooge.
and call me a purest, aanallein, but I believe that professional atheletes should not be using roids.
Why not?
We have no idea how many gold medals and sporting events were won with drug enhancement, the real number would probably be shocking.
If they went through the ranks of pro sports and black listed anybody who failed a drug or steroid test then there would be few remaining athletes to play. Most sports are inundated with either recreational or performing enhancing drug use/abuse.
Exactly so just let them go.
Under doctors supervision it can be quite safe. Also the newer drugs (peptides) and gene doping may prove to be the safest yet. So the common argument that people sacrifice their health is an increasingly losing position, I believe.
Should we also test for natural genetic mutations (like with the myostatin gene) that an athlete may have that gives them an edge?
Where do you draw the line between a supplement and a performance enhancing drug?
