P.E.D.’s: Where Should Sports Draw the Line?

The part that I think bothers me the most is that there is limited interest in testing. Many of the players unions strongly oppose increased testing, as it would tarnish their clients and reduce paydays for all involved, under the auspices that it is an affront to their personal privacy. At what point did employment become a right instead of a privilege?

That is the thinnest visage for out and out greed that I can think of.

I have no interest in submitting myself for urine and blood tests, but if there was a problem with teachers at my school using drugs, then I would be the first in line. Of course, there is always some outrage of being accused if you are innocent, but if it was tarnishing the profession and needed to be done to prevent future damages to the district, I would be the first in line.

Unless the occasional Guinness (after hours, of course) is on the banned substance list, I have zero fear of failing a test. My hat is off to NaturalPro for willingly going through this process. You and your colleagues are an example of what sports should be.

Do mistakes and accidents happen? Even with stringent testing will some people still resort to cheating? Of course. But people like Manny, Bonds, Ortiz, A-Rod, and Clemens are still beloved by their respective team's fan base. Why? Because too many people don't care. They want to see results even if it slaughters our national integrity. And until we develop a culture that abhors cheating and cheaters are treated as outcasts and pariahs, this will continue to be a problem.

Most people deserve a second chance if they are truly remorseful and see the error in their ways. One failed drug test = suspended for a year in every sport. Second = suspended for life. Let's see these clowns pumping gas for a living instead of making millions and my bet is that the scene would clean up P.D.Q.

Let me first say, I condemn any athlete who cheats in any fashion, be it stimulants, blood doping, illegal equipment, point shaving or any other underhanded trick.

Now I said this long time ago while sipping my own Guinness in a bar, drug testing for "illegal" drugs is the beginning of a slippery slope that will ultimately ruin sports. Starting with the complications that have already occurred.

• Which drugs are illegal? Who decides?
• Do yesterday's legal drug usage negate yesterday's games since today the drug is illegal?
• Are the bulked up users of yesterday's legal drug banned from playing today because that drug is illegal today?

Now going slightly down the slope to tomorrow's problems (Yes, some will seem absurd now):

• What about legal use of illegal drugs? When an athlete gets hurt today a common treatment is the legal, doctor approved administer of a steroid. Must the athlete wait the equivalent amount of time it would have taken to heal if he wasn't given a steroid before competing again? Or will steroid treatment of athletes now be banned completely.
• The human body is a complicated machine that has many variations. What if its found that some individuals can just push their bodies so hard that they produce their own steroids, or the markers of steroid use? Athletes are atypical individuals, might this be why some healthy humans have average strength and stamina, and some are athletes. Possibly then Floyd Landis just naturally pushed his body to produce the detected steroids and should have retained the Tour de'France prize.
• Will exercise outside of game play drills and routines be banned. Swinging a weighted bat is acceptable for a baseball player but weight training is an artificial boosting of muscles and thus banned to all but weight lifters.
• Will atypical body size ban a person from a sport? Stature and build will become to big of an advantage. Horses now have to carry jockey's that weigh no less than 20% lower than the population average. 6'6" now becomes the maximum height in the NBA or will the basket height be adjusted to one foot above the team's tallest player's reach over his head?
• Will calorie intake of athletes be limited for all sports?

These do get absurd, but at one time drug testing was considered absurd.

They do get absurd, but the until the line is drawn and accepted en masse, it is not an absurd point to make. Thanks for the comment, redfred.

Although I agree that this is an important issue in sports, I think there is a larger issue concerning body image we aren't discussing.

All young men want to be muscular. Any movie you watch, the hero is built and cut. Any magazine cover, etc. This has created an image in the minds of young men of what the ideal man looks like, and it involves lots of muscles. This often drives men to make bad choices. You see, it takes a lot of work and a long time to build muscles, and we men get impatient as we watch muscle bound men get the girl, win the game, and generally enjoy life.

So we cheat, we take supplements, creatine, and some of us even go on a cycle or two of steroids to jump start our muscle growth. In college I went from 155 to 175 pounds in two years with whey protein and creatine. I didn't do it for a sport, I did it to get built. Everyone thought it was a good thing, even my doctor complimented my physique at a physical, calling it "healthy". I had several friends who did steroids and became big quick. Everyones reaction to their new builds was positive. Those of us who chose not to do steroids, shook our heads, fully knowing the health risks, but at the same time, totally understood why they did it. They did it because you are simply treated better when you are built and cut and nothing got you built faster than steroids. The problem with steroids is that they really really work. That's why young men who are in sports and even those not involved with sports do them.

I can't even imagine what it would be like to have millions of dollars influencing a decision of whether or not to do steroids. These baseball players toil for years in the minors, and bam, a few shots later their warning track power is now 30 homeruns a year and a fat contract. I just told you about guys in college who did steroids just to get girls, are we really going to judge baseball players whose livelihood is at stake?

I'm not saying what they did was right. I just think the outrage is a bit much. And what about the NFL? Can we really have such righteous indignation with baseball players when we continue to ignore the obvious in football?

I guess I'm saying that we should worry less about what we ignored in the past and worry more about what we are ignoring now. Right now young men are turning to steroids, not just for athletics, but to improve their self image. How do we address that?

I guess I'm saying that we should worry less about what we ignored in the past and worry more about what we are ignoring now.

Agreed Roger. I took a course in college about the differences in the genders and the truly amazing part of the course was how quickly men were catching women in eating disorders and unhealthy behavior to attain media promoted ideas of healthy and attractive.

And I don't think baseball is the only one that should be under the microscope. If leaving the past in the past means that fewer Division III football players are on the juice, like some I knew were where I attended college, or Division IV Social League rugby players are where I play now (thankfully, the one also had an intense attitude and violence issue - go figure - so he was thrown off the team), then I am willing to pull a Mark McGuire and am "here to talk about the future".

That people use steroids as a social tool sickens me. It does not surprise me.

"I can't even imagine what it would be like to have millions of dollars influencing a decision of whether or not to do steroids. These baseball players toil for years in the minors, and bam, a few shots later their warning track power is now 30 homeruns a year and a fat contract."

Agreed...but let me give it a slightly different twist. Why not remove all controls and restrictions on the use of PED's? I, for one, want my professional athletes to run faster, jump higher, and generally just perform like the superheros in the comics I read as a kid (especially on my 64" 1080p HDTV that I paid way too much for). I watch pro sports for the entertainment value, and seeing real-live people performing superhuman feats is nothing if not entertaining.

I know, I know, the use of these drugs has severe health implications, but that should be for each athlete to evaluate against the financial return of a more successful career. I make the same decisions as an engineer and my career regularly. 80-hour weeks and all-nighters fueled by caffeine & sugar have certain health implications as well, but weighed against that next promotion, don't look too bad. Obviously, the long-term effects of sugar & caffeine do not compare with those of PED's, but my salary doesn't exactly compare with a pro athlete's either.

Saturday Night Live answered your proposal so well in this skit, The Drug Olympics.

And, satire aside, I think that is what pro sports is all about. Yes, keep the Olympics clean, that's their niche. But if the point of pro sports is go faster, stronger, further and maximize the profitability of a certain business model, than no option should be off the table.

Sweet idea. We could even line them up when they are close to death and let them fight to the finish like celebrity pro-boxers. It could be pretty entertaining as most would be in their late thirties or early forties.

And since so many kids want to be pro athletes anyway, let's start handing this stuff out to would-be athletes in middle school while we are at at it. That way we can really see which ones will peak on PED's before we waste time nursing them to the big leagues while they are clean.

I mean who cares, as long as I am entertained?

Every day we slide closer and closer to being the second coming of Ancient Rome.

Very interesting! So, is the debate about keeping sports fair, about what we're willing to allow someone else to do to their own body, or about what should be socially acceptable as entertainment?

I don't see how you can separate those things. I think its about all of those things.

There is no doubt that a tv show where two people fight to the death would get tremendous ratings, and consequently, the one who survived, due to the economics of ratings, would make a tremendous amount of money. A truly free society would certainly allow such a tv show. I'm not sure a moral one would. That is the essence of this discussion.

People seem to forget that the free-ist society possible is anarchism, literally by definition. I'm certain there are very few that would suggest that anarchy is a practical form of governance, and yet many seem to believe that any restrictions on any freedoms are inherently evil. These two beliefs of course are contradictory, and yet they are held by a sizable number of people.

If you want to look at it as "telling people what they can do with their own bodies", that's fine, but I think it's a bit more complex than that.

I agree that the three aspects are inseparably intertwined in practice, but that doesn't prevent thinking people from debating aspects individually. In fact, I think it is mandatory to limit the scope of the debate in some manner, just to keep it manageable and practical discussion possible. Even if we are to only limit it to these three aspects (and we could easily dip into economic and even deeper social implications) I am certain we could find regulars on this forum alone that would argue we crossed the line (either way) on any one of these aspects long ago.

"A truly free society would certainly allow such a tv show. I'm not sure a moral one would. That is the essence of this discussion.

"People seem to forget that the free-ist society possible is anarchism, literally by definition. I'm certain there are very few that would suggest that anarchy is a practical form of governance, and yet many seem to believe that any restrictions on any freedoms are inherently evil. These two beliefs of course are contradictory, and yet they are held by a sizable number of people."

I think you are right and wrong at the same time here. I believe we can have a free-enough society that such a television show is not subject to prior restraint, yet moral-enough that it would not flourish. I do not believe the two beliefs you speak of need be contradictory, so long as some tolerance is practiced. The problem we run into is the majority finds some objectionable behavior in a minority population and decides to legislate their morality for everyone. After enough time passes, nearly every behavior is going to be seen as objectionable by someone else and nearly everything outlawed. Obviously, I'm arguing the "slippery slope" here, but I fail to see how the inevitable result is a more practical form of governance. In the words of a much wiser man than I: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

You Wrote:"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

I doubt they see it that way in places like the Sudan, but this is a baseball discussion, so I'm going to pull back in that direction.

For me, the joy of the game isn't quite as you described it, but it is close.

You wrote: "I watch pro sports for the entertainment value, and seeing real-live people performing superhuman feats is nothing if not entertaining."

When you play sports as a child and a young man, the best part is certainly when everything seems to fall together to produce a super-human moment. Like when you make perfect contact with the ball with your bat and it makes that perfect deep sound and you can feel by the way the bat vibrates in your hands that you've hit the ball on the sweet spot, and without looking up you know it's carrying much farther than it should because you hear that deep crack (or ting) of the contact . The look of disbelief on the outfielders face as he's running backward furiously to try to catch up to the ball you just hit over his head and the joy of running the bases as everyone, teammates and opponents alike appreciate that something special just happened. That's only a special moment when it's honest. If I hit that ball a mile because I'm on a cycle and have 1.5x the strength of a normal person and not because I've managed to hit it perfectly, then that moment is hollow.

Baseball is an art. Using steroids in baseball is like an artist tracing a photograph and calling it a portrait. It only works as long as we don't know the artist is doing it. As soon as we find out, all the admiration, all the appreciation we have for that super-human ability of putting life to canvas is gone.

Now I'm not saying people wouldn't be entertained for a little while by a steroids fueled league. Certainly there is a voyeuristic side of humans that lusts for the unusual and obscene. I don't think that sort of entertainment has staying power. Soon people grow bored and demand more and more. The problem with novelty is it wears off.

Baseball has been around 150 years because it appeals to deeper emotions in the human psyche, the struggle for perfection, the concept of team over individual, and yet at other moments individual over the team. Hitting is often referred to an art and other times a science. Anyone who has played understands why. It's a game of pure beautiful moments when human beings exceed their potential and whole stadiums roar their approval. It brings fathers and sons together, husbands and wives, it gives us something honest and pure. At least it tries to, and when we find out that it isn't pure, we react strongly, perhaps overreact.

So I disagree with your sentiment that it would be fun to watch baseball played by superhumans, only because I would have a hard time empathising with them, and that's the best part, the feeling of being a part of the moment, of seeing something rare, special.

I agree there is a fundamental difference between playing a sport and watching a professional event. As I said, the Olympics (and Olympic qualifying events) will always have their niche. I also agree with your personal sentiments about baseball (especially hitting). I was considering all the major professional leagues (not just baseball), some of which perhaps require a little less "finesse" (for lack of a better term) in their execution.

I also agree (hope?) that the novelty of watching super-humans play sports should wear thin after a while. Perhaps pro sports needs to let the PED fad run it's course so the athletes and fans can all prove to each other that the game is better off played the old-fashioned way.

I agree with this, Roger. If someone is a superior athlete naturally, I can have all sorts of awe. If they are usings some form of enhancement, while the act or event itself might be amazing to see, it means much less than a natural feat of seemingly lower proportions.

For example, IF it turned out Usain Bolt was using steroids, I would be amazed by his 9.58 even if he was on something, but Tyson Gay's 9.71 would stay with me longer. That he accomplished it cleanly means more to me. Ben Johnson's tainted run stays in my mind from childhood because of how cheap it was.

Granted, Bolt has not been connected with PED's, I am just using this as it was in my head from this weekend.

I really hope Usain Bolt is clean. Watching him run is amazing and it would really ruin it if he was taking some sort of PED. 9.58 is an insane time, really, it's unbelievable.

Agreed. After running the 100 and then coaching track, it is just amazing to watch. He is just an unreal talent. Since track and field is such a tainted sport, I am going to just be naive for now and assume that he is.

Tyson Gay ran an American record and was .13 behind him. That is simply unheard of.

Also here's another thought. An unoriginal thought I'm stealing from a ton of sports writers in recent years. Baseball has never been clean, not really.

I mean, we venerate Babe Ruth and the other early greats, but they played in a segregated league.

In the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s guys were popping uppers (amphetamines) before a game.

Here's an interesting drugs in sports timeline from sports illustrated.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/03/11/steroid.timeline/index.html

In the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s guys were popping uppers (amphetamines) before a game.

The motivation to get past a hangover in order to entertain the fans is not quite the same as that behind gaining an unfair advantage in order to deceive the fans...and in order to walk away deceitfully with fans' (and sponsor's) money given in good faith. Such cheating as PED use is more comparable to involvement in betting/game throwing (racketeering) by players/ coaches....

They took uppers to pick up the ball better. Uppers give you superhuman focus, and confidence, huge assets for a httier. These modern guys took supplements while working out to be able to grow beyond their natural limits. I think you're making excuses for the old guys and going a bit over the top on the newer generation.

If truth were told, the answer would always (ultimately) be: "The money made me do it." This suggests that requiring return of most of the money (say, 95+ percent in the case of top "earners") might remove the incentives to cheat. Turn it back into a real man's game.

So says the guest.

What about Caster Semenya and either the accidental cheating he has done or the slander she has endured. Maybe she fits into the anatomic freak category that should preclude her from embarrassing un-gifted female runners. No that would be unfair to the honor of sports. We permit people of all physical attributes to train and eat, but only in authorized fashions. The athletes that naturally have superior physiques should dominate. What if this lady just happens to have a body that is overly sensitive to the testosterone naturally found in all humans to give her a more masculine body. This sensitivity was a natural effect in itself, she should be permitted to run as a woman. But what of the very rare but still present human hermaphrodites and polyploidal XXY individuals amongst us. Should they be precluded from all athletics since we do not know how to pigeon hole them. Lastly, what about Renee Richards? After her gender change she successfully defeated the USTA ruling that prevented her from playing women's tennis.

One last rant about athletic cheats and PED in general, why do we permit a losers claim of the winner cheating to run rampant in the press as "test results are pending"?

Good questions, redfred. The murkiness surrounding these issues appears to only get more cloudy.