Every time the Olympics come around, I get caught up in the excitement of the gold medals, the world records, and the inspiring performances that accompany them. When I was younger, I remember being awed by the gymnasts who persevered through injuries to win gold medals or the runners that won by sheer determination. And then there were always those athletes whose success came with seemingly no effort at all. Whatever the style, I always aspired to someday be like them. But that was when I was younger, before the debate of performance-enhancing drugs took as much of the attention as the Olympics themselves (or perhaps before I became completely aware of it). These drugs have taken some of the prestige away from the Olympics, for the once inspiring comebacks or talents of athletes are now overshadowed by the possible involvement of steroids. When I first learned about drugs that could enhance human performance, I was shocked that anyone could take these drugs and still feel proud of their victories. Not only was it biologically unethical to alter the body’s hormone levels or muscle composition, but it was morally wrong to cheat. I couldn’t believe that anyone who had taken such an easy route to victory could stand, smiling, with their medal. But as I learned more about the issue, I realized there was more to the debate than just the clear steroid users and the clean athletes. There were still training methods and other drugs that began to enter the ethical debate as well. And then there were always the athletes taking human growth hormone or other similar drugs for “medical reasons.” Where was the line between medical purpose and physical prowess? Should drugs that can be used as performance enhancing ever be legally prescribed to anyone?
In January, The New York Times published an article about amphetamines, another drug that became popular in baseball. As a stimulant, it artificially increased the performance of infielders and hitters especially, allowing them to react that split second faster to the speeding line drive or fastball. It was placed on the banned substances list along with human growth hormone and anabolic steroids. However, many players have been granted usage of stimulants like amphetamines in order to treat attention deficit disorder. In between the years 2006 and 2007, this number increased from 28 to 103. It seems wrong to deny someone the use of a medical treatment, but it also seems wrong that a medical treatment can give someone such an advantage. By allowing athletes to use stimulants for a relatively minor medical problem such as attention deficit disorder, it may not be long until more serious drugs such as steroids are permitted. With medical reasons as a ready-made excuse, we may find ourselves even farther away from solving the drug problem in sports. We need to draw the line somewhere to protect the honest hard-working athletes who can bring real glory to their countries and fans.
Relevant Site:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/sports/baseball/10doping.html
2 comments:
This is an issue I've had a lot of trouble with myself. It seems fairly cut and dried that HGH, amphetamine, and steroid use undermine the achievements of the athletes who choose to use them. Injections and performance-enhancing drugs are easily derided. Unfortunately, it's not that easy. There is a sliding scale.
Most athletes (to the public's knowledge) don't shoot up steroids, but many of them use protein supplements, energy bars, and sports drinks, some with greater potency than others. Sporting companies are constantly releasing new equipment with new technological advances. Many tennis players today (Rafael Nadal, for example) utilize a game that relies on powerful shots from behind the baseline, a game made possible by simultaneously larger and lighter racquets, a relatively recent innovation. Recently, there was a controversy about whether a sprinter whose legs had been amputated below the knee at birth would be able to compete in the Olympic trials owing to the fact that his prosthetic legs were being continually enhanced with newer, lighter, more powerful models. Amphetamines may be able to give hitters and fielders a split-second faster reaction time, but what about a shoe that can shave off that split second as well? As soon as we stopped conducting the Olympics naked, the athletes subsisting on the same diets of bread and cheese and water, once we introduced Gatorade and Nike into the equation, the presence of the "true athlete" was already cast into doubt.
Although I agree that the "true athlete" should be free from any performance enhancing drugs, we must still recognize that athletes such as Barry Bonds were still extremely talented players with or without the use of steroids or HGH. In no way am I advocating the use of performance enhancing drugs, but one of the sad truths in all of this is that the fans want to see players pushing the limits. In baseball home-runs and high velocity pitches are what bring fans to the game. The subtle nuances will not fill the seats. Every time we turn on the television to watch sporting events we would be lying to ourselves if we said we didn't want to see something new that hadn't been done before. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Mark McGuire were all providing entertainment and publicity to baseball. The sad truth is that many fans did not care if these players were using performance enhancing drugs or not. The spectators just want to be entertained. At the same time the line between HGH or steroids and protein shakes or energy bars may be harder to distinguish than previously thought. Testosterone and HGH are both naturally occurring substances in the human body. A large part of the bad reputation that steroids have are that they have negative medical effects. This data has not yet been confirmed and could very well be considered speculation. I have to agree with Dan in his assessment about all athletic equipment and food because I believe that the line between protein shakes and steroids is a little less distinct than people realize.
Post a Comment