A drugged up conversation: Steroids in the Bigs

We may have a blog together, but given our choice of teams, we are always going to agree to disagree on certain issues – see Williams, Bernie below for example… but one area where we really agree to disagree is very current – the steroid debate.

We had a recent IM exchange setting out our positions, and we have set out that debate below. As you will see, that debate goes back and forward, and uses extremes to try and make our points, but hopefully you will enjoy the back and forth.

To set the scene we have each made short ‘opening’ statements, followed by that discussion. Please join in using the comments feature – we are genuinely interested in hearing as many sides of the debate as possible.

RS Neil: My position is based on a belief that no society should impose limitations on its members, unless that limitation is to protect other members of that society – not individuals from themselves. I don’t believe that outlawing steroid use in baseball protects society as a whole; therefore I believe that players should not be subject to any penalties for steroid use over and above that which any other member of society is subject to.

NY Neil: Where as I believe that society should take measures to ensure the safety of its members. Performance enhancing steroids are not good for the body and we elect governments to manage our lives to the best of their abilities and if they believe that these drugs are to the detriment of human beings then they are right to outlaw it. I’m all for outlawing tobacco as that has no obvious benefits but it in so entrenched in society that banning it would be nigh on impossible, performance enhancing steroids though they still have a chance with so I am all for outlawing them completely.

NYN:
Steroids should not be used for performance enhancing purposes – period!
RSN:
That is where we disagree – Advil © is a performance enhancing drug, no one is shouting ban that?
NYN:
Why should some players play fair, but get beaten by guys on drugs?
RSN:
Then ban every drug, ban every supplement - heck ban weight lifting - genetics aren't fair after all. In the post-season, Curt Schilling could not have pitched game 6 against the Yankees without drugs - why is that fair but ‘andro’ isn’t?
NYN:
Painkillers are not performance enhancing drugs
RSN:
He couldn’t have performed without them – isn’t that a dictionary definition of performance enhancing?
NYN:
No, it is masking the pain - it isn't making his body 'better' than it naturally would be
RSN:
Without taking those drugs, he couldn’t have performed - to me that is enhancement. If Player X takes steroids to mask the pain from his arthritis, or uses them to mask age related muscle pain from his workouts, is that ok?
NYN:
If that was the only side effect, it would be ok, but it isn't. Painkillers have one positive effect on the body, masking pain for a brief amount of time
RSN:
Do we know with enough certainty that steroids are performance enhancing or not in a baseball context? If I take steroids briefly, helping me rebuild muscle after an injury, is that ok?
NYN:
If baseball players take drugs, and win over those who don’t, then they have an unfair advantage.
RSN:
I work for a bank, if I take some form of drug, and it helps me stay up late and work harder on a deal than the guy at A.N. Other bank that isn’t using, and my bank wins a deal based on my choices – is that any different from the steroid using baseball player? If not, why should the baseball player face additional penalties?
NYN:
Cause and effect argument, and it could go on and on. Look, I am against steroids period, apart from for prescribed medical use, heck I am against ALL drugs unless they are prescribed.
RSN:
My argument here though is that society has made choices on certain drugs (tobacco and alcohol) that are not consistent with the current posturing on steroids. We have significant evidence that tobacco and alcohol cause real damage to the user and other members of society, but do nothing about them. We have no real evidence (sample sizes seem to be too small to draw real evidence) that steroids impact the long-term health of users, and very little evidence that it impacts other members of society (allowing for individual impact of ‘roid rage) – yet we want to ban these drugs because it may affect how we look at a HR record?
NYN:
We do have evidence that steroids impact the user – immune system breakdown, failings in joints / ligaments etc, that are unable to support ‘abnormal’ muscle load. I do not like the idea of the human race possibly being affected because some athletes are taking risks to hit balls further or to run quicker. We do not understand the long-term effects of performance enhancing drugs so why should we allow them? We have no evidence to prove that they are safe whereas we do have evidence to the contrary.
RSN:
We all seek advantages in every aspect of our lives – and make choices to support that every day - that is human nature?
NYN:
I like to watch professional sports, and see a fair competition, knowing that all the athletes involved are ‘clean’. You think that everyone has the same choices and that is fine, but I think sometimes society does need to look after its own. Steroids are not good in the long-term for your body, and athletes should not be using them to gain an advantage over fellow athletes in whatever way. If they are banned then you see a better spectacle knowing that everyone is equal and are not essentially causing self-harm to do better at their chosen pursuit.
RSN:
I don’t think you see a better spectacle, you see a different spectacle - if it was better without steroids, then (and this is an assumption I don’t know that I accept) we wouldn’t be seeing people chasing records, and others getting upset about whether they are clean or not. We have no idea what people were taking in the other decades, they were never tested, so who knows, it is just that society has gotten more puritanical about these things. We know that baseball has changed - Ruth never had to face a single non-white pitcher, and yet no one argues that his records are tainted.

At this point it was decided enough was enough for one night and we proceeded to argue about Johnny Damon's beard, but that is another debate for another day.