Manny Ramirez suspended 50 games for testing positive for PEDS

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I may have heard wrong, but it's my understanding that this physician was not a "team" doctor, nor was he associated with the MLBPA. If that is true, then that doctor has no responsibility whatsoever to know whether or not it is on baseball's banned subsance list.

I mean, replace "major league baseball player" with whatever the hell you do for a living: you go into a doctor's office and say, "I've got symptoms x, y and z." The doctor writes you a prescription and says "Here, take this pill." It's not the doctor's job to know whether or not taking that pill can get you fired. Ramirez should have checked with his union; like my first LPO used to say, if you don't know, don't guess.

 

[Superman]

I may have heard wrong, but it's my understanding that this physician was not a "team" doctor, nor was he associated with the MLBPA. If that is true, then that doctor has no responsibility whatsoever to know whether or not it is on baseball's banned subsance list.

I mean, replace "major league baseball player" with whatever the hell you do for a living: you go into a doctor's office and say, "I've got symptoms x, y and z." The doctor writes you a prescription and says "Here, take this pill." It's not the doctor's job to know whether or not taking that pill can get you fired. Ramirez should have checked with his union; like my first LPO used to say, if you don't know, don't guess.

Even if the doctor does have the responsibility to know what's on the list, even if it's the team doctor, the player should cover his own *** and check before he puts anything in his system. That is, if he really does care about staying clean.

It's like the Romanian gymnast; her trainer gave her the pseudoephedrine, and he certainly should have known that it was a banned substance. Still, her not double checking cost her a gold medal, and it's not even like taking that pill helped her win. Sucks, but that's what happens when you don't cover your ***.

 

[Warhawk]

I may have heard wrong, but it's my understanding that this physician was not a "team" doctor, nor was he associated with the MLBPA. If that is true, then that doctor has no responsibility whatsoever to know whether or not it is on baseball's banned subsance list.

I mean, replace "major league baseball player" with whatever the hell you do for a living: you go into a doctor's office and say, "I've got symptoms x, y and z." The doctor writes you a prescription and says "Here, take this pill." It's not the doctor's job to know whether or not taking that pill can get you fired. Ramirez should have checked with his union; like my first LPO used to say, if you don't know, don't guess.

See post # 18.

 

[uolj]

Of course, the chances are good that "the doctor" was Ramirez's steroid supplier, in which case this is all moot.

 

[kupman]

I am never quite sure why people get so upset when an athlete tests positive for a PED.

Is it about cheating?: Athletes cheat all the time and have been long before we were ever here. It goes from PEDs, to stealing playbooks, to stealing signs, to listening in on the huddle. I think we know that NASCAR teams see what they can get away with every week. How is this cheating any different?

Is it about health?: Elite athletic performance has nothing to do with health. It is the anti-thesis of health. The chronic over-training and injuries of elite athletes is likely to lead to a lifetime of health issues. Does anyone here think that playing a single season in the NFL is "healthy?"

What about children?: If the children are looking to professional athletes for guidance then "God help us all." The PEDs should be the least of our concerns. Additionally, the crazy, risky training protocols that I see many youth doing in the name of becoming elite athletes or champions is actually more troublesome to me because it is deemed as acceptable and even necessary right now.

 

[uolj]

It's about cheating.

There are some types of cheating that are considered gamesmanship. Many people hate that stuff as well, others tolerate it, others like what it brings to the game.

But there are other types of cheating that are not gamesmanship, including performance enhancing equipment and performance enhancing drugs.

The line between the two might be blurry and very different depending on who you're asking, but there is certainly a line. And for people who are bothered by PEDs, that line is why they can be upset despite the fact that "athletes cheat all the time".

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I may have heard wrong, but it's my understanding that this physician was not a "team" doctor, nor was he associated with the MLBPA. If that is true, then that doctor has no responsibility whatsoever to know whether or not it is on baseball's banned subsance list.

I mean, replace "major league baseball player" with whatever the hell you do for a living: you go into a doctor's office and say, "I've got symptoms x, y and z." The doctor writes you a prescription and says "Here, take this pill." It's not the doctor's job to know whether or not taking that pill can get you fired. Ramirez should have checked with his union; like my first LPO used to say, if you don't know, don't guess.

See post # 18.

Huh?

I mean, we're certainly not disagreeing, but it doesn't occur to me that we're really saying the same thing; am I missing something?

 

[Superman]

Is it about cheating?: Athletes cheat all the time and have been long before we were ever here. It goes from PEDs, to stealing playbooks, to stealing signs, to listening in on the huddle. I think we know that NASCAR teams see what they can get away with every week. How is this cheating any different?

Stealing playbooks and stealing signs and stuff is a lot different than unnaturally enhancing your performance. PEDs is even different than NASCAR racers using jet fuel, although that's a lot closer than stealing signs.

The big thing about steroids is that it's illegal. It's against the law of the land.

 

[Warhawk]

Huh?

I mean, we're certainly not disagreeing, but it doesn't occur to me that we're really saying the same thing; am I missing something?

Well, you said check with the union, but in essence you are saying that the doctor has no knowledge of or responsibility to look up what is on the list.

My post said to have a copy of any list like this in the doctor's hands to begin with, or take one with you to the doctor, so they can check it first. An easy solution to the situation you posed.

Or am I missing something as well?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I am never quite sure why people get so upset when an athlete tests positive for a PED.

Is it about cheating?: Athletes cheat all the time and have been long before we were ever here. It goes from PEDs, to stealing playbooks, to stealing signs, to listening in on the huddle. I think we know that NASCAR teams see what they can get away with every week. How is this cheating any different?

Is it about health?: Elite athletic performance has nothing to do with health. It is the anti-thesis of health. The chronic over-training and injuries of elite athletes is likely to lead to a lifetime of health issues. Does anyone here think that playing a single season in the NFL is "healthy?"

What about children?: If the children are looking to professional athletes for guidance then "God help us all." The PEDs should be the least of our concerns. Additionally, the crazy, risky training protocols that I see many youth doing in the name of becoming elite athletes or champions is actually more troublesome to me because it is deemed as acceptable and even necessary right now.

IMHO its a combo of "its cheating" mixed with the fact that a few early users developed health complications and rightly or wrongly blamed steroids. I also believe that a lot of high school and some college athletes get away with it where testing is less stringent and the pros are the least of our worries. More reasons for transparency in my book but the stigma is so big that anyone who touches the stuff in sports is a villain. Actors, bodybuilders, wrestlers can and do get away with it just fine.

 

[Oprostaj]

Well, you said check with the union, but in essence you are saying that the doctor has no knowledge of or responsibility to look up what is on the list.

My post said to have a copy of any list like this in the doctor's hands to begin with, or take one with you to the doctor, so they can check it first. An easy solution to the situation you posed.

Or am I missing something as well?

If it's a random doctor, he does not give a flying monkey's left foot about baseball or this list. He prescribes as he sees fit. I think that's what he's saying.

Manny should have brought the list and said "Anything that does not include these"

By the way... there is no doctor. Dude is on 'roids. He's old and wants another big payday to coincide with his ever expanding ego. Hope he crashes and burns. This is the Sprewell of the MLB

 

[Peter_Gibbons]

Its too obvious it was taken to enhance his performance. Its a common drug that steroids user uses. Why is he taking such a drug?

 

[JSin]

Stealing playbooks and stealing signs and stuff is a lot different than unnaturally enhancing your performance. PEDs is even different than NASCAR racers using jet fuel, although that's a lot closer than stealing signs.

The big thing about steroids is that it's illegal. It's against the law of the land.

We are sinking deep into people's opinion of cheating is. I could argue that taking testosterone (or a protein shake) is a scientific natural way to improve your performance, why do you think it's unnatural? Stealing playbooks could be seen as more damaging as that goes against the very rules of the game, where there are no rules for training.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if steriods should even be illegal at all, or our motivations for making it illegal. If we are saying it is cheating because you are improving yourself through science, that is what all of us enjoy and hope for on a daily basis. If it is to keep the sport pure, then why stop there, why not ban all supplements (including those unnatural vitamins) and regulate the amount of training that can be conducted. Then it would be a level playing field. This "having the cake and eating it too" thinking is a fragile balancing act.

And why is there only an outcry in baseball, the sport that is least affected by steriods? Football players can benefit 100 times more than a baseball player yet when football players test positive there is little fanfare. The amount of coverage devoted to Bonds or ARod is startling compared to the amount that Merriman recieved?

 

[Oprostaj]

We are sinking deep into people's opinion of cheating is. I could argue that taking testosterone (or a protein shake) is a scientific natural way to improve your performance, why do you think it's unnatural? Stealing playbooks could be seen as more damaging as that goes against the very rules of the game, where there are no rules for training.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if steriods should even be illegal at all, or our motivations for making it illegal. If we are saying it is cheating because you are improving yourself through science, that is what all of us enjoy and hope for on a daily basis. If it is to keep the sport pure, then why stop there, why not ban all supplements (including those unnatural vitamins) and regulate the amount of training that can be conducted. Then it would be a level playing field. This "having the cake and eating it too" thinking is a fragile balancing act.

And why is there only an outcry in baseball, the sport that is least affected by steriods? Football players can benefit 100 times more than a baseball player yet when football players test positive there is little fanfare. The amount of coverage devoted to Bonds or ARod is startling compared to the amount that Merriman recieved?

See, this is a huge can of worms. Supplements for training like proteins and such are produced normally within our bodies, and I guess people believe that just slightly adding those "natural" things already within our bodies is not taboo. However, when you see players that put on 30 pounds of muscle in one summer (As A-Rod allegedly did in H.S.), it just screams unfair. I have a problem with steroids because they give you an advantage that could not be replicated with training and protein supplements alone. Steroids also damage your body beyond repair shortly after their benefits expire, which also adds to the "Don't freaking do it" category.

I agree about the standards to which different sports are held to though. I thought it was a huge deal when Merriman got busted. I was equally surprised that it blew over so quickly. I think this is a huge issue that did not get enough attention.

Personally... steroids are dangerous, and give you a playing field that cannot be equaled by training and dietery supplements, which is why I chose to be against them.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if steriods should even be illegal at all, or our motivations for making it illegal. If we are saying it is cheating because you are improving yourself through science, that is what all of us enjoy and hope for on a daily basis. If it is to keep the sport pure, then why stop there, why not ban all supplements (including those unnatural vitamins) and regulate the amount of training that can be conducted. Then it would be a level playing field. This "having the cake and eating it too" thinking is a fragile balancing act.

Have you seen Bigger Stronger Faster*? It addresses many of these same concerns. It talks about some legal methods of performance enhancement that provide the exact same benefits as some illegal ones but nobody cares. In some cases the difference between the two methods is merely the amount of money it takes to afford one solution or the other (these pertain more to endurance sports like cycling then baseball). It also talks about all the legal uses of steroids and starts a frank discussion about our perceptions of steroids which were largely the result of Lyle Alzedo blaming his cancer on steroids and despite very little scientific proof this was widely accepted to be the case.

There's also things like Tiger Woods getting corrective eye surgery to have better then natural vision and this is considered ok. When we can have cyber implants will that be ok? What about the possibility of children being put on HGH or similar to grow taller/bigger and being long off of it by the time they reach the age of competitive sports, nobody will ever know. What about gene selection therapies in future pregnancies, this really isn't that far off.

Fact is this is where medical science has taken us and its never going to stop.

 

[Superman]

We are sinking deep into people's opinion of cheating is. I could argue that taking testosterone (or a protein shake) is a scientific natural way to improve your performance, why do you think it's unnatural? Stealing playbooks could be seen as more damaging as that goes against the very rules of the game, where there are no rules for training.

We can split hairs about it all day long. I mean, why is blood doping illegal? You're taking what is naturally in your body and increasing it to enhance your performance; what's so wrong with that?

The problem is that it's against the law, it's against the rules, and anyone who does it is breaking the rules. I disagree that stealing playbooks is against the rules of the game. I don't recall ever reading that rule. It is poor sportsmanship, but it's a completely different thing from using drugs to enhance your performance.

Going back to blood doping, and testosterone: your body naturally produces a certain amount of testosterone, a certain amount of red blood cells. Introducing susbstances to your system that increase the amount of testosterone that you produce, or that increases your red blood cell count, is not natural. It's going beyond what nature does. It's not the same as protein shakes or other supplements that are dietary in nature. You eat protein to restore tissue; your body doesn't produce it. Your body produces testosterone and blood cells as needed. Increasing it's production by significant amounts is not natural.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if steriods should even be illegal at all, or our motivations for making it illegal. If we are saying it is cheating because you are improving yourself through science, that is what all of us enjoy and hope for on a daily basis. If it is to keep the sport pure, then why stop there, why not ban all supplements (including those unnatural vitamins) and regulate the amount of training that can be conducted. Then it would be a level playing field. This "having the cake and eating it too" thinking is a fragile balancing act.

It is a fragile balancing act, and I wonder sometimes what the motivations behind banning steroids is as well. Some of these substances, when regulated properly and adminstered by a professional, are beneficial for you. Keeping it underground is probably doing more damage than santioning and regulating it would.

That said, it is illegal. There is a list of banned substances that the players are aware of. We can argue the merits of these rules all day long, but what it comes down to is that these substances are against the rules (many of them against the law). Taking them is cheating. That's the black and white of it.

And why is there only an outcry in baseball, the sport that is least affected by steriods? Football players can benefit 100 times more than a baseball player yet when football players test positive there is little fanfare. The amount of coverage devoted to Bonds or ARod is startling compared to the amount that Merriman recieved?

The outcry in baseball is because MLB ignored steroids and PEDs for years, until their hand was forced to do something about it. The NFL has been more aggressive and much more firm when it comes to PEDs, and as such, doesn't come under the same scrutiny that baseball does. It's a double standard, and I'm not going to argue that football players aren't as dirty as baseball players (the NFL doesn't test for HGH either; I can't say that I wouldn't be taking it if I were in the NFL), but the NFL took steps to give the public the impression that they had their house in order, while MLB looked the other way and disparaged and discredited anyone who would dare to tell the truth. It's a sad thing that the most credible person associated with baseball is Jose Canseco.

 

[Superman]

There's also things like Tiger Woods getting corrective eye surgery to have better then natural vision and this is considered ok.

Corrective eye surgery is a procedure that's regulated by law, and it's never going to be performed on a professional athlete by his trainer or nutrtionist, the way steroids and other PEDs are administered.

And "better than natural vision" is a messy term. Some people have great eyes, some not so great. If you get corrective eye surgery, no matter who you are, you're expected to have at least 20/20 vision; that's the standard the surgeon is held to by most health organizations, and that means that you can see what most people can see standing 20 feet from an object. Some wind up with better results, few with worse: 20/20 (sometimes 20/40) is the standard. So what does "better than natural vision" mean? Better than his vision was before? Better than most people?

We're talking about what has become a pretty common place procedure that many everyday people get to correct their vision (my sister was blind as a bat before her surgery; after it, she could see better than me, and I have great vision). The results have a broad range, but it's regulated and generally considered safe. It's not a procedure that indicates abuse or a desire to gain a competitive edge.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

All I'm saying is that steroid use could be regulated by law as well. Why not do it under constant managed care of a physician out in the open and then we can all know just how effective they are, truly measure the health risks and make informed decisions about their use instead of mass speculation largely colored by how we perceive the accused?

 

[Superman]

All I'm saying is that steroid use could be regulated by law as well. Why not do it under constant managed care of a physician out in the open and then we can all know just how effective they are, truly measure the health risks and make informed decisions about their use instead of mass speculation largely colored by how we perceive the accused?

I definitely agree with that. The reason why steroids got blacklisted is because athletes and their trainers were doing this under the cover of night, without the proper regulation, and the health risks were unknown, the speculation was rampant and out of control (like Alzedo), and so they dropped the hammer, and never revisited the matter. Since that time, they've only added more and more substances to the list.

Hopefully, someone will understand that these labs and scientists have a new designer steroid ready everytime one of their current substances is blacklisted, they'll never be able to keep up or catch up, and they need to regulate this industry, rather than try to stamp it out.

But I do think the original motivation behind banning steroids and the like was a legitimate concern for the health of the athletes taking them.

 

[JSin]

Good responses Superman. I'll try to respond to them:

First, I hesitate greatly when approaching the "it's illegal, it's the law, people know, end of discussion", while I put a tremendous amount of confidence in our country (go to Iraq... ok!), there are serious shortfalls in the management of it, and the reasoning behind certain actions (our budget and the food pyrimid to begin with). That's why it's very healthy to understand the reason behind the thinking that leads to these issues. Not to mention that I have always been a steriods is illegal / punish them guy until I put some serious thought into it. Splitting hairs is what it comes down to, because while steriods is not natural, technically neither is protein shakes. Yes, protein can be found in nature, but so can testosterone and other compounds that are illegal. Is lifting iron natural? Is taking a multi-vitamin natural? No. None of these things are natural, and they can all be very dangerous if taken in the wrong way or abused. Steriods is prescribed by doctors all the time, just not for the reasons that sports athlete's take them for. It's a very thin line and makes we wonder why spend so much time and energy on establishing that line (and why did we decide on that line and not another). It's puzzling and fascinating at the same time.

And speaking on the golfer correcting his vision, is it okay for a golfer with normal vision 20/20 to go to the best eye surgeon to correct it? Where is the cutoff? All interesting questions that we will need to ponder at some time in the future...

 

[pdxKingsFan]

And speaking on the golfer correcting his vision, is it okay for a golfer with normal vision 20/20 to go to the best eye surgeon to correct it? Where is the cutoff? All interesting questions that we will need to ponder at some time in the future...

It will be quite interesting when medical science advances in the next 10-20 years and an athlete who blows his or her knee out can get it repaired to better than 100% and how this will be viewed, since nobody seems to concerned about using Lasik to achieve better than "perfect" vision. Also worthy of note is that the steroid user still has to work out vigorously to see results while Lasik and other future medical enhancements will likely take effect immediately and with little to no effort on the part of the benificiary.

 

[Superman]

Good responses Superman. I'll try to respond to them:

First, I hesitate greatly when approaching the "it's illegal, it's the law, people know, end of discussion", while I put a tremendous amount of confidence in our country (go to Iraq... ok!), there are serious shortfalls in the management of it, and the reasoning behind certain actions (our budget and the food pyrimid to begin with). That's why it's very healthy to understand the reason behind the thinking that leads to these issues. Not to mention that I have always been a steriods is illegal / punish them guy until I put some serious thought into it.

You're absolutely right, and I'm not trying to hinge the argument on the legality of steroids. The reason, though, that MLB and other sports leagues have to crack down on these banned substances is because they are illegal. And once the government started putting pressure on baseball to do something substantial about illegal PED use in their league, they did something about it. There was no more flying under the radar. It's not that because it is or isn't illegal that it is or isn't acceptable, safe, normal, etc. But the legal issue is the primary reason that baseball had to do something about steroid use.

Splitting hairs is what it comes down to, because while steriods is not natural, technically neither is protein shakes. Yes, protein can be found in nature, but so can testosterone and other compounds that are illegal. Is lifting iron natural? Is taking a multi-vitamin natural? No. None of these things are natural, and they can all be very dangerous if taken in the wrong way or abused. Steriods is prescribed by doctors all the time, just not for the reasons that sports athlete's take them for. It's a very thin line and makes we wonder why spend so much time and energy on establishing that line (and why did we decide on that line and not another). It's puzzling and fascinating at the same time.

I really don't think it's splitting hairs. Your body takes protein in as a natural process. Getting more protein can be as simple as just eating more meat or taking a shake, but that's normal.

Your body produces testosterone and red blood cells naturally, and while there are many variables pertaining to how much of those elements are produced by your body, there is a natural range that most people are going to fall into, regardless of their diet and exercise habits. To increase the amounts of those elements in your system, either directly (by ingesting more than normal amounts) or indirectly (through products that cause your body to create more than normal amounts), is not natural.

There's a difference between eating food products that help your body rebuild tissues as a part of the natural process, and taking products that cause your natural process to perform at a level beyond what's normal for the body to perform at. In my mind, the distinction is clear.

Where it becomes a bit more muddled is when you're determining what's legal and what's not, as far as performance enhancing substances. Like, for instance, creatine and other muscle building products. But protein is completely different.

And as far as lifting weights is concerned, it's just an intensified form of exercise. Exercise is natural. I mean, next thing you're going to say is that jogging isn't natural. Your body needs exercise, and because we've found more effective ways to get stronger and faster, we can concentrate on a certain objective with a certain exercise. I don't think that's any more unnatural than learning memorization techniques or learning to type fast and accurately or learning to play music or any other number of things that we have to work at to be good at. If you want to be strong, you work out, and your body responds to that work out. When you start introducing different things to your system to get your body to respond in a different manner, that's when you change from something that's natural to something that's beyond nature.

And speaking on the golfer correcting his vision, is it okay for a golfer with normal vision 20/20 to go to the best eye surgeon to correct it? Where is the cutoff? All interesting questions that we will need to ponder at some time in the future...

I'm gonna watch Bigger, Stronger, Faster so that I can try to understand this argument a little bit better. I'll reserve further comments on that until that time, except for to say this: Corrective eye surgery is a medical procedure that is intended to help a person with poor eyesight get better eyesight. I don't see anything wrong with that use.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Corrective eye surgery is a medical procedure that is intended to help a person with poor eyesight get better eyesight. I don't see anything wrong with that use.

It is elective and medically unnecessary and allows a person to overcome a genetic/natural weakness in their body. If you ban someone for using their asthma inhaler because it might temporarily expand their lung capacity beyond the natural level (nevermind that dealing with chronic asthma frickin sucks) why is it legal to get a medically unnecessary surgery to gain better than perfect human vision?

Its kind of the first step towards the inevitable bionic limbs.

 

[Warhawk]

Its kind of the first step towards the inevitable bionic limbs.

Cyborgs FTW!





Um, someone go run a metal detector over Tiger Woods, will ya? Is that his secret?

 

[VF21]

It is elective and medically unnecessary and allows a person to overcome a genetic/natural weakness in their body. If you ban someone for using their asthma inhaler because it might temporarily expand their lung capacity beyond the natural level (nevermind that dealing with chronic asthma frickin sucks) why is it legal to get a medically unnecessary surgery to gain better than perfect human vision?

Its kind of the first step towards the inevitable bionic limbs.

Do you wear glasses? Should people who do have to go without them because of a genetic/natural weakness?

Having the laser surgery merely allows people who have had to deal with glasses to be able to see without them. Unless you're willing to force everyone with less than perfect eyesight to leave their glasses at home, they've already compensated to equal the playing field NOT to acquire better than human vision.

Dealing with poor eyesight frickin sucks, too.

 

[kingsnation]

Cyborgs FTW!





Um, someone go run a metal detector over Tiger Woods, will ya? Is that his secret?

[yt=Pujols the Cyborg]Ml0O-wPwsVU[/yt]

 

[Warhawk]

[yt=Pujols the Cyborg]Ml0O-wPwsVU[/yt]

Nice - never seen that one before. And seeing how I was just watching some Terminator 2 the other day, very appropriate.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Do you wear glasses? Should people who do have to go without them because of a genetic/natural weakness?

Having the laser surgery merely allows people who have had to deal with glasses to be able to see without them. Unless you're willing to force everyone with less than perfect eyesight to leave their glasses at home, they've already compensated to equal the playing field NOT to acquire better than human vision.

Dealing with poor eyesight frickin sucks, too.

I do wear glasses, and they absolutely suck when playing sports so I usually deal with the vision loss and face the consequences. Even when I wear them I am getting 20/20 at best but still deal with the lenses fogging up or the chances of them falling off and breaking. I lost my favorite vintage frames that way. Not to mention getting tagged in the face with a dodgeball once and having my nose busted open.

My question is what medical science do you allow and what do you cut off? Why have we arbitrarily decided that one thing is allowable and another is not? Especially when one of those things is entirely elective to the point that most of our medical plans won't cover it.

 

[VF21]

Why do we allow people to go 65 miles an hour but not 95? You're looking for absolutes in a world that pretty much has shades of gray in everything, IMHO.

As far as Lasik surgery being elective, I think you're missing the real issue. People who do elect for the surgery generally end up with vision no better than those lucky people who have not had to wear glasses for a big part of their lives. It doesn't give them xray vision or allow them to magically compute the velocity of a ball, etc. It allows them to see what everyone else sees - but without the artifical handicap of a pair of glasses.

Should people with hearing disabilities be forced to participate in sports but not be allowed to wear hearing aids? What if they're lucky enough to be able to get the surgical implants? Are they getting an unfair advantage OR are they merely getting a chance to compete on a more level playing field?

There's a tremendous difference between taking advantage of a medical procedure to correct some kind of "defect" (I personally DETEST that word but cannot think of another one to make my point) and taking unfair advantage of modern medicine to spuriously consume chemicals that will allow one player an unfair edge over someone who isn't taking it.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Bill Saletan wrote an interesting piece 4 or 5 years ago mentioning a number of athletes that were all functioning fine without Lasik and how many had an immediate spike in performance after Lasik. Some it were mentioned had vision that allowed them to legally drive without prescriptive lenses. It can be found here.

I'm not looking for a world of absolutes, I just find the response to steroids and other PEDs to be rather hysterical in the grand scheme of things. In fact I point out LASIK to show that things aren't so black and white as the good ole days before PEDs and now. And again when you consider that steroids require hours of hard work to realize their results vs. a 30 minute outpatient procedure that renders effects immediately which one is really the short cut?

All I want is for us to cut the crap and be transparent about what is really going on. It may be a pipe dream but I think its far more realistic than actually thinking we can ever achieve "clean" competition.