The saga of steroids and sports is never ending as the MLB continues to revamp and support new doping policies that prevent athletes from using banned substances. Those who support such strict policies are those who argue the importance of considering the effects of records of the past and present relative to the steroid use. It is evident that steroids and human growth hormones increase the strength. Ultimately, the playing level of athletes is increased as the added strength due to the substances decreases recovery time following games and injuries alike. Indeed, it is unfair that the athletes of the past who did not have this advantage are to be compared to the modern drugged up athlete. But who says that they need to be compared anyways? It is doubtful that scientists will be able to keep up on all the athletes and their drug use. It seems that many players can go untraced as the testing techniques lag behind in technology relative to the hot new steroids widely available. I think that the MLB should go ahead and make a breaking point in baseball's history and just accept the fact that today's baseball players cannot be compared to those of the past due to the untraceable steroids that many of them are likely to be taking.
Furthermore, after arriving at the conclusion that the MLB should start modern baseball history anew, would it still be just for the MLB to do random drug test samplings and punish the players who test positive for steroid substances? I think that there is some injustice at least in their testing process. If one athlete is to be tested and punished while another slips by the microscope, I find it unjust that such a policy would stand as by chance, the athletes are treated differently than the other athletes. This would be as if certain people in society did not have to abide by a law whereas others do. If the MLB were to be considered a society in it and of itself, it seems highly unjust that such severe incriminations occur to random athletes and not to all. The MLB, if it is going to continue to increase its punishments on banned substances, should also increase its standards on testing each athlete so that their is fair punishment among all the athletes.
For more information on this topic:
http://www.answerbag.com/articles/MLB-Steroid-Rules/f4ac5f5e-989b-433e-25ff-2d31095e47d2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think the important issue with steroids is that they can cause a lot of damage to organs (liver for one). So we can't expect an athlete to have to take the risk of damaging their body. I think it's pretty clear that the only way to level the playing field is to ban potentially harmful substances. You've hit upon an interesting point that players can still get away with it, at which point they're clearly superior. It will be interesting to see how sports react to any future non-harmful steroid. I think that the general reaction will still be no for two reasons:
1. It then simply becomes a contest of a) Who can afford more of the drug (goodbye small-town underdog) and b) Who responds better to the drug.
2. Sports have always been about pushing humans to the limit, and where do you draw the line between drug assisted human and drugs.
I seriously doubt the author of this column is a true baseball fan. "Who says that they need to be compared anyway?" I was shocked at this remark. Through all the crises, wars, and depressions, one of the only things that has remained constant is baseball. It is one of the great things this country still has that connects the youngest generation to the oldest. All baseball fans as children listened to the stories of the old days, of the memorable moments that baseball fans remember for the rest of their lives. With the all the advancements in technology and changes in culture, the youngest and the oldest of our society are constantly drifting apart and the allowance of steroids will only increase the divide between them.
Additionally, people love baseball for multiple reasons. But, as even many professionals say, they love the game because it resembles life. It's a game that we all can relate to. The emotions, the ups and downs, almost everything about it is something that everyone has experienced. So in essence when you are saying that baseball players should be allowed to use steroids, you telling fans, in a way, that people should be able to cheat life.
Baseball players have already become too separated from the common man because of their extreme salaries, don't let steroids taint the image of young fans' heros even more.
For more on why people love baseball, see the linked article article:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070213&content_id=1800838&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
If the MLB allows steroid usage, the game played will no longer be baseball. It will turn into a show of souped up biceps as opposed to remaining America's Pastime. Allowing steroids would make the MLB look like a characture, the likes of which are seen in WWF wrestling. Those men are big, strong, and talented, but they put on a show. They do not classify as top athletes. The MLB cannot follow the same track.
Science can help people or destroy societies, and in this case scientific advancements went too far.
I believe that the use of steroids is controversial and banned due to the harmful effects it can have on the body. It is widely known that using certain substances can at once improve sporting ability while also causing long term hurt. Moreover, the issue of past players records does not seem to be the motivation for the ban. Steroids are not the only things giving modern day players an advantage. Consider the fact that every year, improvements on equipment are made. In all sports, the newest generation of players always seems to have the advantage of gaining records because their tools are one step better. Also, the argument about the possible injustice of random testing and inability to catch all offenders does not adequately explain why steroids should be allowed. It is like saying since we cannot catch all drunk drivers, we should just legalize drunk driving. Of course, the two are not exactly similar, but the point is that just because all offenders are not caught does not mean that the practice should be allowed.
Post a Comment