Jae Onasi Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Just what the title says--how do you feel about performance drugs in sports? Does it make a big difference to you? Is Bonds' use of steroids going to diminish his home run record for you, for instance? Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caius Fett Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 To me yes the use of Illegal Steroids is a major detractant. My personal feeling is that if a professional athlete uses steroids and is found to be using them then their record should be expunged regardless if they had a clean record for 15 years prior. IMO the use of steroids gives one a unfair advantage over those who don't use them creating an uneven playing field. (no pun intended) To do so is completely unfair to those who try their best day in and out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Yes, it definitely does. There is no pride in winning with steroids. But I don't really care that much about sports in general, so it doesn't bother me much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I’m a big believe in innocent until proven guilty, but in the case of steroids the proving is the hard part. The tests are always two steps behind the cheaters. Yes, it makes a difference to me. It is cheating and is extremely unfair to those that follow the rules. It also endangers the life of those that take the drug and possibly their offspring. With Barry Bonds, I have a problem. One thing is it has never been proven that he knowingly used performance enhancing substances. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelmingly against Bonds. However, there is also some circumstantial evidence against Lance Armstrong. I have a problem jumping to saying Lance Armstrong is guilty, but almost certainly convict Bonds on circumstantial evidence. I don’t understand if it is race, cancer, location or reputation that makes me lean this way. So until it is proven I will withhold my judgment of Bonds or Armstrong. The rumors have taken a way my enthusiasm for the home run record and Armstrong’s Tour De France record. Yes, it definitely does. There is no pride in winning with steroids. One of the other problems with sports nowadays winning with pride or without does not matter. All that matter "TO MOST" is money. @Carius Fett, you are right. I forget about some players like Biggio. Corrected. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caius Fett Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 One of the other problems with sports nowadays winning with pride or without does not matter. All that matter is money. I'd have to say that while I too believe this is true of many atheletes today there is danger in making blanket statments like that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 blanketed perhaps, but when sports teams "strike" because they're only making $1.5 million as opposed to $2+ million.. it tends to darken the arena for everyone.. Why they're even getting paid these outrageous salaries boggles my mind (besides the sponsoring) However, since this isn't the forum for that.. I digress... err... it's their salaries that are on steroids? does that help?.. hehehe (nope)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Medical ramifications aside, I agree it cheapens pro-sports (but like Pho3nix, don't really care.....at least till I see some of the $$$). Still, pro-sports are big business and it's inevitable that reults will count more in the eyes of some than the means used to achieve them, especially if you can find away to avoid getting caught. @ChAiNz--slightly off topic, but oh so true. That's entertainment.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caius Fett Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 blanketed perhaps, but when sports teams "strike" because they're only making $1.5 million as opposed to $2+ million.. it tends to darken the arena for everyone.. Why they're even getting paid these outrageous salaries boggles my mind (besides the sponsoring) Oh I quite agree that their sallaries are exorbiant to say the least; I'm old enough to remember when all of MLB went on strike and the taste that left in my mouth. I was a huge baseball fan 'till that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Yes, it absolutely does. Using steroids is cheating and its ruining baseball. Its not fair to the great players that do not juice like Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez. I hope that A-Rod or another player can break Bonds' record so it is not longstanding. I don't believe that players like Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds should be first ballot Hall of Famers because of this issue. I know that they will be inducted eventually but cheaters should not get the honor of being in the hall of fame. To me cheating is cheating, and if you're going to let cheaters like Bonds into Cooperstown then cheaters like Pete Rose should be allowed in as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 ^^ Yeah, and how much do you want to bet that will happen anytime soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 To be an devil's advocate: No it doesn't! Performance-enhancing drugs enhances the performance of the people who uses those drugs. Since increased performance equals increased pushing of the boundaries of mankind, it makes sports much better. Besides, would you want nerds with no muscle wrestling? Or people with bigger muscles? Sports are competitive, and the only issue is that, well, some people don't use steriods. They don't afford them, or you know, they want to play by the rules. Hence, it is cheating, because some people use steriods and get the advantage while other people do not use steriods and suffer. Therefore, all we really have to do is manadate that each player on a team must get an EQUAL amount of steriods. That way, we manitan total equality, and while performance will be enhanced, each side has an equal chance of winning as before, and therefore, no cheating would occur. People may refuse to take the steriods for health reasons, that is true, but for those that want to take steriods, they should, with the full knowledge that they cannot take more steriods than another person, otherwise they would be cheating and must be expelled. Another possiblity is having that: You are allowed to take steriods, BUT you make your name in public that you are using steriods, so that people can understand why you are preforming better. We could have a special league you know, a League for Non-Steriod Users and a League for Steriod Users. Those who hate Steriod Users can watch the League for Non-Steriod Users, and those who love Steriod Users can watch the League for Steriod Users. === Personal View: There are much more important things in life than shooting yourself up with needles. Better not to deal with side-effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Basically, sports is the comparison of which athlete has the best result when using his body to perform a bodily task. Of course this comparison is only useful when all competitors accede under the same condition. If illegal or not, if someone uses substances which put him into the situation to perform better it simply is unfair against the others and contradicts the very idea of sport: fair competition. Would it be fair if all competitors would use those (and the same) substances? Yes. But I think this would still contradict another idea of sport: what is the human body able to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediKnight707 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Bah, I don't care. Its all a game to me. Half the players take steroids we just don't know about it. A kind of unspoken rule in sports is if the refs don't see it, it didn't happen. So, to say that these great players like Ken Griffey Jr., Hank Aaron, the Babe, etc. didn't take steroids could be a lie. No one knows who takes it and who doesn't. I say, keep watching it, keep paying these guys millions, and just enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Bah, I don't care. Its all a game to me. Half the players take steroids we just don't know about it. A kind of unspoken rule in sports is if the refs don't see it, it didn't happen. So, to say that these great players like Ken Griffey Jr., Hank Aaron, the Babe, etc. didn't take steroids could be a lie. No one knows who takes it and who doesn't. I say, keep watching it, keep paying these guys millions, and just enjoy it.Oh come on, you know which players are juicing and which aren't. Clearly some of the great sluggers aren't like Albert Pujols and Vladimir Guererro. Sure, Bonds has never failed a drug test either, but the evidence against him is indisputable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Sports is overrated, the players are over overpaid, and I don't consider it much of a Job anyway. Who cares if they are taking drugs? If they are doing better at their game because of it, then that makes a better show for the hundreds of millions that watch these people do what they are overpaid to do. The game isn't even about the game anymore, it is about how much you are paid. The better you do, the more millions you get paid over -actual- hard working individuals. So, steroids and other drugs help them get more money. I'm sure if you work in front of a computer all day, you would think about the chance to take a pill or drink a lot of coffee to make you more alert and ready to do the work in front of you and to keep you from getting bored. Its the same thing, we are just angry at sports players because a lot of people consider is some kind of honorable job. There is nothing fair about sports to me. So, my high schools teachers get paid around minimum wage for educating our youth, actually going to college, and being successful people? Bull. A guy that carries a pig skin from one end to a field to another does not deserve to be paid more than my teachers did. He is doing absolutely nothing for the people except entertaining them. They can take a bottle of steroids a day, they can take zero. All the same to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I am a sports junky (hoops and hockey), and I think these drugs cheapens sport big time. I certainly can't take baseball seriously right now... Why they're even getting paid these outrageous salaries boggles my mind (besides the sponsoring) Because the general public, through buying the tickets and merchandise, say that is what they should make. It is, after all, a free market. The athletes aren't holding a gun to anyone's head... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 A guy that carries a pig skin from one end to a field to another does not deserve to be paid more than my teachers did. He is doing absolutely nothing for the people except entertaining them.They deserve to get paid exactly what people are willing to pay them. I don't care too much about steroid use, except the 1) harmful side effects are a real downer, and 2) if using steroids is against the established rules then clearly people should be punished/banned for cheating if they use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Athletes get handed money, they deserve and work for very little of it. I respect people that are in it for the love of the game, not the 60 million dollar paycheck. Just because the sport gets the money does not mean it should go directly to the athletes. I can point out a few areas where a few hundred million could do wonders. Give it back to the community. But of cource, my idea is stupid because they deserve every penny and people are too greedy to give back to the people supporting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 respect people that are in it for the love of the game, not the 60 million dollar paycheck. That's very altruistic of you, but if someone hands me 2 mil cool for dribbling a ball or catching a football, you bet your ass I'm gonna take it. Despite popular belief... it is actually very, very difficult to be an athlete. It's a hell of a lot of hard work and perserverance and dedication to the game that you choose to play. As to what the athletes do with their money, that's a different story. But do they deserve it? Damn right they do. Now therein lies the problem, you got guys that deserve the playtime and the recognition because they're damned hard workers and damned good players, and then you got the roiders who get the glory. Now... if everyone did it... if it were somehow a way to increase the boundaries of the human threshold... some sort of full body stimulant that would be readily available...then I wouldn't mind paying to see uber athletes playing. But as for now, when there are players that harm themselves in the attempt to gain a cheap upperhand... it's not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aash Li Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Barry Bonds is a hack. His record should be discounted because he had to use drugs. Him getting the record, and using steroids, would be the same as me using cheat codes through the course of a game. The only difference being is that Im not screwing up my body. I highly doubt atheletes deserve several millions of dollars for tossing balls around. Niether do I think they should get minimum wage or something... But thats just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 The athletes aren't holding a gun to anyone's head... No.. they strike or re-negotiate contracts or threaten to move to another state/or team if they don't what they want p.s. and again sorry for de-railing the original topic. Perhaps we need an athletes/musicians/'career of choice' VS salary thread.. hehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Just because the sport gets the money does not mean it should go directly to the athletes. I can point out a few areas where a few hundred million could do wonders. Give it back to the community. They do, to a large degree. Many athletes are actively involved with charities and charitable events, and donate large sums of money to various causes. For example, David Robinson gave $5 million to establish a college prep school in one of the San Antonio's poorest sections. Dispite a lot of the negative (deservedly in most cases) media some athletes receive, there are also a lot that do give a lot back to the community. No.. they strike or re-negotiate contracts or threaten to move to another state/or team if they don't what they wantI agree that there are some that breach contracts, etc., but most use "legal" negotiations and teams or whoever agree to sign a contract that gives a certain salary. It is a two sided agreement. In team sports they can only threaten to move to another team if they are free agents, and that is their right. It is the owners who outbid each other that drives up those salaries. Why? Because those skills and players are extremely rare. Again, it is the owners that set the market, not the players, and it is the owners to cave into player demands. p.s. and again sorry for de-railing the original topic. Perhaps we need an athletes/musicians/'career of choice' VS salary thread.. heheheI think that is a good idea, actually I'll start one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 p.s. and again sorry for de-railing the original topic. Perhaps we need an athletes/musicians/'career of choice' VS salary thread.. hehehe I really don’t consider this off topic. Why are the players (in team sports) taking performance enhancing drugs? a) To win more games for their team. (How many players play their entire career with one team ?) b) To increase their productivity in order to cash in on their next contract. Players doing unnatural things to their body or allowing teams to unnatural things seemed to have gone up just as fast as the salaries. I believe there is a direct correlation between the two. I do not begrudge them their money, but I have a problem with them getting it by artificial means. It endangers them and those on the field with them (and if current events are to be believed at home too.) All these player have talent that most of us only dream about, why would they cheapen that talent by using performance enhancing drugs? For the love of the game or for the almighty dollar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediKnight707 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Barry Bonds is a hack. His record should be discounted because he had to use drugs. Him getting the record, and using steroids, would be the same as me using cheat codes through the course of a game. The only difference being is that Im not screwing up my body. Yes, but you do work the controls. And what I mean by that is, Bonds' homeruns aren't all steroids. You can discount him all you want, but you can't hit a homerun if you can't see the ball. It takes an eye to hit a homerun, and you sure as hell can't get that from steroids. Oh come on, you know which players are juicing and which aren't. Clearly some of the great sluggers aren't like Albert Pujols and Vladimir Guererro. Sure, Bonds has never failed a drug test either, but the evidence against him is indisputable. No one thought that Sammy had a corked bat or that Mark was taken a "vitamin supplement." So, who's to say who is and who isn't? With all the speculation about every player now-a-days, each player is guilty until proven innocent in my mind. I really don't care if they stick a needle in their ass, as long as they continue to entertain me. Call me naive or pessemistic, but sports are meant to entertain me, and I don't care how an athlete does that, just as long as he does keep my extremely short attention span focused on him (or her). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I do not begrudge them their money, but I have a problem with them getting it by artificial means. Why not we ban praticing for games? You know, playing a pratice game before playing the actual game? Doesn't that artifically increase your ability to play good in a game? And it's not being natural at all, since you are unnaturally playing a new pratice game, thereby unnaturally getting better? I just want to know differences between why performance-enhancing praticing is considered good while performance-enhancing drugs are a no-no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.