David, two points:

1) "However, frequent use of Ibuprofen can also lead to liver damage. But you can control for this. You can get a physical once a year and have the doctor test your liver." That's not really controlling the damage. You can detect damage that way, but not necessarily control it. What happens if the liver is already (irreparably) damaged? Then you didn't control anything. You just detected it. (Small point, but worth noting.)

2) "That's what many of the new drugs are about. Same result, fewer side effects. So my argument has always been legalize anabolic steroids and let players use them under a doctor's care and in the open. And then we can really learn about the risks and the rewards." You don't learn the risks and rewards of something just by making it legal. You run scientific tests in order to do that. If Baseball, or anyone else, is interested in legalizing steroids, then they should do some comprehensive scientific tests on them. The kind of tests (and write-ups) that get published in medical journals, not the kind that 3 guys do in their basement (or baseball players do on the field). If you are so gung-ho about legalizing steroids (and other performance enhancing drugs) I don't understand why you aren't calling for more comprehensive studies of these drugs FIRST. That would make much more sense. That way, you can get even MORE data points, instead of the there-is-no-definitive-proof data point that you keep using.

Sabernar-

1) Do you know if this is the case for liver damage? i.e. do the markers for liver damage show up before or after the damage becomes irreprable?

There really isn't any "sicentific test" for long term damage due to a drug. There are mouse and other animal models which can be very instructive, but that isn't the same as testing in humans. Drugs don't have to do long term studies (i.e. more than a year or two), because if they did, it would take 10-20 years to get a drug to the market. And from the study David cited in his last post, people are studying steroid use.

David is suggesting legalizing it as a perscription drug, which would probably lead a large number of current users to seek out a doctors care. My guess is that the reduced risk associated with this step would more than outweigh any added risk from people who would start using them because they are legalized.

Interesting ideas about the "other pieces of evidence" that you'd use. But your examples seem very circumstantial. I'd hate to be suspended just because I happen to go to a gym that was associated with bad things.

Also, this seems like the kinds of evidence that would get appealed, and then some arbitrator throws it out.

For better or worse, you need more objective measurements. I just wish that more people understood the issues involved with setting a bar like this.

may I point out that steroids per se are not illegal. I believe it is anebolic steroids that are. Non anebolic steroids are used, for example, to treat asthma.

Docs can prescribe steroids to assist recovery. Brian Bosworth was suspended by the NCAA for using prescribed steroids.

I still feel it is a good system, one used for many years in tennis, the Olympics, and the NFL and NBA of late. There have been very few problems and, if memory serves, no denials when positive tests come about.

I certainly hope it goes well, and feel it will.

I would guess that they have set the bar high enough that LOTS of ofenders slip by. I think this is better than false positives, but I don't know that it fixes the problem.

Ivan

Perhaps the fear of ostracization will be enough for most if not all the players to get off the juice. Of course there will always be some players doing something trying to get an edge, but hopefully this will really level the playing field. What kind of contracts do you think the first positive testing players are going to get?

I don't know: I still think it would be pretty awesome to have PCP-crazed linebackers closing in on frightened-for-their lives QBs.

Nobody's answering the question about historical false positives in other sports, so I'll point out the there certainly have been folks who protested their innocence vociferously-- nobody paid any attention to them so we'll never know whether they were victims or liars.

Mary Decker was suspended near the end of her track career for exceeding the acceptable testosterone ratio-- I'm told by the smallest detectable amount. I believe her husband had been in trouble before, adding associative guilt to the picture, but she claimed injustice and it always seemed to me that if God told me there was one woman on earth who was over the norm naturally and invited me to guess who, my money'd be on Mary Decker Slaney.

A bit off topic, but Ibuprofen doesn't commonly cause liver damage at high doses. Usually the patient has to have pre-existing liver disease, such as hepatitis. It CAN (and often does) cause kidney damage and gastrointestinal bleeding, as can other anti-inflammatories. You may be thinking of Tylenol - that's much more commonly the culprit in pain-killer related liver damage. Just a clarification from a physician reader.

Thanks very much. I thought Ibuprofen caused liver damage with continuous use (taken daily).