You see, lots of Professional athletes that check positive for banned substances are blaming dietary supplements as the cause for the positive test. Let's analyze the following declaration from Iowa State linebacker Matt Robertson who was just recently kicked off the Iowa state football group for screening positive for a prohibited compound.
" I take complete obligation for taking an over-the-counter supplement that is banned by the NCAA," Robertson stated in a declaration released Monday. "I am paying a high price for an awful choice, as I will never again wear an Iowa State uniform. I hope my example will work as a warning to others contemplating the use of dietary supplements."
Declarations like these are triggering an unnecessary hysteria among the public relating to dietary supplements. In Mr. Robertson's quote, specifically, see the term "dietary supplements." A dietary supplement is a broad term; it covers countless various sort of products. There is only one kind of dietary supplement that will cause a favorable outcome for steroid tests. These supplements are called pro-hormones. Did a pro-hormone cause Mr. Robertson's favorable result? Perhaps, however, we will never understand the fact.
Pro-hormones are utilized to raise the body's testosterone levels, just like steroids, but at a much lesser result. Any professional athlete who takes a pro-hormone understands exactly what it does. They know that pro-hormones are developed to raise testosterone resulting it more muscle mass and higher athletic performance. Pro-hormones say right on the bottle something to the effect of "Professional and amateur, professional athletes subject to performance enhancing substance testing need to seek advice from with their approving body before using this item as usage of such may trigger a reactive drug test." Pretty clear right? You can't tell me that Mr. Robertson can't read, he is "a scholastic all-Big 12 performer who was as great in the classroom as he was on the field," inning accordance with his coach Dan McCarney.
Blaming a positive test on one of these products may be true because they can cause a favorable on a steroid test. It would likewise be very easy to blame a promising test on a dietary supplement when they athlete was utilizing a steroid. Because the real supplements are seldom revealed, it is simple to blame a positive test on a dietary supplement.
It doesn't make a difference because a positive test is a positive test, right? Incorrect. By these professional athletes blaming their favorable test on dietary supplements instead of steroids, they are in effect "passing the buck" That is, they are declaring the lack of knowledge, instead of taking duty, and they are harming the multi-billion dollar dietary supplement market in the process. This is not all right, not only since it produces false beliefs amongst the general public about supplements, but also because it offers the federal government a reason to limit further exactly what you can purchase without a prescription.
Would you like to need to go to your medical professional to obtain a prescription for a multi-vitamin? What if you wanted to buy a protein supplement? Would you wish to need to go to your physician for that? I didn't believe so. These professional athletes and their organizations are being incredibly irresponsible using broad terms like dietary supplements when describing positive drug tests.
The NCAA and other governing companies need to be forced to expose exactly what precise compound these professional athletes are evaluating favorable for. By refraining from doing so these organizations are enabling athletes to save face at the expenditure of an entire multi-billion dollar industry. By forcing the NCAA and other governing bodies to name the specific compound that was evaluated positive for they would eliminate all confusion on what is and is not the cause of positive tests. Either that or governing bodies consisting of the NCAA and the press should be educated in the proper terms of the dietary supplement market. Painting reactive tests with the term "dietary supplements" is inaccurate, unreasonable and careless.
Consider example Rafael Palmeiro, everyone remembers his overly engaging capital hill statement. How ironic that just a few weeks later Rafael checked favorable for Stanozolol, a steroid. Palmeiro tried hard to pass the blame. He blamed "tainted" dietary supplements when that didn't fly he blamed a vitamin B12 shot. Well, stanozolol is an extremely particular and popular steroid. There is no possible manner in which a favorable for stanazolol can be from dietary supplements or B12. After individuals had begun understanding this, Palmeiro started declaring ignorance, saying that he never knowingly took steroids. Well, I guess Rafael will be making a healthy living after baseball considering he is the only individual in the world that understands where to find tablets that jump off the table into your mouth by themselves. Exactly what a cool idea, the little blue pill could come the to little blue jumping pill. That would be neat to see. Make sure to visit us if you need to buy steroids
There requires being some accountability amongst professional athletes for their favorable tests. Those who prove beneficial must not be permitted to pass the blame onto the dietary supplement industry. We will never know until the governing bodies start calling particular substances responsible for positive tests.