For thousands of years, deer antlers have been used as a Chinese remedy for essentially everything (a quick Google search will yield a wide variety of results). While most of the antler benefits have not been scientifically proven, it is believed that these antlers contain high concentrations of IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1) – a protein that promotes cell-growth. As a result, many deer antler supplements have been dubiously marketed as performance enhancing wonder drugs due to speculations that IGF-1 will boost muscle growth.

The “antler issue” has been plaguing sports for a while (IFG-1 is banned in professional leagues such as the MLB and NFL), but it regained popularity recently when some high-profile football players became linked to the antlers. While it is discerning that professionals are using illegal substances, it is really alarming when Christopher Key, the co-owner of an athletic supplement supplier, informed the public that he has been selling these deer antler oral sprays to college football players, and that the usage is undetectable (he has also sold “hologram patches” to some players, apparently). According to Key, his clients are feeling more energized and winning big games left and right.

So while his spray sounds like the greatest supplement since vitamin gummies, it most likely does not work.

Oral delivery of IGF just seems…incredibly difficult, and a quick literature search did not give me any hard evidence on its effects. The same ESPN article that reported Key’s testimony also mentioned a researcher (with actual expertise) refuting the possibility of the spray working. Also, Dr. Jordan Moon calculated that there simply isn’t enough in a bottle spray to be effective - in fact, Dr. Moon believes that the athletes need to use up to at least 5000 cans of spray for it to work (it is also unlikely that the IGF is delivered 100%). Reading Key’s statements, they sound more like commercials than testaments, and Key did not mention how his spray can avoid blood tests. The reason why it is undetectable is likely due to the fact that there isn’t anything in the spray. New Zealand Medical Journal also raises more doubt on the legitimacy of the antler claims (fun fact: New Zealand is the world’s largest producer of deer antlers).

So all this sounds like another hoax (seriously, what is a “hologram patch?”), and the seller is either unethically selling illegal substances to student athletes, or unethically convincing college athletes to buy his useless spray. If Key’s clients experienced any powerful “level-ups,” it is likely due to the placebo effect. Key was quoted saying: “The whole idea is to compete without cheating. We are not bad guys.” And he is right because the  players do not have IGF-1 in their bodies.

But should these college players be punished if the spray doesn’t do anything? We still punish people for unsuccessful cheating (like copying down all the wrong answers), but this case is a bit different because we don’t know if the players know about the IGF-1. To them, they could just be another source of nutrition input, which is not that different from a family remedy of…umm…spinach pie that build muscles.

Or is it really that simple? While I doubt players really knew what they were putting in their bodies, I doubt they really thought they were just eating more carrots to improve their vision – a guy sold them a “spray” that is claimed to work wonders and not be detected by blood tests (life tip: if “not being detected”is part of the advertisement, it probably is illegal).

Obviously it is more unethical for Key to throw his deceived clients under the bus for his own benefits (it worked), but what about the athletes? Is it really “cheating” when your sketchily obtained “nutrition supplement” doesn’t provide you any advantage – and you just think it does? Most people won’t consider moms telling their kids to eat large broccoli to be an unfair advantage, so what about these undetectable nutrition supplements? If they should be punished, what are the punishments for experiencing the placebo effect?

P.S. Random, but this topic reminds me of rhino hunting

“Happy 1 year! I love you baby!”

“You’re so sexy!”

“I can’t wait to see my hubby tonight!”

(Courtesy of Lamebook.com)

And many, many more. I’ll let your imagination fill in the rest.

The acronym “PDA” has gotten quite a bit of mileage out of it-from the Personal Digital Assistant to the Photo Diode Array to the Posterior Descending Artery to the Progressive Democrats of America. But now, PDA has settled into a newer and (for the time being) more permanent home: Public Displays of Affection. In fact, there is even a new term for a particular niche of PDA: the Facebook PDA, or PDA that is public (on the internet, at least) on Facebook.

Come next Monday, the internet will be filled with phrases like this. Should messages that most people would consider to be private really be shared in a public online space? Of course, it is up to the individuals committing the act (assuming the actions are legal) whether that should be allowed. But the real question is far reaching: is it alright for something to then leave the “private” realm of Facebook to be placed on sites such as Lamebook?

Naturally, there are two common responses to this question. One could take the more conservative route, claiming that a statement of this nature shared on a private website, such as Facebook, should be visible to those with whom it is shared. One could alternatively take a more liberal route, saying that anything that is placed onto the internet in an accessible manner is part of a public online realm, and thus can be shared with other people. In some ways, either of these approaches are acceptable-but the fundamental ethical question still remains: should people be allowed to repost and comment objects that they find on the internet onto other sites?

After considering how intricately social networking sites intertwine with our personal lives, it can be assumed that people are often putting their thoughts, feelings, and inner beliefs on their Facebook pages. Perhaps we feel that because we would not want all of our own personal information available on the web to be shared, we should likewise not share that of others. Nobody, whether in person or on a semi-private online realm, wants the details of their personal lives shared, and thus, you really should not do that to others. But if we take a different perspective, one where doing the right thing is simply doing the thing that makes the most people happy, maybe it is all right to post Facebook comments on a blog. A post online can make many people very happy, but it certainly can’t make a single person terrible unhappy. Without context, what does “You’re so sexy!” mean anyways?

In any case, as your Facebook feed this Valentine’s Day is filled with millions of random Facebook PDA posts from so called “friends,” consider your actions as you either laugh inside at your desk or laugh with millions of others on a blog.

What began as a “harmless” prank of placing a snowman in the middle of the street led to the unfortunate termination of a Champaign–Urbana city bus driver. After the footage of the “hit-and- run” incident went viral on YouTube, officials of the transit company met with the guilty employee and facilitated a “quiet resignation.” Although company officials did not elaborate on the cause of the termination, I suspect the YouTube video was the guilty culprit.

Many Chicago residents blamed the pranksters for the unfair termination of the bus driver and others censured him for running-down Frosty at 30 mph. After viewing the video, YOU decide: who is at fault?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ2aAmMRjxc]

The incident not only raises the issues of pranks and wintry-driving, but more importantly of moral courage. Why did the transit company feel the need to fire their employee in such a surreptitious manner? Was it because they caved to public pressure and embarrassment, but knew that their actions were wrong? If they believed that the pranksters were to blame, why didn’t they stand up for their employee?

In an age of technological advancement, it seems as if our notions of “right” and “wrong” are now governed by media and mob mentality. There is arbitrariness to what goes viral on YouTube, and when something morally ambiguous is exposed, the knee-jerk reaction is to allay controversy, in this case, by firing an employee.

The real question is: if someone builds Frosty and no one films his demise, does anyone get fired? I think not! So why is the Chicago transit company so swayed by the power of YouTube? Is it disturbing that our actions no longer align with our moral convictions, but rather with our preoccupation over public image?

As Frosty’s remains lay cold on the ground, let’s take a moment of silence to ponder.