The latest internet buzz surrounding the topic of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) involves a spray derived from a substance found on deer antlers. Similar to Human Growth Hormone (HGH) when it was first used as a PED in the late 1990's, it is very difficult to test for naturally occurring IGF-1, the active ingredient in this new PED. In order to test positive, a blood test must be conducted at the right time because the substance does not stay in a human body for extended periods of time like other PEDs. Currently, neither the NFL or MLB use blood tests to test for PEDs.
Although this PED is new, the discussion about the use of PEDs in sports is not. Athletes have always looked for competitive advantages and the lines are becoming increasingly blurred. How do you differentiate between what should be a legal performance enhancing substance (such as a protein shake) and an illegal one (steroids)? More importantly, is it possible for leagues to eliminate the use of PEDs since as soon as effective tests are developed for one PED a new PED takes its place? The biggest questions about PEDs though are: are they good or bad for sports, and what message are we sending to our children by embracing their use in professional sports?
After the baseball strike of 1995, attendance of MLB games plummeted by over 20%. By 1998 in the midst of a home run chase fueled by the use of PEDs, MLB attendance hit a record of 70.6 million fans, up 12% from 1997. With its popularity on the rise, MLB and Commissioner Bud Selig did not address the steroid issue until 2003 and MLB did not impose stiff penalties for PED users until after Congress became involved in 2005. Despite the fact that several top tier players (e.g. Alex Rodriguez, and Manny Ramirez) have tested positive for steroids, attendance at MLB games has remained well above post-strike attendance marks notwithstanding the economic recession the country finds itself in.
This begs the question, have leagues and fans accepted the fact that athletes will use PEDs? Are we willing to allow athletes to use PEDs so they can perform at their best and we can be more entertained? Most importantly, what message does this send to our children? Should we tell our children that PEDs are not for them but that professional athletes play by a different set of rules? Is that message really different than the reality that professional athletes are afforded certain privileges by society that the rest of us are not (Brett Favre, Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger)?
It's an interesting discussion but if the purpose of sports is to entertain us and PEDs provide a way for them entertain us more, maybe it is time for us to embrace their use in professional sports. Since the use of PEDs seems to be widespread, allowing their use in professional sports is possibly the only way to truly level the playing field. There will always be athletes who figure out ways around PED testing. Is it fair to punish the athletes who play by the rules since they are at a disadvantage against the ones who find ways to take PEDs?
If it isn't then professional sports need to do one of two things. Either legalize PEDs or impose even stiffer penalties on those caught using them. I'm not talking about a 50 game suspension, I'm talking about a lifetime ban. If we as fans believe that PEDs are detrimental to sports then let's make the punishment so severe that it actually deters athletes from using them. For those of you who feel this is too harsh, it really isn't any different than what would happen to most people if they were caught one time for felony use of a recreational drug. Most people would be terminated from their current job and have a difficult time finding new employment. Why should a professional athlete be treated differently?
Wow Paul, great topic and well thought out! Mike Mott and I have discussed this a lot in the past. My quick answers are:
ReplyDeletePED's are VERY BAD for professional sports. Yes, they send the wrong message to our children but society sends our children much worse messages everyday.
Have leagues and fans just accepted it? YES, I know I have.
If players want to risk thir own future health in the name of entertaining us fans as they make their millions, I say "go ahead" who am I to stop them?
I would advise against it but I would also advise against a lot of things people do. "To each their own", that is what I always say.
If someone is breaking the law I would like to see them get caught but I know that most people don't get caught. It is just "the way it is" we need pick our battles.
Treacher you are the Bud Selig of sports fans. If he took your stance on steroids we would still have guys hitting 60-70 home runs every year. We need these out of our sports or else all records won't mean anything. I wonder how many NFL players juice up? It's funny we always talk about baseball, but eventually a juiced up player is going to literally kill someone on the field! We don't want that either!
ReplyDeleteHow would yoy answer Paul's question's Mike?
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't know where I stand on this topic. I am very sensitive to what Mike is saying with regard to records but I believe that it is already nearly impossible to compare the accomplishments of players from different generations. When Babe Ruth played you didn't have 365 foot power alleys and center field fences were well over 450 feet. Modern ballparks allow for more "cheap" homeruns and since there is a trend to put fans as close to the field as possible foul territory has been greatly diminished in most stadiums which gives hitters more opportunities to get base hits or hit home runs. That is why Ted Williams' (not the homeless guy).400 season still strikes me as one of the greatest accomplishments in sports.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you Trescher. In fan surveys the general public overwhelmingly would like to ban PEDs but we want to see our athletes do things that have never been done before. It's impossible to have it both ways and as fans, I do believe we have just come to accept the fact that athletes use PEDs to a degree.