Registered User
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.
Registered User
agreeOriginally Posted by yankee hater
o
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.
Registered User
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.
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.
Registered User
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)
Registered User
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.
Anyway, some of the side effects regarding blurred vision, especially at night....you haven't had any?
o
Registered User
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....
Registered User
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...
E=I*R
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.
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?
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
Song of Solomon 5:4
I've NEVER heard of a player with 20/20 vision getting Lasik surgery to get better than 20/20 vision.
]
E=I*R
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.
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
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)
Valentine Lake Horror
BTW, Ted Williams disputed that he had 20/10 vision, although that has always been widely reported. Ted claimed that his vision was normal.
E=I*R
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...)
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
Reply With Quote
