 Email
 Print |
From Viagra to steroids
Condemning drugs in sports is hypocritical.
Baseball player Barry Bonds, who broke the major-league home-run record this summer, is said to have used steroids and amphetamines, and so fans usually jeer when he enters a stadium. Sports and artificial performance-enhancing measures simply don’t mix—well, except in the Tour de France. The 2006 winner, Floyd Landis, may still have his title stripped from him, after tests raised suspicion. Doping is why the legendary cycling event’s popularity is waning considerably.
The use of steroids and other drugs is against the rules and therefore wrong. But isn’t this collective disgust just slightly hypocritical? After all, in the rest of society, performance-boosters have become increasingly commonplace. People take Prozac so they can better manage psychological pressure. Students take Ritalin to improve their grades. Middle-aged men take Viagra to spice up their sex lives. Shy people take Paxil so they can handle social situations. Writers, musicians and other artists take other stimulants to stand out in their fields. Where are the strict rules and doping tests when it comes time to hand out diplomas or Grammy awards?
The essence of sports, critics say, would be damaged if we tolerated drugs. But in reality, play has long been corrupted by the big bucks, which also helped introduce the concept of “unfair competition.” Still, aren’t steroids and blood doping unhealthy? Yes, but so are a lot of other things: Prozac, Ritalin, alcohol, caffeine, aspirin…
In modern society, athletes have become heroes. Sports stars aren’t so much role models for society as reflections of it, albeit reflections with exceptional talent. Athletes take performance-enhancing substances mainly as a consequence of our sky-high expectations and the huge commercial interests involved.
Ultimately they are part of the same achievement-oriented society we are, in which the use of stimulants has become normal. The appropriate response is not moral outrage, but a relaxing of the enormous pressure we put on them: Just do your best, son. That’s all you can do.
| Tools:
Discuss
| Email
| Print
| RSS
| Weekly Newsletter Save/Share: |
I completely disagree with Marco Visscher’s assessment and comparison of drugs being used to enhance sports figures and drugs being used to aid anxiety, depression, ADD/ADHD, and other psychological disorders. He calls the “disgust” against steroid users in sports hypocritical as he makes statements such as, “students take Ritalin to improve their grades,” and “People take Prozac so they can better manage Psychological pressure.” Has he ever had a child who is ADD or been clinically depressed or suffered from anxiety disorder?
How can one compare the two types of drug use? One is for competing in; let’s face it, a highly lucrative and star building arena, while the other helps individuals cope with their own lives. The Prozac taker, for depression or OCD, is not looking to “win” and take home a 40 million dollar salary, they are just managing their life.
One other assertion Mr. Visscher makes that I take issue with is that “sport stars aren’t so much role models for society as reflections of it.” While I agree, that being human, they too are reflections of society, it is false to state that they are not role models. In a field where one is paid hundreds of times more in salary than your basic professional, where you are interviewed and quoted in newspapers, magazines, and on TV, and sometimes on shows like The Tonight Show, of course these athletes, being in the limelight are role models. They may not have started out with that intention, but it is a part of their job, because to be a pro athlete is to be in the spot light and therefore it is a moral obligation to realize they are now role models.
Carey Perez
posted by careyperez on 9/27/2007 2:53 pm