Performance-enhancing drugs and sports--does it diminish sports?

[mimartin]

I just want to know differences between why performance-enhancing praticing is considered good while performance-enhancing drugs are a no-no.

 

You enjoy the role of devils advocate don’t you?

 

There is a major difference between practicing a skill and injecting a synthetically produced substance. Last I check the long terms effect of hard work and practice did not include any of the following; heart disease, liver cancer, hypertension, eating disorder, elevated cholesterol, stunted growth, episodes of rage, delusions or violent behavior, which are all long term side effect of steroid use.

 

I am not against the use of vitamins or other natural sublimates. Working out and hard work should be rewarded not over shadowed by cheaters.

 

Another difference is the performance enhancing drugs are against the rules of the game, where as practice is legal provide it follows the rules and timetable of their league.

[SilentScope001]

You enjoy the role of devils advocate don’t you?

 

Yes.

 

There is a major difference between practicing a skill and injecting a synthetically produced substance. Last I check the long terms effect of hard work and practice did not include any of the following; heart disease, liver cancer, hypertension, eating disorder, elevated cholesterol, stunted growth, episodes of rage, delusions or violent behavior, which are all long term side effect of steroid use.

 

Too much Excerise could cause someone who is unprepared for excerise to have heart attacks. But I will grant this point to you, judging as, well, athletes who are unprepared to excerise are unprepraed to actually play their own game. The only noticable difference I see is that a person will have to spend valuable time to pratice.

 

But the fact remains that excerise may be seen as a slow and steady way of increasing your preformance, possibly unnaturally. Is that good...or bad?

 

I am not against the use of vitamins or other natural sublimates. Working out and hard work should be rewarded not over shadowed by cheaters.

 

Person A pratices for 5 hours. Person B pratices for 1 hour. Person C does not pratice at all.

 

Now, Person B is better than Person A overall and Person C is better than Person A and Person B, assuming that none of them pratices. But since Person A pratices more than Person B, and Person B pratices more than Person C, Person A is able to counteract the natural advantages given to Person B and Person C, and win. Person B and Person C may not have enough time or enough money to pratice, but Person A had time and money to pratice and was able to therefore win. Meanwhile, Person B gets 2nd Place and Person C gets 3rd place, when, without the effects of praticing factored in, Person C should have gotten 1st Place, due to him being naturally better than Person A or Person B.

 

Did Person A cheat? No, because it is legal. But, Person A did enhance his performance, and therefore, it leads me to question why performance-enhancing praticing is fine, and performance-enhancing drugs are not as supported (other than the horrible side-effects which need to be avoided at all costs, or gotten rid of).

 

What about people in Third-World nations, who may be in the middle of a warzone, or have to worry about surivial? These people can't pratice, so even if they are better than a person in a rich First-World nation naturally, the First-World athelte still can beat the Third-World athelte, because the 1st World has more resources and time to spend for praticing.

 

Not to mention you are okay with vitamins, so if a person cannot afford them, then the advantage lies with the person who takes the vitamins.

 

Another difference is the performance enhancing drugs are against the rules of the game, where as practice is legal provide it follows the rules and timetable of their league.

 

Okay. Does the rule needs changing to ban praticing or to legalize preformance-enhancing drugs so that all people compete equally? If you legalize the drugs, then all people are allowed to take the drugs, thereby negating that "edge" those who illegal take drugs now get, and having the competion be over who gets the better steriods rather than who gets to pratice more. If you ban praticing, you can test a person's natural ability rather than the abilty getting through the honing of skills unnaturally.

[Prime]

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.

But that coordination doesn't mean jack if you don't have the power to hit it out of the ballpark. In any event, would he hit as many without such things? If the answer is no, there's problems.

[JediKnight707]

But that coordination doesn't mean jack if you don't have the power to hit it out of the ballpark. In any event, would he hit as many without such things? If the answer is no, there's problems.

 

But the problem is we will never know whether or not he will. For all we know, he could have it more if he had hit more if he didn't take steroids.

 

You enjoy the role of devils advocate don’t you?

 

I know you didn't pose this question at me, but I do for the record.

[Jeff]

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?

That was before the current drug testing policy was in place because steroids weren't a known issue in baseball. The old policy was so weak anyone could get by it.

[JediKnight707]

That was before the current drug testing policy was in place because steroids weren't a known issue in baseball. The old policy was so weak anyone could get by it.

 

Exactly. For all we know Hammering Hank took steroids or corked his bat.

[mimartin]

Sorry it took so long to respond, work got busy yesterday.

 

But the fact remains that exercise may be seen as a slow and steady way of increasing your performance, possibly unnaturally. Is that good...or bad?

 

Good. Practice is always good, unless injury or fatigue make rest more advisable. I would not expect a concert pianist to step on stage without first spending hours practicing the piece.

 

I’d never take a test without first studying and practicing solving problems covered on the test. Why would I expect less of an athlete? I see nothing unnatural about training for your chosen craft.

 

Even the athletes taking performance enhancing drugs must practice to receive the benefits of the drugs. I still believe hitting a round ball with a round piece of wood is the hardest thing in sports. Without practice even with the use of performance enhancing drugs connecting with a ball traveling 90 plus mph would be nearly impossible. If I took performance enhancing drugs and practiced every waking hour I still would not have the ability of the worst professional baseball player, and I was decent though the high school level. All these players have been born with a talent that most only dream of.

 

 

 

Person A practices for 5 hours. Person B practices for 1 hour. Person C does not practice at all.

 

Did Person A cheat? No, because it is legal. But, Person A did enhance his performance, and therefore, it leads me to question why performance-enhancing practicing is fine, and performance-enhancing drugs are not as supported (other than the horrible side-effects which need to be avoided at all costs, or gotten rid of).

 

What A did was legal and if B and C want to compete in future events they will need to work harder. You can have all the potential in the world, but that is all it is potential without the hard work necessary to excel at your craft. I still fail to see how taking pride in yourself and working towards your goal could be considered unnatural.

 

If D practices 7 hours because the performance enhancing drugs D is taking allow D to recover faster and have more endurance and strength, then that is cheating and that is unnatural. If E natural body allows E more endurance and strength and E heals faster without the use of drugs, then E is not cheating.

 

What about people in Third-World nations, who may be in the middle of a war zone, or have to worry about survival? These people can't practice, so even if they are better than a person in a rich First-World nation naturally, the First-World athlete still can beat the Third-World athlete, because the 1st World has more resources and time to spend for practicing.

 

Not to mention you are okay with vitamins, so if a person cannot afford them, then the advantage lies with the person who takes the vitamins.

Life is not fair. Fortunately sports have helped impoverished men and women out of their situation; unfortunately many with superior talent are never discovered or given the opportunity to rise to their full potential, not just in sports, but life.

 

Some are brought to train and compete in western counties, but it makes you wonder about how many are never discovered.

 

Okay. Does the rule needs changing to ban practicing or to legalize performance-enhancing drugs so that all people compete equally? If you legalize the drugs, then all people are allowed to take the drugs, thereby negating that "edge" those who illegal take drugs now get, and having the completion be over who gets the better steroids rather than who gets to practice more. If you ban practicing, you can test a person's natural ability rather than the ability getting through the honing of skills unnaturally.

 

If you legalize performance drugs then you force every into choice between the possible side effects and not being able to compete on a competitive level. If you ban practicing you might as well ban professional sports. Practice is necessary not only for the player to perform at their best, but for the safety of the other players and the spectators.

 

Can you imagine a race car driver getting behind the wheel without testing the car and the track? Roger Clements throwing a 95 mph fastball without warming up? Now imagine you are the batter (bet you’d like for him to practice a little now). Tiger Woods hitting the ball with a gallery full of people without going to the practice range first? There is nothing unnatural about hard work after all “practice makes perfect.”

 

If you ban practice salaries would go down because fans would get tired of the sporting event being stopped every 5 seconds because someone was injured or made a mistake. The fans are paying to see the best of the best. The best work hard at their craft no matter their field of expertise.

[SilentScope001]

Good. Practice is always good, unless injury or fatigue make rest more advisable. I would not expect a concert pianist to step on stage without first spending hours practicing the piece.

 

I’d never take a test without first studying and practicing solving problems covered on the test. Why would I expect less of an athlete? I see nothing unnatural about training for your chosen craft.

 

That's the problem. How can we accurately tell who is smart and who isn't if they both "praticed"? Praticing messes up the whole system, training turns the whole contest into whomever can pratice more, not who really is the best. I do have a small problem with it, but, we're going to have to agree to disagree with it, seeing that it goes on a seperate tangent. To each their own ways.

 

What A did was legal and if B and C want to compete in future events they will need to work harder. You can have all the potential in the world, but that is all it is potential without the hard work necessary to excel at your craft. I still fail to see how taking pride in yourself and working towards your goal could be considered unnatural.

 

Unnatural is basically anything that hasn't come from nature, that is already given to you. Praticing surely wasn't a thing that occured in nature, and you had to actually pratice in order to gain the increased beniefts. If you didn't pratice, you didn't get the beniefts. Taking pride in yourself means nothing, if you won because you praticed, and if we take out the praticing variable, and you would have lost, then I see that person's victory as being hollow. People who takes steriods take pride in themselves in their skills of hitting the ball, but some people don't care about that, so I wonder why do they parade those who advocate Pratice when they are just increasing their skills via an acceptable method, but still increasing their skills, and having a competitive advantage. (Of course, I know why, since you told me, but still, I suppose we are coming up against different warrants here)

 

Life is not fair. Fortunately sports have helped impoverished men and women out of their situation; unfortunately many with superior talent are never discovered or given the opportunity to rise to their full potential, not just in sports, but life.

 

Some are brought to train and compete in western counties, but it makes you wonder about how many are never discovered.

 

Okay.

 

If you legalize performance drugs then you force every into choice between the possible side effects and not being able to compete on a competitive level. If you ban practicing you might as well ban professional sports. Practice is necessary not only for the player to perform at their best, but for the safety of the other players and the spectators.

 

Can you imagine a race car driver getting behind the wheel without testing the car and the track? Roger Clements throwing a 95 mph fastball without warming up? Now imagine you are the batter (bet you’d like for him to practice a little now). Tiger Woods hitting the ball with a gallery full of people without going to the practice range first? There is nothing unnatural about hard work after all “practice makes perfect.”

 

But then it makes you wonder if Tiger Woods really is good at golf or if So-And-So is really good at running, and not because they just worked out far too much? If sports' main goal is to judge the natural talent of people, then by adding in this soley unnatural element of pratice, then you artifically increase the preformance of the people, thereby turning sports on its head. It does diminish sports in that you are measuing a quanity that many people may not have the time to refine, and which, without that quanity, none of those people would have done what they are supposely 'good' at.

 

Unnaturality is good, and I am not saying it is bad...but does it belong in sports, where we are supposed to find those who are purely strong?

 

"If you work out, you can be like me!" says an athlete. It's an overstatement, because the athelete also has innate qualities as well that seperates it from the average person, but it is generally true, and if so, then we come to a point in which we all have the possiblities to ascend to the ranks of atheltes...by working out. And when that happens, sports gets diminished. We all can be very good atheltes, and that could nullify the point of watching sports. "I don't care about driving cars at high speeds, I can do that, I can train myself, etc." Suddenly, we reach the real problem that steriods pose to society...ANYONE can hit themselves with steriods and become strong. Anyone can pratice and become strong. Anyone can do it, and if the gates to "athletedom" are open...then it loses meaning.

 

If you ban practice salaries would go down because fans would get tired of the sporting event being stopped every 5 seconds because someone was injured or made a mistake. The fans are paying to see the best of the best. The best work hard at their craft no matter their field of expertise.

 

Replace "pratice" with steriods, and you got the main argument for the support of steriods.

 

I guess I really want sports to decide wheter it really wants to tolerate all performance-enhancing materials (praticing and steriods) or to ban all performance-enhancing materials (again, praticing and steriods). It won't do that, of course, since the compromise of supporting some performance-enhancing and tolerated methods of raising your power (praticing) while rallying against other methods (steriods) is nice indeed. I just worry it's just hypocritical.

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

Bah, most athletes are overpaid anyway, but those who crutch on pills/injections because they're to much of a wuss to practice and go to the gym like everyone else just fail at life.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

Bonds is 2 away and at Miller Park this weekend. Milwaukee has already said that they are not in a position to walk him. They will pitch to him as the game itself dictates.

It is a strong possibility that he'll do it here, where Hank did it.

 

Does anyone care one way or the other?

 

Personally, I don't care where he does it. It's inevitable that he will. I feel he should do it at home though. Only because San Franciscans deserve to enjoy it, seeing how others are so partial to him.

 

No one wants to admit it, but whether you agree or not, Bonds is one of the greatest if not THE greatest big bopper in our era.

 

The facts are: Bonds has never tested positive on any steroid test.

Bonds has gotten to 750 faster than Aaron and in many less at bats and at a younger age.

Bonds has been walked almost twice as much as Aaron (almost 2000 more walks)

 

...and most of those intentional.

 

It's logical to assume that if you were to take even 10% of those 2000 or so walks more than Aaron and actually pitch to him, he'd have been at 750 a long time ago. Imagine 50% or 75%.

 

But, because of an elitest, introverted, keep-to-yourself attitude, 10 years of media thrashing because he doesn't do interviews, and a steroid allegation scandal that challenges the integrity of our fair game, he'll never get the recognition a person with his accomplishments should receive.

 

With our country at war and enduring so much domestic and international turbulence, I would have imagined a person in his position to be looked upon with reverence, pride and inspiration for the younger generation to come.

 

Instead he gets booed wherever he goes outside of SanFran.

 

Does performance inhancing drugs diminish Sports?

I'd have to say, Yes. Yes it does to a degree.

 

Assuming Bonds did unknowingly take muscle enhancers for a period, would he have still gotten to and past 755?

I'd have to say Yes to that too.