Steroids vs. Tinted Contacts - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Steroids vs. Tinted Contacts

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby brock middlebrook » Fri May 06, 2005 2:23 pm

beltrans_boy wrote:Steroids are ILLEGAL, contacts are not.


What about an over-the-counter supplement that contains a "banned substance?"
brock middlebrook
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 436
Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby aberrant504 » Fri May 06, 2005 2:40 pm

Also remember that back in the day they had different methods of getting that competitive edge that they desired and for the most part wasn't illegal... Also, if it weren't for the increasing popularity of baseball and the economic stupidity of some people (canseco) we would still be where we were before these shirades, accepting baseball as something pure. As time goes on, drugs improve and will keep improving. As far as where to draw the line and contacts or whatever... contacts are part of a players equipment, not a permanent laser surgery that the players will have their whole lives, and in response to that article about Brian Roberts, wasn't he only wearing them at night or something? I agree with davidmarver that it's the same principle as wearing any other piece of equipment... I think your line starts at the permanent enhancements a player gives to himself, giving him an 'unnatural' edge amongst his fellow players. And steriods aren't temporary, you go high then low rather than being average.
Image
aberrant504
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 84
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby great gretzky » Fri May 06, 2005 2:43 pm

I see your point, I don't totally agree with it -- but there is some merit to it -- which is why it is a discussion.

I just think that many careers have a risk associated with them, and acceptance of that risk is part of the deal. For many people, the faustian bargain is worth it, for others not.

I mean if we take it to its logical extreme, think of body building. You could say that others use "subjects" you or "forces" you to take them too. so in one sense you are screwed. But then again, the whole culture of the sport is defined by the use of steroids. So in a way you could say that you have no right to participate if you don't want to do what it takes to perform in that culture. granted, that is extreme for baseball.

You could also say that steroid use creates more opportunities for players, as players break down more often and retire sooner.

There really is no such thing as a "victimless" crime in anything. I think the deciding angle is if the "victims" were harmed so bad as to overrule the principal adults decision to use.

I think given that the skill sets for baseball are diverse enough that you don't need them to be good. You need them if you are going to be a power player or want to heal quicker. But you could argue the very nature of professional sports takes a physical toll, and that physical toll, throught raining, potential for injury, "keeping up with the jones'" etc is part of the price you pay. You are not going to eliminate steroids from the game, not with the money to be made.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

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

Postby CubsFan7724 » Fri May 06, 2005 3:48 pm

great gretzky wrote: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.

Tiger was much better before he got the eye surgery than after it. There goes that comparison.
Image
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6426
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

Postby great gretzky » Fri May 06, 2005 5:00 pm

the guy just wont he masters and is altering his game.

And even if it didn't "work" the artificiality argument is still valid.

So getting elective surgery to be better is allowed but steroids aren't? i realize one is baseball, the other golf, but it seems this argument takes on a societal tone.

(Incidentally, tiger's opponents are probably the best they have ever been too. And some courses were specifically altered to keep his scores down)

anyway ...

The point is people from all sorts of careers use artifical means that risk their health to better their careers. Movie stars use cosmetic surgery, drugs, etc to make themselves more money with varying degrees of health risk. We don't care that football players use pain relievers that are ILLEGAL without prescription to mask injuries that can cause long term damage. In fact, we don't care that people risk long term damage or death to chase glory and money. Football and nascar are ridiculously dangerous in the grand scheme of things.

The point I am making is that the "illegal" argument is pretty arbitrary in my opinion, as where is the line drawn both in society and in the rules of the game? the rules of the game are pretty independent of greater society: i.e. gambling is jsut one example.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

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

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Fri May 06, 2005 5:26 pm

CubsFan7724 wrote:Tiger was much better before he got the eye surgery than after it. There goes that comparison.


There are players who got better with steroids and players who did not. Is it so hard to believe that the effect of a drug or treatment varies across the people who get it?
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 GotowarMissAgnes » Fri May 06, 2005 5:30 pm

I'm with gretzky on this one. I don't see a black line that divides what some players do to enahnce their play (eye surgery, etc.) versus what others do (steroids). There's a ton of grey, and it's only going to get greyer in the future. Hell, nearly every day players use steroids in baseball that are allowed (cortisone). It's just a corticosteriod, rather than an anabolic steroid. The black lines drawn by baseball and by the law are damn arbitrary.
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 great gretzky » Fri May 06, 2005 8:07 pm

thanks.

you know, realistically, what is the difference between a pain killer that isn't allowed unless by prescription -- one that is misused so that a player could play when otherwise they couldn't? Isn't that artificial? Isn't that causing harm?

I know people will say that "one is harm, the other is life and death" -- but again, society allows smoking, drinking eating mcdonald's everyday. That is trashing your body for no reason at all. Why do we suddenly get mad when someone trashes their body to be the best?

You know, this contacts argument is going to be the tip of the iceberg. I bet in 50-80 years, (if that) it won't be absurd to be arguing that "artifical eyes" are cheating. Science is growing by leaps and bounds.

Hypothetically, let's say genetic engeneering is more advanced that it is now -- not a stretch in the least.

Woudl it be "cheating" to be a person who was bred expressly for the purpose of being good at baseball? great eyesight, totally responsive reflexes, great arm/forearm strength, awesome fast twictch muscles? What about the "normal" person who has to comepete with that?

I know some will dismiss my argument as slippery slope, but I really think that the line between real and artificial is getting more and more blurred.
great gretzky
General Manager
General Manager

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

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Fri May 06, 2005 8:26 pm

great gretzky wrote:thanks.

you know, realistically, what is the difference between a pain killer that isn't allowed unless by prescription -- one that is misused so that a player could play when otherwise they couldn't? Isn't that artificial? Isn't that causing harm?

I know people will say that "one is harm, the other is life and death" -- but again, society allows smoking, drinking eating mcdonald's everyday. That is trashing your body for no reason at all. Why do we suddenly get mad when someone trashes their body to be the best?

You know, this contacts argument is going to be the tip of the iceberg. I bet in 50-80 years, (if that) it won't be absurd to be arguing that "artifical eyes" are cheating. Science is growing by leaps and bounds.

Hypothetically, let's say genetic engeneering is more advanced that it is now -- not a stretch in the least.

Woudl it be "cheating" to be a person who was bred expressly for the purpose of being good at baseball? great eyesight, totally responsive reflexes, great arm/forearm strength, awesome fast twictch muscles? What about the "normal" person who has to comepete with that?

I know some will dismiss my argument as slippery slope, but I really think that the line between real and artificial is getting more and more blurred.


Basically every pitcher in the major leagues takes mega doses of nsaids to reduce inflammation after pitching.

Such doses have significant negative GI effects and have been shown to cause deadly liver failure.

At one time, some of those drugs were available only through prescription, but now (in what is going to be an increasing trend for many drugs) are available over the counter.

But, this is seen as perfectly acceptable.

There's no slippery slope here. It's just one big mud puddle.
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 CubsFan7724 » Fri May 06, 2005 10:15 pm

great gretzky wrote:thanks.

you know, realistically, what is the difference between a pain killer that isn't allowed unless by prescription -- one that is misused so that a player could play when otherwise they couldn't? Isn't that artificial? Isn't that causing harm?

I know people will say that "one is harm, the other is life and death" -- but again, society allows smoking, drinking eating mcdonald's everyday. That is trashing your body for no reason at all. Why do we suddenly get mad when someone trashes their body to be the best?

You know, this contacts argument is going to be the tip of the iceberg. I bet in 50-80 years, (if that) it won't be absurd to be arguing that "artifical eyes" are cheating. Science is growing by leaps and bounds.

Hypothetically, let's say genetic engeneering is more advanced that it is now -- not a stretch in the least.

Woudl it be "cheating" to be a person who was bred expressly for the purpose of being good at baseball? great eyesight, totally responsive reflexes, great arm/forearm strength, awesome fast twictch muscles? What about the "normal" person who has to comepete with that?

I know some will dismiss my argument as slippery slope, but I really think that the line between real and artificial is getting more and more blurred.

Hmm, but Tiger having the laser eye surgery is also beneficial to his real life, and not just a sports move. Steroids are always about sports. Though these contact are, its just sunglasses on your eyes instead of external. Obviously its a grey area, that the way science is nowadays. Once we start getting into genetically bred super players (and why would we be breeding these super players? Wouldn't they be better applied in the military anyways?) thats pretty bad.
Image
CubsFan7724
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 6426
Joined: 19 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: AKA 34=Sweetness on FFC

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


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