Steroids vs. Tinted Contacts - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Steroids vs. Tinted Contacts

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby great gretzky » Fri May 06, 2005 9:58 am

the argument isn't BS.

The reason it is put forth is where is the line drawn. One of the reasons steroids are considered so "dangerous" is because they are pretty underground. And as such, reliable use AND testing haven't been an option.

Ultimately the steroid argument always comes around to two points:

"Because it is unnatural"

and

"Because it is illegal"

Steoirds are not categorially illegal in the way recreational drugs are. And part of my feeling is that, why can't a proballplayer take them under a doctor's supervision? Where is the line of "artificiality drawn"? It is more "natural" than contacts in a way, because it is a biolgical product.

We allow people to go under for face lifts, and stomach staples and all sorts of other stupid reasons in modern society. Going under is a risk to your life, a calculated one, but a risk nonetheless.

I honestly think that the "accepted knowledge" of the dangers of steroids is possibly overblown. Or if it isn't, it bears investigation. The stats are definitely skewed because you have high schoolers and meat heads at gold's gym using the wrong ones and the wrong does without supervision. Inherently, I don't see much of a difference between that, provided there is a relative safeteness (notice I didn't say COMPLETELY safe) and the player wants to do it.

You don't HAVE to use steroids to compete at that level btw.

But accepting risk as part and parcel to taking a job is nothing new. You want to be a ballplayer, there are risks. Want to be a swat member, oil rig worker, policeman, fireman, teacher in inner city schools, you name it, a lot of careers have some measure of "accepted risk".

I think adults should be able to make adult decisions about their bodies under the care of doctors. Since steroids ARE NOT illegal with prescription, we should let doctor's supervise their use. We let doctor's supervise cosmetic surgeries that have their share of health risks, why can't we let ballplayers do the same? You think that if cosmetic surgery was limited only to deformities etc, and was illegal for anyone else would be people be as outraged at hollywood?

I think the term artifical gets thrown around too much in this argument.

I mean tiger woods had unecessary eye surgery to be better. That is pretty artificial.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3769
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby AcidRock23 » Fri May 06, 2005 10:45 am

Steroids are not ALL underground, there are a number of legitimate medical uses for them. I shot them into MrsAcidRock when we were expecting as some of our 'cats' were a bit light so the numbers got 'boosted' and AcidDaughter turned out fine!! I would think that an injured player who's injury would, according to the AMA guidelines, be treated w/ 'roids might have an interesting claim vs. baseball were they unable to receive treatment b/c of their job.

I agree that getting contacts specifically engineered to show the rotation of a ball ought to be ruled against too. Right now, we don't have a system that would interface w/ a hitters brain to give him an edge (eg Steve Austin...hee hee...) but it doesn't seem totally inconceivable that somebody could come up w/ somethng since, w/ the $$$ in sports, there's a motive to invest in it...
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby agchris02 » Fri May 06, 2005 11:46 am

jjigglers wrote:
Nomar4prez wrote:Even with all the enhancements, new rules, new stadiums, and new teams, baseball is pretty much still the sport it was 70-80 years ago. Can you say that about the NBA or NFL?


Just on a side note, i think the NBA is pretty much the same.


Youre on crack, sorry -- the NBA isnt even close to the same, 3pointers, defenses are played differantly, shooting percentages are way off, as are FT% -- the game isnt really a team sport as much anymore, much MUCH more how can two or three great guys beat a crappy zone, one of the most telling stats is how many passes before shots -- also WAY down from 20yrs ago, the game just isnt as good anymore (but i realize this is digressing and probably not only belongs in a differant forum but in a COMPLETELY differant forum (basketball)
Jackalope
agchris02
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1562
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Dallas Tx

Postby Nomar4prez » Fri May 06, 2005 11:48 am

Art Vandelay wrote:
Nomar4prez wrote:I think I see where our differences are. I still see baseball as a sport, where it seems as though you view it as a business. In a sport, there should be a level competitive field, where as in business anything goes.


Would the playing field not be level if steroids were legal and available to all players who chose to use them?


I guess I don't see why someone should have to cut their life short just to compete on the same playing field as everyone else. If a drug was invented that had the same effects as steroids, but was completely harmless, then I guess I could see your point.

And for whoever said that players should be able to take steroids under a docter's supervision, that wouldn't work. The amount of steriods that someone can take relatively safely will not greatly enhance a player's strength. The amount of steroids Canseco pumped into his body is probaby about 100 times the dosage someone is supposed to take. No docter would recommend or supervise taking a drug that will kill you.
[url]http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/stats/player.php?id=453973[/url]
Going to huge someday.
Nomar4prez
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2198
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Red Sox Nation

i heard delluci had surgery to put in bionic eyes

Postby rckaflla88 » Fri May 06, 2005 11:51 am

i dunno just a rumor...but damn its like he's got pitch preview on...
rckaflla88
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 254
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Chicago

Postby great gretzky » Fri May 06, 2005 12:42 pm

"I guess I don't see why someone should have to cut their life short just to compete on the same playing field as everyone else. If a drug was invented that had the same effects as steroids, but was completely harmless, then I guess I could see your point.

And for whoever said that players should be able to take steroids under a docter's supervision, that wouldn't work. The amount of steriods that someone can take relatively safely will not greatly enhance a player's strength. The amount of steroids Canseco pumped into his body is probaby about 100 times the dosage someone is supposed to take. No docter would recommend or supervise taking a drug that will kill you. "

couple of points, you don't HAVE to take them to be good at baseball or make the major leagues. That is a logical fallacy. Second of all, many careers require some sort of health sacrifice, either overtly or indirectly. Third, remember we are talking about adults here. I completely agree that high schoolers and college kids should not be on it. But we legally allow people to take stupid health risks for no reason other enjoyment or vanity or whatever. Why should we look down on the people who actually want to succeed? I have more wrath for mickey mantle who dranks so much he limited himself, than bonds who wants to excel. We hate performance "enhancing drugs" and turn the other cheek on "performance degrading" -- personally, I think the latter is a much more egregious offense.

I think saying "no steroids" is an artificial barrier. We know that with the aid of steroids, players can accomplish more than without. As an athlete interested in being the best, it would bug me that I was being held back because of people who think they know what is best for me.

"longer life versus better life" is an argument that has no easy answer. But a lot of people would gladly take a shorter life expectancy and have a more fulfilling life -- in many fields and walks of life. I don't think it is an illogical choice at all.

What would happen if there were a drug that raised your IQ by 30 percent, but COULD also shorten your life? I would bet that people's tune would change very quickly. If the average person could get a much better job by taking it, most would.

I also would like to add, that frankly to summarily say "they are dangerous in any and all isntances" is intellectually dishonest. There is so much we don't know, that the topic should at least be explored.

I feel the "anti roids" side needs to fulfill two arguments:

How dangerous is it?

If it is that dangerous, do we have an obligation to ban it, or do we have to let ADULTS make ADULT decisions about their health and career. I think adults are able to weight the realtive safety versus the career pop they would get.

At the end of the day, the line seems rather arbitrary to me, when we allow people to use legal drugs that harm you but don't help, and turn the other way when people use illegal recreational drugs. But god forbid someone do a drug toa ctually better themselves.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 3769
Joined: 3 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Washington, DC

Postby AcidRock23 » Fri May 06, 2005 1:40 pm

Just to clarify my point on medical uses, the AMA decides which medications can be used for which conditions, not a sports club or association like MLB/ NRA/ PTA or whoever.

I do agree w/ the dosage argument (not to mention the potential for worse things than what Giambi went through last year, getting shot up by 'Dr. Canseco' in a bathroom stall...eeew!) and that most 'under the counter' guys are probably taking WAY more than they ought to. From my own experiences though, there are some medical conditions which can be treated and it is not correct to say 'all 'roids are bad' as that misconstrues the problem.
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Fri May 06, 2005 1:58 pm

AcidRock23 wrote:Just to clarify my point on medical uses, the AMA decides which medications can be used for which conditions, not a sports club or association like MLB/ NRA/ PTA or whoever.

I do agree w/ the dosage argument (not to mention the potential for worse things than what Giambi went through last year, getting shot up by 'Dr. Canseco' in a bathroom stall...eeew!) and that most 'under the counter' guys are probably taking WAY more than they ought to. From my own experiences though, there are some medical conditions which can be treated and it is not correct to say 'all 'roids are bad' as that misconstrues the problem.


Actually, the AMA does not decide which medications can be used for which conditions. The FDA approves drugs for medicinal uses. But, once a drug has been approved for a disease, any doctor can prescribe the drug for ANY condition. This is what is known as "off-label" use. It is perfectly legal, although a doctor who prescribes off-label better be able to point to a scientific literature that supports that use, unless s/he wants a malpractice suit.

In any case, the AMA has NO part in that approval.
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Postby AcidRock23 » Fri May 06, 2005 2:04 pm

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:
AcidRock23 wrote:Just to clarify my point on medical uses, the AMA decides which medications can be used for which conditions, not a sports club or association like MLB/ NRA/ PTA or whoever.

I do agree w/ the dosage argument (not to mention the potential for worse things than what Giambi went through last year, getting shot up by 'Dr. Canseco' in a bathroom stall...eeew!) and that most 'under the counter' guys are probably taking WAY more than they ought to. From my own experiences though, there are some medical conditions which can be treated and it is not correct to say 'all 'roids are bad' as that misconstrues the problem.


Actually, the AMA does not decide which medications can be used for which conditions. The FDA approves drugs for medicinal uses. But, once a drug has been approved for a disease, any doctor can prescribe the drug for ANY condition. This is what is known as "off-label" use. It is perfectly legal, although a doctor who prescribes off-label better be able to point to a scientific literature that supports that use, unless s/he wants a malpractice suit.

In any case, the AMA has NO part in that approval.


d'oh, touché. I guess I work in insurance and, if it's not part of the treatment plan, it may or may not be covered so I skipped a few hundred steps!! I still think that somebody who has surgery two or three times in 6 months to 'clean up' a knee or two (*cough cough*) ought to be looking at EVERY treatment that might help what sounds like a chronic type of condition, even if he's a member of a club which frowns upon some of the treatments. I guess if I were SFOF, I'd consider retiring a bit more voluably about now but maybe he's trying to deal himself in his fantasy league or something?
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby Nomar4prez » Fri May 06, 2005 2:19 pm

Great Gretzky-

I think we're coming from two different viewpoints so I don't think we'll ever agree on this issue, but I have no problem if someone takes drugs of any kind.....if it only affects themselves. But, sadly it doesn't. If someone wants to go shoot up, thats fine by me as long as they don't put anyone else's lives in danger. With steriods, you don't put someone else's life in danger(except for 'roid rage), but you do affect someone else's career path. For instance, if there are two people with equal talent, but one decides to risk his well-being and takes steriods, and he gets to be on a MLB team. To me, that's not fair.

I think we both made our points so I'll stop here. Good discussion. ;-D
[url]http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/stats/player.php?id=453973[/url]
Going to huge someday.
Nomar4prez
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2198
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Red Sox Nation

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GiantsFan14 and 8 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Tuesday, Sep. 16
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Toronto at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Boston at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
Washington at Atlanta
(7:10 pm)
Miami at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Cincinnati at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
Detroit at Minnesota
(8:10 pm)
Chi White Sox at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Cleveland at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Milwaukee at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
LA Dodgers at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
San Francisco at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Seattle at LA Angels
(10:05 pm)
Texas at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
Philadelphia at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact