How is using steroids any different than drinking coffee or alcohol, or taking Cialis, or doing any of the other things people do to enhance their natural endowments?
I can’t take it anymore.
Enough with the whining. Stop it with the hypocrisy.
A couple of weeks ago, Floyd Landis was an ex-Mennonite turned Tour de France hero. People were calling him the new face of sports bravery for winning the world’s toughest bike race in spite of needing a hip replacement.
Today, he’s a cheater — a bona fide louse, a man who betrayed his sport and country — because he tested positive for unusually (read: suspiciously) high levels of testosterone. Now, instead of singing his praises, all I’m hearing from people is, “Say it ain’t so, Floyd.” All anyone wants to do is complain and moan about “another” fallen hero taking a bite of that forbidden, albeit performance-enhancing, fruit called steroids.
Just stop already.
Honestly. Please. For the love of God.
Just stop.
Yes, the man was caught doping. No, that doesn’t mean he betrayed his sport or his country . . . or the three or four people who actually follow his sport in his country.
Landis has denied any and all steroid allegations, but the truth is, whether he used or not, it doesn’t matter. Maybe officially, legally, in the context of rulebooks, it matters. But not in reality. In reality, steroids only matter because we’ve decided they matter. And we’ve only decided they matter because of some vain belief they “taint” this or “cheat us out of” that.
In truth, steroids cheat us out of nothing.
I know we all want to believe sports are “real,” and that steroids make the real “unreal” in some way or another. But that unreality is relative. A guy winning a race on steroids looks the same on TV as a guy winning a race without them. This is all that matters now that everyone in every sport seems to be juicing.
If fairness were the issue here, every athlete could use steroids and no one would be arguing. Instead, every athlete seems to be using them, and we’re still trying to ban them anyway. This can only be because we believe steroids are somehow immoral. It can only be because we believe Landis’s victory somehow besmirches past Tour champions — or because we believe Barry Bonds somehow destroys the credibility of baseball’s homerun records.
To believe these things is to believe there’s something immoral about human progress.
Floyd Landis needs a new hip, and here he’s winning races. Barry Bonds is in his early 40s and until recently was hitting homeruns like a guy in his late 20s. If drugs are making these things possible, it would be more unnatural not to take those drugs. How many middle-aged men are taking Viagra or Cialis, for instance? And what are those, if not performance enhancers?
How many people take allergy pills just to make it through work during allergy season? How many drink coffee just to make it through work every day of every season, all throughout the year?
When faced with certain obstacles, human beings innovate. When they want it bad enough, they’ll find a way to match their will to win.
If we’re going to accuse steroid-using athletes of cheating — if we’re going to say their achievements shouldn’t count — then how can we include Ernest Hemingway and Edgar Allen Poe in the pantheon of great American writers? Both men drank heavily. Alcohol was their performance enhancer. How was this fair to sober writers? Writers who didn’t drink couldn’t possibly compete.
Much the same, is it fair for a short man wearing lifts in his shoes to compete for dates with short men who don’t wear them? Wearing lifts may be a little different than injecting something into your body. But at its heart, how’s it different than taking human growth hormone? How’s it different than drinking coffee or alcohol, or taking Cialis, or doing any of the other things people do to enhance their natural endowments?
I’m not saying pro athletes necessarily should be on steroids. Nor am I saying pro sports leagues have no right to ban them. I understand performance-enhancing drugs can have negative long-term side effects. Ultimately, that may be a great reason not to use them. But the medications we take in our kitchens every morning can have negative long-term side effects, too. Sometimes we don’t even know how those medications will affect us in the long-term. But we take them anyway, because we believe the benefits outweigh the possible risks.
Some athletes juice with the very same mindset. And not just to gain a competitive edge, either. Sometimes a pitcher using HGH does so to overcome the physical pains of what he’s being paid for. Yet we hold him to a much different standard. We don’t yell about the “credibility” of our personal health histories when we pop our pills each morning; we only yell about credibility when athletes are popping theirs.
It’s not unusual for a society to project deep-rooted feelings onto its sports heroes. Deep down, maybe we fear our society’s overly medicated — and maybe that’s why we’ve dismissed performance enhancers categorically. In the end, though, I think the argument that steroids “send kids a bad message” tells us everything we need to know here. We think it’s immoral for science to help kids run faster, jump higher, or overcome the effects of time on their bodies. Yet drugs that sedate kids and make ‘em sit still in a classroom? Those, we have no qualms with.
There’s a common thread throughout this discussion. The idea that we should make do with our lot in life is it. But that mentality is self-defeating. And considering the lengths we’ll go just to look and feel better in this society, it also makes us a fat bunch of hypocrites.
readjdm@yahoo.com
http://www.readjdm.com/main/
Read more articles by Jonathan David Morris
"If drugs are making these things possible, it would be more unnatural not to take those drugs"
I can't believe I just read what I just read. Steriods as natural endowments. That is just what I want. I want a high school senior at 250 lbs., juiced-up on steriods, roaming the football field, looking for a kid to crush and turn over to the wheelchair. I want roid rages. Why not legalize all drugs? This article has no reason to be on this site. This is obviously a liberal article that got passed the screeners. I say Editor, remove this drug legalization article.
Comment by John Wright | August 9, 2006
Perhaps one might note that the author is a "political satirist".
Comment by Steven Laib | August 9, 2006
Mabey the problem is high school football not the 250 pound juiced up senior. How many kids were turned over to the wheelchair long befor they started steriods? " We think it’s immoral for science to help kids run faster, jump higher, or overcome the effects of time on their bodies. Yet drugs that sedate kids and make ‘em sit still in a classroom? Those, we have no qualms with." is the best statement in the whole
post
Comment by don wheat | August 10, 2006
John Wright:
Perhaps you should read a little more and watch TV a little less.
Those who disagree with this article should review the following article:
http://www.reason.com/0301/fe.dp.pumped.shtml
A small quote:
Congressional hearings convened to determine whether steroids should become the first hormone placed on Sched-ule III of the Controlled Substances Act, reserved for drugs with substantial abuse potential. Such legislation, if passed, would make possession of anabolic steroids without a prescription a federal offense punishable by up to a year in prison. Distributing steroids for use, already prohibited by the 1988 law, would be a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. What’s usually forgotten about these hearings, or perhaps simply ignored, is the zeal with which many regulatory agencies, research organizations, and professional groups objected to the proposed changes. The American Medical Association (AMA), the FDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and even the Drug Enforcement Administration all opposed the reclassification. Particularly adamant was the AMA, whose spokespersons argued that steroid users did not exhibit the physical or psychological dependence necessary to justify a change in policy.
Comment by Robert Bright | August 10, 2006
The argument of PEDs in sports is filled with massive hypocrisy. As you have so completely revealed, PEDs are everywhere in society. So why aren’t they tolerated in sports? I think the answer is in many places. The first place to look is in the media. News organizations push scandal. They continue their masturbatory investigative pursuits while ignoring the public’s increasing indifference. Barry Bonds packed PNC Park a few weeks ago. Where is the so called outrage? Second, the bureaucracies that police sports harvest the PED revelations as opportunities for growth. I think they are gleeful when a big name fish is caught in one of their nets. Third, is the idea of purity. I believe the various sporting federations see PED’s as a threat to the elitism of the status quo. Currently, fairness in sports competition includes having a genetic advantage over your competitors. Talk about performance enhancements! The culture in these federations is geared towards finding the one in a million. When that rare individual is found, they are presented to the public as a god. Perhaps, the public’s initial disgust with a so called cheat is the expected recoil from the overselling of purity.
I have read that the PED’s of today are small change compared to what is to be expected in the not so distant future.
Comment by Robert Gottlieb | August 10, 2006
I agree with your logic on this. I have asked several sports enthusiasts about the steroid issue, and its that they don't like it because of the long term health affects it will have on the player. I don't buy it. Concerned about Landis long term health, give me a break.
Comment by John W | August 10, 2006
Liked your article. Truth in it, no doubt. The only problem I have (as a user in the past for bodybuilding competition) is that they do offer the user a significant advantage over the non-user - with the exception being of course, phenomenally gifted/genetically superior natural athletes, of whom there are few.
I think the problem lies with how do we reconcile or accommodate their use? The fair way I believe would be to continue the competition, but you'd have to have two separate camps - with the names of all participants per usual, available for everyone to see along with their adjuncts use/non-use status.
Then, everyone can see and decide for themselves who they like, dislike. It would all be legal and upfront. You know of course, this would negate the whole purpose of using because it would in effect, neutralize the competitive advantage. Which boils the whole argument down: One takes performance enhancing products to gain the edge over non-users who otherwise would give them equal or superior competition. Get it?
If you can't get a leg-up on your competition (in secret), then what good is it?
If everybody takes the drugs, then we're right back to an equal playing field aren't we? Where once again, the only separation will be the naturally, genetically superior athlete.
Dog chasing its tail…
Comment by cc | August 10, 2006
Bicyclist Landis may have taken synthetic testosterone (T).
Who had contracted testicular cancer, then survived–and then needed to take testosterone to "normalize" his T levels?
Comment by Deacon Elurby | August 10, 2006
Didn't the issue used to be that the use of steroids have long term health issues??
Such as pro football players having internal organs that were destroyed before they reached 50. Wanting something bad enough to knowingly decrease your life expectancy is a personal decision. Encouraging it in youth is immoral.
The fact that these drugs weren't available when early athletes were setting records does cheapen those records in comparison to the steroid monsters.
Again, it should be a personal decision to trade life for performance/notoriety/money/sex…
There should be a choice in that we have enhancement free competitions for those who wish to compete against those records that could not be done with drugs.
The argument against performance enhancing drugs is more of an argument of education. As athletes are started on these regimes at earlier ages to get that leg up, how can the young athlete be expected to make a rational educated decision.
Or, are we saying every mother should be given these drugs to give the baby that leg up in case they turn out to have the genetics to be a money maker!?!?!?!
Comment by anonymou | August 10, 2006
For the prices they charge to attend ballgames today, I would enjoy seeing someone run to 1st base and burst into flames because of roids. Now that is entertainment.
First there was beer and hotdog diets, then better nutrition, then nutritional products and now roids. Why not allow them? Should we also tell all the atheletes to stop lifting weights because it gives them an advantage over those that don't, or didn't in the old days?
Comment by DR | August 10, 2006
The crtique of baseball home run hitters for taking steroids is a bit out of context
with abilities. Steroids do not, and most likely, cannot increase one's eye hand
coordination and make one a better hitter. A more powerful hitter when the ball is
hit but they still need the skill to hit the ball. If they can't hit the ball, they can't hit
a home run. So at the least, the home run hitters have the ability to hit the ball wheter they take steroids or not - that is a talent.
Oh and I think Poe used opium as well didn't he?
Comment by LD | August 10, 2006
The fourth comment above hits the nail on the head. The real problem is that Congress would rather have hearings and make new laws about trivia like sports than doing their job (remember world war III?). If steroids are an unfair advantage for pro athletes then why not outlaw breast implants as an unfair advantage for strippers? After all it's just a matter of a person using their body to entertain others.
Marx only said that relegion was the opiate of the populace because pro sports had not been invented. Our country needs to outgrow the games.
Comment by Alan | August 10, 2006
I'll go along with Morris' view because I'm "Pro-Choice" on just about everything.
Steroids, education, smoking, eating red meat, hunting, religion, driving SUV's, implants, …everything but abortion.
Comment by Juan Oskar | August 10, 2006
An athlete taking steroids is exactly like sneaking nitrous into a stock car, it gives the user an unfair advantage over those not using. The claim that a juiced baseball player still needs the skill to hit the ball is ridiculous. The ability to hit the ball farther that the steroids give turns an out into a home run. The same argument could be applied to using metal bats. The player still needs the skill to hit the ball, the metal bat just allows the ball to be hit harder. The rules are in place for a reason, to promote parity among active players, and historical continuity. Without historical continuity, I don’t believe it would be possible to attract any kind of following for a sport. And that is the goal of using steroids, is it not? Doesn’t an athlete use drugs to perform better compared to his contemporary or historical peers, which attracts a larger fan base, which is how athletes get paid, correct? Half the fun of being a baseball fan is that there have been so few changes over the last 80 years that it is possible to compare players over time. That wouldn’t be possible if the players alter their performance by artificial means. The bottom line is, steroids are against the rules for a reason and taking them makes one a cheater. Cheaters are no better than common thieves because cheaters steal accomplishments from others (in sports that means $$$), and that is why PED’s are immoral.
Comment by Jim | August 10, 2006
I am amazed at the news coverage that the steroid issue is receiving in the media. Steroids have been used by the Soviets since the 1960's. Athletes that perform at the level that Landis does don't become that skilled by merely working hard. Many athletes abuse steroids. Mark McQuire had the stuff sitting in his locker during his playing days and made no attempt to hide them. Its human nature to want to "cut corners". And steroids provide that short-cut. I say let professional athletes have access to the juice, I like watching world records. Regarding steroids and their affect on children, thats what parenting is all about.
Comment by JBM | August 17, 2006