Should steroids be banned at all?
April 24, 2006
Through pills or surgery, performance enhancement is a part of life
That's the question John Heilemann raises in a recent New York magazine article. He argues baseball is wasting its time trying to catch users of banned performance-enhancing drugs. The reason? "Because the science of testing is always at least one step behind the science of doping, and often many more than that."
Heilemann boils down the issue for keeping steroids out of baseball down to three arguments. He proceeds to knock down all three.
Steroids are dangerous. Heilemann says "the physical risks of steroids -- taken under a doctor's supervision and not in excess -- are relatively mild."
Steroids are dangerous for children who want to be like the pro athletes. "The antidote here is better parenting and coaching, not a steroid ban."
Using steroids is unfair. Those who don't use them shouldn't be penalized.
It's this last argument that Heilemann spends the majority of his time rebutting. He cites the rise of elective enhancement surgery and asks "why should it be illegal to take a pill that helps change your body's structure but okay to achieve the same effect by going under the knife?" (Think of things like laser eye surgery but for other body parts, as well - e.g. stem cell replacement to make your shoulders stronger.)
Read the whole thing. In my mind, he makes a convincing argument. Through pills or surgery, our bodies will be (in some cases, already are) able to change dramatically. Science will render today's arguments irrelevant. Heilemann also raises this issue.
Outside of sports, the prevailing attitude toward most drugs is overwhelmingly blasé. We take drugs for depression, drugs for anxiety, drugs to lose weight, drugs to grow back our hair, drugs to get erections. We give Ritalin to our kids to help them focus and pour caffeine down our gullets to do the same. All these meds are, in their way, performance-enhancing drugs. And few people consider them shameful or illegitimate any longer.
That's a great point. I would find it a lot harder to write without a cup of coffee in the morning. Yes, I'm afraid you're reading a performance-enhanced blog.
Other people are coming around to the idea that baseball is wasting its time with the steroid investigation. As Jemele Hill of the Orlando Sentinel recently wrote, "There is nothing more unnecessary than a steroids investigation, which only will prolong talk of an issue that fans are sick of hearing about."
One thing that does get fans animated is baseball's record book. But as Barry Bonds closes in on the home run records of Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron, Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe serves up this history lesson.
Did I mention the 296 feet and very low fence in Yankee Stadium, a.k.a. The House That Ruth Built? Or did I mention that Ruth's home field from 1920-22 was the Polo Grounds, which was 257 feet to right (before sloping off dramatically)? And did you know that in the '20s, a ball that bounced into the stands was ruled a home run, not a ground rule double? Does anyone know how that affected Ruth's total? The answer is no.
I did not know that about a ball bouncing in the stands, did you? Different rules, different ballparks, different eras. If people want to assign their own mental asterisks, they can do so. But the game has changed and will continue to change. Pills and surgeries will be a part of it.
Heilemann concludes his article by looking to the future. "And so a few years from now, when a crop of surgically enhanced pitchers start throwing 117-miles-an-hour heaters and blowing past strikeout records, we'll be having this very same debate again, wondering we didn't reach the inevitable conclusion the first time around."
