those two catagories shouldn`t mix at all.
I've got a limited appreciation for gladiatorial combat, but I admit, I would have loved to see it applied at the national leader level - - George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld vs. Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali and Uday, mano-a-mano or with broadswords. Last man standing. Think of all the lives that could have been saved at the cost of only five worthless pieces of shit.
You know, Dick, if I had my way, I'd meet Rommel face to face; him in his tank and me in mine. We'd meet out there somewhere... salute each other, maybe drink a toast, then we'd button up and do battle. The winner would decide the outcome of the entire war.
The two armies could watch. I'd shoot at him, he'd shoot at me. If I killed him, I'd be the champ. If he killed me - well he won't.
Sporting events, though, are public spectacles. If we allow these morons to fuck themselves up for the spectacle with drugs, what's the difference between that and gladiatorial combat where people fucked themselves up with swords, all for the spectacle?
I'm against drugs in sports - - nobody should be allowed to compete if he or she is sick, so all competition should be between healthy and drug-free athletes. When the winner gets his or her medal, we'll at least know that Pfizer didn't deserve any part of it, it's all tribute to the winner and nobody else.
No drugs in competition,
I've got a limited appreciation for gladiatorial combat, but I admit, I would have loved to see it applied at the national leader level - - George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld vs. Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali and Uday, mano-a-mano or with broadswords. Last man standing. Think of all the lives that could have been saved at the cost of only five worthless pieces of shit.
Patton proposed the same thing North Africa. From the movie:QuoteYou know, Dick, if I had my way, I'd meet Rommel face to face; him in his tank and me in mine. We'd meet out there somewhere... salute each other, maybe drink a toast, then we'd button up and do battle. The winner would decide the outcome of the entire war.
Purportedly, the actual quote was:QuoteThe two armies could watch. I'd shoot at him, he'd shoot at me. If I killed him, I'd be the champ. If he killed me - well he won't.
The movie quote was much more dramatic...
Personally, I think the answer is yes. Anyway, there was pretty good a debate about this issue, and a website called Intelligence Squared has the transcript. It is a PDF, unfortunately, but if you're interested in reading the debate, here is the link: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/TranscriptContainer/PerformanceEnhancingDrugs%20011508.pdf (http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/TranscriptContainer/PerformanceEnhancingDrugs%20011508.pdf)
I'm biased, of course, but the guys arguing in favor performance enhancing drugs apparently were at least somewhat persuasive. An Associated Press article claims "Before the nearly two-hour debate began, 63 percent of audience members indicated they were for prohibition and 18 percent believed the drugs should be allowed, with the rest undecided. Afterward, 59 percent said they should be banned, and 37 percent said they should be permitted." http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20080115-1839-dopingdebate.html (http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20080115-1839-dopingdebate.html)
I've got a limited appreciation for gladiatorial combat, but I admit, I would have loved to see it applied at the national leader level - - George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld vs. Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali and Uday, mano-a-mano or with broadswords. Last man standing. Think of all the lives that could have been saved at the cost of only five worthless pieces of shit.
Why? Already we've had scandals involving pro athletes taking steroids and other drugs to try and gain a competitive advantage. Others see it works for them, so they start doing it - college athletes, high school athletes... There have already been reports of that happening. These kids have no idea what kind of problems they can face later on for their steroid use now - heart and other medical problems, mood changes, 'roid rage, and so on.
Who was the latest pro wrestler that made the headlines when he died, I can't remember his name? I do remember details slowly came out about his steroid use, and large amounts being found at his home. Then the stories began coming out about his anger management problems, probably due to steroid use. I have no problem if these adults want to risk killing themselves with this crap. I do have a problem with kids using it, with no idea what the risks are, and I do have a problem with anyone using drugs that can make them more violent towards other people.
The last reason, and probably the least important to me, is the competitive advantage people get from them.
However, if a person can be kept from participating in a sport because they wear prosthetic legs that might give them an advantage, though they pose no risk to himself or others, then steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs should certainly be banned.
Yes, that's why I said that only healthy players should be allowed to compete. 100% healthy. If you're injured, if you need any kind of drug to participate, then stay out of the fucking game. Of course a guy who takes an aspirin for a minor pain before a game is relatively harmless, but where would you draw the line? The only practical line you can draw is the one between drugs and no drugs. Any other way and we'd have lawyers, doctors and pharmacists fighting over every fucking pill.
I agree with Tee.
It is not as thought there was any sort of shortage of football players.
They get paid huge amounts of money. They are grown men playing with balls.
If they get hurt, send in another one. Give more players a chance. Spread that beer money around. Why not?
Hyperbaric chambers and extra practice will not shorten your lifespan as steroids do.
All drugs are not bad for you, but some are very bad.
My real objection to your example is that the rule which permitted Farve to play with a broken thumb - - harmlessly, as it turned out - - would also permit a lot of other more questionable participations indistinguishable at the end of the spectrum from the use of performance-enhancing drugs.
Questionable as in when does a pain-killer or muscle-relaxant or stimulant or anti-inflammatory become a mood elevator or a muscle growth factor, etc.? Questionable as in where does an injury-related condition reach the point where the medications aren't needed in the same dosage as they were at the beginning? Questionable as in raising questions.
If you accept that the purpose of using the drugs was to enhance muscle growth or stamina, that's not questionable, it's objectionable.
If I watch a sporting event (which I admit is a very rare occurrence for me, probably less than once in two or three years will I watch any match from start to finish, usually the most I can take is about ten minutes three or four times a year) I really appreciate the natural skill and strength of the athletes; I just wouldn't feel the same admiration for a performance if I felt it was due to chemicals. That's because I feel with the right kind of chemical cocktail in his blood, a really mediocre athlete could achieve levels of performance that would appear impressive to a spectator - - maybe the guy I'm watching wouldn't be so impressive if I knew I was watching the steroids performing, and not him.
Maybe at some level the thrill of watching a sporting event is vicarious achievement - - I get to be, or 10% of my conscious being gets to be, that left fielder leaping up to make the catch before the ball sails over the wall, and some of the thrill of the accomplishment gets appropriated by me. If I knew the guy was on coke or steroids, I'd probably be thinking, BFD, give me what he's on, and I'd jump up and catch it with my teeth. So all the enjoyment of vicarious achievement is gone.
Geez, they are ENTERTAINERS, it's not like they were doing anything of importance. They are grown men playing with balls, who, lamentably, are role models with a lot of impressionable children.
Sports are suppose to teach fair play. Not pharmacology.
[...] and his eyes are augmented with high speed cameras [...]
[...] his genetically engineered body [...]
Steroids, OTOH, are used primarily by athletes on a regular basis for muscle enlargement and ought to be permanently banned from sports. You can't find too many people in the non-athletic world using them regularly or at all.
It was not a blanket statement
Your family experience of steroid use is very different from mine. Apart from topical hydrocortisone very occasionally over the years, nobody in my family, as far as I know, has ever used steroids.
Then health care in Canada must be behind the curve - steroids are being used for a large number of treatments in the US, UK, and Germany, and the number is increasing.
And that's a good thing, right?
Let me ask you this: if steroids are so great, why would the pharmaceutical industry bother to develop NSAIDS? Is it all a con, a fraud?
| Yet members of Congress, already among the most out-of-touch people in American society, find themselves sputtering with frustration that baseball fans don't share their pain. Maybe that's in part because Americans themselves are discovering better living through chemistry, whether for anxiety, sweaty palms or restless legs syndrome. When 84-year-old retired senator Bob Dole, born in a year during which Babe Ruth hit 41 homers, is better known as a shill for erectile-dysfunction drugs than as a statesman, you've probably lost middle America on the notion that all drugs are automatically bad. The uncomfortable truth is that illegally obtained muscle-rebuilding treatments exist on a continuum that includes laser eye surgery, Vitamin B-12 shots and Tommy John surgery (a procedure that grafts ligaments from knees or elsewhere onto a wrecked elbow, frequently giving pitchers more velocity than they had before). Sorting out the morality and legality of self-improvement has more to do with aesthetic revulsion and moral panic than with considered science or logic. |
|
No one dances when a player is truly injured.
I did when Lawrence Taylor broke Joey Theismann's leg. Wore my tape out years ago, but it's on YouTube:
Seriously though, other than the guy in charge of replay, I don't recall anyone rejoicing about what happened to Theismann.