[slugger]

I played ball in the minors for years and most of us took some type of enhancing drugs. My choice was Deca Durbin and Testosterone and it really made me very strong and I did not get injured much. If I was still taking it I would be in the majors but organizations unofficially started testing guys and many guys got scared and stopped. I think steroids should be allowed as you will then see a great product on the field and less injuries as fans pay to see top level competition,

I lost millions because I stopped taking them and then got hurt and lost my velocity and of course got waived eventually. I am mad at baseball.

I know I have a controversial position on this and many have my views and of course the oppposite view. would like to debate this topic.

Thanks

[InSpades]

I I think steroids should be allowed as you will then see a great product on the field and less injuries as fans pay to see top level competition,

Fans would rather see players that are clean and not cheating instead of balls flying out of the park.

IS

[natrass]

I think steroids should be allowed as you will then see a great product on the field and less injuries as fans pay to see top level competition,

I wish the Olympics would allow them ... lets see just how fast a man can run or jump ... it'd be hilarious.

Of course, I am assuming your whole posting 'character' is for comedic effect.

Are you Raiders?

[jjgold]

Slugger you sound like a real jerkoff

Did you get thrown out of the game Pal??

[tacomax]

I think steroids should be allowed as you will then see a great product on the field and less injuries as fans pay to see top level competition,

Why stop with steroids? Why not have cyborgs playing the game? Heck, why not replace the players with robots - you wouldn't get much more top competition than that.

[jjgold]

Taxy this guy I bet was thrown out of game for illegal drug use

Hey pal what gauge needles did you use??

[Ganchrow]

Why stop with steroids? Why not have cyborgs playing the game? Heck, why not replace the players with robots - you wouldn't get much more top competition than that.

Sorry, taco, but I just don't buy your slippery slope argument here.

If our goal were to permit only the most “natural” players to compete, then I just as well might argue stop with banning steroids? Why not ban all performance enhancements, such as, oh I don't know, say creatine, protein powder, vitamin supplements, carbohydrates, caffeine, aspirin, LASIK eye surgery, contact lenses, eye glasses, arthroscopic knee surgery, weight training, antibiotics or well I could go on and on.

I think this slippery slope no more specious than yours.

The fact is that we in the western world have all somewhat arbitrarily agreed that ingesting certain types of chemicals (even some of those which occur naturally in our bodies like adrenaline, testosterones, or growth and thyroid hormones) is strictly verboten, while ingesting others or engaging in other performance enhancing activities is A-OK.

Certainly, some might argue that allowing athletes to ingest steroids, forces those who choose not to put their bodies at risk into a disadvantaged position. But this smacks of hypocrisy. To be a successful athlete one needs to put one's body at risk every time one plays the game: from the boxer who refuses to throw in the towel even when he's clearly been beat (the borderline retarded heroics of Rocky Balboa immediately springs to mind), to the outfielder who dives headfirst into the left field wall to make a daring catch, to the defensive tackle who plays into his sixth concussion, to the right wing who undergoes risky knee surgery for the sake of but a 75% shot of ever taking to the ice again, to the power forward who virtually guarantees long-term joint injury by over-exerting himself in the weight room, to the tennis player who risks permanent blindness through radial keratomy surgery; those who do risk their health for the sake of "the game" (but only in those certain pre-prescribed manners which don’t involve “dangerous” drugs, heaven forbid!) are actively considered heroes.

Personally, I think it's the United States' infatuation with the anti-particular drug culture that leads us down this double-standard-laden path. I think the only reason why it may be true as InSpades states that "Fans would rather see players that are clean and not cheating instead of balls flying out of the park," is because we've been conditioned into a very programmed aversion to steroids. And regardless of this pre-programming, fans of "professional" wrestling and bodybuilding have certainly come to accept and even appreciate the rampant steroid use.

Steroids are not drugs with which I'd care to endanger myself. But just because I choose to abstain does not mean I have the right to force others' hands. Steroids are doubtlessly quite effective at supplementing an athlete's training regimen, but there is still no substitute for grit, determination, training and hard-work. That is, of course until the United States Handicapper General decides to ban those as well. I know, I for one don’t want Diana Moon Glampers coming after me for spending too much time in the gym (I direct all those who missed those last two references to read Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s classic short story Harrison Bergeron.)

[EBone]

There is no doubt in mind that Ganchrow is, by far, the most intelligent and learned person on this forum. That, my friend, was classic.

E

[BuddyBear]

There is no doubt in mind that Ganchrow is, by far, the most intelligent and learned person on this forum. That, my friend, was classic.

E

It's not even close.

[Senator7]

I would love to see a debate between Mudcat and Ganchrow, SBR's resident MENSA members!

Senator 7

[Ganchrow]

I do appreciate the compliments, but I would like to point out that the my propensity to write like a pompous ass is likely more indicative of great insecurity than great intellect.

[natrass]

I just think its a no brainer. Drugs and athletes are like personalities and drink. If your stoned you behave differently, etc. Same as drugs with athletes. The beauty of sport lies in it being between "normal" folk engaging in a contest ... if X is better than Y because he takes more drugs ... then where is your admiration coming from?

[Ganchrow]

The beauty of sport lies in it being between "normal" folk engaging in a contest

"Normal" folk like Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams, Barry Sanders, Watne Gretzky, Wilt Chamberlain, Flo Jo, Lance Armstrong, Joe DiMaggio, Joe Montana, or Jesse Owens? I'd argue that these folks are (or were) anythng but normal. At that's likely the main reason why we've loved watching them.

if X is better than Y because he takes more drugs ... then where is your admiration coming from?

Couldn't I also argue that there's equally little reason to admire an athlete like Michael Jordan who is only considered "great" because of the cosmic coincidence of his having been born with incredibly favorable genetics and as the son of a domineering and fiercely competitive father?

The fact is great atheletes are not great people because of their athletic ability, they're great people (or not-so-great people) because of who they are and what they do (or don't do) for society.

Muhammad Ali is certainly a great man. Since his retirement he's devoted his life to furthering the themes of peace, social responsibility, human dignity, and self-respect. Who knows how many countless lives he's touched for the better? And if one day it comes out that Ali took whatever performance enhancing drug was available to him in the 60s, it wouldn't affect my opinion of him in the slightest. He's a great man and a great athlete -- not a great man because he's a great athlete.

So that, I'd argue, is from where the true admiration ought come. From the person. Not from the athletics, not from the shoes, and not from the drugs. From the person.

So I think I'll have to just respectfully disagree with you on this one.

[natrass]

"Normal" folk like Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams, Barry Sanders, Watne Gretzky, Wilt Chamberlain, Flo Jo, Lance Armstrong, Joe DiMaggio, Joe Montana, or Jesse Owens? I'd argue that these folks are (or were) anythng but normal. At that's likely the main reason why we've loved watching them.


Couldn't I also argue that there's equally little reason to admire an athlete like Michael Jordan who is only considered "great" because of the cosmic coincidence of his having been born with incredibly favorable genetics and as the son of a domineering and fiercely competitive father?

The fact is great atheletes are not great people because of their athletic ability, they're great people (or not-so-great people) because of who they are and what they do (or don't do) for society.

Muhammad Ali is certainly a great man. Since his retirement he's devoted his life to furthering the themes of peace, social responsibility, human dignity, and self-respect. Who knows how many countless lives he's touched for the better? And if one day it comes out that Ali took whatever performance enhancing drug was available to him in the 60s, it wouldn't affect my opinion of him in the slightest. He's a great man and a great athlete -- not a great man because he's a great athlete.

So that, I'd argue, is from where the true admiration ought come. From the person. Not from the athletics, not from the shoes, and not from the drugs. From the person.

So I think I'll have to just respectfully disagree with you on this one.

When I said "normal" I was meaning the word in its everyday use. In this case, normal would be that they were born just like you and me by the same mechanics, they breathe oxygen, they get energy from food, etc. etc.

Where I think I may have lost you is that I would regard someone who is doped up to the eyeballs to not be comparably "normal".

When you meet someone drunk ... do you think that is them being their "normal" self?

You use Muhammed Ali ... are you seriously suggesting that if it emerged that he had been doped up to give him an advantage over his opponents then you would view him identically admirable.

As I say, its a no brainer ... and I would argue that the vastly overwhelming majority of opinion on the subject by folk both less and more learned on the subject would disagree with you.

But, hey, whatever ... Ive been wrong about things before.

[Ganchrow]

When I said "normal" I was meaning the word in its everyday use. In this case, normal would be that they were born just like you and me by the same mechanics, they breathe oxygen, they get energy from food, etc. etc.

I'm assuming that this is not in fact your definition of "normal" for the sake of discussion. Clearly, this applies to all humans with the exception of test tube babies and I believe Herring Man (he has gills).

Where I think I may have lost you is that I would regard someone who is doped up to the eyeballs to not be comparably "normal".

And it is indeed completely your perogative to define the concept of normality for yourself, but don't don't delude yourself into believing that your definition of normality and yours alone represents some high-minded normative ideal. It most decidedly does not. It simply represents your opinion of how you think the world should be. If you don't like steroids then you can do as I do. You can choose not to use them. Heck, you can even go a few steps farther than that and choose to boycott any sporting event which doesn't adequately test for steroid use. You'll make the choice for yourself and I'll make the choice for myself.

You use Muhammed Ali ... are you seriously suggesting that if it emerged that he had been doped up to give him an advantage over his opponents then you would view him identically admirable.

I guess I'm just not that infatuated with sports figures qua athletes. I admire Ali most of all for what he accomplished outside of the ring. He was one of the hardest training fighters of his generation, which is a fact which would be no less true had he indeed been doping. (And for the record, I am of course speaking merely hypothetically here.)

... and I would argue that the vastly overwhelming majority of opinion on the subject by folk both less and more learned on the subject would disagree with you.

And they, just like you and I, are all entitled to their opinions. But an opinion, may ******* out, is not rendered fact merely by virtue of the majority's belief therein. I mean if that were so we'd all be seeing angels ...

Anyway this has been quite an interesting discussion but I think I've said my piece. Anyway, you can have the last word if you want it, natrass.

:an_cheers

[jjgold]

Flo Jo was one of the biggest steroid users in track and field

Who knows if MJ took stuff

You still have to be great with or with drugs. If roids made players better we would have tons and tons of superstars and we do not.

[slugger]

JJ get lost, you do not even know how to throw ball. All you do is gamble. I did not get thrown out of game because of steroids. I had the talent but needed the extra push and steroids did this for me.

[why]

I played baseball in college and the semi-pro, never did any roids while I played. If I had known about them and thought they would have enabled me to get to the "bigs" I would have popped them like chiklets. Its all I wanted, started playing at 4 and finally gave up at 24 when I went to school for my masters in health.

While at school I did a paper on steroids and used myself as an experiment. The paper was on steroids, all the way through the process. I purchased and did the steroids with full documentation. Don't know if I had been doing steroids when I was younger if they would have enabled me to get to the bigs but they sure made me stronger in every exercise, on squats alone I went from 275lbs, 12 reps to 350lbs., 12reps, it was amazing. I received an A on the paper and only did steroids one more time realizing it could become an addiction. The long-term side affects are not worth the risk, at least for someone who was not a competitive athelete anymore.

I had a friend who did get addicted and is now dead, after 20 years of using them, all his internal organs failed!

[natrass]

IThe beauty of sport lies in it being between "normal" folk engaging in a contest ... if X is better than Y because he takes more drugs ... then where is your admiration coming from?

I think we might be getting bogged down in a subject that neither of us probably give two shits about but ...

... let me try it another way. Say I can normally run 100 metres in 22 seconds ... but if I take drugs I can do it in 16 (yes, I know, i wish). You on the other hand, will not touch drugs and you can do it in 18 seconds. Who is the better athlete? Who is the most gifted naturally at running?

.. I would still say the 16 seconds is artificial (or not my "normal" ability). Just the same as if I had surgery and got all sorts of animal tendons or bionic implants ... it is not me as a natural person.

Do you think a woman who has plastic surgery is just as attractive as if born that way? ... maybe, the two of us look to admire different things in life.

As for accepted opinion, doesnt always mean its right of course ... but just maybe there is a reason for it.

Anyway, thats me .. what can i say, I disagree with you completely ... but :0000007:

[jjgold]

How do you get addicted to roids??