Can someone explain to me why steroids are such a big deal? I'm sorry, but if I knew that by taking certain drugs, I would be able to make millions of more dollars per year, I would almost definitely do so. And so would you.
Our athletes are taught that if they aren't doing everything they can to be better, than they are failing in their roles as athletes. How are taking drugs any different? It is their body; let them choose. Most baseball players in the 70s were taking amphetamines; does that mean we should invalidate all records from that era?
How about the fact that baseball was segregated until Jackie Robinson? Should all records from prior to the desegregation of baseball be thrown out because the league was segregated and this led to a thinning of talent?
Players nowadays have vitamins, intense workout regimens, and medical facilities players in the past could only dream of. All of these enhance performance. Where are we drawing the line?
These players are accepting the long-term hazards for the short-term gain. It is their body and their right. Let's not get all high and mighty about the "sanctity of the game."
It just sounds so damn insincere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not think you can actually say, "It is their body and their right." As professional athletes, they have given up certain rights regarding the decisions they make about their bodies. It is similar to the way that unionized transit workers cannot go on strike (the best analogy I can come up with at this point in the morning). The real issue, if any, is the use of steroids as an "unnatural" or unfair aid. This has the underlying assumption that steroids cross a boundary vitamins do not and that the unstated goal of athletic competition is testing the limits of "natural" human ability (again, I apologize if my wording is less than apt for the point I am making).
ReplyDeleteAs for past records, the current steroid policy joins a long list of numerous changes of varying magnitude to the sport. Records are not generally understood differently before and after these changes (with exceptions, such as thinking in terms of the modern era), at least not enough to prevent unweighed comparisons. Alex Rodriguez's record would presumably stand, being a one time user before the clear banning. For someone like Barry Bonds, use after the ban along with the association with perjury makes for a far less transparent determination. A good analogy for this is the use of the spitball.