What really killed Steve Bechler...

[swanem]

I didn't see it listed...

http://bodybuilding.com/fun/ephbay.htm

[MuscleMama]

No idea who Steve Bechler is.

[Brewsky]

I read the article earlier, but it was written before the toxicology report came out. That report showed Bechler had ephedra in his system, but undoubtedly there were many factors that contributed to his death.

[MuscleMama]

Ah-HUH!

Well written article. Gives a balanced picture of factors other than ephedra that contributed to his unfortunate passing. Blaming ephedra is the easy way out, while also absolving the Orioles from any responsiblility.

[StevenD]

There were only two causes for his death.

1. Lack of commitment/discipline to reaching and maintaining a level of physical fitness appropriate for a professional athlete.

2. Stupidity.


Ephedra, heat, exertion, physical ailments, etc. are just the "how" and not the "why".

[race4food]

Swanem,
Where do you work out in BR? I'm from Baton Rouge too.
I thought everyone on this board was from Europe!!!!

[Merrida]

Banning ephedra would be like banning guns.

Or alcohol?

Or tobacco?

Or marijuana?

Or caffeine?

Or sugar?

Or cars?

Or knives?

Or aspirin?

Let's face it, all of the above have been associated with injury or death at some point to someone around the world. Every single one of the above-listed.

Yet, when you look at statistics (which are very often not interpreted correctly --- most people confuse "association" with "causal" relationships and are quick to point the finger), you've got more people using them safely than you do getting injured "by them."

The answer isn't trying to protect us from ourselves, the answer is EDUCATING people about how to do and use things safely and responsibly, be willing to be informed about what you're doing, understand the pro's and con's....

Just because some yahoo goes nuts and stabs his little brother with a knife doesn't mean all knives are evil and the world would be a safer place with sporks for everyone. And just because there are some people who can't say "no" after one Big Mac does not mean that there aren't people out there who can eat McD's occasionally and maintain their weight.

But "We The People" want to disassociate ourselves from responsibility, and yet in the same breath we simultaneously want access to everything, but blame everyone else when something goes wrong.

So we either revert to a puritan society and don an amish lifestyle universally, or accept the world is a growing, changing and sometimes dangerous place, but that there are safe and responsible ways of undertaking new avenues in life, and to go forward either making choices or choosing not to partake, but either way, they are informed decisions.

To "ban" the sin for the sake of the sinner is illogical and juvenille and condecending to us as thinking beings.

[StevenD]

Originally posted by Merrida
But "We The People" want to disassociate ourselves from responsibility, and yet in the same breath we simultaneously want access to everything, but blame everyone else when something goes wrong.

So we either revert to a puritan society and don an amish lifestyle universally, or accept the world is a growing, changing and sometimes dangerous place, but that there are safe and responsible ways of undertaking new avenues in life, and to go forward either making choices or choosing not to partake, but either way, they are informed decisions.

To "ban" the sin for the sake of the sinner is illogical and juvenille and condecending to us as thinking beings.

I agree that we want to absolve ourselves of responsibility and blame every one else. I personally don't see how being puritanical precludes acceptance of the world around us as a growing, changing, and dangerous place. I agree that we must make our own choices and that they should be informed choices. But we should be free to make our own choices on everything all the time. Often, our choices come with a cost not only to ourselves but to others and to society at large that far exceeds the value of allowing people to make their own choice. Smoking tobacco products comes to mind. The enormous costs in the lives of non-smokers far outweighs the benefit of allowing people to choose. The same thing applies to other addictive narcotics.

From a moral standpoint, banning the sin for the sake of the sinner is illogical I agree. The moral decisions that count are made in the heart, not in the legislature. This is why Prohibition failed utterly.

Lastly, while misguided, the effort to ban something is not condecending to us as thinking beings. Far to large of percentage of the population aren't thinking beings. It is not that these people don't have the mental capacity to be thinking beings. They simply choose not to do so. Much of what I see going on around me both in the lives of people I know, acquaintances, and the larger world reflects a frequent and profound lack of thought and absense of any kind of good judgment. Consider the original subject of our discussion. I whole-heartedly wish this were not true.

[swanem]

Originally posted by race4food
Where do you work out in BR? I'm from Baton Rouge too.

I used to be a part of Foxy's, but when the membership wore off (and I came to me senses) I bought a home gym. I'll be joining the Y this summer for the pool.

For those of you who use Ephedrine, I started Nutra Sport's ECA Stack. I like it ALOT more than Xenadrine or Ripped fuel. I feel that I the stimulation was more steady, compared to Xen where today's dose mat be good, but yesterday's was weak.

Not affiliated, blah blah blah...

[DustinLati]

Or marijuana?

ummm....isnt that stuff already illegal?

[NateDogg]

lol

[Steve]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or marijuana?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by DustinLati
ummm....isnt that stuff already illegal?

not everywhere

Steve