A discernable difference

Well after that long week of bashing football for various reasons at least the game was decent. I was unsure as to what I would write about this week until I heard a description of Troy Polomalu's medical treatment. The procedure that was used on his ailing knee was to draw blood, isolate the red blood cells, and then inject the isolated red blood cells into his knee for the purpose of regeneration. When it comes to exceedingly fancy medical procedures, this is just the tip of the iceberg really. The things that Dr. James Andrews does with ligament replacement are absolutely mind-numbing. Having Tommy John surgery requires a lengthy recovery, but if you can recover effectively then the structural integrity of your elbow is better after the surgery than before.

What I want to discuss this week is steroids. Year after year I see the case for steroids being illegal weaken. Though I know the phrases "level playing field" and "unfair advantage" will never fully lose their weight in a steroids argument. My problem with steroids being illegal is two-fold: 1) their is no way to draw any kind of valid line between the most incredible medical procedures and the use of steroids and 2) normal people, who also tend to look down their noses at steroid users, use some sort of drug enhancement in their daily lives.

Pertaining to the first, the way it is generally explained to me by steroid haters goes something like this..............."God damnit Kyle, steroids are illegal because they give the player taking them an unfair advantage over the player not taking them. This advantage manifests itself on the field in the form of better numbers, usually home runs. This, in turn, allows the roided player to garner more interest from clubs because he is viewed as a better player." I find many things wrong with this type of argument. Let's get some analogies in.

If their was an exercise out their (I dont think there is) in which the person doing the exercise would reap tremendous results from the workout, let's say it would be five times more effective than a normal workout in terms of building muscle mass and increasing strength, however this exercise also runs the risk of hurting your muscles in the long term, weakening your joints, and serves to make you MORE injury prone as you age (more injury prone than a normal aging athlete). I think it is undeniable that not all athletes would choose to participate in this kind of workout. Yet I know that some athletes would. What is the difference between this scenario and the steroids scenario (leaving out the barrier of steroids being deemed illegal).

Two baseball players. One is willing to sacrifice his body for the team, the other is not, after all says player two "baseball is a business and my body is the most important thing I have." In a situation where each player is chasing a ball down (catching this ball will secure victory, letting it drop will have them lose the game) and eventually will need to dive to make the catch, one of these guys will dive, and one will let up and see the ball drop in front of him. Again, two baseball players, both on mediocre teams. They both realize that their team could use a little extra help hitting wise, but knows that the team isn't planning on addressing this problem. One player decides to take steroids to try and help the team. One player never even thinks of this option, he is pure. The point of this one, for it might be less transparent than the previous one, is the the phrase "sacrifice you body for the team" is used all the time in sports, and it is lauded as a noble quality in a player, especially in situations like the catch-to-win-the-game scenario. If you watch ESPN during baseball season you will see a plethora of highlights where fielders and throwing themselves into walls in order to catch baseballs. If sacrificing one's body for the sake of improved performance can be considered noble, then why are steroids not given the same treatment?

Steroids destroy people's bodies in the long-run, as we found out, so does playing football. But so does "sacrificing your body for the team." All of these actions are used to enhance performance with the knowledge that these actions may also injure the player. Someone explain the difference.

Pertaining to the second, if anyone drinks coffee during the day, or has a diet coke, or takes an anti-depressant, or takes Ritalin, or anything like this, then they are using performance enhancing drugs. I just love to note the hypocrisy of people bashing steroids users while having their daily cup of joe.

What do we do if a baseball player who wears glasses, but refuses to get laser eye surgery for moral reasons, is put next to a player of exactly the same physical talent, but is of the mental disposition to get the laser eye surgery? The man with perfect vision has an advantage over the man with glasses. Is this advantage unfair? Should we ban laser eye surgery because some might be morally opposed and would therefore be at an "unfair advantage."

Gimme thoughts on this gentlemen.