Printable View
If steroids is cheating, then why isn't Lasik? I had this question posed to me today and found it intriguing. As new technology, drugs, etc. become available and effects our body in a way that improves our performance......one can ask a legitimate question, "how is it different than steroids?"
I'll start with the fact the lasik is legal
Should steroids be illegal though? Properly supervised and monitored use is commonplace already for certain ailments. Asthma springs immediately to mind.
This has actually been my position all along. Why are PED's so bad for sports in the first place? Unsupervised use is certainly bad... all anyone needs to look at to see what happens then is Lyle Alzedo or any number of professional wrestlers. Should steroid use be driven underground?
I think steroids for medical reasons should be allowed....steroids for sports enhancement....I am against this however the roids themselves do not give you bulk, you still have to work out, strengthen your body, etc so.....I don't know.
The problem with steroids is that what constitutes proper use would be nearly impossible to define. Lasik suffers from a similar problem - but at least there is an upper limit on effectiveness (at least for now) that is generally not considered unhealthy. Steroids don't have that natural limiting factor and therefore they need to be more closely controlled.
Don't they though? I mean, there are different steroids (it's not just one drug), so it kind of depends on exactly what you're talking about. If PED's were generally legal then there would be a lot more research done and we'd have a much better idea of what's safe and what isn't. It's not as though one shot of whatever steroid will instantly make you impotent or otherwise ruin your health.Quote:
Steroids don't have that natural limiting factor
There is probably a healthy level/type of steroids that can be taken. There is also probably always a less healthy level/type that would provide a bigger advantage. If steroids were permitted then some players would be willing to take unhealthy levels - which would probably force increased use by all/most other players.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
The thing is, they already do that anyway... and most of those who use probably don't even really know if the amount that their taking is healthy or not (or probably more appropriately, how unhealthy the level that their taking is). I'm sure most of the users would prefer to be under medical supervision, regardless.
The fact is that driving drug use underground doesn't actually get rid of drugs or make the users better off. As a matter of fact, it usually makes the whole situation worse for everyone. The government (or for sports, the leagues) is spending money instead of collecting it, the users are completely unsupervised and often can't receive treatment that the need (either for addiction or side effects), and kids are drawn to use due to the rebellion effect.
Theoretically, Lasik is correcting an imperfection, while steriods adding chemicals beyond you bodies natural limits.
Mainly, the confusion comes in with steroids is we here players are on "steroids" and think its the same as taking a steroid for asthema or some other infection. Truth is they are far,far different.
One taking a steroid to help cure an imperfection is one thing and steroids in that small a dose will have little effect on beyond the bodies normal capabilites.
While people using steroids for muscle gain don't take 1 drug, actually they take 2 or 3 enhancing drugs (several not even designed for human use) and another 3 or 4 drugs to counteract the side effects, they also take these in much much larger doses than is actually good for the human body (smaller doses don;t have that effect).
So, yes, taking steroids, in relatively safe doses under the super-vision of a doctor can have little or no side effects. But, the effects will be extremely small and barely noticable ( it will not allow a 34 year old to put on 30 pounds of muscle in 4 months).
An intersting article on what "Doing steroids" really means.
http://www.esquire.com/features/steroids-0408
The Google AdSense ads at the top of this page are pretty disturbing...
"Buy Hardcore Cycles
Dura-50, Thai-5mgs, EQ, 250 mg. Free Next Day Delivery.
www.bulking-cutting.com"
and
"Safe Steroid Alternative
Gain 40lb Of Lean Muscle Guaranteed
The Steroids Of The 21st Century ! "
Lasik does physically enhance a person and his/her ability to perform. That's indisputable. People who aren't 'gifted' (which is key) with outstanding eye sight can have it enhanced with Lasik and be better than god had intended. It's an interesting argument. Brings up the issue of the wanna be olympian runner who doesn't have legs and is using two prosthetics breaking world records. We allow Lasik, but not the prosthetics? Where does it end. As technology improves, we will cross this line numerous times and one needs to look at the long term implifications and precedents set. Studies show that professional athletes have larger hearts which pump more oxygen through our blood and to our muscles. What if technology allowed for heart transplants and science got improved to a point where the surgery became very confident? Would those in agreement with Lasik be in agreement with professional athletes getting heart transplants to improve their performance?
That sounds ubsurd, but it's not that far off of a thought? How bout athletes replacing leg bones with some kind of titanium alloy to prevent future injury and maybe increase speed? Crazy?? Maybe...maybe not...i'm just saying that there is precident set by accepting Lasik.
I have reflected on all the comments and feel however that Lasik is different than steroids in the fact that it's a one time event that enhances vision where as PED's are continuous and, legal or not, they will most certainly be abused. That doesn't mean I've decided that I'm for Lasik, just that I see a difference. How do you test for abuse if legal??? It would obviously be more difficult.
Ohms, you and I have fundamental disagreements on legalization of drugs. We can throw case studies and facts back and forth at each other supporting both arguments until the cows come home. I personally agree with the studies and facts that have shown where drugs have been legalized abuse, healthcare costs, crime, use amongst minors have all increased significantly. The only positive effect it has is it usually drives the price down because there will always be a black market cheaper than the drugs are legally sold for....that is of course until the Govt. finds middle ground and taxes the he!! out of these 'legal' drugs as they do cigarettes and then the drugs will more than likely be more expensive than they can currently be obtained for.
It's useless to debate it. We both have different beliefs and more than likely won't be persuaded otherwise.
Yea, that's why I didn't really get into it.
As you pointed out, Lasik is different. Still, it does bring up the point effectively. Lasik is by far not the only issue like this as well. What about "Tommy John" surgery? We're already artificially enhacing and legthening players careers, legally. Are PED's unacceptable simply because their a drug? It's easier, so that makes them less acceptable? It's definately an issue that can, and in my opinion should, be debated.
If a player has surgery requiring steel pins and/or rods, should that player not be allowed to play? What about players wearing contacts? Should their be a limit for all players on how much they can workout?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
According to your argument that lasik surgery makes athletes "better than god had intended," then contacts and corrective lenses should be disallowed in sports as well. Sorry, but this makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I'm not saying yea or nea either way right now, I'm just saying that it is a fair and intriguing argument. There are extremes to both sides. Sure, contacts don't seem like something that should be up for discussion, but the analogy I used regarding heart transplant is the other extreme. Its the ones in the middle that as they turn up society will argue over as technology makes more and more available to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by etothep
If people argue over steroids giving an unfair enhancement of their statistics, one could easily argue that other technology improvements to vision such as contacts, and lasik have also padded statistics.
And BTW, if you haven't seen the story you should try to goggle it. A guy born w/o the lower half of his legs was equipped with prosthetics and has broken numerous world records in track and field events. The Track and Field powers have ruled he cannot compete in the olympics because his prosthetics give him an unfair advantage. Is that much different than Tommy John that arguably makes a pitchers arm stronger than it was prior? Or Lasik/corrective lenses which make eyesight better than it was prior?
I'm still on the fence and am undecided, I"m just pointing out some of the ethical dilemmas and saying we as a society have to keep an open mind.
Things like this will, even in the future cause major moral implications. What per se makes something cheating? and Where you draw the line.
Currently medical procedures that, in there base, correct a deficinacy (like lasik or TJ surgery) are fully acceptable. However these to can be abused, but the fact they are procedures that are done by trained doctors make the more "acceptable". Is that reasonable ?
As for the runner (an interesting story which i have read) that really stands on the line. Is using a prosthetic leg in order to run the same or different than wearing a pair of eye glasses to drive a car ?
I had Lasik done on December 31st 2007. (yes new years eve), my last day for benefits until going to a new provider....
Anyway, this crossed my mind, I always remember Mark McGwire always squinting and blinking his eyes because of his contacts... that is probably why his batting averaged sucked...lol
If Lasik is against the rules, than wearing eye classes are contacts should be banned too. It is all the same.
agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
The difference between something like Tommy John Surgery and steroids is that TJ surgery makes the pitcher BE ABLE to play. Without the surgery, he wouldn't be able to pitch. Surgery corrects something that prevents the player from playing. It's not really "enhancing" the players natural abilities as much as it is allowing the player to play using his natural abilities. Players that take steroids for non-medical reasons are enhancing their ability to play, which is more than just correcting an issue that would otherwise prevent them from playing.
You guys are missing my point, and the point others in here are making. I agree, and have posted as such that I too see a difference in roids and Lasik/TJ. But, Lasik and TJ set a precedent that will become a big debate as technology advances, and this guy with the prosthetic legs is a great example. The legs make him 'able' to play too but the olympic committees are ruling him ineligible.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
As to your other argument about 'enhancing' the players ability, yes....contacts, lenses, and lasik do enhance ability. Players with 20/20 vision are now getting Lasik to get better than 20/20 vision! I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's an intriguing question which many who immediately rule it as a non-issue are going to have to review again later. Yes, my heart transplant surgury seems like non-sense but it's a good example of future technology that could enhance the human body through a 'surgury' to better perform athletically. Its an extreme, but there will most assuredly be many examples towards this.
First contacts and corrective lenses were OK as they weren't surgery. Then Lasik is OK because at least it's a surgery and nobody is going to put a knife to their eye. So does that mean any legal surgery done by a medical doctor is OK?
Roids is in the discussion because they are performance enhancing AS IS corrective lenses and Lasik. Sure they can be used to bring one to a 'norm' but are often used nowadays to make someone have even better than 20/20 vision.
by the way, I have to say the best investiment I have ever made, was to myself with lasik.
Left Eye:
Before: 20-45 with a huge stigmatism
After: 20-12 --No stigmatism
Right eye
Before: 20-30 with a huge stigmatism
After: slightly better than 20-15 --- No stigmatism
This is where i had it done.
http://www.lasikplus.com/
I payed roughly $2800 for both eyes, but the best part is that if they are still in operations in 40 years, when my farsighteness goes away, I could get corrective surgery for free including monovision. I picked this place based off research that actually my employeer provided for me and what I found on the internet. Simply put, Lasik Plus! is the best Lasik place in the Northwest (Bellevue/Seattle Location)
I've got poor vision myself and have contemplated lasik for a few years but my eyes are still 'growing' according to doctors. apparently your eyes 'grow' and develop well into your 30's for some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
Anyway, some of the side effects regarding blurred vision, especially at night....you haven't had any?
:eek::confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Your eyes stay the same size from the time you are born to you die...that is what I heard.
As for night vision, for the first 2 months (Jan and Feb) Stop lights were way tooo bright!! headlights hurt my eyes...I thought about wearing sunglasses at midnight one day...lol,
Thou now it is fine, I have had no problems since the 3rd week of February....
My GF had it done on the same day thou, and her vision before was really bad...I mean bad!
20-180 in both eyes with a stigmatism, now she is at 20-25, and 20-30 in the other eye but no stigmatism. She is going back for a correction and hopefully everything will be more corrected..but her eyes really did suck before...
See that's the thing. We're not talking about any kind of cheating at all. We're talking about what should be approved and what shouldn't. Steroids can be administered by a medical professional, even if the sole purpose is to "bulk up", and the user can remain healthy. We're not talking about heroine or anything like that here. Steroids were originally developed by doctors, some types for the express purpose of improving workout results.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Let's not bring kids into this either. Like I said, we're talking about medically approved "treatments", and I seriously doubt that there will ever be a medically approved PED regime that would be safe for teens.
What about "bionics"? Nanotech "implants" aren't pure science fiction any more (although, the human usable applications are still decades away). Tommy John surgery is already being used "preemptively" on occasion. Is surgery OK because it's surgery? Are drugs bad because their drugs? Where exactly is the line?
I've NEVER heard of a player with 20/20 vision getting Lasik surgery to get better than 20/20 vision.
There's no such thing as "better" than 20/20 vision... not unless someone comes up with some sort of eyeball implant, which really isn't outside of the realm of possibility any more. But, 20/20 is perfect vision, and most adults don't have 20/20 vision.
20/20 is not perfect, is just normal. Ted Williams had 20-10 vision.
I have better than 20/20 now..it is just amazing what I can see :)
what 20/20 means?
the first number means is you. (everybody has 20 at the begining) the 2nd number is how many feet a normal person can see with you standing at 20 feet away.
20/10 vision means,
What I can see at 20 feet, you can see at 10 feet. (you meaning normal person with 20/20 vision)
BTW, Ted Williams disputed that he had 20/10 vision, although that has always been widely reported. Ted claimed that his vision was normal.
Hey, you learn something new every day.
:)
Well, at least now I know that their not lying about the effectiveness of Lasik in the marketing material about it. That right there though makes an argument about how Lasik can be purely performance enhancing even more viable. The Lasik procedure is not as widespread right now as it will be in the future. I'm betting that within 10 (maybe 20) years, that's about all that ophthalmologists will do... That's the way things are headed, anyway.
Just because no athletes with otherwise "normal" vision have gone and had Lasik performed yet is no reason to think that many won't at some point in the future. As the procedure becomes more widely available, why wouldn't they? I know that if I were a professional athlete and an ophthalmologist contacted me telling me that he could improve my otherwise normal vision that I wouldn't need to think too hard about it.
(ps: I actually have fairly bad vision. I really ought to go and get Lasik done myself...)
Yes steroids are a form of technology to make athletes better at what they do, but do other forms of technology make people kill other people... the answer is no. I have done alot of research for an English essay in one of my college courses and I found out alot of things. I found out from a former user that your moods are uncontrollable, you get depressed and suicidal and you do get "roid rage." It is also understandable that no matter what athletes will still be using, but just think about how many more would be using would nay of you guys on here want your kids or somebody you know using, of course not. It’s just sad that we have finally gotten to the point where nobody can really stop the guys using steroids. It’s just wrong. There are even guys out there who actually think that people who dont use steroids should not be allowed to compete because theyre not as good as the people who are on steroids. I dont know how this problem will ever be solved, it may never be solved but making them legal will not make the situation any better
Again though, we're not talking about illegal/unauthorized PED use. We're talking about medically supervised use. My understanding is that "Roid rage" and the other severe side effects come from abuse, not simply by using PED's at all (for most PED's, at least).
yeah but what we want to know is how are you hitting curve balls now a days compared to before...Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
But the problem is that using steroids et al, in "safe" supervised doses will not yield any substantial effect. Meaning the only reason to use them is to abuse them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
LOL, I guess I should've used different wording. Your eyes don't get 'larger' but they are continually developing well into your 20's and for some into the early to mid 30's. Your eyes need to stabalize before they will continue surgery. Mine haven't yet, which is why everytime I get an exam they want to up my prescription.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
I think you guys need to just 'get off the roids' and look at the larger picture Ohms and I are discussing. Roids muddies the water. What is acceptable? There HAS been athletes with already great vision get lasik to improve upon that. I don't recall who but I do remember hearing it on talk radio and its not as if their medical records are spewed across the internet. Ohms talked about nano technology, TJ surgery which is being used 'pre-emptive'........where does it end? Forget about the drugs, is legal surgery by a medical physician to enhance athletic ability always acceptable? If not, who makes the decision what is and what isn't? (ala Lasik)Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Oh, and Ohms........regarding drugs (roids) being prescribed by a doctor would be OK........I point out that most of the roids HGH and steroirds in use 'was' prescribed by doctors. Raiding immoral doctor offfices was how the roids scandal begin to break.