Athletes are lying to us. They are lying and we believe their is situated. Well, the majority of us do. You see, many Athletes that test positive for prohibited substances are blaming diet supplements since the cause for the positive test. Allows examine the following assertion from Iowa State linebacker Matt Robertson who was recently kicked off the Iowa state football team for testing positive for a banned substance.

"I take full responsibility for taking an over-the-counter product that is banned by the NCAA, " Robertson said in a statement released Monday. "I feel paying a heavy price for a very bad decision, as I will never again wear an Iowa State uniform. I hope my example will serve as a warning to others contemplating use of nutritional supplements. "

Statements like these are triggering Stanozolol Cycle an unnecessary hysteria among the public regarding dietary supplements. Inside Mr. Robertson's quote, specifically notice the term "dietary supplements". Health supplement is a very broad term, it includes literally thousands of different types of products. There is merely one kind of health supplement that will cause a positive result for steroid tests. These products are called pro-hormones. Did a pro-hormone cause Mr. Robertson's positive result? Possibly, but we will never know the truth.

Pro-hormones are being used to raise the system's testosterone levels, just like steroids, but at a much lesser effect. Any athlete who requires a pro-hormone knows what it really does. They know that pro-hormones are designed to elevate testosterone ensuing it more muscle tissue and greater athletic performance. On top of that, pro-hormones say directly on the jar something to the impact of "Professional and amateur athletes subject to performance boosting substance testing should seek advice from with their sanctioning body before using this product as use of such could cause a reactive drug test. " Fairly clear isn't it? A person can't tell me that Mr. Robertson can't read, he is "an academic all-Big 12 performer who was as good in the classroom as he was on the field, " according to his trainer Dan McCarney.

Blaming a positive test on one of such products may be true because they can create a positive on a steroid test. However, it would also be very easy to blame a positive test on the dietary supplement when they athlete was actually by using a steroid. Since the actual supplements are seldom revealed, it is not hard to blame a positive test on a dietary supplement.

It doesn't make a difference because a positive test is a positive test, right? Wrong. By these sports athletes blaming their positive test on dietary supplements rather than steroids they are in effect "passing the buck" That is, they are claiming ignorance, rather than taking responsibility, and they are hurting the multi-billion money dietary supplement industry at the same time. This is not okay, not because it creates false beliefs one of the public about supplements, but also because it gives the federal government government grounds to further restrict what you can buy without a prescription.

Would you like to must travel to your doctor to get a prescription for a multi-vitamin? What if you wanted to buy a protein supplement? Would you want to have to attend your doctor for that? I actually didn't think so. These kinds of athletes and their organizations are being extremely irresponsible by using broad conditions like dietary supplements when describing positive drug tests.

The NCAA and other governing organizations should have to reveal what exact compound these athletes are screening positive for. By not doing so these organizations are allowing athletes to save face at the expense of an entire multi-billion money industry. By forcing the NCAA and other regulating bodies to name the precise substance that was analyzed positive for they would eliminate all confusion on what is and is also not the cause of positive tests. Either that or governing bodies including the NCAA and the press should be educated in the proper terminology of the dietary supplement industry. Painting reactive tests with the term "dietary supplements" is inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible.

Take for example Rafael Palmeiro, everyone recalls his overly compelling funds hill testimony. How ironic that only a couple of weeks later Rafael tested positive for Stanozolol, a steroid. Palmeiro tried hard to pass the blame. He blamed "tainted" dietary supplements, and when that didn't fly he blamed a supplement B12 shot. Well stanozol is a very specific and popular steroid. There is no possible way that a positive for stanazolol can be from dietary supplements or B12. Following people started realizing this, Palmeiro started claiming lack of knowledge, saying he never knowingly took steroids. Well We guess Rafael will be making a good residing after baseball considering he or she is the only person on the planet that knows where to find pills that jump off the desk into your mouth on their own. Exactly what a cool idea, the little azure pill could be come the little blue bouncing pill. That would be neat to see.