Bonds bombshell: Book details slugger's steroid use

[traderumor]

I know all about it. I have read everything available on the current topic. That was more of a than anything. Quit taking everything so seriously.

You lost me.

[Cyclone792]

I don't think that LASIK eye surgery is equatable to steroids in baseball for any number of reasons. The eye surgery improves something that is not working as well as it is supposed to be, and it is not harmful to the body. Steroids, as many on this thread have pointed out, take muscles that are working just fine to heights to which they are not meant to go, to heights to which they do not go in any person with normally functioning muscles, and they are harmful to the body.

I have horrendous vision, I wear corrective lenses and I would get surgery in a second if I could afford it. Most people with bad vision attempt to correct it in some way just so they can function better in the world. I eat vegetables to keep me healthy. Steroids are not about functioning better in the world and they are not taken with an eye towards health; they are used specifically to improve one's performance in an athletic endeavor, and the impetus to use them is not felt by the average person on the street.

I bolded your statement on not harmful to the body because that's precisely my point. Steroids are harmful to the body, and there's scientific evidence proving that. I believe steroids are banned because they are harmful to the body (and PR reasons, but that's an entirely different tangent).

Are they banned for any other reason other than detrimental health effects? I don't think they are, because if they were, then we would see other "healthy" chemical substances banned due to reasons of taking muscles to heights that they normally would not go. I'm sure it would be very easy to prove that modern, healthy, legal chemical supplements can aid in developing your muscles to a higher level than anything that existed in 1920, 1940 or even 1980. What was "naturally" attainable 50 years ago can now be exceeded by legal, chemical supplements.

Here's an interesting quote from that lasik article that I want to highlight:

Woods' eye surgeon told the Los Angeles Times, "Golfers get a different three-dimensional view of the green after LASIK." They "can see the grain" and "small indentations. It's different. Lasik actually produces, instead of a spherical cornea, an aspherical cornea. It may be better than normal vision."

Right there we have the eye surgeon of the world's most popular golfer suggesting that lasik eye surgery could possibly produce results better than any natural vision can produce. If steroids and lasik eye surgery can produce results beyond what the human body is capable of producing, then what is the only difference between the two? One has positive health effects while the other has negative health effects. Hence one's accepted and the other's banned.

[traderumor]

Lasik vs. steroids is like comparing a player switching to contact lenses over glasses to a pitcher with a bionic arm.

[vaticanplum]

Are they banned for any other reason other than detrimental health effects? I don't think they are, because if they were, then we would see other "healthy" chemical substances banned due to reasons of taking muscles to heights that they normally would not go.

Well, that's reason enough for me. You put "healthy" in quotation marks as if it's just a label for convenience's sake. What are the main reasons kids are ever put in sports in the first place? In my opinion, their health tops the list. Following that pretty closely is teaching them self-confidence, self-reliance, and the value of teamwork through the playing of a game in which everyone is working fairly and with the same tools to achieve the same goal.

I'm sure it would be very easy to prove that modern, healthy, legal chemical supplements can aid in developing your muscles to a higher level than anything that existed in 1920, 1940 or even 1980. What was "naturally" attainable 50 years ago can now be exceeded by legal, chemical supplements.

Again, this is progress. I am all for progress. Should we force basketball players back into Converse? Should we ban Tommy John surgery? Should we take away helmets from football players? Of course not. These things are all designed to protect a player from harm, not to cause harm.

I see your point about LASIK producing results that give people better vision than a normal human being can possibly have naturally. If it were absolutely proven that it caused the body no harm, and if it were legal and thus accessible to everyone, then I would have to do some thinking about it. To my knowledge, this is not the current status of generally available and accepted laser eye surgery, ie. eyes cannot be corrected much beyond normal human capabilities in complete faith that there will be no harm done. Perhaps in 50 years everyone will have "beyond perfect" vision and this will have been progress and that's good, but we're not there yet. If science can cook up a cocktail of herbs and spices and whatnot that produces the same effect that steroids do without causing harm to the body, then that's progress, and then we'll talk. But this is still quite moot at the moment -- I seriously doubt that will ever happen given the very nature of steroids, the fact that the very chemical components that build your body up are the same ones that destroy it -- and so steroids are harmful and illegal as things stand right now.

[westofyou]

Should we force basketball players back into Converse?

Otherwise known as the Bunion Maker.

[Roy Tucker]

I believe steroids are banned because they are harmful to the body (and PR reasons, but that's an entirely different tangent).

Over at the World Anti-Doping Agency, their code talks in equal parts about health, fairness, and equality.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v3.pdf

[vaticanplum]

I want to take a brief respite here and thank everybody for the articles and links they're posting. I've read some amazingly interesting and insightful stuff over the last couple of days (and gotten no work done, but hey, this is all with the good of the world in mind).

[Cyclone792]

Over at the World Anti-Doping Agency, their code talks in equal parts about health, fairness, and equality.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v3.pdf

Yep, it's the necessary PR to satisfy the masses and justify the reasoning for them being banned. Everything derives from the health factor. It is the key core to it all.

It's likely that it really becomes a morals and values issue for most people. I can use a wide range of legal, healthy chemical substances to gain a definitive competitive advantage over those not using the same or similar substances. Right there, fairness and equality is suddenly broken ... but health is not sacrificed. Or I could elect to use steroids to gain a definitive competitive advantage. Fairness and equality is again broken ... and health is heavily sacrificed.

That Xyience stuff I mentioned in a previous post tastes terrible as well as being horribly expensive. : There's no other reason to take it other than gaining a competitive advantage!

But it's booming in the mixed martial arts community because of the competitive advantages gained from using it. The difference is it's healthy ... so it's acceptable to use.

It just appears prudent to me that if fairness and equality is as significant of a justification that it's said to be, then all chemical substances should be banned ... healthy substances just the same as unhealthy substances (there are people who take that viewpoint too, and I don't necessarily disagree with them if they're concerned about a level playing field).

[RedsBaron]

I think that if the HOF ever inducts guys such as Bonds or McGwire that perhaps it should be done as a package deal; say, put a picture of Bonds and his chemist together on the HOF plaque and induct them together. I usually think of Dr. Frankenstein and the creature he created as a package.

[registerthis]

I think that if the HOF ever inducts guys such as Bonds or McGwire that perhaps it should be done as a package deal; say, put a picture of Bonds and his chemist together on the HOF plaque and induct them together. I usually think of Dr. Frankenstein and the creature he created as a package.

hah!

[vaticanplum]

I think that if the HOF ever inducts guys such as Bonds or McGwire that perhaps it should be done as a package deal; say, put a picture of Bonds and his chemist together on the HOF plaque and induct them together. I usually think of Dr. Frankenstein and the creature he created as a package.

This may be the best solution yet.

[Cyclone792]

I want to take a brief respite here and thank everybody for the articles and links they're posting. I've read some amazingly interesting and insightful stuff over the last couple of days (and gotten no work done, but hey, this is all with the good of the world in mind).

You might be interested in this article, which I find very interesting since I'm a stats guy through and through. It's a free article from Baseball Prospectus.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=4845

[traderumor]

It just appears prudent to me that if fairness and equality is as significant of a justification that it's said to be, then all chemical substances should be banned ... healthy substances just the same as unhealthy substances (there are people who take that viewpoint too, and I don't necessarily disagree with them if they're concerned about a level playing field).

"Chemical substance" is much too broad of a term to develop any type of a standard from. Common prescription medication is often a chemical substance, for example. The idea seems more to me that athletes should only have access to supplements that assist an athlete to get in the best possible shape through normal physical training means and do not unnaturally speed up the process (shortcut to the hard work of physical training) nor allow an athlete to attain a mass that would be very unlikely attainable but for the use of the chemical substance(s), such as Bonds.