Steroids -- What's so bad about them?

[Royal Slave]

Just something to stir a little talk, hopefully ...

Paul Campos
Boulder, Colo.

Suppose that 20 years ago it was discovered that eating an exotic fruit from the South American rainforests improved the vision and reflexes of baseball players. Suppose that, as a result, a number of the game’s long-standing records were broken, most notably Hank Aaron’s career home-run mark.

Under such circumstances, would people consider the breaking of Aaron’s record tainted in some way? I think it’s safe to say the answer is no.

So why has Barry Bonds’ apparent use of performance-enhancing drugs tainted his breaking of Aaron’s record to such a point that many people are calling for the removal of Bonds’ mark from the baseball record books?

The easy answer is because Bonds cheated. But this just raises the further question of why using performance-enhancing drugs is considered cheating. In other words, why is using performance-enhancing drugs against the rules?

Indeed, unlike my hypothetical exotic fruit, performance-enhancing drugs themselves don’t improve a player’s physical abilities — they merely allow the player to get more benefits from hard training, and to train harder. In that sense, they are no different than videotape, ultrasound machines, arthroscopic surgery and a host of other technological innovations. And don’t we want to reward athletes for working hard?

There’s a standard answer to that, too: Performance-enhancing drugs are banned because they’re dangerous, and athletes shouldn’t have to choose between pursuing excellence and protecting their health. This is a good point — yet I suspect the extent to which the ban is actually motivated by a paternalistic urge to protect the health of athletes has been greatly exaggerated.

Consider that we’re happy to allow athletes to entertain us by playing sports such as football, which by their very nature are terrible for their health, and even to engage in activities (boxing and race car driving come to mind) whose main point is to put the competitors in serious danger.

No, people are disgusted by Bonds because they’re disgusted at the idea that someone has used “drugs” to break a sacred sports record — and apparently the word “drugs” has the power to paralyze the higher cognitive functions of many a mind. Here’s another little thought experiment: Would it be OK for baseball players to use steroids or amphetamines or human growth hormone if it could be shown that these substances posed little or no health risk to athletes who used them prudently? (This may in fact be the case, at least for some banned performance-enhancing drugs.)

I more than suspect it wouldn’t be OK. Indeed, for many people this will seem like a nonsensical question. After all, these are drugs we’re talking about! And, in our culture, to call something a “drug” means it has the following qualities: It’s magical, it’s dangerous and therefore it can be used, if at all, only under the close supervision of the shamans of the tribe. (This is why alcohol isn’t considered a drug.)

Those who violate these rules become polluted by the magical dangerous substances they’ve “abused,” and whatever feats they’ve performed under the influence of these substances become polluted as well.

In the end, what taints Bonds’ achievement is that he didn’t have a valid prescription for achieving it. He should have asked his doctor if hitting 756 home runs was right for him.

Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Colorado, is a columnist for Scripps Howard News Service.

[sportsbettingman]

Hey Royal!

I've been saying for years and years that performance enhancing and MAINLY drugs that help the body recover or regenerate from injury is in the best interest of MLB.

They want their grossly overpaid stars to draw interest. Should one get hurt, they want him back on the field asap. Maybe NATURALLY (which includes all those drugs MLB deems LEGAL) they get back on the mound or field in 12 weeks...but with the assistance of steroids taken "prudently"...they are back and playing in 6 or 7.

The cleaning up of drugs in general...coupled with being strictly taken under doctors advice (and not doubling or tripling up like the abusers who die young do)...there can be a win-win for teams, fans, and the health of the athletes.

In a perfect world...drug free baby. But I've yet to see that perfect world.

(...AND I like to play the devils advocate role at times.)

~Lance

[Royal Slave]

I've seen this argued a lot, and it seems to me if the performance-enhancing drugs are well-regulated, it improve abuse.

Sort of like gambling or abortion, in a way.

[mikeybok]

Originally posted by Royal Slave:

There’s a standard answer to that, too: Performance-enhancing drugs are banned because they’re dangerous, and athletes shouldn’t have to choose between pursuing excellence and protecting their health. This is a good point — yet I suspect the extent to which the ban is actually motivated by a paternalistic urge to protect the health of athletes has been greatly exaggerated.
I think the urge is to protect the youth from damaging their bodies when they are young and clearly feel invincible. If the drugs were only available to adults/pro athletes ... I think the outcry would not be so loud ... it is really sad to see a millionaire pro athlete suffer the effects of steroids ... but it pails in comparison to watching a 15 year old ruin his body and possibly end his or her life because he or she wants to participate or excel in high school sports. That’s the rub IMHO

[Ted's Cracked Head]

I think the urge is to protect the youth from damaging their bodies when they are young and clearly feel invincible. If the drugs were only available to adults/pro athletes ... I think the outcry would not be so loud ... it is really sad to see a millionaire pro athlete suffer the effects of steroids ... but it pails in comparison to watching a 15 year old ruin his body and possibly end his or her life because he or she wants to participate or excel in high school sports. That’s the rub IMHO
Ditto! It's the yutes I am concerned about.

[Royal Slave]

If we're really sooooo worried about youths, though, why aren't we cracking down on their role models as hard for other things that are harmful to them, like alcohol, gambling and smoking?

[mikeybok]

Originally posted by Royal Slave:
If we're really sooooo worried about youths, though, why aren't we cracking down on their role models as hard for other things that are harmful to them, like alcohol, gambling and smoking? I don't recall mentioning "role model". There's a difference between roll model and training techniques. I don't need to think of "Sweetness" as a role model to see the benefits of running up a sand dune's and training like he did.

But since YOU brought it up ... the public DID come down pretty hard on baseball players having tobacco chew on the field when it was a more prevalent habit ... considering it is perfectly OK activity in other venues.

Just a thought

[mikeybok]

Personally ... if chronic smoking made you permanently run faster ... I would ban smokers from track competitions.

I don't think young kids should have to harm their health to be competitive in high school, college or even pro sports. Sports should be about the human spirit, team work, determination and dedication.

I'm not interested in the guy or gal who is willing to do the most damage to themselves in order to make millions of dollars playing a game.

Are you saying ... anything goes? Lets bring back gladiators ... and fight to the death if we can find people willing to entertain us that way?

Just curious

[Royal Slave]

Originally posted by Ugly Yellow Tomatoes:
I don't think young kids should have to harm their health to be competitive in high school, college or even pro sports. Neither do I.

And neither does the writer of the commentary I posted.

You'll note the paragraph that reads:

Here’s another little thought experiment: Would it be OK for baseball players to use steroids or amphetamines or human growth hormone if it could be shown that these substances posed little or no health risk to athletes who used them prudently? (This may in fact be the case, at least for some banned performance-enhancing drugs.)

[Diesel]

Two Words:

Lyle Alzado