So, Jason's on the juice...
Well, at least the first professional baseball player to admit to being on the juice is a Yankee. That is somehow gratifying. In any event, this raises at least one philosophical worry for me. What's wrong with steroid use in professional sports? I mean, you might think that there are a number of things wrong with professional sports in general, the insane money being made/spent on it, but putting those issues to the side, what's wrong with an athlete taking a drug to enhance his or her performance?
As far as I can tell, there might be a couple of options:
1. It's not natural, i.e., the athlete is not garnering achievements as a result of factors intrinsic to him/her.
2. It allows people unfair advantages.
3. Drug use is bad, steroids are drugs, ergo, steroids are bad.
Point #2 seems to be an obviously inconclusive argument against steroid use. In fact, although it might be the case that actual steroid use nowadays allows some unfair advantages, this might as easily be read as an argument for the complete legalization of steroids so that all have access to it. In addition, hard work and exercise give certain people advantages over others in playing professional sports, but no one is suggesting that that is unfair.
Point #3 might very well be true, but is not conclusive against steroid use in sports. Certainly, if we are judging the health affects of certain activities and determining whether or not they should be legal, merely PLAYING professional sports seems to be as bad/worse for your body than steroids. I mean, we all hear stories about former athletes in their 50s who can't stand up straight or walk. If professional sports aren't bad in themselves, it isn't clear that steroids are felled by argument #3.
That leaves us with #1. But I don't see how this works, either. Compare steroid use with, for example, intensive diet monitoring and painkilling medication used after practice. Certainly no one is clamoring for the elimination of cortisone injections. But are those any more natural than steroids? Surely not! I mean, why is the Curt Schilling procedure any more natural than "the cream"? And how is naturalness being judged here? Is it natural to monitor one's calorie intake to within a gram-per-day of protein, carbohydrates, etc.? I simply don't see it. And if, somehow, that is natural, it is unclear what the normative force of naturalness is supposed to be in the first place.
Anyone out there have any better arguments against steroids?
As far as I can tell, there might be a couple of options:
1. It's not natural, i.e., the athlete is not garnering achievements as a result of factors intrinsic to him/her.
2. It allows people unfair advantages.
3. Drug use is bad, steroids are drugs, ergo, steroids are bad.
Point #2 seems to be an obviously inconclusive argument against steroid use. In fact, although it might be the case that actual steroid use nowadays allows some unfair advantages, this might as easily be read as an argument for the complete legalization of steroids so that all have access to it. In addition, hard work and exercise give certain people advantages over others in playing professional sports, but no one is suggesting that that is unfair.
Point #3 might very well be true, but is not conclusive against steroid use in sports. Certainly, if we are judging the health affects of certain activities and determining whether or not they should be legal, merely PLAYING professional sports seems to be as bad/worse for your body than steroids. I mean, we all hear stories about former athletes in their 50s who can't stand up straight or walk. If professional sports aren't bad in themselves, it isn't clear that steroids are felled by argument #3.
That leaves us with #1. But I don't see how this works, either. Compare steroid use with, for example, intensive diet monitoring and painkilling medication used after practice. Certainly no one is clamoring for the elimination of cortisone injections. But are those any more natural than steroids? Surely not! I mean, why is the Curt Schilling procedure any more natural than "the cream"? And how is naturalness being judged here? Is it natural to monitor one's calorie intake to within a gram-per-day of protein, carbohydrates, etc.? I simply don't see it. And if, somehow, that is natural, it is unclear what the normative force of naturalness is supposed to be in the first place.
Anyone out there have any better arguments against steroids?
posted by dd0031 at 2:14 PM
3 Comments:
Dude, shut up.
Why do you hate America?
Seriously, Steroids are dangerous to the point of being illegal, like cocaine and jaywalking. And "kids look up to athletes".
Post a Comment
<< Home