Everyone has their panties in a bunch over A-Rod admitting he took steroids to "live up to expectations" when he played in Texas (at a record $25 million/year). Those were some high expectations, and he DID live up to them. So what if he needed a little "help" to play in an average of 161 games over those three years?
Looking at the above images, I see no real difference between 2003 (left) and 2008 (right). But then again, A-Rod might be lying about his doping and he was still juiced in 2008. There's no reason to believe he couldn't beat the system - it's designed to be beaten by those who choose to do so.
BFD. I'll bet nearly every "star" in baseball has used steroids or HGH at some point. Not everyone, of course, but many. The playing field is pretty level in that respect. Are we really that uptight about baseball, while we don't really care about the NFL or pro wrestling?
Over at Big Think, one author makes a (flawed) case for steroid use.
Actually, used wisely and in the proper cycles, steroids are not harmful. The health risks arise when people use high doses for extended periods, without estrogen inhibitors or appropriate periods off of the drugs.The Case For Steroids
Over the last hundred years of sports, technological advancements have enhanced athlete’s performance. In so doing, the records of today’s athletes cannot realistically be compared to those of the past.
For instance, Michael Phelps’ bathing suit, “The Fastskin,” cannot compare to the speedo that Mark Spitz had to wear. Many swimmers used to shave their bodies for every little natural speed enhancement they could get. Did you check out Phelps at the Olympics? He had leg and chest hair. His Fastskin simply blew any previous type of swimsuit out of the water, shaved legs or no. Why aren’t we railing about how this technology has changed sports unfairly? What is the nature of competition and what are we trying to preserve?
It seems to me that the focus of the steroid debate has been far too focused on the inherent unfairness of them (though if everybody can take them, they aren’t unfair) rather than the larger issue of what they do to the body.
Sean Assael, author of “Steroid Nation,” explains that there are many health problems associated with steroids. Check it out.
Most of the baseball players using steroids are doing so for strength and healing (aside from Canseco, who seemed to have a size fetish), so the doses are lower, while still being effective. My guess is that they are not using year around.
As I have noted before, steroids are a technology, like any other, and should be legalized for everyone, not just athletes.
3 comments:
The science suggests that once you do a few cycles of steroids, a larger, leaner physique is easier to maintain than if you never had -- so that may be why you don't see much difference between 03 and 08 for A-Rod, even if he isn't juicing!
I find the inconsistencies involving enforcement of steroids disturbing, but the next step will be "gene doping" anyway and, though I guess that is also a technology like any other, it is creepy to think that the rich may one day be able to buy their children the speed of Usain Bolt!
Hey TY,
Yeah, some steroids do increase actual muscle fiber numbers, which would make it easier to keep the size.
And gene doping is the future of doping, as you say - I blogged about it a couple of years ago in this post. It seems it could be a lot more subversive now that it did then, with the ability to engineer a fetus to parental order, as you also suggest.
Peace,
Bill
Billy,
They're talking REAL hgh, because the homeopathic stuff is crap - it does nothing. It's legal because it's useless.
Peace,
Bill
Post a Comment