Depends your definition of "substantial." Steroids in safe, supervised doses, will have an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
Printable View
Depends your definition of "substantial." Steroids in safe, supervised doses, will have an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
Additionally, it doesn't even matter what anyone has actually done. The fact is that athletes already can have things done.
Again, we're way past the point where any serious athletics (including the Olympics) are performed by average people. None of us here (that I know of, anyway) are capable of going out and competing on a professional level in any sport. So, what's the harm in allowing athletes to enhance what they naturally have and improve our entertainment value?
I'm somewhat on the other side on this issue ohms. I'm more posing the questions, but I do think there is harm as it raises the bar and makes becoming competitive in these individual sports even further away and more difficult. A trickle down effect through the minors, college sports, high school sports and younger occurs. Plus, if all technological advances are allowed to better then talent pretty soon they'll be like robots playing each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
No doubt todays athletes are the greatest of all time due to improvements in a multitude of areas throughout history, but i think when we are talking about surgery's to enhance performance I think we are skirting a moral line I'd prefer not to cross. Today it is eye surgery, tomorrow pitchers are getting titanium alloy shoulders with nano-particles to allow fluid motion of the arm through the delivery.
Too much technology can be a bad thing.
Yea, and I don't think there's really such a thing as "too much" technology. As long as it's safe (including side effects), I don't really see what the problem is.
What about genetic engineering? If we could ensure that people are simply not genetically predisposed to diseases (and, we're close. closer than people generally think) what's wrong with that? Less cancers, less heart disease, things like that. Then, you move from there to enhancing the potential for strength, lung capacity, heart capacity, etc...
Good point...i'd bet in a laboratory somewhere they are growing the worlds perfect athlete in a test tube.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
It's not as though they don't still need to work for it... The potential is there, and the nutrition and medical technology is there to enhance what already exists, but the person still needs to work out and practice.
Thats like saying it's OK to give a Lamborghini to to a driver in a stock car Nascar race. Sure, the car has great potential but the driver still has to harness and handle the car.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
If the Lamborghini is available to every driver, why not?
So everyone should 'have' to get lasik or any other future surgery's which enhance productivity, or be genetically created (ie. own a lamborghini) just to have a chance to compete at the professional level?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Why not? Everyone already must work out (often to "extreme" levels), eat special diets, be under specialized medical supervision, etc... It's not as though athletes lead otherwise normal lives already. That and their already far from average people. Have you seen any pro athletes in person? Their almost always tall and just plain big people.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Here is a post about a writer's experience with Canseco. In the post is a good reason not to take steroids, kids.
This link does contain some profanity, so don't click if you are offended, underage, or live in Iran, China, etc.
Great article in this months ESPN the Magazine on this exact subject. Brings up some very interesting ethical questions about technology and athletes. Check it out.