Though I would never have admitted it to Kyle, now that Ben has said it, I feel better about writing it: I agree with the basic premise and the essential truth of what Kyle is saying. Ethically, it makes sense to me. So, in a similar way, does the aforementioned X2's ethics. It's difficult to argue against--with the proviso of it being used in very specific situations, such as the ones Ben mentioned, and a few others I can think of. Steroids are too powerful and too revolutionary a medical technology to be a singularly black or white issue. There is always gray, but particularly when we deal with a dichotomy such as this, where the two opposites held in tension with each other are so extreme. This kind of technology--especially technology that alters the human body in some drastic way, but any technology--is Janus-faced by its nature. Technology, because it is inherently attached to progress, is the proverbial double-edge sword. I don't think this can really be debated. I mean, the extremes in this case are not as drastic as those of other double-edged technological advances, such as the ability to split the atom and so forth. But on an individual human level, steroids is up there with cloning, genetic engineering, chemotherapy, and--I think you have to throw it in there--stem cells. I think there is a certain commonality to these issues. But I think that may in fact be several other future weeks worth of blog topics, and too great a tangent to tackle on the weekend. But, time to digress.
WARNING: TOTAL NOT-SEQUITER ALERT
Anyway, I'm exhausted from work, and I don't have much more to say at the moment. It's time for my slippers and a glass of red wine. But let's do a little looking ahead. Just a heads up, I am working on some ideas for next week. (Yay sentence fragment!) I'm going to get away from sports and get a little heavier. Right now, I'm headed in the direction of a semi-memoir op-ed piece on life teaching in the Bronx. I'm also going to touch on some more historical and philosophical stuff I've been learning in my grad classes recently, such as the underpinnings of Jefferson's classical liberalism and its legacy in our public (but not nationalized) school system. And then I'd like to pose some questions about the pressing fiscal crisis' impending devastation of the public school system and hypothesize what the long term effects for our society might be.
Now that I think about it, I guess I change my mind. That sounds like the book I am about to start writing. (Right?) Does that sound like something you guys would have something to say about? Just curious, my fellow graduates of urban public schools.
WARNING: EVEN LESS FUCKING SEQUITER ALERT
These are just as important--a trio of YouTube videos you need to see.
First, this is the infamous "Read a Book." At least, I believe that's what it's called. I may be intentionally omitting a certain racial epithet. I'm really not sure. Anyway, this is a must-see animated music video parody. It's about a year old, but I just discovered it. It aired on BET, and I think it's pretty self explanatory. (No, I don't think it's the real Little John singing). The sociological implications are pretty astounding. Anyway, just shut me up and watch it. Note to overly-sensitive people: there is some bad language in this video. But at least we don't have to worry about racism: a black guy made this video, and therefore it is not offensive. (Mmmhmm. I did. I went there).
Read a Book
Then watch this, which is perhaps even more ridiculous in its own right. Who is that anchor, and what the fuck is his problem? American punditry blows and can never, ever be taken seriously. At least not CNN. This guy makes Anderson Cooper look like Tom Brokaw. Better yet, Walter Cronkite. No, no, Edward R. Murrow. Mmm, no. Tom Brokaw. Something seems right about Tom Brokaw.
"Read a Book" Creators on CNN 2/2/08
Next, enjoy watching video proof that the NFL's parity is, as we've always guessed, the result of prescribed game outcomes. And by parity, I mean parody. This is hilarious, and a must-see for NFL cynics and anyone with a sense of humor.
Super Bowl XLIII Writers' Room
BASEBALL NEWS
The Orioles have certainly had an interesting offseason. Ty Wigginton at $3 mil per for two years is the latest good-sense signing the team has made. Uehara and Rich Hill can't be worse than last year's rotation (after Jeremy Guthrie), Zaun is a fine stopgap for Wieters--we should only need him for about a month, I hope--and Cesar Izturis is a nice glove at short. Chris Ray is coming back, and we have a lot of potential in the bullpen with David Pauley and some of the pitchers signed to minor league contracts. And potential is all you can really hope for, or claim to have, when it comes to your bullpen, I don't care who you are. And of course, nothing warmed my heart more than signing my favorite player Nick Markakis to a very reasonable extension. This is the happiest I've been with the Orioles front office in some time. I mean, we'll still be lucky to win 75 games, but I can at least respect the approach so far.
Friday, February 6, 2009
The Art of Consensus and What is Coming Next
See, this is what is great about these conversations that we're having. I agreed with 90 percent of what you just wrote. If we can stay away from grand hyperbole then I suspect we're not so far apart on this as we initially seemed.
This week started with you making the case for steroids to be legal. This is the argument I inartfully referred to in my "this disproves your other arguments" statement (which dragged me down in to the hyperbolic as well. If I could strike that sentence from the record I would). I still do not think you have made the argument that we should remove the barriers of steroid use, for all of the previous reasons we've discussed, but I am on board that this is not a "steroids are always bad/surgery always good" dichotomy. I agree that there are specific instances where some players could be praised for taking steroids.
One thing I realized in the course of this discussion is we are arguing about the difference between damage done "naturally" and damage done chemically. I imagine the specific instance where a player could be praised would involve taking steroids because of a specific injury or condition, and the steroids are the difference between being a productive athlete and not playing at all. We would view the short term gain, for the team, as something to be praised, and feel pity for the athlete after the fact when the side-effects took hold. I can get on board with all of this.
Where you still lose me is saying that Tommy John and steroids can be viewed in the same lens. If anything the Tommy John example is the converse of the steroids example. In the same way that we can imagine a specific instance where steroids would be laudable, we can also imagine a very narrow specific instance where Tommy John would be considered bad.
I would not be in favor of a player, if his elbow was fine, deciding to get Tommy John surgery. In my mind the Tommy John surgery needs to be a specific response TO something. But once that something happens I see nothing wrong with the surgery, I think it is necessary and good to do so.
But all of this is stuff we've gone over. I want to come at this from a different angle in light of an article that I just read on Baseball Prospectus. This whole conversation we've been having is for naught in regards to anabolic steroids. Baseball has essentially already put this issue behind it. The more interesting question is what is next and what barriers exist or should exist in regards to them. Will Carrol of BP interviews a man he refers to as X2, who makes a number of the arguments you've been making. And this guy has "what's next". The money shot:
Then there is this exchange which I found funny in light of our discussion.
Kyle you need to read this article because you're going to love it. What I will say is my argument revolved around the idea that there were negative long-term side effects to steroid use. I think that we like sports because we like seeing what the human body is capable of. I think though that it is inevitable, if not desirable, that we are going to enjoy sports because of what the human body, when combined with science, is capable of. If we can supplement the human body in such ways that it increases your quality of life without side-effects, I can't make a convincing argument against their use (i'm not 100 percent sure I mean this but I definitly need to think about it further). This is why this is not an all-or-nothing arguement, and as I re-read your earlier posts and cut through some of your grander over-statements, I realized they had forced me into corners of my own.
I still don't think I would give an athlete credit for using because I do like sports in part for watching what the human body is capable of, but I would be hard pressed to say they should be banned.
You started by making an argument that steroids should be legal, and it morphed into an argument about the potential for inherent "goodness". You then qualified yourself down to baseline that I found reasonable, and in turn I find myself qualifying my statements so that we may not be that far apart. I'm definitely interested in your thoughts on this article.
This week started with you making the case for steroids to be legal. This is the argument I inartfully referred to in my "this disproves your other arguments" statement (which dragged me down in to the hyperbolic as well. If I could strike that sentence from the record I would). I still do not think you have made the argument that we should remove the barriers of steroid use, for all of the previous reasons we've discussed, but I am on board that this is not a "steroids are always bad/surgery always good" dichotomy. I agree that there are specific instances where some players could be praised for taking steroids.
One thing I realized in the course of this discussion is we are arguing about the difference between damage done "naturally" and damage done chemically. I imagine the specific instance where a player could be praised would involve taking steroids because of a specific injury or condition, and the steroids are the difference between being a productive athlete and not playing at all. We would view the short term gain, for the team, as something to be praised, and feel pity for the athlete after the fact when the side-effects took hold. I can get on board with all of this.
Where you still lose me is saying that Tommy John and steroids can be viewed in the same lens. If anything the Tommy John example is the converse of the steroids example. In the same way that we can imagine a specific instance where steroids would be laudable, we can also imagine a very narrow specific instance where Tommy John would be considered bad.
I would not be in favor of a player, if his elbow was fine, deciding to get Tommy John surgery. In my mind the Tommy John surgery needs to be a specific response TO something. But once that something happens I see nothing wrong with the surgery, I think it is necessary and good to do so.
But all of this is stuff we've gone over. I want to come at this from a different angle in light of an article that I just read on Baseball Prospectus. This whole conversation we've been having is for naught in regards to anabolic steroids. Baseball has essentially already put this issue behind it. The more interesting question is what is next and what barriers exist or should exist in regards to them. Will Carrol of BP interviews a man he refers to as X2, who makes a number of the arguments you've been making. And this guy has "what's next". The money shot:
X2 smiled.
"Well, home runs are down, but I don't think that drug use is down. People point to positives being down, but that's because the ante has been upped. Players can't just use whatever they want any more. It was the Wild West just a few years ago, but guys are just being smarter about it now."
I nodded. "I'd agree. All the statistical studies showed there wasn't a big effect, but that's neither here nor there. So what are the smarter guys doing now? What's the next THG?"
"Probably SARMs, which aren't even on the legitimate market yet, but you can find on the black market. They're a nightmare for testing officials."
I'd heard a bit about SARMs (Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators). The word on the street was that they had a powerful anabolic effect, but that it came from a completely different mechanism. "What do they do? I mean, how do they work and how effective are they?"
"Chemically, they bind to the androgen receptor, just like testosterone, and signal the body to build more muscle and strength. It's like testosterone without the testosterone. Actually, the testosterone analogy is apt, because they're every bit as effective as [testosterone]."
Then there is this exchange which I found funny in light of our discussion.
"Firsthand?" I asked.
In answer, he set a small bottle on the table. It was your basic tinted glass bottle, a dark blue with a medicine dropper top. It sat on the table with the salt and pepper, next to my iced tea. "You've used it?"
He nodded, as if I'd asked a stupid question. "Yes. On an ethical level, I wouldn't be telling athletes to use it if I hadn't already."
"That's both some big confidence and, for many people, strange ethics."
Kyle you need to read this article because you're going to love it. What I will say is my argument revolved around the idea that there were negative long-term side effects to steroid use. I think that we like sports because we like seeing what the human body is capable of. I think though that it is inevitable, if not desirable, that we are going to enjoy sports because of what the human body, when combined with science, is capable of. If we can supplement the human body in such ways that it increases your quality of life without side-effects, I can't make a convincing argument against their use (i'm not 100 percent sure I mean this but I definitly need to think about it further). This is why this is not an all-or-nothing arguement, and as I re-read your earlier posts and cut through some of your grander over-statements, I realized they had forced me into corners of my own.
I still don't think I would give an athlete credit for using because I do like sports in part for watching what the human body is capable of, but I would be hard pressed to say they should be banned.
You started by making an argument that steroids should be legal, and it morphed into an argument about the potential for inherent "goodness". You then qualified yourself down to baseline that I found reasonable, and in turn I find myself qualifying my statements so that we may not be that far apart. I'm definitely interested in your thoughts on this article.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Continuing on....
So let me address some questions posed to me.
"Can you give me proof that steroids tangibly improve an athletes performance?"
Well, I suppose that I cannot offer more proof than the fact that anabolic steroids (for these are the most common in athletics, they are the ones that have real bad effects if used improperly) are banned by almost every sporting organization in the world. Other than that I know that they help grow lean muscle and that they help muscles regenerate quicker (again, assuming they are used in moderation, with a strict diet, and in under the watchful eye of a physician). Also, if steroids do make one stronger, then they will improve a person's performance in most athletic endeavors. From what I have read on this recently (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/steroids/steroids_ff.html) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroids) (http://www.drugfree.org/playhealthy/Facts/FactLoader.aspx?ID=13), when used properly and for a short time, the side effects can be minimal, when abused or used for too long, the side effects can be great. Also, the side effects seem to be worse if the body is still developing. From what I have read, and considering that sporting bodies treat the drugs so seriously, I think that it is safe to say that for a lot of sports they can increase an athlete's performance.
For some athletes, perhaps not all, steroids could be in their self-interest. But that all depends on the athlete, their level of development, their desire to be better, and their willingness to risk their health (in a more serious way than merely playing the game would risk their health).
Quoting Ben "The one interesting point you made was that all sports lead to the sacrifice of health. However, this only leads to disprove your other arguments. Medical advances can improve your quality of life during and after your career is over. Tommy John takes nothing away (except a year of your career), it only gives." I don't know what other arguments you are referring to, but I would like to know which ones you mean. My problem with surgery is that it is just as "artificial" as steroids. Throwing more curve balls and sliders degenerates the arm (sometimes), just like sports can degenerate the body (sometimes). If my body physically cannot take the strain of throwing a massive amount of sliders then having ligament replacement surgery is just as artificial and performance enhancing as steroids. If one's body cannot take a 162 game season and they take steroids to make up for that (or drink a bunch of 5-hour energy drinks) then they are enhancing their performance with something unnatural. I think that was more my point about surgery and steroids.
As to the question would I take steroids. If I was a professional athlete and I viewed my talent/production level as insufficient then I would take a look at my level of training and see what I could do differently. If there wasn't anything I thought I could do training-wise, then I would consider taking steroids. However, I would probably get caught because I would not do it without having some people around me telling me the safest possible way to do it (acknowledging that anabolic steroids used solely for the purposes of increasing athletic performance are not safe in the long-run, even if used as "safely" as possible). But yes, there are certain scenarios under which I could see myself taking steroids. All of those scenarios are not possible anymore, so I think it is safe to say that I am not planning on taking steroids.
I don't think my arguments ever claimed that steroids are good for all of society. What I am saying about praising an athlete for steroid use is this: If we are right to praise athletes for playing sports, and we acknowledge that playing sports can severely damage your health, then if an athlete takes a substance that can help increase his performance in his sport then he can potentially be praised for that action. Not every athlete who takes steroids can be praised for taking steroids, but I think that in some situations they can be. This kind of praise will not be common, but it is possible. Moreover, I will not think poorly about an athlete who takes steroids. If they took them to get better at their given sport then what's my real problem? That they may destroy their bodies? That they are only doing it for fame? I know some athletes will mess their body up even if they never use steroids, yet I applaud anyway (and most are in it, be it a big reason or a small reason, for the fame. And I reward them by adding to their fame). I applaud athletes for "playing through" injuries all the time. I applaud them for risking their safety trying to catch a ball or stop a puck. I don't really see how I can say they are bad people when they risk their long term health for the chance to be even better than they are. Seems to me that they have been doing that all along.
Steroids are not good for all of society, regular ass people wouldn't feel much benefit from taking anabolic steroids. But if there was something out there that made you a better doctor but risked your health I think some would take it, and I would praise some of those doctors.
HAHA, I love how one of the labels is "Kyle's convenient ignoring of my posts." Sorry man, I just got caught up.
"Can you give me proof that steroids tangibly improve an athletes performance?"
Well, I suppose that I cannot offer more proof than the fact that anabolic steroids (for these are the most common in athletics, they are the ones that have real bad effects if used improperly) are banned by almost every sporting organization in the world. Other than that I know that they help grow lean muscle and that they help muscles regenerate quicker (again, assuming they are used in moderation, with a strict diet, and in under the watchful eye of a physician). Also, if steroids do make one stronger, then they will improve a person's performance in most athletic endeavors. From what I have read on this recently (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/steroids/steroids_ff.html) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroids) (http://www.drugfree.org/playhealthy/Facts/FactLoader.aspx?ID=13), when used properly and for a short time, the side effects can be minimal, when abused or used for too long, the side effects can be great. Also, the side effects seem to be worse if the body is still developing. From what I have read, and considering that sporting bodies treat the drugs so seriously, I think that it is safe to say that for a lot of sports they can increase an athlete's performance.
For some athletes, perhaps not all, steroids could be in their self-interest. But that all depends on the athlete, their level of development, their desire to be better, and their willingness to risk their health (in a more serious way than merely playing the game would risk their health).
Quoting Ben "The one interesting point you made was that all sports lead to the sacrifice of health. However, this only leads to disprove your other arguments. Medical advances can improve your quality of life during and after your career is over. Tommy John takes nothing away (except a year of your career), it only gives." I don't know what other arguments you are referring to, but I would like to know which ones you mean. My problem with surgery is that it is just as "artificial" as steroids. Throwing more curve balls and sliders degenerates the arm (sometimes), just like sports can degenerate the body (sometimes). If my body physically cannot take the strain of throwing a massive amount of sliders then having ligament replacement surgery is just as artificial and performance enhancing as steroids. If one's body cannot take a 162 game season and they take steroids to make up for that (or drink a bunch of 5-hour energy drinks) then they are enhancing their performance with something unnatural. I think that was more my point about surgery and steroids.
As to the question would I take steroids. If I was a professional athlete and I viewed my talent/production level as insufficient then I would take a look at my level of training and see what I could do differently. If there wasn't anything I thought I could do training-wise, then I would consider taking steroids. However, I would probably get caught because I would not do it without having some people around me telling me the safest possible way to do it (acknowledging that anabolic steroids used solely for the purposes of increasing athletic performance are not safe in the long-run, even if used as "safely" as possible). But yes, there are certain scenarios under which I could see myself taking steroids. All of those scenarios are not possible anymore, so I think it is safe to say that I am not planning on taking steroids.
I don't think my arguments ever claimed that steroids are good for all of society. What I am saying about praising an athlete for steroid use is this: If we are right to praise athletes for playing sports, and we acknowledge that playing sports can severely damage your health, then if an athlete takes a substance that can help increase his performance in his sport then he can potentially be praised for that action. Not every athlete who takes steroids can be praised for taking steroids, but I think that in some situations they can be. This kind of praise will not be common, but it is possible. Moreover, I will not think poorly about an athlete who takes steroids. If they took them to get better at their given sport then what's my real problem? That they may destroy their bodies? That they are only doing it for fame? I know some athletes will mess their body up even if they never use steroids, yet I applaud anyway (and most are in it, be it a big reason or a small reason, for the fame. And I reward them by adding to their fame). I applaud athletes for "playing through" injuries all the time. I applaud them for risking their safety trying to catch a ball or stop a puck. I don't really see how I can say they are bad people when they risk their long term health for the chance to be even better than they are. Seems to me that they have been doing that all along.
Steroids are not good for all of society, regular ass people wouldn't feel much benefit from taking anabolic steroids. But if there was something out there that made you a better doctor but risked your health I think some would take it, and I would praise some of those doctors.
HAHA, I love how one of the labels is "Kyle's convenient ignoring of my posts." Sorry man, I just got caught up.
In Agreement
Couple of quick things. Yes, I got caught up in Zach's post, sorry about that. There also needs to be a distinction between HGH and steroids, because I was lumping them together for the most part (and you mentioned the need for this in your previous post).
I am not sure if there is an improvement from steroids. However, what I do know is that the main benefit from steroids is not that you suddenly become Superman, but instead it is that you are able to recover quicker from the day-to-day rigors of sports. So it helps you maintain your level of performance. I will look for something to substantiate this, no time right now.
Would I take steroids? I am not sure, I don't really have interest in what steroids do. As i said though, if there was a pill I could take that would make me super fucking smart, or increase my ability to remember things, I would take it. I would have the weigh the specific benefits and detriments of such a pill, but I could envision myself taking it.
Gotta go, but I will respond more later. Sorry for any grammatical errors.
I am not sure if there is an improvement from steroids. However, what I do know is that the main benefit from steroids is not that you suddenly become Superman, but instead it is that you are able to recover quicker from the day-to-day rigors of sports. So it helps you maintain your level of performance. I will look for something to substantiate this, no time right now.
Would I take steroids? I am not sure, I don't really have interest in what steroids do. As i said though, if there was a pill I could take that would make me super fucking smart, or increase my ability to remember things, I would take it. I would have the weigh the specific benefits and detriments of such a pill, but I could envision myself taking it.
Gotta go, but I will respond more later. Sorry for any grammatical errors.
My Take Two or Ben tries to get Kyle to read what Ben is saying rather then what Kyle thinks Ben is going to say
Kyle, you conveniently ignored everything in my last post.
Suppose I give you that athletes should be cheered for taking steroids (I don't, but the for the sake of arguement lets say I do). That adulation would be based on the premise that steroids improved their performance. Can you give me proof that steroids tangibly improve an athletes performance?
Kids are going to do stupid things I agree, and maybe if I had ingested things that were performance-enhancing instead of performance-debilitating I would be in better shape. Nonetheless, their impetus for doing so is clearly a belief that taking steroids will improve their chances of success. I think we'd be better off to disprove this. No one is arguing that we are going to eradicate the existence of idiocy, but you are trying to say that doing steroids IS NOT stupid. There is a critical distinction between steroids and smoking (to use your example of two stupid things). One you do for pleasure, the other you do not. Without the perception of benefit, steroids would not be used. It is different from your usual run-of-the-mill narcotics.
Also, I did not make the "role-models argument", what I was referring to was that the ingrained belief that taking steroids would improve your chances of success would in turn lead to greater use amongst adolescents. The "role-models argument" is not an interesting one. Should athletes (or actors, musicians, politicians, bloggers, etc.) be held up as a paragon of a successful life? No. Are they? Yes. If you think I'm arguing that this is for this is for the betterment of society, I'm clearly not. I'm not even saying athletes should make decisions based on what kids are going to do. I'm in agreement that famous people are not obligated to make choices for the greater good. They should make choices that are in their self-interest. That's what YOU'RE arguing, and what I'm taking issue with is the idea that taking steroids is in their self-interest.
The one interesting point you made was that all sports lead to the sacrifice of health. However, this only leads to disprove your other arguments. Medical advances can improve your quality of life during and after your career is over. Tommy John takes nothing away (except a year of your career), it only gives.
Let me end with one more hypothetical. Would you take steroids? If athletes should be lauded for their use, then by extension it is good for the rest of society. If they improve athletes performance, then wouldn't they improve yours?
If only science had developed a grammar steroid, you'd be in grand shape.
Suppose I give you that athletes should be cheered for taking steroids (I don't, but the for the sake of arguement lets say I do). That adulation would be based on the premise that steroids improved their performance. Can you give me proof that steroids tangibly improve an athletes performance?
Kids are going to do stupid things I agree, and maybe if I had ingested things that were performance-enhancing instead of performance-debilitating I would be in better shape. Nonetheless, their impetus for doing so is clearly a belief that taking steroids will improve their chances of success. I think we'd be better off to disprove this. No one is arguing that we are going to eradicate the existence of idiocy, but you are trying to say that doing steroids IS NOT stupid. There is a critical distinction between steroids and smoking (to use your example of two stupid things). One you do for pleasure, the other you do not. Without the perception of benefit, steroids would not be used. It is different from your usual run-of-the-mill narcotics.
Also, I did not make the "role-models argument", what I was referring to was that the ingrained belief that taking steroids would improve your chances of success would in turn lead to greater use amongst adolescents. The "role-models argument" is not an interesting one. Should athletes (or actors, musicians, politicians, bloggers, etc.) be held up as a paragon of a successful life? No. Are they? Yes. If you think I'm arguing that this is for this is for the betterment of society, I'm clearly not. I'm not even saying athletes should make decisions based on what kids are going to do. I'm in agreement that famous people are not obligated to make choices for the greater good. They should make choices that are in their self-interest. That's what YOU'RE arguing, and what I'm taking issue with is the idea that taking steroids is in their self-interest.
The one interesting point you made was that all sports lead to the sacrifice of health. However, this only leads to disprove your other arguments. Medical advances can improve your quality of life during and after your career is over. Tommy John takes nothing away (except a year of your career), it only gives.
Let me end with one more hypothetical. Would you take steroids? If athletes should be lauded for their use, then by extension it is good for the rest of society. If they improve athletes performance, then wouldn't they improve yours?
If only science had developed a grammar steroid, you'd be in grand shape.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Merely to Amuse Myself
Yes, capitalism is THE problem. It's the problem that is at the source of a lot of other problems. And while I don't think too highly of humanity most days, I would never go so low as to say that capitalism is an extension of human nature. It's a construct. I know because I am a human, but I am not a greedy hyper-competitive bastard. I prefer to think of the well-being of others before myself. (I also like sandals and walks on the beach....wait, am I Jesus?)
Kyle, seriously man, fix your fucking grammar. THEIR indicates possession. THERE indicates place. THEY'RE is a contraction of "they are." Let me use all of those properly so that you understand. "Kyle's teachers taught him how to write properly, so it isn't THEIR fault that he is fucking up. I know they taught him properly because I was THERE, in the same class. If THEY'RE reading this right now, wherever they are, THEY'RE shaking THEIR heads at Kyle's moronic mishandling of three words that a fourth-grader can use properly."
Look, I know I comma splice sometimes--although not NEARLY as much as Ben. (I prefer sentence fragments, which are much more in vogue). I also know that language can be oppressive and is a construct and blah blah blah. Use it right.
Oh and, all that stuff you just said Kyle? It's wrong. But I don't have time to tell you why right now because I'm tired and going to sleep. Maybe tomorrow, after I've had my performance-enhancing coffee, I will explain to you why it is well within my right to tell other people what to do with their bodies. (Hint: see my parenthetical from the first paragraph).
Kyle, seriously man, fix your fucking grammar. THEIR indicates possession. THERE indicates place. THEY'RE is a contraction of "they are." Let me use all of those properly so that you understand. "Kyle's teachers taught him how to write properly, so it isn't THEIR fault that he is fucking up. I know they taught him properly because I was THERE, in the same class. If THEY'RE reading this right now, wherever they are, THEY'RE shaking THEIR heads at Kyle's moronic mishandling of three words that a fourth-grader can use properly."
Look, I know I comma splice sometimes--although not NEARLY as much as Ben. (I prefer sentence fragments, which are much more in vogue). I also know that language can be oppressive and is a construct and blah blah blah. Use it right.
Oh and, all that stuff you just said Kyle? It's wrong. But I don't have time to tell you why right now because I'm tired and going to sleep. Maybe tomorrow, after I've had my performance-enhancing coffee, I will explain to you why it is well within my right to tell other people what to do with their bodies. (Hint: see my parenthetical from the first paragraph).
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.
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.
Enormous and Unwieldy
I want to pick up on something that Zach said. He wrote: "Players are lauded for MAKING PLAYS that RISK injury to their bodies." I think this is critical because there is an underlying assumption in your argument that steroids inherently improve your performance, but I'm not convinced that's the case.
Lets use the best case scenario, lets say you use steroids and it allows you to heal a little faster and you hit a couple more home runs. Is it not also likely to hinder your defense and your speed? Is it not also likely to take something away from the rest of your game?
One thing that people always forget is what a ridiculously great player Barry Bonds was before he became a hideous roid-monkey. Checkout his numbers from the 1990 season. he hit 33 home runs drove in 114, had a .406 OBP and stole 52 bases. He won the MVP and a Gold Glove. In fact, if you look beyond that absurd 2001 season, he was consistently a great player, and was excellent defensively until the last few seasons when he became enormous and unweildy.
The point is, even for Barry Bonds, how much did steroids impact his overall career. Did it actually make him a better player or, would normal, modern conditioning extend his career such that he would still be considered among the best ever? In fact I'll go one step farther, his association with steroids has inevitably tarnished how he is generally viewed. He probably will never be looked at as the best who ever played because plenty of people (idiots) will write his entire career off because of steroids. Had he not done them, he very possibly might be viewed as the greatest player baseball (or any sport) has ever seen. Now obviously this fits into your take that we should laud the "sacrifices" players make, but do we really laud unnecessary sacrifice? Do we really say "good try" when a player dives for a ball he could have caught without diving, especially if he he misses it? You rightly argue that we care about results. But in order for your argument to hold water there needs to be definitive proof that steroids help your results. Can you honestly say that steroids do something that modern and safe medical advances cannot do?
Here is another example, would you have players use corked bats? There is practically no scientific evidence that it tangibly impacts the distance that the ball goes. It pretty clearly is a matter entirely of psychology. Yet if that psychology helps the player should they use them?
Finally, I think we need to make a distinction between HGH and steroids. The line is much fuzzier for HGH when used in moderation and the long term impacts have not been proven to nearly the same extent. If a double standard exits it is for HGH and not steroids. It may be that over time side-effects are understood but as of right now there are few definitive downsides.
Lets use the best case scenario, lets say you use steroids and it allows you to heal a little faster and you hit a couple more home runs. Is it not also likely to hinder your defense and your speed? Is it not also likely to take something away from the rest of your game?
One thing that people always forget is what a ridiculously great player Barry Bonds was before he became a hideous roid-monkey. Checkout his numbers from the 1990 season. he hit 33 home runs drove in 114, had a .406 OBP and stole 52 bases. He won the MVP and a Gold Glove. In fact, if you look beyond that absurd 2001 season, he was consistently a great player, and was excellent defensively until the last few seasons when he became enormous and unweildy.
The point is, even for Barry Bonds, how much did steroids impact his overall career. Did it actually make him a better player or, would normal, modern conditioning extend his career such that he would still be considered among the best ever? In fact I'll go one step farther, his association with steroids has inevitably tarnished how he is generally viewed. He probably will never be looked at as the best who ever played because plenty of people (idiots) will write his entire career off because of steroids. Had he not done them, he very possibly might be viewed as the greatest player baseball (or any sport) has ever seen. Now obviously this fits into your take that we should laud the "sacrifices" players make, but do we really laud unnecessary sacrifice? Do we really say "good try" when a player dives for a ball he could have caught without diving, especially if he he misses it? You rightly argue that we care about results. But in order for your argument to hold water there needs to be definitive proof that steroids help your results. Can you honestly say that steroids do something that modern and safe medical advances cannot do?
Here is another example, would you have players use corked bats? There is practically no scientific evidence that it tangibly impacts the distance that the ball goes. It pretty clearly is a matter entirely of psychology. Yet if that psychology helps the player should they use them?
Finally, I think we need to make a distinction between HGH and steroids. The line is much fuzzier for HGH when used in moderation and the long term impacts have not been proven to nearly the same extent. If a double standard exits it is for HGH and not steroids. It may be that over time side-effects are understood but as of right now there are few definitive downsides.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Sacrifice and Stupidity
Kyle, I hear where you are coming from man, I do. It makes some sense to me, your logical connections between steroids and other things that "enhance" athletes' and regular peoples' performance. But ultimately, I think you're wrong, and I think, to be utterly boring but honest, Ben has made my points already for me. But to elaborate, a little bit...
I think one major problem is what Ben pointed out, that young kids feel pressure from themselves, parents, and coaches to be their very best, or even better, if their best isn't good enough. Should this be a problem? No. Are the people I just mentioned, in a kid's life, totally irresponsible if they put this kind of pressure on a kid or let her put this kind of pressure on herself? Absolutely. Should kids themselves know better? I'd like to think so.
Unfortunately, they don't know better, and their parents and coaches do push them too hard, and they often push themselves too hard. Sports should be a way to have fun and stay fit for most kids, nothing more. For the overwhelming majority of them, a career as an athlete is impossible and will never happen. So they should enjoy themselves and have fun, while still remaining competitive.
I do think the real difference between steroids and the analogies you tried to make is that steroids, ultimately, are undeniably and certainly going to have terrible consequences for a player down the road. Their short-term gains certainly seem effective, but are they always? The reality is, steroids enhance a player who is already of major-league caliber. They can't take the average joe and make him a professional athlete. All they can do is make professional athletes marginally better. That fly ball goes ten feet farther and becomes a home run. That outfielder shaves a tenth of a second off his forty time and catches a few balls that he would have dropped before steroids. (I know, I know...balls...dropped. Ha.) But they don't turn your or me into athletes.
Now...neither do some of the other things you mentioned, like surgery, special diets and vitamins, training, legal muscle building compounds, etc. But those things, for the most part, don't tend to have disastrous long-term effects that we know about. We KNOW what steroids do, and it's a short term gain for a long term pain. It's simply not worth it. And yes, I do think I can make that statement on other peoples' behalf. I do not think athletes who use steroids truly understand what they are doing to themselves, because if they did, they wouldn't use. And for the handful of players for whom that statement is not true, well...they're just crazy.
Now, I know we have an overpopulation problem, a few more dead athletes isn't a big deal, and maybe kids will stop juicing to try and make it to the big show. But it's ultimately about culture. For better or worse--almost certainly for worse--athletes are prominent cultural figures in American society. As the pinnacle of human physical perfection, they ought to be looked up to and emulated by the rest of us, especially in this country, where fat people like me are dragging society down, literally and figuratively. They are, in fact, emulated and looked up to. And that means that they shouldn't use steroids. Being a role model is much like being a parent. You need to think about kids first. If you are a professional athlete, you know kids will follow your example. It's irresponsible to take steroids just like it is to get too drunk or punch someone or sexually harass someone. These things are wrong for ANYONE to do, but they're especially wrong for people who know that others in society, especially kids, are taking cues from them. Anyone who lives their life in the public's eye--athletes, entertainers, politicians--know that they face greater scrutiny, and if they want to be taken seriously, they need to survive that scrutiny. Like it or not, that's the way it is, and athletes know it, and the ones who take steroids are hypocrites. An athlete who takes steroids is like a priest who molests kids...
...in that it's the opposite behavior of what people expect from you. Not that taking anabolic steroids is the same as touching kids. But it's close. Okay, it's not. But there seems to be a lot of both going on. Late capitalism and the last shreds of our morality are starting to fall apart. No surprise there.
The one other thing I'll respond to in your post Kyle: you suggest that players are often lauded for sacrificing their bodies for the game. I disagree. Players are lauded for MAKING PLAYS that RISK injury to their bodies. It's not inherently noble to risk or destroy your body; it's noble only if it pays a dividend for your team. Steroids will undoubtedly destroy your body, but that in and of itself isn't noble. Is it really noble to make yourself marginally better at the expense of years of your life? Is it fair to your family and friends? Can one make that choice so selfishly? Some guys are clearly capable of it, but I don't think it's a choice they should be allowed to make. We need to clean up sports because we need to clean up our culture.
I think doing steroids might seem lucrative, but it's really a choice to be exploited. And I don't think anyone should have the freedom to make that choice. When you exploit yourself or others, you put us all at greater risk of being exploited ourselves by those more powerful than us. Is there exploitation involved in a cup of coffee or a bottle of aspirin? Inevitably. This is capitalism. But we don't need to sell our souls to the devil for one or two more home runs a year.
I think one major problem is what Ben pointed out, that young kids feel pressure from themselves, parents, and coaches to be their very best, or even better, if their best isn't good enough. Should this be a problem? No. Are the people I just mentioned, in a kid's life, totally irresponsible if they put this kind of pressure on a kid or let her put this kind of pressure on herself? Absolutely. Should kids themselves know better? I'd like to think so.
Unfortunately, they don't know better, and their parents and coaches do push them too hard, and they often push themselves too hard. Sports should be a way to have fun and stay fit for most kids, nothing more. For the overwhelming majority of them, a career as an athlete is impossible and will never happen. So they should enjoy themselves and have fun, while still remaining competitive.
I do think the real difference between steroids and the analogies you tried to make is that steroids, ultimately, are undeniably and certainly going to have terrible consequences for a player down the road. Their short-term gains certainly seem effective, but are they always? The reality is, steroids enhance a player who is already of major-league caliber. They can't take the average joe and make him a professional athlete. All they can do is make professional athletes marginally better. That fly ball goes ten feet farther and becomes a home run. That outfielder shaves a tenth of a second off his forty time and catches a few balls that he would have dropped before steroids. (I know, I know...balls...dropped. Ha.) But they don't turn your or me into athletes.
Now...neither do some of the other things you mentioned, like surgery, special diets and vitamins, training, legal muscle building compounds, etc. But those things, for the most part, don't tend to have disastrous long-term effects that we know about. We KNOW what steroids do, and it's a short term gain for a long term pain. It's simply not worth it. And yes, I do think I can make that statement on other peoples' behalf. I do not think athletes who use steroids truly understand what they are doing to themselves, because if they did, they wouldn't use. And for the handful of players for whom that statement is not true, well...they're just crazy.
Now, I know we have an overpopulation problem, a few more dead athletes isn't a big deal, and maybe kids will stop juicing to try and make it to the big show. But it's ultimately about culture. For better or worse--almost certainly for worse--athletes are prominent cultural figures in American society. As the pinnacle of human physical perfection, they ought to be looked up to and emulated by the rest of us, especially in this country, where fat people like me are dragging society down, literally and figuratively. They are, in fact, emulated and looked up to. And that means that they shouldn't use steroids. Being a role model is much like being a parent. You need to think about kids first. If you are a professional athlete, you know kids will follow your example. It's irresponsible to take steroids just like it is to get too drunk or punch someone or sexually harass someone. These things are wrong for ANYONE to do, but they're especially wrong for people who know that others in society, especially kids, are taking cues from them. Anyone who lives their life in the public's eye--athletes, entertainers, politicians--know that they face greater scrutiny, and if they want to be taken seriously, they need to survive that scrutiny. Like it or not, that's the way it is, and athletes know it, and the ones who take steroids are hypocrites. An athlete who takes steroids is like a priest who molests kids...
...in that it's the opposite behavior of what people expect from you. Not that taking anabolic steroids is the same as touching kids. But it's close. Okay, it's not. But there seems to be a lot of both going on. Late capitalism and the last shreds of our morality are starting to fall apart. No surprise there.
The one other thing I'll respond to in your post Kyle: you suggest that players are often lauded for sacrificing their bodies for the game. I disagree. Players are lauded for MAKING PLAYS that RISK injury to their bodies. It's not inherently noble to risk or destroy your body; it's noble only if it pays a dividend for your team. Steroids will undoubtedly destroy your body, but that in and of itself isn't noble. Is it really noble to make yourself marginally better at the expense of years of your life? Is it fair to your family and friends? Can one make that choice so selfishly? Some guys are clearly capable of it, but I don't think it's a choice they should be allowed to make. We need to clean up sports because we need to clean up our culture.
I think doing steroids might seem lucrative, but it's really a choice to be exploited. And I don't think anyone should have the freedom to make that choice. When you exploit yourself or others, you put us all at greater risk of being exploited ourselves by those more powerful than us. Is there exploitation involved in a cup of coffee or a bottle of aspirin? Inevitably. This is capitalism. But we don't need to sell our souls to the devil for one or two more home runs a year.
Monday, February 2, 2009
re: a link
Your post should have read "should we get rid of breaking-balls?". That article didn't say there was anything wrong with the surgery, it said they were worried about how many teenagers needed it as a result of "specialization in baseball where kids don't get adequate time off".
This speaks to my basic point. The pressure on high-school athletes is enormous and my concern is that more of them might be pushed to use steroids as a result of the pressure.
This speaks to my basic point. The pressure on high-school athletes is enormous and my concern is that more of them might be pushed to use steroids as a result of the pressure.
We can make them bigger, STRONGER
And off we go. I understand the argument you're making but I think in some ways you are making the same logical errors as the steroid-vilification crowd, just in the other direction. This is clearly not an all-or-nothing issue.
First, your exercise analogy, I think there is a crucial difference between doing physical exercise to improve your health and taking a substance which detracts from your health. I think people, understandably, have a problem with people putting chemicals in their body to change their physical make-up.
I don't disagree with anything you said in regards to MAJOR LEAGUE players. I don't care what players do when they get to the big show and are making plenty of money. What I have a problem with is a culture that causes high school athletes who aren't ever going to make it feel obligated to use steroids. The problem here is that if there is a culture of acceptability surrounding steroids at the major league level that is inevitably going to trickle down to amateur athletes.
This is central because I think the thrust of what your saying is that not only should we stop the anger at steroid users, but they should be lauded for goign above and beyond. Sorry, let me clarify, what you are asking is: what is the difference between Barry Bonds using steroids and Aaron Rowand breaking his face on a fence? I think the answer is that we can't view steroid usage in black and white. I don't think players should be vilified for steroid use, but I have hard time giving them credit for doing so.
As for the difference between Tommy John and steroids, again I understand the distinction you are getting at, however there are no long term health-related side effects for Tommy John. As you said the structural integrity of your elbow is better after the surgery. I guess you're saying if we're going to build bigger, better athletes we might as well go all the way. But under your scenario they are only bigger and better for a finite period of time. The pitchers elbow will be in better shape when they are 60 as a result of the procedure, the steroid user will be considerably worse off if they are alive at all. This week I think we should also touch on professional wrestling and the ridiculous mortality rate of the participants.
Look, I think the steroid problem is over rated, but I am in favor of getting it out if possible. Honestly, I think even the OPTICS of trying to get it out of sports is important for the reasons stated previously. Is there hypocrisy here? Absolutely. I'm sure we'll get into this week but there is definitely a double standard in football and basketball compared to baseball. I just think there is an important distinction between not judging the past differently because of steroids and saying it is not an important problem to deal with in the present and the future.
First, your exercise analogy, I think there is a crucial difference between doing physical exercise to improve your health and taking a substance which detracts from your health. I think people, understandably, have a problem with people putting chemicals in their body to change their physical make-up.
I don't disagree with anything you said in regards to MAJOR LEAGUE players. I don't care what players do when they get to the big show and are making plenty of money. What I have a problem with is a culture that causes high school athletes who aren't ever going to make it feel obligated to use steroids. The problem here is that if there is a culture of acceptability surrounding steroids at the major league level that is inevitably going to trickle down to amateur athletes.
This is central because I think the thrust of what your saying is that not only should we stop the anger at steroid users, but they should be lauded for goign above and beyond. Sorry, let me clarify, what you are asking is: what is the difference between Barry Bonds using steroids and Aaron Rowand breaking his face on a fence? I think the answer is that we can't view steroid usage in black and white. I don't think players should be vilified for steroid use, but I have hard time giving them credit for doing so.
As for the difference between Tommy John and steroids, again I understand the distinction you are getting at, however there are no long term health-related side effects for Tommy John. As you said the structural integrity of your elbow is better after the surgery. I guess you're saying if we're going to build bigger, better athletes we might as well go all the way. But under your scenario they are only bigger and better for a finite period of time. The pitchers elbow will be in better shape when they are 60 as a result of the procedure, the steroid user will be considerably worse off if they are alive at all. This week I think we should also touch on professional wrestling and the ridiculous mortality rate of the participants.
Look, I think the steroid problem is over rated, but I am in favor of getting it out if possible. Honestly, I think even the OPTICS of trying to get it out of sports is important for the reasons stated previously. Is there hypocrisy here? Absolutely. I'm sure we'll get into this week but there is definitely a double standard in football and basketball compared to baseball. I just think there is an important distinction between not judging the past differently because of steroids and saying it is not an important problem to deal with in the present and the future.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)