This is a bit off topic, but interesting enough given the implications of change in our society…specifically, on athletes in our society. In the wake of the Mitchell Report condemning scores of Major League baseball players, Malcolm Gladwell (author of Blink and The Tipping Point) points out the lack of logical distinguishing criteria used to rule some things (like steroid use) as illicit cheating while openly permitting other treatments and aids that for one reason or another society views in a better light. As Gladwell writes:
“I’m not advocating that steriods be legalized. In fact, I think that’s probably a terrible idea. I’m simply puzzled. The professional sports establishment is in the midst of a major witchhunt against alleged users of performance enhancing drugs. But no one–so far as I can tell– has articulated a coherent explanation for what should be banned and why.”
He goes on to use the example of Lasik surgery that could correct a batter’s vision, for example, by leaps and bounds. Sure, the batter could experience the same boost with contacts, but as any of us who wear contacts daily will tell you: it’s not the same advantage. Gladwell again:
“[I]t is perfectly legal for an athlete to get painkillers after an injury, so he can continue playing (and, I would point out, risk further injury.) It is not legal for that athlete to take Human Growth Hormone, in order to speed his recovery from that same injury. Again, why? What is the distinction?”
With advances in medicine, surgical technology, pharmaceuticals, prosthetics, and our understaning of the body’s healing processes (and how to manipulate them), we seem to drift further and further into uncomfortable territory between helping our athletes achieve their full and healthy potential and pushing the definition of that potential far beyond the natural limits. Where do we draw the line? Is this an area in which, while relishing Barry Bonds’ home runs or football players who return from weekly punishment healthy and recovered in time for the next game, we are happy to slide down a slippery slope, making symbolic judgments to keep our playing fields “clean?”
Image used under a Creative Commons license from Flicker user Mike Licht.
Subscribe by feed
Subscribe by email
Follow on Facebook
I think there is a line that can be drawn: if Little Johnny plays high school baseball and idolizes Barry Bonds, but has poor eyesight, he could get lasik surgery and repair his eyes with little side effects (although lasik is not recommended for anyone under 18, since eyesight is normally changing during those years). But if Johnny idolizes Barry Bonds and takes steroids thanks to his role model, he could end up seriously hurting himself in the long run.
Gladwell is right, though, in that this point is not made clear enough: we’re really trying to protect kids, not our home run records.
I think Lasik is a much easier example than others. Gladwell offers two other examples that give me pause in another post (http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2008/01/the-war-on-drug.html)
From the January 14, 2008 Sports Illustrated:
Page 36: “Then, on a late touchdown run against Arkansas on Nov. 23 [LSU quarterback Matt Flynn] separated his throwing shoulder. Two painkilling injections allowed him to stay in the game.”
Page 51: “In the moments before kickoff, some players listen to metal and some listen to rap. Some talk to God and some talk to themselves. Seattle Seahawks defensive end Patrick Kerney wraps a black graphite glove around his neck, wires it to the portable neurmuscular stimulator in his locker and sends small currents of electricity into his body. He literally energizes himself . . . When Kerney goes home to his house in Bellevue Wash., he climbs into a hyperbaric chamber to infuse his body with oxygen. Then he falls asleep under silver-threaded “earthing” sheets plugged into an electrical outlet. . . ”
The point is that neither athlete broke any laws or violated the rules of their sport…and I’d wager that medical doctors performed the injections (example 1) and helped set up the system described in example 2. Steroids might hurt little Johnny’s development, just as a slightly older Johnny might suffer from a high school or college coach with no scruples about keeping his athletes on the field through painkillers, etc even at risk of further injury. If the coach is violating nothing other than our gut feeling that it’s not right, how do we change laws or rules to REALLY protect kids and athletes alike?
As a follow-up, here’s a really thoughtful post from Open the Future on the implications of medical technology in sports (citing the same story I linked to talk about prosthetics):
http://www.openthefuture.com/2008/01/technodoping_and_the_new_olymp.html
There are a lot of pro and cons related to steroid use. I have come across many pharmacies that sell but I don't remember ever reading about hair loss related to them. What other side effects can appear if they are used in prescribed quantities?
We see athletes as the modern gladiators. We admire them for their strength, skill and dedication. We also admire medicine for it's advancements. What I wouldn't like to admire in an athlete is medicine. Another idea would be to allow all of them to use whatever they want and a freak Olympics. Than anyone who wants a personal upgrade will be able to buy steroids online. I'd get them myself if I knew there are no damaging side effects.
We've all seen record breaking, unforgettable performances from athletes who didn't have to buy legal steroids but created something with their incredible will and perseverance. Respect to those people and whoever needs these artificial boosts should face the consequences.
I didn't think steroid isn't a good choice. thanks for sharing
great article
He goes on to use the example of Lasik surgery that could correct a batter’s vision, for example, by leaps and bounds.