Should All Fighters Take PEDs?

This is the best thing I've read on PEDs (it's a looooong read):

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/the-drugs-won-the-case-for-ending-the-sports-war-on-doping

This section is interesting:

"ESPN's Tom Farrey reports that researchers have found high rates of hormonal deficiency—specifically, HGH and testosterone—among victims of head trauma, likely due to damage to the pituitary gland, a pea-sized organ that sits at the base of the brain. Given the hard-hitting nature of sports like football, is it ethical to deny football players PEDs? Rather than protecting athletes, it's possible that prohibition is hurting some of them."

I think we can all think of a fighter who has been suspected of PED use (there are plenty to choose from) who, ordinarily, would have shown signs of brain trauma but - inexplicably - haven't (or not to the extent seen in previous eras when compared to a fighter with a similarly punishing career.

Should we give up the crusade against PEDs? Should today's fighters be evaluated differently to previous eras as a result (fighters are able to fight on past their mid-30s fairly frequently these days -which I'd contend isn't the fear it once was).

One heavyweight comes to mind straight away. He has taken bombs all his career, from some of the heaviest hitters of all time, right up until he was about 50 years old. He seems to be ok.

Evan Fields!

Do you have the link to the full article Haz?

Pedro147 wrote:Do you have the link to the full article Haz?

Whoops, added the link to OP.

hazharrison wrote:

Pedro147 wrote:Do you have the link to the full article Haz?

Whoops, added the link to OP.

Cheers man thanks