Steroid Era and Athletes


Steroid Era and AthletesWith the fall of A-Rod and baseball being tainted forever by the “Steroid Era”, Anthony Olivieri, PA SportsTicker Pro Basketball Editor, writes that we should start to look critically at other leagues.  There is money to be made is sports and athletes will do anything to get an edge.  Who’s next?

Don’t deny it: NBA players take part in Steroid Era, too

By Anthony Olivieri
PA SportsTicker Pro Basketball Editor

Don’t let it happen to you, NBA fans.

Players in your league are on steroids, too. Just like baseball players, football players and any other athletes who need to recover quicker and get markedly stronger…

Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a controversy surrounding the sport’s best players to wake the fans up. Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez, please take a bow…

Using (Lebron) James merely as an example, it’s hard to figure why his sheer size and strength never come into question, especially since they seem to grow exponentially each year.

Granted, LeBron is a naturally gifted athlete who already had a man’s body while just a teen. But there have been reports that he is up to 275 pounds while retaining a 45-inch vertical leap and a running back’s lateral quickness.

A recent Sports Illustrated article entitled “The Power of LeBron” examined parts of his anatomy integral toward the amazing things he does on the court.

“That James has gained weight is as much a mystery to him as anyone else,” the magazine wrote. “He doesn’t gulp protein shakes or pound down extra carbs, instead eating three square meals (such as oatmeal, chicken, salmon) prepared by his chef, with the occasional candy snack in between.”

The article said James started to follow a set lifting routine for the first time in June. Now, SI said he does so for 20 or 30 minutes every game day.

A couple bowls of oatmeal and 30 minutes in the gym? Is he training for seventh grade dodgeball?

Read the full article

If Lebron is a suspect then who else could we start looking at differently? Is this going to turn into a pro sports version of a steroid witch hunt?  What about other elite athletes like Tiger, Roger Federer, or soccer star Ronaldhino? Is this going to turn into a pro sports version of a steroid witch hunt?

The competitive drive that makes good players turn into great players can also lead down dark paths.  The performance enhancing drug (PED) issue is magnified on the pro level because that’s where the media is focused but we’ve all lived it.  Whether it’s  the bottle of creatine stuffed discretely in the back of a gym locker in H.S. or the 180lb defenseman in college who could suddenly squat 330lbs and looked like he had muscles on his ear lobes, I’ve personally witnessed my share of PED use.

What is your take on PEDs? Give me your experiences on the lacrosse field and in the gym.  What can we do to change this culture of athletes and drug use?

My answer: start from the ground up.  I’ve coached both youth and high school lacrosse and never once did I bring up PEDs or talk to my players.  That was a mistake. Good habits start young and that’s where we can collectively do our part. Did your lacrosse coaches ever talk to you about the steroid/ PED issue?

Give your take in the COMMENTS


  1. Reading this, I understand you are framing the problem as outside pressure on referees to interpret rules in a particular way. Specifically, the pressure coming from TeeVee commentators and TeeVee spectators.

    I am not grasping this pressure. In both cases this pressure would come after the fact, at best hours after the fact but more likely days to weeks after the call or non-call. Men’s Collegiate Lacrosse is still at a level of viewership much lower than (for example) hockey; men’s lacrosse viewers, unlike hockey viewers, are very familiar with the difference in how a play looks as you are in it on the field versus how it looks on the TeeVee screen. So I can only consider that the complaints regarding imbalance in calls (or errors in calls) can come from a level of scrutiny via commentators and fans that refs on the field simply do not have. To blame any cowing of referees on lacrosse fans is unfair to lacrosse referees; the same argument is more prevalent in more widely-watched sports (with seemingly more dangerous fans). Yet this cowing of referees in other sports is either declared 1) systemic, and of the nature of the sport (e.g. home-field advantage in calls) or 2) related to gambling, which is not only not the focus of the post made here but also not legitimately a concern in lacrosse at any level. I don’t see systemic “bad” or “biased” refereeing in the televised games I’ve watched.

    The overriding rule of calls is player safety and fairness. Neither of these are explicit rules in the rulebook; it could be said that the purpose of the rulebook is to enforce these meta-laws of the sport itself. To make a call in terms of safety is, in my view, not only in the nature of the rules but required to make the other rules valid. The question regarding offensive players being allowed to do something that defensive players are not through interpretation of the rules (or exploitation of loopholes)

    Some sports, clearly, are harder on the individual bodies than the others. Being able to make split-second decisions with possible severe medical implications is a portion of the necessity of refereeing. Further, it’s a necessary part of the respect owed to referees and their position.

    A solution to possible problems of one-way calls, such as the non-offensive fouls that are defensive fouls, is to have all referees wear cameras. Not for viewership, but for the Rules committee to review with respect to player safety, and further consider (and thus train) what portions of the rules are out-of-balance with respect to safety and fairness. Not to mention improving training on future referees on what to look for.

    • LDT – yes, that is what I’m trying to explain, but, with more weight on the fact that many of these calls are subjective to begin with, which means it’s much easier for it to be influenced. Not only lacrosse TV and spectators, but from the entire contact sports media (NFL with huge focus on it).

      Can you honestly say that this pressure has not increased the number of calls going one way, when, in other years, they would have perhaps gone the other? I think that is a fair and reasonable statement, especially with crosschecks (which is interesting, because now we are talking about a rule that specifically states that you cannot do something, but was let go for so long, especially for short stick d-mids, that it seems like a big jump in those calls, as they are actually enforcing it). Nonetheless, I am less speaking about specific cowing from lacrosse fans, but, rather, almost the reverse of that – that there is a pressure to make a call, legal or not, that looks dangerous, rather than is, to appease a society calling for greater safety.

      What hasn’t been mentioned is our overarching cultural penchant for breeding athletes. Native Americans, those that started the game, are not known for their size, rather their speed and toughness; this is a recipe for some pain from a few hard cross or slap checks, but not concussions that can affect your brain for the rest of your life, if you’re not careful. Conversely, you can clearly see how many Division 1 athletes are getting bigger, faster, stronger, especially on the defensive end of the field, (barring a decent amount of exceptions – which is something I really love about lacrosse) which leads to greater chances of concussions happening, overall. It doesn’t matter how big your muscles are when it’s your brain that’s jiggling to become concussed.

      I agree that their needs to be training, and this includes teaching kids to play the game the right way, and not go out to specifically blow someone up – you make a hit for a reason: to gain an advantage in the game, so your team can win, but nothing more. I think this is essential, rather than relying on a punishment based system, which is what throwing a flag is. Throwing a flag, in that moment, does not protect anyone, as the act was already committed, but it is thrown in hopes that other players and the fouling player don’t do something like it again.

      I do agree that there are rules, like a slash, that could be the same check (in their motion) and called two ways, based on safety. There is a sense that good referees have that can determine between an innocent attempt at dislodging the ball and a purposely vicious or emotionally spurred check. I totally respect refs for their intuition on this.

      To be clear, I am not trying to blame referees or lacrosse fans or anyone, I am just trying to see how our perceptions (and actions based on perceptions) and the truth, of what occurs, mixes. Thanks for the well thought out response!

      • I see, so I did misunderstand. The pressure would be to allow more, larger contact. This pressure is even more evident, and is to some extent documented.

        Consider the major rules changes in the past few years to NCAA, MLL, and NLL – specifically the shot clock, the 2-point line, and the 8-second clear rule, respectively. None of these were implemented for player safety; they were all specifically added to make games faster and more visually appealing to spectators, and at least in a couple of cases were specifically stated by the leagues as the reason for such. Changes like these assuredly add to a strong implication that referees need to make sure the game is fun and exciting to watch. I can only assume this has at the very least an unconscious effect on some referees, and in some cases a conscious effect.

        Immediate solution? The simplest answer is to have an ombudsman act in the interests of the players. But it’s not clear, and not obvious – I remember the “outrage” from players and fans when the dive shot was banned. Cries and shrieks of ruining the game were written constantly. The game has only grown exponentially since. Not because of that rule, sure, but I have to think that removing flamboyance has helped prove lacrosse to be a team sport, not a sport of collective individuals. Sometimes you have to ignore the desires of the fans – or at least NOT act in their interests – to create the best game.

        I think some kind of review process of Rules Committees would alleviate the problem you present – I can’t imagine it ever being truly eliminated. But the specific solution of “how would a review process of the Rules Committee work?” is an answer that’s beyond me.