Would You Cheat?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Slackker

Banning surgery? You're stretching pretty far to disprove my point. I think of myself as a smart guy, but if you can't differentiate "god-given ability" between an AJ Burnett and Barry Bonds.. I'm not smart enough to explain it to you. To me it's really not as black and white as "Well doctors fixed Burnett, and lab rats fixed Bonds..".

I think you are actually not smart enough to understand what he's saying.

He's not saying there is no difference, but rather it's a legal/moral issue of where we can draw a line. Just read his responce to my post.

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

Players are cheating to get an on-the-field advantage, not score higher on an unseen test. Who are you cheating? Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield and Barry Bonds have made huge impacts in various pennant races over the years. I'd start with the teams they helped beat, followed by the fans of those teams who payed good money to watch their teams get beat by cheaters.

But is that honestly, a huge impact on anyone's lives? Are the fans who watched their team lose to a bunch of cheaters really scarred for life? It's just a game. I'm sure they'll get over it. Secondly, without data on the percentage of steroid users on each team, how would you even know if it really had an impact? If every team has 3 steroid users, I mean, it general, it should balance out.

How about the world-wide attention and credibility they are giving to the drugs, glorifying their record breaking achievements with this stuff encouraging teenagers to use them? Jason Giambi only got into it because he saw what they were doing for Barry. Don't ya think there are a at least a couple 15 years olds in American Legion ball out there thinking the same thing? I'd say there are more than a few losers to go around here.

Right...except I'm pretty sure all players who have taken steroids didn't intend on getting caught when making their decision, or having their sealed court testimony leaked to the public, thus not having their use publicized to kids.

Originally Posted by Slackker

Banning surgery? You're stretching pretty far to disprove my point. I think of myself as a smart guy, but if you can't differentiate "god-given ability" between an AJ Burnett and Barry Bonds.. I'm not smart enough to explain it to you. To me it's really not as black and white as "Well doctors fixed Burnett, and lab rats fixed Bonds..".

What Skipaway said.

Note that I agree.. but how do we know? It's the optimist in me that says our top stars in sports aren't 40, 50, 60% juicers.. but we'll never know for sure. Hell, I'm so optimistic I still believe not all of our politicians are corrupt in America.

OK, but you can't be naive enough to believe it's only these handful of players who have been revealed in the BALCO mess that take steroids? MLB's own tests turned up between 5-7% of the players were taking steroids, and that was when they knew the tests were coming. Then you have player accounts of close to 50% of the players taking steroids. Taking the in-between, that's still a healthy chunk of players, meaning a lot of them who are taking them aren't superstars.

[Slackker]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

I think you are actually not smart enough to understand what he's saying.

He's not saying there is no difference, but rather it's a legal/moral issue of where we can draw a line. Just read his responce to my post.

He understands the technical difference between using steroids and getting surgery - that's not what I was trying to imply. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that he purposely picked surgery, out of all the possible rebuttles, because there was a common medical ground between steroids and surgery. Sometimes I read into things too deeply.

My original argument, for the most part, put legal and issues aside - because I knew that wasn't the intent of Yyzlin's post. Morality, however, is going to be ever-present in threads about steroids, or about practically anything. Don't feel like getting up to go to work? Well then at that particular time you value sleep over work. Inevitably, however, someone would read into it as you missing work because you stayed up late watching Sex and the City while wearing pink garters and a blue corset (which clashed, by the way), and claim that your lack of morals was the underlying issue.

Keep that in mind, and understand I'm not attempting to insert my morals here.

Players who have surgery are correcting an injury that occured randomly, to restore their natural ability. Players who take steroids are either exploiting their natural ability, or trying to maintain it past something that does not occur randomly - aging. If almost every player was guarenteed an injury in his career, and generally around the same time, just as almost every player is guarenteed to age their way out of the game between 38 and 40 (if not sooner), perhaps the comparison of steroids and surgery would be fair. As such it is not. That is why I don't care if AJ Burnett is taking someone's job, and do care if Bonds is.

Now, I know that people will argue injuries are not random. However, I'm speaking of "random" in the sense of.. every athlete can look at their future and know that at some point they'll get too old to do it anymore. However, not every athlete gets injured to the point of surgery. Remember, we're taking about major surgeries. Tommy John always being the first that comes to mind.. for some reason.

Can't we just go back to the good old days where practically every juicer had that chance for his conscience to chime in when he had his pants around his ankles with a needle in his hand? That'd be when I say "Ya know what? Maybe I'll stick with my .808 OPS, instead of going for .850."

[Slackker]

Originally Posted by Yyzlin

OK, but you can't be naive enough to believe it's only these handful of players who have been revealed in the BALCO mess that take steroids? MLB's own tests turned up between 5-7% of the players were taking steroids, and that was when they knew the tests were coming. Then you have player accounts of close to 50% of the players taking steroids. Taking the in-between, that's still a healthy chunk of players, meaning a lot of them who are taking them aren't superstars.

Oh believe me, I know BALCO isn't the only one peddling steroids to star players. There's a company down here in southeastern Connecticut that may or may not have a lab dedicated to the development of steroids. Then there's the Vegas issue, with steroids being very easy to get there. There's also a nice little deal with overseas athletes bringing things back with them - but we won't get into that.

Note to skipaway: I think Jason Giambi admitted to steroid use in college, so yes - he was taking steroids way before most reasonable people would think Bonds was. Perhaps he said the minor leagues? I dunno. Something way back in the days of yore. I would have quoted the part you mentioned it but.. well, lazy. =)

Originally Posted by Slackker

He understands the technical difference between using steroids and getting surgery - that's not what I was trying to imply. Perhaps I was wrong to assume that he purposely picked surgery, out of all the possible rebuttles, because there was a common medical ground between steroids and surgery. Sometimes I read into things too deeply.

My original argument, for the most part, put legal and issues aside - because I knew that wasn't the intent of Yyzlin's post. Morality, however, is going to be ever-present in threads about steroids, or about practically anything. Don't feel like getting up to go to work? Well then at that particular time you value sleep over work. Inevitably, however, someone would read into it as you missing work because you stayed up late watching Sex and the City while wearing pink garters and a blue corset (which clashed, by the way), and claim that your lack of morals was the underlying issue.

Keep that in mind, and understand I'm not attempting to insert my morals here.

Players who have surgery are correcting an injury that occured randomly, to restore their natural ability. Players who take steroids are either exploiting their natural ability, or trying to maintain it past something that does not occur randomly - aging. If almost every player was guarenteed an injury in his career, and generally around the same time, just as almost every player is guarenteed to age their way out of the game between 38 and 40 (if not sooner), perhaps the comparison of steroids and surgery would be fair. As such it is not. That is why I don't care if AJ Burnett is taking someone's job, and do care if Bonds is.

Now, I know that people will argue injuries are not random. However, I'm speaking of "random" in the sense of.. every athlete can look at their future and know that at some point they'll get too old to do it anymore. However, not every athlete gets injured to the point of surgery. Remember, we're taking about major surgeries. Tommy John always being the first that comes to mind.. for some reason.

Can't we just go back to the good old days where practically every juicer had that chance for his conscience to chime in when he had his pants around his ankles with a needle in his hand? That'd be when I say "Ya know what? Maybe I'll stick with my .808 OPS, instead of going for .850."

1. Tommy John surgery actually makes your ligament stronger than it was before, which is why many pitchers have hit their top velocity after the surgery, rather than before.

2. Your original argument was simply that people come to the stadiums "expecting to see God-given athletic ability, not BALCO-given athletic ability". My argument is that, the line between God-given and steroid-acheived is extremely vague, since so many of player's abilities today aren't God-given or natural. What about LASIK eye surgery, which can improve vision beyond 20/20? And isn't steroids just an enhanced version of your God-given talent? And honestly, does it make a difference in watching the game? Do you really go, "Man, these steroid users. They totally make the game unwatchable." I doubt it.

[kenyan_cheena]

I would not cheat. What kind of satisfaction can you gain from being the best if you have done it by cheating? It would be a completely hollow feeling. But, that's just me. Many of these major sports stars probably don't look at the situation like that.

[Slackker]

Originally Posted by Yyzlin

Do you really go, "Man, these steroid users. They totally make the game unwatchable." I doubt it.

I realize it doesn't for most people, but for me it does. I stopped watching baseball last season due to the Expos situation, and the steroid situation. I did watch the last couple innings of each ALCS game, because it's nice to see the Red Sox (or anyone) beat the Yankees - steroids involved or not!

I know of a few others this fits, but I admit that for most people it won't keep them from watching baseball. Me? I won't even be watching a show which profits from the mention of baseball until Selig does something smart (Not holding my breath), or is replaced. I'm anal like that. Admittedly. =)

[phillies05]

Baseball is becoming more and more unwatchable. One reason, in my opinion, there are too many games in a season. One game is pratically meaningless; each game is 0.6% of the whole season. Don't get me wrong, I love baseball, but these guys need get their acts together. Other problems include: steroids, crazy records(HR), Montreal Expos ordeal. etc.

Originally Posted by phillies05

Baseball is becoming more and more unwatchable. One reason, in my opinion, there are too many games in a season. One game is pratically meaningless; each game is 0.6% of the whole season. Don't get me wrong, I love baseball, but these guys need get their acts together. Other problems include: steroids, crazy records(HR), Montreal Expos ordeal. etc.

Yeah, man, I'm totally with you. That newfangled long schedule that baseball has developed totally sucks. Look at NFL, it's doing awesome cause of the 17 game schedule of course. Baseball needs to stick to that.

[sporr]

Another wrinkle to the original question: Would you cheat if there was virtually no chance of you getting caught?

There are chemicals due out in the near future (5 years possibly) that will modify your DNA. You inject it and it attaches to your DNA and has the same impact as steroids except that it is totally undetectable and has little to no side-effect.

[BravesSince66]

Originally Posted by sporr

There are chemicals due out in the near future (5 years possibly) that will modify your DNA. You inject it and it attaches to your DNA and has the same impact as steroids except that it is totally undetectable and has little to no side-effect.

Good point. Once the genie is out of the bottle there's no way to put it back. The game is changed. 2000-2035 will become known as the "Juiced Era".

Here's an interesting fact I just found....

Stats, Inc. reports that Barry Bonds never hit a home run further than 450 feet before the 2000 season, when he turned 36. Since then he has hit at least 21 of 450 feet or further.

Pass the flaxseed oil please.