Submitted by James Folsom on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 06:58
We’ve all read the articles and heard the stories about performance enhancing drugs in sports. Mark McGwire breaks Roger Maris’ single season home run record. Oh wait…he was juicing.
Barry Bonds breaks Mark McGwire’s single season record a couple of years later? Juicer. Sammy Sosa hits 60 plus home runs three times? Yep, it’s a steroid aided accomplishment. Roger Clemens gets better with age? ‘Roids.
And it’s not just baseball. We have heard the stories about Olympic athletes such as Marion Jones, who actually did jail time for lying about PED use. Football players such as Lyle Alzado, who died of cancer caused by years of steroid use have us shaking our heads. We wonder if ANY of the athletes we watch are on the up and up.
But let’s look at this logically for a second. Ball players of years gone by did not lift weights and train during their down time. Should we penalize today’s players for lifting weights and staying in shape too? If the players of those years had PEDs and all the exercise equipment available, do you think they would have said “no thanks?” I think not. But, still we have to ask ourselves what the pros and cons of these drugs are, and if they should be illegal.
We know that steroids cause many unhealthy things in chronic users to happen. We’ve seen people have issues with their moods, their physical appearance (not all of which are bulging muscles), and ultimately their health. So obviously, these things should not be legal. But what about HGH? Supposedly, human growth hormone produces faster healing of injuries, replaces muscle and bone density lost with aging, etc. What’s wrong with that?
Are there any side effects of HGH? I have yet to hear of them doing anything negative to the body. Do they cause cancer? Do they cause ED? DO they make your hair fall out? Do they give you bad breath? I haven’t heard this. So why not let players use these?
Well, the obvious argument is because players of the past did not have access to these PEDs. So if their records are then broken by players who do have access, are these records somehow tainted? One could argue that they are. At least career records would be. If players of today, through science instead of nature, don’t suffer the loss of ability due to aging that past players did, then indeed they do have an unfair advantage. If you’re Albert Pujols, and you can use HGH and keep hitting home runs well into your 40s, then of course you will break career marks set by Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays, who started losing their skills in their 30s.
But then again, we use technology to make our lives better all the time. We have cell phones that allow us to do business from literally everywhere. Do people complain about these making life easier for us than past generations? Maybe old people who just like to complain about how tough they had it. Do the people using computers, cell phones, fax machines, etc decline to use these because any sales records they may break would then be considered tainted? Doubtful. When you have goals to meet in any other business, you use whatever is available to you to achieve your goals. So, if there are drugs that have only positive effects with no negative side effects, then why should they be illegal?
If science can produce PEDs that will not harm their users, or if those already exist, then I don’t see any reason why they should be illegal. If the old generation complains about it, then just add that to the already long list of things they already have to complain about.
Someday, the records that are being broken today, will be broken in the future possibly by even better technology. Golfers have better golf clubs today then in generations past. Tennis players have better racquets. Race car drivers have better equipment. There is no reason to believe this trend will not continue in the future.
And really, are the players playing today responsible for players who played in the past? Their job is to win games now. Their responsibility is to their teams and their fans of today. It is not their job to worry about guys of yesterday.
Interesting Angle
I had never quite thought about players who use performance enhancers that aren't technically dangerous. We always hear about the ones that have negative effects, but what about players who use supplements that are enhancers, but don't have any known negative side effects?
There is a line between trying to improve yourself and doing something that is considered cheating. Those lines can easily become blurred.
I really don't know how they can regulate all methods of enhancement. The players are going to be constantly looking for the edge that will put them ahead. I just feel that it makes sports less fun the watch if the playing field is clearly very uneven.
I don't think steroids should
I don't think steroids should be legal. Obviously they have side effects that are not good. But I have yet to hear anything about HGH causing someone to get sick or die. So if it helps athletes stay healthier and younger longer then what's the problem? We have eyeglasses and contacts to help people see better than they do "naturally". Are we going to ban those from sports? People life weights to get stronger than they "naturally" are. Is that frowned upon? No. So why is taking a hormone that isn't hurting anyone bad? If side effects that harm the user are found, then ban it. Until then, I don't see the problem.
Heating Up The Game...
I made the mistake of having my husband read this article to see what he thought and that set off a 30 minute debate. This is one of those topics that can be quite sensitive to those that have played sports their whole life and especially those that may have played professionally. Your arguments were actually quite enticing and brought up some good points that I hadnt thought of before. One of those arguments was that of how businessmen and women use the latest technology and no one says that isnt fair and how that is just how the world goes. We grow as people and take advantage of pretty much any and everything to keep growing and advancing. The only problem that I see with that argument is that sports is different from business and bottom-lines. Sports, to me, is something that is natural, fun and measures and challenges a person's NATURAL talent and abilities. What is so sporting about altering yourself scientifically just to become the biggest and fastest as long as you took your pills in the morning? That does not showcase your abilities nor provide a fair challenge to others playing against you. Personally, you should feel confident enough in your own abilities and proud enough with what you have to go out and play your game of choice naturally. For those that play the game and then feel they have to "juice up" in order to keep up then maybe you just aren't that good to begin with. I am not saying that steroids should be illegal but I feel they have no place in professional sports. If you are getting too old then retire and go on to do something else. You can't play until you are 70 anyway. It is also not fair to those that may have religious beliefs that keep them form putting anything synthetic into their body. With how it is getting you are almost forced to take drugs to stay into the game and that just ruins the whole thing. And for those of you who think it is just fine then ask yourself this... Do you want your son, who wants to grow up to be a baseball star, to juice up for years just so he can do what he loves??