In the meantime, another response from me:
thejusman1 wrote:An entire response composed of drivel and nonsense. You are simply a troll. You first three comments are just insults, so I'll just try and answer some of your "rebuttals."
I didn't consider them insults. But I suppose you would know better than me, you certainly like throwing them out there often.
First of all, I think I explained in previous posts why professional athletes become role models for kids. You may not think they have that kind of responsibility, but it does largely exist. For hard-working, gifted athletes who legitimately achieve their success through years of dedication and non-PED use, why shouldn't they pose as role models for impressionable youths? It doesn't matter what they "signed up" for, it's the responsibility they must carry.
The only responsibility that a baseball player should have is giving his best on the field every game. They shouldn't be expected to conform to society's unreasonable expectations of them as role models.
While PED-use has been prevalent in the majors for over a decade now, it's not fully out in the open and embraced.
Which is one of the reasons why legalizing it would fully level the playing field and put everybody on equal standing.
The system you're advocating would leave little option to even those who choose not to use PEDs to turn them down.
It would leave them the option of playing without PEDs or not playing baseball at all. And I fail to see the problem with that in a system where the pressures are going to exist regardless.
This fascination with trying to link alcohol and tobacco to illicit drugs is absurd. Both these substances have deep historical connections and reinforce my original point that society makes laws which confirm their values and beliefs.
So according to you, we should allow these harmful things because they deep historical connections to our country's past? Does that same principle apply to slavery and only allowing male, property owners to vote,too?
Hell, I know it seems like a double standard, but that's just the way it is and our laws are full of double standards.
It doesn't just seem like a double standard, it is a double standard. And it's something you have failed to address here.
In your world, you allow people to make the choice to kill themselves through alcohol and tobacco (because it's tradition, apparently), but don't allow them to take a largely positive drug like anabolic steroids because some congressmen got upset at Ben Johnson in Seoul 22 years ago and made it "the law?" Why?
Again, I do not claim to be a medical professional. I heavily doubt you are too. I'm not going to go into specifics about certain PEDs or others. There's no doubt that some anabolic steroids are helpful in medicine and recovery, for pro athletes and the general populace alike. I don't think these are the issue as much as steroids are, which have been known to shorten the lifespans of those who use them.
I've never seen any evidence that anabolic steroids shorten the lifespans of those who use them. If you have that information, I'd love to see it.
You can argue about the tyranny of the majority all you want, but I'd much rather live in our society where the biggest voice has the final say than one in which an "enlightened few" make all the rules (also known as fascism/dictatorship/communism)
You don't see the potential problems that you'll run into in a society like that if you don't protect minority rights?