Would you be opposed to MLB players using

[Wassit3]

non drug based technology to increase their bat speeds or the speed of their pitches? Say someone invented a shirt for hitter that allowed the hitters to increase their bat speed, would you be opposed to allowing players to use it? would you consider it cheating? or would you simply consider it an evolution of the equipment available to players?

[200tang]

I wouldn't care as long as everyone had an equal chance of using it.

[HoustonGM]

If it's not against the rules, I wouldn't be opposed to players doing it.

[KowboyKoop]

as long as

A. everyone had the chance to do it
B. the technology wasn't responsible for too much of performance...I mean..it should be about people working hard, there shouldn't be some technology that makes it easier to be really good and negates a lot of the 'work' or 'talent' factor.

[TheNamelessPoet]

no

[kenny1234]

If it's not against the rules, I wouldn't be opposed to players doing it.

I think the implied question is: Should this be against the rules?

And I would say no, as long as the change didn't dramatically affect the game. For example, golf just changed the rules on the design of club grooves, to reduce the amount of spin that players could put on the ball. This was a necessary change as the technology change over time had made the same courses easier, thus changing the nature of the competition.

[Red Sox Fan 734]

No, personally I'm not against steroids either...

[dickay]

non drug based technology to increase their bat speeds or the speed of their pitches? Say someone invented a shirt for hitter that allowed the hitters to increase their bat speed, would you be opposed to allowing players to use it? would you consider it cheating? or would you simply consider it an evolution of the equipment available to players?

i love this topic. I brought this up when the guy with the blades for feet was trying to play in the olympics. If it makes one faster, and is not against the rules.....if technology is at a point where its medically feasibly (which it is but its more of an ethical issue) who's to say one can't have their feet chopped off and blades put on?

or why can't football players have steel plates put in their heads to prevent concussion (hypothetical of course)

or what about a pitcher having their arm bionically reconstructed and being able to throw consistently over 100mph?

all hypotheticals, but we allow Lasik surgery for those who don't truly need it but want it for a competitive advantage. I find people VERY inconsistent in their opinions regarding this stuff which is why i find it so fascinating. It is a test of our ethics...and for each they have different lines. Whats right to us however, may not be for the player wishing to do this stuff and our opinions in fact may be intruding on his rights.

[kenny1234]

There is a difference between equipment changes that do nothing to the actual person, and medical advances that alter the individual. Player safety is a critical aspect of the medical issue - which is why steroid use needed to be curtailed. If Lasik surgery had severe negative health consequences, then I think that it would need to be limited - but it is a difficult issue.

[dickay]

There is a difference between equipment changes that do nothing to the actual person, and medical advances that alter the individual. Player safety is a critical aspect of the medical issue - which is why steroid use needed to be curtailed. If Lasik surgery had severe negative health consequences, then I think that it would need to be limited - but it is a difficult issue.

so for you it depends upon the medical consequences? so if it were deemed just as risky to a players future performance to do lasik as it is to chop off ones legs and replace them with blades to run faster than it would be OK?

thats a hypothetical again and i'm not picking on you. Just pointing out some of the "difficult issues" you agree with. My point is that one has to be VERY careful what they settle on as "acceptable" (lasik for example) as there can very easily be similar circumstances that are far more controversial in the future.

this is why stem cell research for genetic engineering is so dangerous IMO. moral and ethical lines are so blurried. This is all slightly off topic....but not by much. Heck, Ted Williams has his head frozen in hopes of one day making the perfect baseball player genetically. (although i hear its a big banged up)

[kenny1234]

so for you it depends upon the medical consequences? so if it were deemed just as risky to a players future performance to do lasik as it is to chop off ones legs and replace them with blades to run faster than it would be OK?

Define performance? Chopping off ones legs is a dramatic health consequence. Improving your vision is not. If there is some side effect of Lasik that, for example, shortened your expected life by 10 years, then I would support banning Lasik.

this is why stem cell research for genetic engineering is so dangerous IMO. moral and ethical lines are so blurried. This is all slightly off topic....but not by much. Heck, Ted Williams has his head frozen in hopes of one day making the perfect baseball player genetically. (although i hear its a big banged up)

I am fine with stem cell research - if it finds a cure for Huntington's, Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease we will all be better off. Genetic modifications and sports may be a problem - for exactly the health reasons that I mentioned above. If genetic engineering will allow someone to be born without a life-threatening genetic disorder then they might be willing to accept some poorly understood risks. Genetically engineering people to be "better" than normal - that is where the health risks become important.

I said safety was a critical aspect - not the only one. Take steroids as an example. Imagine if steroids had no negative health consequences, but players taking them were able to become stronger. In that case I don't have a huge problem with them, simply because they aren't significantly different from weight training. However, given the serious medical consequences, I think there is a overall benefit to the players of a rule that bans steroids. Would I like a rule that banned weight training - of course not, because there is no obvious negative health consequence.

As I said with regards to golf - there are other circumstances that can be equally or more important, but health is a critical factor.

[dickay]

Define performance? Chopping off ones legs is a dramatic health consequence. Improving your vision is not. If there is some side effect of Lasik that, for example, shortened your expected life by 10 years, then I would support banning Lasik.

The blade man gets around fine with his blades, and there's a risk of blindness with Lasik. Again however, i'm not saying Lasik is as risky as chopping off your legs...but I am saying that technology and modern medicine can in fact one day make that so, or other comparisons. Just as genetic enginerring, it could one day be perfectly safe.

And as for roids, there are many that believe steroids are perfectly safe and actually enhance ones life if taken properly.

[acetoolguy]

Are the new high tech swim suits being banned? I thought there was talk of doing so, even though they have already rewrote the record book.

there it is....guess so.


Weather Page last updated at 16:27 GMT, Friday, 31 July 2009 17:27 UK

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Hi-tech suits banned from January
Fina World Championships
Date: 17 July-2 August (swimming starts on 26th) Venue: Foro Italico, Rome
Coverage: Live/highlights on BBC Two, Red Button and BBC Sport website

AdvertisementReport - Hi-tech swimsuits explained
Performance-enhancing, non-textile swimsuits will be banned from 1 January 2010, world swimming's governing body Fina has announced.

[TheNamelessPoet]

no I dont like it

[kenny1234]

The blade man gets around fine with his blades, and there's a risk of blindness with Lasik. Again however, i'm not saying Lasik is as risky as chopping off your legs...but I am saying that technology and modern medicine can in fact one day make that so, or other comparisons. Just as genetic enginerring, it could one day be perfectly safe.

And as for roids, there are many that believe steroids are perfectly safe and actually enhance ones life if taken properly.

Sure the blade man gets around fine, but I don't see very many people going out and chopping off their legs so that they can run faster. Obviously there is a downside.

With steroids, I agree that they can be taken safely - but that there is an incentive to take more than the safe amount. Policing their use is more difficult than banning them, so they are banned, and in many sports people can apply for exemptions based on medical conditions.