Lasik Surgery

[Norm Chortleton]

Not to threadjack, but I have a question:

Setting aside the legalities, what's the moral difference between a player that gets the Lasik medical treatment to improve his performance and a player who uses PEDs to improve his?

I don't believe any form of eyesight correction is on the banned list. What's the difference between LASIK surgery or contact lenses vs. surgery to fix a broken bone or torn ligament?

[WrongVerb]

I don't believe any form of eyesight correction is on the banned list. What's the difference between LASIK surgery or contact lenses vs. surgery to fix a broken bone or torn ligament?

Just to clarify, I wasn't coming out in support of PEDs. I'm rather against them because they typically ravage the body and famous players using them encourages kids to do the same.

First, banned lists are purely arbitrary. They're how the officials in baseball are deciding what they do and don't want in the game, based on whatever judgement they're using to make that decision. So saying it's on the banned list isn't in and of itself telling me what the moral difference is between the two.

And to address your question, I don't see any difference among all those things. But that wasn't the original question...what IS the difference between surgical procedures and using PEDs if both have the effect of improving performance?

[Norm Chortleton]

What I was trying to say is that eye correction is the same as surgery to fix an injury. PEDs are drugs used to help you work out harder, gain more muscle mass, speed, strength, endurance, etc. There is no similarity.

[Cyclone792]

Just to clarify, I wasn't coming out in support of PEDs. I'm rather against them because they typically ravage the body and famous players using them encourages kids to do the same.

First, banned lists are purely arbitrary. They're how the officials in baseball are deciding what they do and don't want in the game, based on whatever judgement they're using to make that decision. So saying it's on the banned list isn't in and of itself telling me what the moral difference is between the two.

And to address your question, I don't see any difference among all those things. But that wasn't the original question...what IS the difference between surgical procedures and using PEDs if both have the effect of improving performance?

Dan, I applaud you for asking that question. It likely opens a can of worms, but it's a question I wish more folks would ask.

And ironically, you actually kind of answered your own question with your first sentence. PEDs are known to be detrimental to health while other performance enhancers (LASIK, which we could probably call a performance enhancing procedure or PEP) have little to no health detriments. That's really it, that's the only difference.

The problem I have with most people railing on PEDs is they rail on the wrong aspect of it. They focus on the "performance enhancing" part while seemingly ignoring that health reasons are the real reason to wipe them out of the game. If LASIK was controversial, unhealthy, and had long-term health ramifications, we all know that it'd be in the same group as PEDs, and people are kidding themselves if they believe differently. On the other hand, if growth hormone, steroids and other PEDs were healthy and sold to the general public for health benefits then they'd be all over every sport ... legally (and with the way medical science advances, that's likely realistic in some form sooner or later).

So it all goes back to one thing: healthy or unhealthy, not "performance enhancing" as most would have you believe.

[TSJ55]

On the other hand, if growth hormone, steroids and other PEDs were healthy and sold to the general public for health benefits then they'd be all over every sport ... legally (and with the way medical science advances, that's likely realistic in some form sooner or later).

So it all goes back to one thing: healthy or unhealthy, not "performance enhancing" as most would have you believe.

Testosterone injections (large doses) are already legal all over the country for anyone who can "prove" a need for them. "Proving" the need is as easy as going to the right doctor and saying your energy is low.

[Always Red]

Testosterone injections (large doses) are already legal all over the country for anyone who can "prove" a need for them. "Proving" the need is as easy as going to the right doctor and saying your energy is low.

Yes, indeed.

Anabolic steroids and human growth hormone are safe and effective medications used to treat different conditions and are offered by docs all over the world.

That's not why they are banned, because they're dangerous.

Major League baseball players are known to ingest massive quantities of NSAID's, which are OTC drugs such as naproxen sodium and ibuprofen. In large quantities, they can fry your kidney in short order.

If MLB were worried about the safety to their players, these drugs would be outlawed as well.

[Cyclone792]

Testosterone injections (large doses) are already legal all over the country for anyone who can "prove" a need for them. "Proving" the need is as easy as going to the right doctor and saying your energy is low.

This still doesn't answer Dan's question on what is the difference. I outlined a pretty specific difference. Trying to shoot that one down doesn't answer the question.

Yes, indeed.

Anabolic steroids and human growth hormone are safe and effective medications used to treat different conditions and are offered by docs all over the world.

That's not why they are banned, because they're dangerous.

Major League baseball players are known to ingest massive quantities of NSAID's, which are OTC drugs such as naproxen sodium and ibuprofen. In large quantities, they can fry your kidney in short order.

If MLB were worried about the safety to their players, these drugs would be outlawed as well.

This doesn't answer Dan's question either.

[Always Red]

This still doesn't answer Dan's question on what is the difference. I outlined a pretty specific difference. Trying to shoot that one down doesn't answer the question.




This doesn't answer Dan's question either.

I wasn't answering Dan's question. I was responding to TSJ55 about why I disagreed that "little to no health detriments" is the difference on why PEDS are outlawed and LASIK is not. A number of folks have actually been blinded or wound up with decreased vision after LASIK.

Mostly, I'm not sure there is a good answer to Dan's question. Kids with healthy arms are sometimes undergoing TJ surgery in an effort to throw harder. That seems like cheating to me, much more so than LASIK.

Mostly, MLB is making this up as it goes along. Stem cells for treating injury will be the wave of the future. Bartolo Colon and CJ Nitkowski have been in the news recently for their use of stem cells. (And Colon will apparently take anything, as it turns out). What will MLB decide on stem cell treatment for recovering more quickly from injury?

All the sports are trying to figure this out as they go along.

[TSJ55]

This still doesn't answer Dan's question on what is the difference. I outlined a pretty specific difference. Trying to shoot that one down doesn't answer the question.




This doesn't answer Dan's question either.

I wasn't "shooting down" anything. I was simply stating that testosterone is already completely legal for civilian consumption for anybody who wants it. Medical condition or vanity purposes.

As for "answering the question", I wasn't trying to answer the question b/c I don't think it can be answered. I was simply shedding some light on a piece of information that was presented.

When used in moderation*,Test and it's PED brethren are no more unhealthy than Big Macs and Whoppers. Given the choice, I would say hormone manipulation is less unhealthy than fast food to be honest.

*moderation being the operative word

[edabbs44]

Not to threadjack, but I have a question:

Setting aside the legalities, what's the moral difference between a player that gets the Lasik medical treatment to improve his performance and a player who uses PEDs to improve his?

The moral difference is obvious. There is a large risk to your health when using PEDs. Sports shouldn't be in the business of putting players in a position to make that choice. You want to succeed? You may not be alive to see your child graduate HS.

[Wonderful Monds]

All Reds draftees should undergo mandatory surgery the day after they are signed: Tommy John for pitchers, LASIK for position players.

No. No more half measures.

LASIK and Tommy John for EVERYONE!

[Norm Chortleton]

This still doesn't answer Dan's question on what is the difference. I outlined a pretty specific difference.

I've answered Dan's question at least twice in this thread. LASIK (or prescription eyeglasses or contact lenses) corrects an existing condition -- poor eyesight -- back to normal. Baseball players do not take HGH, testosterone, steroids, etc., to treat an existing medical condition. They do it to help improve their fitness.

The only way the comparison would work is if you could correct a person's eyes with LASIK (or prescription eyeglasses or contact lenses) to make them see much better than normal, healthy eyes. This does not happen.

[Tom Servo]

Baseball players do not take HGH, testosterone, steroids, etc., to treat an existing medical condition.

Sure they do, just like non-athletes do.

[Cyclone792]

Mostly, MLB is making this up as it goes along. Stem cells for treating injury will be the wave of the future. Bartolo Colon and CJ Nitkowski have been in the news recently for their use of stem cells. (And Colon will apparently take anything, as it turns out). What will MLB decide on stem cell treatment for recovering more quickly from injury?

All the sports are trying to figure this out as they go along.

You're right that they are making this up as they go along, and that's part of my point. They're riding the public wave of banning "performance enhancers" but they're only selectively banning performance enhancers. And the performance enhancers that they're banning are the ones proven to have more long-term health ramifications.

You want to ban performance enhancers? Fine with me. But ban them all.

My guess with stem cell treatment is sports (and the media) will come to some determination if it's mostly healthy or mostly unhealthy, and that determination will largely be what makes their decision on whether to allow it or not.

[Unassisted]

I remember Greg Maddox prominently getting vision-correction surgery in the offseason about 10 years back. He pitched much better the following year. Reading this, it surprised me that a team would DL a player who wanted to get it.