Manny Ramirez suspended 50 games for testing positive for PEDS

[Superman]

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.

When you get laser eye surgery, you are covering for a defect that you have and repairing a problem to give you the same ability that others have to be able to see clearly. When you take PEDs, you are going above and beyond what your body normally does/should do to give yourself an ability or capacity that is not natural or normal.

Not to mention the fact that laser eye surgery, elective or not, is regulated and generally considered safe. I said before that if steroids were regulated and could generally be considered safe, then there would be a different outlook, but the fact is that steroid use is not elective, and use outside of the supervision of a doctor is not considered safe.

The line certainly isn't a clear one, but I don't see a real comparison between steroids and improved vision. Like 21 said, you're not bionic because you have good eyesight. If anything, it levels out a playing field and removes a disadvantage that you had, rather than giving you an advantage and making the field uneven.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Not to mention the fact that laser eye surgery, elective or not, is regulated and generally considered safe. I said before that if steroids were regulated and could generally be considered safe, then there would be a different outlook, but the fact is that steroid use is not elective, and use outside of the supervision of a doctor is not considered safe.

And this is my entire problem. Why aren't we regulating steroids and using current medical evidence rather than a small set of anecdotal data that is 30 years out of date? 30 years ago if you took a laser to your eye the odds were probably 50-50 that you'd walk out blind. We should be evaluating steroids based on current medical standards. Many players that have been caught taking them did so specifically to recuperate from injuries and extend their careers not become superhuman overnight.

 

[kupman]

When you get laser eye surgery, you are covering for a defect that you have and repairing a problem to give you the same ability that others have to be able to see clearly. When you take PEDs, you are going above and beyond what your body normally does/should do to give yourself an ability or capacity that is not natural or normal.

Not to mention the fact that laser eye surgery, elective or not, is regulated and generally considered safe. I said before that if steroids were regulated and could generally be considered safe, then there would be a different outlook, but the fact is that steroid use is not elective, and use outside of the supervision of a doctor is not considered safe.

The line certainly isn't a clear one, but I don't see a real comparison between steroids and improved vision. Like 21 said, you're not bionic because you have good eyesight. If anything, it levels out a playing field and removes a disadvantage that you had, rather than giving you an advantage and making the field uneven.

Maybe a better comparison than the lazik comparison would be Speedo's LZR swimsuits. Everyone gets excited that WR's in swimming are being shattered but it is possible that the new science age swim suit has something to do with it. That is not correcting a defect.

 

[Warhawk]

Maybe a better comparison than the lazik comparison would be Speedo's LZR swimsuits. Everyone gets excited that WR's in swimming are being shattered but it is possible that the new science age swim suit has something to do with it. That is not correcting a defect.

OK, but that is just better equipment. Unless you want to have all the swimmers compete nude, they have to wear swimsuits. As long as the suits meet the regulations for allowed swimwear, everyone is on an equal footing (everyone can wear these suits).

 

[kupman]

OK, but that is just better equipment. Unless you want to have all the swimmers compete nude, they have to wear swimsuits. As long as the suits meet the regulations for allowed swimwear, everyone is on an equal footing (everyone can wear these suits).

True. I guess I was thinking more about the concern for the "integrity" of records.

 

[Warhawk]

True. I guess I was thinking more about the concern for the "integrity" of records.

Improvements in nutrition, blood sampling and monitoring (oxygen, etc.), equipment, health care, training regimen, facilities (latest Olympic pool specially designed for faster times), etc. - all of these are going to play a factor in performance/setting records as well.

 

[VF21]

And this is my entire problem. Why aren't we regulating steroids and using current medical evidence rather than a small set of anecdotal data that is 30 years out of date? 30 years ago if you took a laser to your eye the odds were probably 50-50 that you'd walk out blind. We should be evaluating steroids based on current medical standards. Many players that have been caught taking them did so specifically to recuperate from injuries and extend their careers not become superhuman overnight.

Now this train of thought is something I can follow and actually agree with. Instead of muddying the waters with comparisons to eye surgery, etc. why not pursue the idea of using current medical evidence to evaluate the steroids against current standards? It is widely rumored that Webber's drug suspension was because of a positive test for steroids he may have used to try and speed up the recuperation process.

 

[BMiller52]

So....... is Manny pregnant yet?

 

[VF21]

BMiller52 wins the thread.

 

[Superman]

Maybe a better comparison than the lazik comparison would be Speedo's LZR swimsuits. Everyone gets excited that WR's in swimming are being shattered but it is possible that the new science age swim suit has something to do with it. That is not correcting a defect.

It's a swimsuit. It's not like it has propellers on it or anything like that. And it's certainly not the same as getting your body to do something that it normally wouldn't.

There is equipment that's not allowed in certain sports, like corked bats, or jet fuel in car racing, or whatever. If the Olympic racing committee wants to take it upon themselves to deny certain swimsuits because they are made too well, that's up to them, but it's a lot different than saying that you can't take steroids.

 

[Superman]

And this is my entire problem. Why aren't we regulating steroids and using current medical evidence rather than a small set of anecdotal data that is 30 years out of date? 30 years ago if you took a laser to your eye the odds were probably 50-50 that you'd walk out blind. We should be evaluating steroids based on current medical standards. Many players that have been caught taking them did so specifically to recuperate from injuries and extend their careers not become superhuman overnight.

And this is where it goes back to the rules. The players that took steroids because (according to them) they wanted to recover more quickly don't get a pass because 1) they still broke the rules, and 2) you can't tell the steroids "just help me get better more quickly, don't help me put on muscle more quickly".

I agree with you that the rules are out of date and should be looked at, but the problem is that steroids are blacklisted, across the board, because of abuse. And honestly, whether they were regulated or not, there would still be a black market for them (just like the countless number of prescription drugs that get sold, traded and abused already -- how many people are addicted to Oxycontin or abuse Adderall?). There would still be bodybuilders, actors, wrestlers, amateur and professional athletes that would use and abuse them, even if supervised by a doctor.

That's part of the problem: the stronger you are, the faster you are, the better you look, the sooner can come back from injury, it equals more money, more roles, more playing time, more headline matches, etc. So the baseball player who gets legally prescribed a cycle to bounce back stronger from a pulled hamstring and make it back in the lineup, but notices that his line drives have an extra 70 feet on them, is he going to stop once he gets back in the lineup? Would you? Think about how much money a good defensive shortstop or center fielder can make if he goes from being an 8-10 HR guy to being a 25-30 HR guy?

I do think the system needs to be brought current, because we can't keep saying "steroids are bad for you" if there are medical benefits to them, when taken properly and under the supervision of a medical expert. But we can't just say "we were wrong about steroids, they're okay now", and open it all up. I'd rather be a hypocrite but be responsible and do it right than put my seal of approval on something that hasn't and isn't ever going to be properly regulated, especially if the possibility exists that it can make the problem worse.

 

[JSin]

Pardon my late return to this thread.

Couple thoughts in regards to the legality of LASIK versus steriods. Many of you are arguing that LASIK is perfectly okay since it is just establishing an equal playing field. Here is my question to you. Since it can be logically assumed that most athlete's have superior genetics when it comes to physical traits we can assume that the population of athlete's produce much more natural testosterone than a normal male. Would is okay for an athlete who isn't producing as much testosterone as Ray Lewis be able to take more to "level the playing field"? We are all produced with strengths and weaknesses, why can Tiger get surgery to correct his while I can't take steriods to correct mine?

 

[Superman]

Pardon my late return to this thread.

Couple thoughts in regards to the legality of LASIK versus steriods. Many of you are arguing that LASIK is perfectly okay since it is just establishing an equal playing field. Here is my question to you. Since it can be logically assumed that most athlete's have superior genetics when it comes to physical traits we can assume that the population of athlete's produce much more natural testosterone than a normal male. Would is okay for an athlete who isn't producing as much testosterone as Ray Lewis be able to take more to "level the playing field"? We are all produced with strengths and weaknesses, why can Tiger get surgery to correct his while I can't take steriods to correct mine?

First thing is that most supplements that increase a person's testosterone levels boost them up way above what any normal human body would ever produce. The body increases testosterone production when a person is active, with weight training, with different body cycles, after traumatic experiences, etc., but none of those events, even combined together would raise a person's testosterone levels the way foreign substances do.

To address your point, though, I don't think that it's anything close to the same thing. Repairing a defect in your body (which is what poor eyesight is) is different from inducing - in one way or another - elevated levels of testosterone or any other substance in your body. It's the difference between having a heart transplant and blood doping. It would be like replacing your eyes with bionic eyes.

I'm exaggerating, but the point is that the body will naturally make adjustments that will increase the production of a natural element, like testosterone. Doing anything that takes you beyond those natural levels is different. Tiger Woods can get laser eye surgery because he had less than stellar eyesight. He's not taking a weakness and turning it into a strength. He simply underwent a routine procedure that millions of people have had to correct a defect. It would be like your body not producing normal amounts of testosterone, and having an operation that fixes that problem. It's not going to make you pump higher than normal amounts; it's going to help your body do what it should be doing, what everyone else's body is doing.

I just don't get how laser eye surgery is comparable to steroid use.

 

[kingsnation]

I just don't get how laser eye surgery is comparable to steroid use.

That's because it's not.

LASIK evens the playing field.
Steroids put you above it.

Another difference? Lasik is something that you take to help you in EVERYDAY life. To help you see and live. I would know. Once I get enough saved up, I plan on having the surgery. My eyesight has been poor since I was a child. Playing a sport like basketball has been an issue because I either play with glasses and risk damage or I play w/o them and I can't see anything.

Doctor says contacts aren't an option.

Would is okay for an athlete who isn't producing as much testosterone as Ray Lewis be able to take more to "level the playing field"? We are all produced with strengths and weaknesses, why can Tiger get surgery to correct his while I can't take steriods to correct mine?

I think what you are referencing here is called talent..

If Kenny Thomas isn't as good as Michael Jordan, is MJ producing more testosterone?? Is this what you're asking?

So, saying that me getting lasik to help me see is equatable to someone taking steroids that make them faster, bigger and stronger just doesn't compute.

And if it is indeed some type of "hormone" issue.. then guess what? There are PLENTY of LEGAL drugs/meds to help you with that.

 

[Superman]

I thought this was interesting.

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/9863728/Phelps-loses-first-major-individual-race-in-4-years

Germany's Paul Biedermann handed Phelps his first major individual loss in four years — and snatched away his world record, too — with a stunning win in the 200-meter freestyle at the world swimming championships on Tuesday.

...

But Biedermann's performance stirred up even more debate about the high-tech bodysuits that are being banned by the sport's governing body beginning in 2010. Biedermann wore an Arena X-Glide, one of those polyurethane suits that is generally considered faster than the Speedo LZR Racer, the once-revolutionary suit Phelps wore.

When the suit situation gets all sorted out, Phelps can't wait for the rematch — on what he considers equal terms.

...

Biedermann said after his 400 free win that the suit made him two seconds faster, but Phelps passed on the chance to wear one of the latest-generation suits. He's been sponsored by Speedo since he was a teenager and wasn't about to abandon the company that paid him a $1 million bonus after he won eight gold medals at the Beijing Olympics.