June 2, 2006
Health is the Issue
Why are we anti-steroids in baseball? Well, Charles Krauthammer thinks we’re all hypocrites to support performance increases like Lasik, while blasting Barry Bonds for being pumped more full of ‘roids than Teddy Kennedy is of Chivas.
Performance enhancement turns out to be disturbing only in the narrow context of competition, most commonly in sports. And the objection is not cheating nature, but cheating competitors. It’s basically a fairness issue.
When everyone has access to technological improvements (graphite tennis rackets, titanium drivers, more tightly wound baseballs) the sport may be transformed, but the playing field remains level. When technology is enhancing the equipment, fans become quickly reconciled to the transformation. (And it can be radical: the transition from bamboo to fiberglass totally changed the pole vault.) But when technology enhances the physiology of the athlete, we tend to recoil.
Interestingly, however, not always. What about Lasik surgery? Tiger Woods had it and said it made his game stronger than ever. I have yet to see a banner at the Masters saying: “Nicklaus did it by squinting.”
Vision enhancement is even more helpful to baseball players trying to follow the flight of a ball approaching at 90 mph. Hitting requires hand-eye coordination. Bonds turns his arms into tree trunks, and boos rain down. Change the physiology of the other part of the equation — the eye — and no one cares.
Why? Because Lasik is legal, common and available to all. Steroids are not.
Krauthammer is impugning us all as using the Appeal to Authority argument. But, at least for me, that’s not what this is about. I’m not worried about technological advancements. I’m not worried about the fact that better knowledge of physiology allows athletes to train better and become stronger naturally than they used to. And I’m not worried about things like Lasik, where baseball players are paying to enhance their vision beyond 20/20, in an effort to be able to better compete. More natural “steroids”, such as creatine, also don’t rankle me.
Why do I accept all those competitive things, but I’m against steroids? Because steroids are dangerous. Lasik is widely regarded as being a safe medical procedure, with no known long-term side effects, and very low risk of damage. Natural “steroids”, such as creatine, likewise appear to have little long-term health benefits, it’s just a way of helping the body convert fuel to muscle. Not so for steroids, though. Steroids have all sorts of unwanted side effects, and are widely considered to be a good way to shorten your lifespan.
I’m not willing to support a sport where we have to tell athletes they need to seriously impact their health by taking dangerous substances to be able to compete. When medical science creates a safe (within relative levels of safety, of course) steroid, I’ve got no issues with it. But until then, I fully support MLB taking every step they can— short of looking to the US Senate— to stop the practice.
17 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Brad, Steriods are a bad thing. They can even kill you if you use too much. Bonds has a bad attitude to go along with his “alledged” steriod use. I agree that it is too dangerous to use. I hope they are able to weed it out of sports soon.
What do you think of blood doping using Erythropoietin? It is a recombinant DNA hormone that is used in patients with anemia to boost the red blood cells. It’s not a controlled substance, but you need a prescription.
VRB,
I don’t know much about it, but I’ll follow the same rule. If it’s safe, I don’t have a problem with it. If there are dangerous side effects, I’m against it.
Why should it be any of your business or concern what a person, especially an adult person, wishes to ingest? Also, I can’t think of one, not a single drug, that does not have dangerous and harmful side effects and causes other problems within the body.
John,
You misunderstand me. I refuse to support a sport which allows these drugs to be taken. This is MLB’s decision to enforce or not enforce drug testing, but I don’t have to watch baseball on TV or pay to go to their parks if I don’t support it.
I don’t think we need to have any freaking Senate hearings about this. I don’t think that the steroids should be illegal as a matter of law. But I would applaud heartily if MLB would actually start to crack down on this.
I whole-heartedly support your right not to support MLB, but I don’t think I totally misunderstand you.
You said: “Why do I accept all those competitive things, but I’m against steroids? Because steroids are dangerous.”
Perhaps Babe Ruth would have hit more home runs had he not been suffering from hangovers, smoking, and nights of tom-cattin around. These are harmful and dangerous things when done in the extreme.
Also, gay athletes that have unprotected sex are living very dangerously. Should MLB have rules for these ‘dangerous’ lifestyles? From what you wrote, I think to be consistent you would.
I do applaud your position of keeping the Senate out of it and not making these issues illegal.
Smoking, drinking to the point of hangover, tom-catting around, or unprotected sex are not performance-enhancing.
As far as I’m concerned, if someone can go out drinking at night, wake up, and still hit home runs, good for him. That means that they’re so talented that even with that hindrance, they’re still doing well.
But if they have to do dangerous things simply to be competitive with other people doing dangerous things, that’s where I have the issue.
Brad said:
But if they have to do dangerous things simply to be competitive with other people doing dangerous things, that’s where I have the issue.
That’s the point, they DON’T HAVE TO DO IT, they choose to do it.
Again, you’re missing the point. Let’s say I’m a kid in the Dominican Republic. I have a choice between sticking at home, with the chance to make $35/week working hard manual labor, or I can try to use my ample natural talent to play major-league baseball. I have scouts coming telling me that I might be able to compete, but since everyone else is juiced up, I probably won’t have a chance to make it in the big leagues if I don’t juice.
So I’m left with a choice, put myself at significant medical risk, or forego the millions of dollars and work manual labor? Yes, it’s a choice, but it’s a choice that I would prefer someone not have to make. As I said, I don’t think they need to make it illegal. But I think MLB, if they want to be an organization that I support, will make sure that prospective players don’t have to make this choice.
Brad, I understand what you are saying, but I think you are changing your argument. You originally said it was a matter of health. Now you are arguing it is an unfair choice to have to make to compete. A great ballplayer is a great ballplayer. Steroids will not make him a better outfielder, catcher, first baseman, shortstop, etc. It will not help him with making smart decisions within a millasecond his brain has to compute and react to any given situation. Again, if MLB wants to ban them, I don’t have a problem with it. And if that Dominican kid is a MLB caliber player, he won’t have to take steroids to get hired.
Brad –
Gotta agree with John on this one. If you look at someone like Omar Vizquel, my hometown shortstop, (GO GIANTS!) steroids would actually negatively impact his game. More muscle mass would actually hinder his fantastic range and quickness, not enhance it. Same goes for a lot of the other great infielders, outfielders, pitchers, and base stealers (Dave Roberts, anyone?) in the game. There’s more to baseball than hitting the ball a long way. (I will readily admit, though, that if power hitting were one’s niche, juicing up would help there.)
John,
I’m not changing my argument. It’s the fact that they are both dangerous and a competitive advantage that I want to see them banned. I think it is an unfair choice to have to make to compete because it is dangerous. Obviously, I don’t think Lasik is an unfair choice to have to make to compete, or that creatine, etc, are because they are not dangerous. I think that in sports, you do have to make some sacrafices to be able to compete at the highest level. I.e. you need to spend a crapload of time practicing and working out, which you could spend with family, or you need to do things like corrective eye surgery, which costs a lot of money. But those, IMHO, aren’t unfair because there are no medical costs to bear.
Quincy,
What about Ben Johnson? His speed was certainly enhanced by steriods. Steroids may improve the strength of any number of players, by helping them to build strength, even if it doesn’t add to muscle mass. For some players, steroids may hurt their abilities, but I don’t think it’s just sluggers who benefit.
Brad, let me put this in the most delicate term I can think of, baloney. I contend that if you want to talk about competitive advantage – you seem to have abandoned your health issue, again – that MLB would have to ban alcohol (players with hangovers are at a disadvantage to those who don’t drink), smokers of cigarettes or weed don’t have the lung capacity of those that are smoke free, creating an unfair advantage for the nons, etc. Listen, either you are MLB caliber or you aren’t. No steroid is gonna make a hacker into a pro.
I also contend that mental strength, personal fortitude, and desire are more powerful than any drug.
John,
Do you see the difference between engaging in a dangerous activity that enhances your competitive advantage, and engaging in a dangerous activity that weakens your competitive advantage?
Because that’s the difference between steroids and alcohol or cigarettes.
It’s the difference between telling someone “you need to jeopardize your health to compete at this level” and “jeopardizing your health by drinking every night may hurt your competitiveness”.
There is noone saying: “Juan, you’ll be a great ballplayer if only you’ll drink a fifth of Cuervo every night.” There are people saying: “Juan, you’ll be a great ballplayer if only you’ll inject yourself with these anabolic steroids.”
I think there’s a fundamental difference. I’m not saying it should be banned for ballplayers to do dangerous things. I’m saying that it should be banned for ballplayers to do dangerous things which give themselves a competitive advantage over ballplayers who refuse to do those things out of concern for their health.
Brad, do you see that someone will always have a competitive advantage over someone else?
Of course I see that, John. But MLB has the right to make the rules of just what lengths one can go to in order to compete. And as I said initially, I do not support an organization that doesn’t self-police when many of its players are juicing up, giving them an advantage over other players who aren’t willing to risk their health to do so.
Let MLB make the rules they want players to abide by, I have no problem with that. My argument with you is that you made it a health issue and then a competitive advantage issue, both of which are bogus, imo.