Steriods
Andrew Sullivan has some interesting thoughts on steriods. His conclusion:
The notion that there is some "pure" human being out there - unaffected by the technology that now enhances our lives in so many ways - is fiction. Why are sports the only arena in which this fiction is maintained? And why would it be so bad to aknowledge reality and celebrate the new frontiers that human science and human performance can now breach? I'm not that comfortable with that idea; but I'm having a hard time coming up with good arguments as to why I shouldn't be.I generally agree with him on this. On possibly valid argument is against steriods is that athletic competition is so severe that allowing steriods at safe levels, with Doctor supervision, will inherently lead to unsafe use of steriods as well and losing the 'bright line' distinction will harm the atheletes and the sport. I can see some merit in that argument but don't know if it is strong enough to justify the ban. Another interesting thing about this sort of debate is the fact that human genetic modification will almost certainly become a very real technology soon. This will of course impact sports (not to mention other aspects of life) greatly. Doubtless it will present many ethical challenges. Nonetheless I personally look forward to such a future.
posted by Dave Justus | 12/06/2004 05:52:00 PM
5 Comments:
steriods in sports...
I would have to say no because of the trickle down effect that it will have on the collegaite and highschool level.
If you cannot keep alchol out of the hands of teenagers, you will not be able to keep streiods out of their hands either.
I do not care if professional atheltes use them, but once they start it will be hard to disallow it from college and highschool.
Oh Dave, I can't disagree with you more on this!!! From my Libertarian angle, I really don't give a rip what adults do to their bodies in the privacy of their homes. Even Pros can manipulate their bodies if they wish, they just have to answer to the folks who bet on their sports and games. However, I do agree with Cubicle when he states it's not necessarily about the Pros but more about the High Schools and Colleges. If steroids are encouraged at those lower levels, there must be the appropriate health care for them since such a small percentage of these lower level athelets achieve the Professional levels. What to do with the detritus? They can't be treated like the greyhounds are treated by their breeders when they are non-winners.
If you play high school sports, you'll remember what THAT was like . . . dating or sports??? which was more difficult??
Yeah, I guess.
Reduce sports to "who has got the best chemist...".
Yeah, right!
I am proud of NZ's sportsmen and women. There is one thing that you can guarantee.
NZ sports have one of the most stringent anti-drug campaigns in the world. I can attest to that on the word of my wife who worked for the NZ Sports Drug Agency for 18 months. One thing is certain - get caught in NZ and it matters not who you are or how good - you are out! As a f'rinstance one of NZ's most promising young cyclists was picked up in a random test ('any time any where' ring a bell here?) with excess testosterone. He is banned for two years. The Tour de France contract he had signed and in his back pocket is now toilet paper. He might make it back for masters age groups sports.
Marion Jones? No excuses. She was using? It is proven? She should be gone - for life. The thing is - she has been working with one of the top chemists... ergo she has not been caught. Is that sport?
Yeah right!
I wonder which might get the greater sponsorship, the greater tv coverage... "The Drugs Olympics", or "The Unmodified Human Sports Championships". Yeah, I guess I know. The one that makes the greater freak show.
How sad.
Dave, Sorry for the rant, but this one is another very close to my heart. My son at the age of 13 was offered free advanced coaching for cycling. One of the things that I had to do was to sign a paper authorising a medical practitioner I did not know to act as his doctor. I refused. I was not popular. But I am glad that I did...
All of these thoughts on are based upon the assumption that Sullivan is correct when he says in his post that steriod use, in the right dosage, with a doctor's supervision is safe. I'm not an MD, and certainly I don't know a huge deal about steriods, but in general many things which are safe are dangerous at too high a dose so what he is saying makes sense.
When I said I agree, I agree both that it is hard to logically argue against and that I also an not totally comfortable with the idea of Steriod use in sports.
However, it is interesting that one of the arguments for children using Ritalin and other ADHD medicines is that if they don't they will fall behind in their education during important formative years and be unable to compete later with their peers. As a spectularly unathletic individual, couldn't I argue that as a child I should have been given steriods so I didn't 'fall behind' and was unable to compete with my peers? What is the moral difference between the two scenarios? Why do we deem one a 'good' use of chemistry and one a 'bad' use?
Perhaps I wasn't clear in the last bit of my post, but to clarify, I look forward to human control over human physiology through genetics. I think it on balance will be a good thing, but it will have a lot of problems that accompany it.
On possibly valid argument is against steriods is that athletic competition is so severe that allowing steriods at safe levels, with Doctor supervision, will inherently lead to unsafe use of steriods as well and losing the 'bright line' distinction will harm the atheletes and the sport.Thing is, that bright line is an illusion. As Andrew says, every one of us is modified (enhanced, mostly) by modern chemistry. Modern athletes carefully control their intake of fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. Many of the foods they (and the rest of us, too) eat are heavily modified to make them richer in energy and nutrients. They take vitamins and herbal supplements. They consume specially-designed beverages to optimize their body chemistry during workouts. They take medicines to speed healing and recover from illness, as we all do. The line demarking the end of "smart fitness plan" and the beginning of "performance enhancing drugs" is blurry and getting blurrier.
There was once a clear dichotomy. Sort of a "high protein diet" vs. "anabolic steroids" choice that was very easy. Newer substances, though, fall in the middle and are hard to classify. OK, testosterone injections are bad. But what about andro? Creatine? Coenzyme A? Stimulants, many of which are safe enough for all of us to take? Sleep aids to recover faster? Show me a bright line and I'll show you a chemical that sits on top of it.
That's what's happening in the aports world (and yes, it happens in New Zealand, too): every time a regulatory body draws a bright line, the athletes and trainers find chemicals to take that are right next to or on the line. They get away with it for a year or two, then get outed. The authorities redraw a stricter line, and the process starts anew. And medical supervision doesn't help. Remeber the epidemic of narcolepsy among sprinters a few years ago?
Near as I can tell, there are only three solutions: never mind drawing any lines (the MLB approach); draw an insanely narrow line and expel anyone who definitively crosses it (the NFL approach); or draw a broader line and risk punishing those who take perfectly innoccuous substances that look a little the bad stuff (the Olympic approach; remember the gymnast who took Sudafed?). I honestly don't know which is best, but empirically I feel like the NFL has it right. I base that, of course, on absolutely nothing but my impressions, and therefor could be dead wrong. But it seems to me like international bodies punish the innocent too often and like there are an awful lot of MLB players (and aspiring MLB players, too) poisoning themselves to death.
Post a Comment
<< Home