Comments on: Drugs and sports http://killablehours.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/drugs-and-sports/ We are condemned to kill time, thus we die bit by bit. -- Octavio Paz Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:25:47 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Alcibiades http://killablehours.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/drugs-and-sports/#comment-32 Alcibiades Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:59:18 +0000 http://killablehours.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/drugs-and-sports/#comment-32 I take your first point, T, but haven't inter-era comparisons already been broken somewhat by, say, the advent of the <a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Ball_Era" rel="nofollow">live ball</A>, advances in sports medicine (such as <a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_John_surgery" rel="nofollow">Tommy John surgery</A>), the modern use of sports videos and replays, and other changes? As for your second point, what about the old "permit but regulate" argument: the health risks of certain drugs might be smoothed out if there were more extensive testing. Also, a lot of sports already involve plenty of physical risk. (Baseball is not a good example of this; football and boxing are better.) Over time drug use might come to be seen as just another part of that risk, and perhaps not even the most substantial part. I guess my own feeling about sports drug use is that it makes explicit two of the biggest problems with contemporary sports: the influence of money (the Yankees could <I>build</I> a better A-Rod with the money they're paying him), and the alienness of the players (as the New Yorker piece argued). We still have a fantasy about sports as a realm of pure achievement, where a bit of talent and a whole lot of grit and hard work achieve success. Isn't that the theme of every cheesy sports movie ever made? But drug use breaks that fantasy. Instead of baseball, we get <a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleBots" rel="nofollow">BattleBots</A>. The game might still be fun, but it won't be the same. I take your first point, T, but haven’t inter-era comparisons already been broken somewhat by, say, the advent of the live ball, advances in sports medicine (such as Tommy John surgery), the modern use of sports videos and replays, and other changes?

As for your second point, what about the old “permit but regulate” argument: the health risks of certain drugs might be smoothed out if there were more extensive testing. Also, a lot of sports already involve plenty of physical risk. (Baseball is not a good example of this; football and boxing are better.) Over time drug use might come to be seen as just another part of that risk, and perhaps not even the most substantial part.

I guess my own feeling about sports drug use is that it makes explicit two of the biggest problems with contemporary sports: the influence of money (the Yankees could build a better A-Rod with the money they’re paying him), and the alienness of the players (as the New Yorker piece argued). We still have a fantasy about sports as a realm of pure achievement, where a bit of talent and a whole lot of grit and hard work achieve success. Isn’t that the theme of every cheesy sports movie ever made? But drug use breaks that fantasy. Instead of baseball, we get BattleBots. The game might still be fun, but it won’t be the same.

]]> By: themistocles http://killablehours.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/drugs-and-sports/#comment-26 themistocles Sat, 07 Oct 2006 16:56:38 +0000 http://killablehours.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/drugs-and-sports/#comment-26 A couple more ideas: --As far as baseball, at least, performance-enhancing drugs destroy the continuity of the game and prevent meaningful inter-era comparisons. For me, this is huge... who gives a crap if someone today breaks a Babe Ruth record if they're not doing it on the same terms as he did? --Re: the democratization of drugs... that's not really true, because allowing drugs would essentially force everyone to take them in order to compete, whether they wanted to or not. I gather that there are serious health risks with a lot of these substances, and you shouldn't have to assume those risks just to play a sport professionally. A couple more ideas:
–As far as baseball, at least, performance-enhancing drugs destroy the continuity of the game and prevent meaningful inter-era comparisons. For me, this is huge… who gives a crap if someone today breaks a Babe Ruth record if they’re not doing it on the same terms as he did?
–Re: the democratization of drugs… that’s not really true, because allowing drugs would essentially force everyone to take them in order to compete, whether they wanted to or not. I gather that there are serious health risks with a lot of these substances, and you shouldn’t have to assume those risks just to play a sport professionally.

]]>