Wasn't sure exactly where to put this thread but since it's been under scrutiny more recently I figure it's certainly more of a debate with a sports topic.
The question being, do you think performance enhancing drugs have a place in sports? It's obvious that athletes will continue to use different PED's as long as there is such a high incentive (money, fame, women/men, etc) with the risk of being caught. And even after being caught, the punishment is relatively minuscule outside of the public infamy. There are certainly many athletes of any sport who have, at one point or even currently, use(d) PED's. If you have a potential contract worth $100 million, do you consider spending $2mil to hire a chemist to develop a personalized steroid for you that ensures your contract or hold to moral guides?
Additionally, it seems we constantly push our athletes to achieve more, or be better. "Records are meant to be broken", and as each record is set, we want to push for better, more spectacular, higher, faster, longer, further.
One question that has been asked is if performance enhancing supplements should be supported in pro sports. The benefit being that we can see these athletes, who already put their physical health on the line for our enjoyment, be even better. One suggested downside is that this sends a bad message to young or aspiring athletes. Something like this would certainly have to be optional, but should it be supported? Being the beginning post, I'm not going to post my opinion on it just yet.
Thoughts?
It has no place at all.
(you need an account to see links)
Adrian Peterson said it best. Steroids shouldn't be used, no matter what. He didn't and he nearly made history this year, and he was coming off an injury. Hard work will provide more in the long run and you don't have to worry about scandals or credibility being hurt. Look at Ryan Braun, that dumbass basically just killed his hopes of the HOF by lying about it. Barry Bonds did the same shit too. The list goes on. I hate it.
In my opinion there is no place for it. I want to see an athlete at his/her physical maximum, not the maximum that PED's offer the athletes. Personally I think it's deceptive and does send out the wrong message that cheating is acceptable and should be tolerated. At the end of the day they're only cheating themselves.
On the other hand, I think (as much as I disagree with it) that as you stated, it should be available to every athlete or none. I know some athletes will still try to find ways around the rules but there has to be stricter dope testing or more severe punishments i.e. lifetime bans from their competitive sports or a sport similar, no exceptions. I just think it's unfair to other athletes who may have legit spent their entire lives training for one race and then lose it to a man/woman who's using drugs to enhance their performance. It devalues the sport and it also cheats the spectators imo.
All in all, I think there's no place for it, but if one athlete can do it, they should all be able to.
Maki (07-30-2013)
I personally don't think any sort of performance enhancers should be allowed in competitive sports. I don't really think its far to people who would choose not to put things like that into their body.
Originally Posted by Raj
I have a ton of respect for AP, dude's a boss. It almost seems now that if someone plays extremely well the question of PEDs always comes into the picture. There's problems in what people think of when it comes to the grey area of supplements that are legal; some have been argued to have no damaging effects (like HGH) and others, like blood doping, are very blurred as to where they fall. I'm all for the natural athlete, skill and performance being rewarded, but there either needs to be a serious crackdown on everyone or noone, not this selective garbage. Otherwise, natural athletes have to live with the stigma of "probably doping" if they do too well, and the ones that do use spoil it for everyone else. I agree that the message/morality behind it is also pretty important, but some would argue that promoting violent sports is no difference than promoting supplemental use to reach peak physical performance. It's not just steroids, but that's what everyone thinks of, some enhancers are not detrimental.
I agree with a lot of what you say, the rules are way to lax, the drug testing is hit or miss (they have to pick what to test for, so a lot can go undetected), and it's harsh to the legitimate players.
That said, there are many athlete's who do use it, which skews the game. I think it's a problem with the culture; if you want to have athletes perform better and better each time you have to at some point be willing to let an outside factor influence it. There's a limit to what the natural body can do, so you can't want a 90 yard fg and yet have no enhancements at all. On top of that, should there be a ban on anything that improves performance, or where is the line drawn? We have to believe at some point that, for an extreme example, stuff like robotic implants will get involved. Already several pitchers have surgery to shorten ligaments in their arm/shoulder to improve pitching ability, so where does that fall?
It's a tough subject, really hard to say. I don't think people will ever be content with the performance plateau that has begun, but at the same time they don't want to allow for the ceiling to be raised. You can't really have one without the other, better performance (beyond what is physically possible for more than 1-5 people ever) requires help at some point.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote