Registered User
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 Rustle Your Jimmies!
I'll start with the fact the lasik is legal
E=I*R
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?
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
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.
Registered User
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.
E=I*R
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.Steroids don't have that natural limiting factor
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
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.Originally Posted by ohms_law
E=I*R
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.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
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
Song of Solomon 5:4
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 ! "
]
Registered User
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.
E=I*R
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.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
I Rustle Your Jimmies!
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?
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.
Registered User
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.
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.
Registered User
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 ?
Reply With Quote
