Steroids are just vitamins on steroids
By Dan on Jan 13, 2010 in Blog
Nothing makes my mind go numb faster than hearing the words "steroids" and "baseball" in the same sentence. It’s the sports topic that will not die, despite countless attempts to beat it to death. Yet it’s obviously a subject of interest to many and I do find myself holding an opinion on the matter, which is – "Who cares?".
I say this not to voice my indifference, but as a carefully considered conclusion that steroids shouldn’t be banned.
The common refrain is that McGuire and his juicing cohorts are cheaters who gained an unfair advantage. Some are particularly offended on behalf of the players from the pre-steroids era whose fallen records are seen as pure acts of athleticism. This is where the anti-steroid argument loses its way, in my opinion.
The modern player has countless advantages over his predecessors, advantages that have raised his level of play. Advances in nutrition and kinesiology. The use of weight training and conditioning. Corrective surgeries and procedures. Steroids, which do have a legitimate purpose, seem to fit right along with these other scientific and technological aids.
No one would suggest that a pitcher who had his career extended an extra five years thanks to a groundbreaking surgical procedure should have his additional victories asterisked out of the record book.
I know that the use of steroids for performance enhancing purposes is illegal. I assume this is because they’re harmful to one’s body when abused. Yet I would argue that being a professional athlete is harmful to one’s body.
How many players suffer career-ending injuries or leave the game with permanent afflictions? I’m not sure, but I’d say pretty many. I can’t pretend to care so much about them as human beings that I would oppose steroid use on the grounds that users might become infertile if I don’t have an equal concern for pitchers’ rotary cuffs as the result of throwing a ball repeatedly at a high velocity.
Again in my opinion, the advantage McGuire gained by taking steroids isn’t that much different than the advantage some other player gained by being an obsessive health nut. Both required sacrifice in exchange for a benefit. If steroids prove to have a disproportionate downside, there use will diminish on its own.
I’m sure there are logical flaws in my argument and I’m exhibiting a disgraceful lack of ethics. Feel free to counter. After I read your comments I intend to never think of this subject again.
Loading ...
The use of steroids in sports is like using Google to answer trivia questions posed by world-famous bloggers. I consider both cheating.
On the flip-side I think it is perfectly acceptable for an athlete to lift weights and use accepted supplements just as I think it is ok for a trivia player to read books and magazines to prepare for difficult indie rock based questions.
Does this help at all?
MB | Jan 13, 2010 | Reply
I really don’t see how taking steroids while preparing to play a game is analogous to looking up answers during a trivia contest, except that you consider both to be cheating.
Anyway, I simply ask this: Why are some supplements acceptable while others are not?
Dan | Jan 14, 2010 | Reply
Dan, I assume you wrote this with your tongue firmly planted in your cheek. But . . . your premise that steroids are just supplements by another name is flawed. A suppliant something that provides vitamins, minerals, herbs, amino acids or other substances required for a HEALTHY DIET. Anabolic steroids promote the growth or synthesis (anabolism) of tissue, especially muscle, and are particularly harmful when misused. They cannot be classified as “supplements.”
If you stand by your premise, then I assume you will have no problem if your kids decided to add gin to their milk each morning instead of Ovaltine – because it’s just another supplement . . .
Rock-Robster | Jan 14, 2010 | Reply
I’m not saying steroids aren’t dangerous and I certainly wouldn’t want my children to take them.
My point is, why should we care if professional athletes are harming themselves? It’s there choice. And as I wrote, just playing a professional sport is harmful to a person’s sport.
Have you read recently on the studies being done on football players and concussions, and how playing the sport for a number of years almost guarantees permanent brain damage, if not early death? I wouldn’t want my boys to subject themselves to such danger, but I still enjoy watching football every Sunday.
I realize mine is a cynical view, but if we’re really concerned about the well-being of professional athletes then much more must be done than simply banning steroids.
Dan | Jan 14, 2010 | Reply
I don’t think it’s the athlete’s health people are concerned about so much as the unfair advantage steroids are thought to provide. Unlike physical therapies and surgeries which seek to improve a problem, steroids only seek to unnaturally enhance strength. Unlike nutritional supplements, which will do NADA for a person who isn’t dedicated to also staying in shape through exercise, steroids are a quick fix that require no personal effort.
nancy | Jan 14, 2010 | Reply
There’s a lot more information out there about steroids effects than there used to be. I’ve been researching at http://steroids-effects.com and I’m worried about what steroid use could do to young people trying to be like these pros.
LeeS | May 9, 2011 | Reply
XjHcrPAG
KCvcre | Oct 7, 2011 | Reply
Nice post. I was checking constantly this blog and I’m impressed! Extremely useful info specially the last part
I care for such info much. I was seeking this certain info for a long time. Thank you and best of luck. & x$ N* N$ O3 w5 H: m2 I. ~7 b
alexander wang anouck | Dec 15, 2011 | Reply
Happy new year!I bookmarked your post on Digg.com so that others will have the option to revisit and check out your potential content.
Herve Leger outlet | Jan 1, 2012 | Reply