Role Models?

First. Something that was not properly expressed. I find the two commonplace responses to steroids are a) that they constitute an artificial enhancement and b) they create an unfair advantage. My points about surgery were to explain that steroids are just as artificial as surgery is, especially the kind of surgery that takes your natural makeup and improves upon it (Tommy John). As for unfair advantages, where does the unfairness come from? Seems like people think that some athletes are morally opposed to steroids and so they can't reap the benefits of the drugs like unscrupulous athletes can. This, somehow, is unfair. Too bad all the athletes who were morally opposed to dietary supplements aren't speaking up. What if I am morally opposed to drinking Gatorade? Do all those who drink Gatorade (and are therefore more adequately hydrated while performing athletics) have an unfair advantage over me? Of course not, but that is the same logical form that the steroids-equal-unfair-advantage camp has, it is just that there Gatorade is A LOT more potent and creates major health issues. (If you need me to make the argument that drinking Gatorade is morally wrong I will, but let's not take it in that direction gentlemen)

Second. On to more pressing issues. In a sentence: When did you both become 39-year-old soccer moms? But seriously, you BOTH went with the role models argument? (I guess you mentioned the health concerns, but you both seemed caught up with role models more) I guess I just can't think of a weaker argument against steroids than the "pro-athletes are role models and shouldn't do bad stuff cause people will emulate them" argument.

When did pro-athletes become public servants? Where in there contracts are they required to be "good" people? Is it that they are famous, and therefore in the public eye, and therefore morally constrained to be perfect? That is just absurd. The reason for this is in the answer to the question: why do people want to be athletes? So that they can correct society's moral compass? No. It is so they can make a bunch of money doing something that is fun, that they enjoy doing, nevermind the potential for fame, glory, girls, girls, girls, and the ability to do whatever the fuck you want. Zach, you mentioned athletes in the same breath as politicians, this is ridiculous. Politicians are public servants, at the very least that is what holding an office is purported to be about (even if a lot of politicians are more about power, their office is defined as being a place where the selfless and moral are supposed to thrive). If you were to ask someone why they got into politics they would (99% of them) say "to serve the public." Nothing about pursuing professional athletics is about being a good person of a pillar of morality. Would it be nice if more of them wanted to be good people, yes, and that is true for every human on the planet, no matter their vocation (and in no way am I saying taking steroids is immoral or makes you a bad person).

So what do the amazingly awful long term effects of steroids have to do with anything? If there was a pill I could take that would make me 10% smarter, but it would also leave me with chronic pain, shortened life span, and a weaker heart, I would probably still take that pill. Nothing about that is immoral. If someone wants to trade their health for glory, or pleasure, that is up to them. Furthermore, as Zach said, pro-sports are a pipe dream for 99% of athletes. Even if every professional athlete was publicly cleared of steroids, and everyone knew it, do you really think that would stop teenagers from taking something that they think might radically improve their athletic ability? Of course not. We are never going to get the impressionable youth to make forward thinking decisions, it simply won't happen. I mean, everyone, EVERYONE in America knows that smoking will fuck your health up. People still smoke, and the pleasure of a cigarette is pretty minimal.

Harping on some other shit that was said...

So what crucial difference is there between saying players are "lauded for sacrificing their bodies for the game" and "players are lauded for MAKING PLAYS that RISK injury to their bodies"? Firstly, merely playing pro-sports, almost ANY pro-sport, risks long term damage to the body. Playing 162 baseball games does considerable damage to the body, same as playing 82 basketball games, or 82 hockey games, or 16 football games, or soccer, or tennis, or so many other pro-sports. Most athletes are, literally, sacrificing their bodies to play the game. This distinction was then followed up with "It's not inherently noble to risk or destroy your body; it's noble if it pays a dividend for your team." Two things: 1) this is exactly why pro athletes are not role models, because what they do for a living, what they have devoted their lives to, is not noble....2) how could success have any bearing on nobility? So doctor's are only noble if they save the patients life, and noble-neutral if they fail? I think you can see the fault in this.

Zach, you also claim that athletes who use steroids are hypocrites. I don't understand. If someone is a pro-athlete then they have devoted their entire life to making themselves better at a sport than everyone else is, how then are they hypocrites if they take a substance that may make them better at what they do? Even if it makes them better for a short period of time and then destroys them, they might be stupid (in your eyes) but they are certainly not hypocritical.

Ken Caminiti died prematurely because he took steroids. He also won an MVP and played in a World Series, those two things kick ass, if he wanted to risk a shorter life to achieve those two things, that is his choice, it is his body. I am utterly shocked to hear you say something like "but I don't think it's a choice they should be allowed to make." If there is one universal moral truth I ascribe to it is this: If I am not impinging on anyone else's rights (i.e not killing them or hurting them [in a direct way, not hurting them like they decided to take steroids cause they look at me as a role model even though I don't want to be a role model]), then I can do anything to my body that I want. I can take drugs, I can swear, I can wear funny hats, I can kill myself, and NO ONE has the moral right to tell me that I can't.

Finally, yes, I agree, capitalism is the problem, but capitalism might just be a manifestation of human nature, so I guess we're fucked.