Congratulations to Barry Bonds on hitting home run no. 756 and surpassing the record of Henry Aaron!
With that out of the way, I don’t agree with the foofaraw over whether Mr. Bonds uses steroids to build muscle bulk. I do understand the three concerns, which I boil down to these: (1) it’s unfair for him to use a drug to build muscle bulk because many other players don’t, (2) it’s unhealthy for him to use steroids, and he should be protected from himself, and (3) it’s a bad example to children for him to use steroids.
I dismiss concern no. 2; Mr. Bonds is an adult and can decide for himself how much he’s willing to risk his health to perform better at his job. Him taking steroids is the same thing as a sumo wrestler overeating. I also dismiss concern no. 3. Most adults (let’s admit it) are bad examples for children.
That leaves concern no. 1: is it unfair for him to use steroids (if he does) when other players don’t? I don’t see it as any different from a player using an anesthetic to numb an injured limb before a game: the player is accepting a long-term risk (heightened injury) for a short-term benefit.
There must be more to the reason this is an issue, but I have to admit that I don’t see it.
Comments
3 responses
I don’t see it as any different from a player using an anesthetic to numb an injured limb before a game
Or how about pitchers who routinely undergo major reconstructive surgery to prolong their careers? Such remedies were unthinkable 40 years ago, mostly because the technology didn’t exist. Had today’s technology existed in 1927, there’s no doubt players would have taken advantage of it.
Its a different era and a much different game today than it was in 1987 or 1967. The home run record should be enjoyed in the moment. Besides, assuming he stays healthy, A-Rod is going to beat it here in a couple of years anyway.
The argument (as applied to cycling, the same could be said for sluggers) that I’ve seen is this:
Players who user performance enhancing drugs artificially inflate the competitiveness of the game. This causes the “normal” players to have to compete at their level, risking injury. Of course, the other alternative for the “normal” players to to use the drugs themselves. In effect, it will eventually become a requirement that in order to compete at that level people will *have* to use the stuff.
I’m not sure I’d really enjoy a sport like that.
I believe the point is that steroids are against the rules and it is unfair for a player to win an advantage by breaking the rules. As quaint as it may seem, there still may be some athletes who for reasons of sportsmanship, or whatever, try to play by the rules. That’s what distinguishes it from the use by an athlete of an anaesthetic to numb a limb. Did I really need to explain that?