Baseball has endured a huge controversy as of late concerning the use of steriods by players to increase their athletic ability beyond natural talent and hard work. I completely understand the anti-drug stance professional sports place upon their players for one simple reason -- they want to ensure that the person they are paying large sums of money will be clear of mind and able to perform superbly when the time comes.
Then I read an article today (quite old, from the March 2005 "Wired") that described the Tommy John surgery. For the rest of us not up to date with surgical procedures or baseball stars -- Tommy John was a pitcher for the Los Angeles Dogers who incurred a potenitally career-ending torn ligament in his left elbow. John decided to go through with an experimetal (at the time in the 1970's) surgery to repair the ligament. The surgery consists of drilling holes in the humerous and ulna bones at your elbow, opening your wrist to remove a tendon, then taking the removed tendon and weaving it through the previously drilled holes in a figure eight. After a stint in rehab therapy you can now throw faster than ever! Since Tommy John's surgery, this type of procedure has become quite common place in sports medicine to fix ligament damage.
Great, right?
Well what happens when an up and coming baseball player decides to have this surgery BEFORE any ligament damage is done for the sole purpoase of increasing their athletic ability? Do we allow those willing to go under the knife to improve their athletic skills participate with the natural ones? Do we then disallow anyone coming back to baseball after having this surgery for legitamate reasons (to correct an broken or streched ligament)? In effect, both outcomes are the same. You still have a person with increased athletic ability regardless of the reason the elected to have the surgery in the first place.
I find these interesting questions to ask ourselves. You cannot fault a player trying to reconstruct their previously failed ligament -- yet, they still are at an advantage over the natural players. And the idea of purely elective surgery to enhance oneself isn't too far off. We already improve looks through surgery, why not ligament tightness or even using stem cells to recreate muscle tissue allowing a 35 year old quarterback with all his maturity to run like he is 20 again.
Laser eye enhancement also helps athletes. Increasing visual ability allows for a quarterback to aim more acurately and allows a hitter in baseball to correctly gauge the incoming pitch. Yet, laser eye enhancement is allowed.
The convergence of sports and medical science will continue to provide ways for the average joe to become the super man of any sport. My question to you -- Should we allow this sort of enhancement?
dont agree witht hat either
If you wish to post you opinion, please support it with SOMETHING -- a reason, facts, religious beliefs -- anything would be better than just a blanket opinion that means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
I do appreciate your comment, but it is incredible frustrating for those of us trying to spur debate and discussion when you add nothing to the discuss.
Well I think neither way is fair. It's not fair that he should be allowed to play, while someone who just does it for the heck of it can't. Sure it is sad that the guy hurt himself, but it is still cheating.
So should we disallow ANY reconstructive surgery in sports?
-- in essence most surgery performed will return the patient to a much better athletic ability than they enjoyed prior to an injury. Where do we draw the line?
Eye treatment is different then steroids though. It is not illegal either.
I'm sorry but I much rather see some guy get up there and knock the the ball out of the park then watch some boring game. These men still have to work hard , train hard just as long as they don't over do it with the steriods I think what the hell ,it's their body's and they can be checked by a Doctor on a regular basic.It's not cheating it just helps you work harder.even if all of them did steriods some are still going to be better then others. So what is the big deal?
I think the biggest problem with steriods lies with the players who DON'T want to take them. For these people, they are at a constant disadvantage because they choose not to take a drug to enhance their performance. In a way it would almost force all players to comply and take drugs in order to remain competitive.
In addition, for a team manager it is more about health and well-being. Sure steriod takers could be closely monitered by a team doctor to prevent possible harmful side effects, but there are still the unpredictable, almost instantaneous ones -- stroke, heart attack, etc. No one wants their player on the field to fall over and be rushed to the hospital. An example of this type of control over players to ensure their health reaches pretty far -- i.e. many teams don't allow their players to ride motorcycles or won't cover their salary if they hurt themselves doing something outrageously dangerous (skydiving). And you can't blame team owners and managers for feeling this way. Think about how much they are willing to spend to have a superstar on their team. They want these people in the BEST shape possible!
I think the surgery is a bit different though. Surgery isn't something that many will flock to (at least not with our current medical technology) in order to gain an advantage. It's far more invasive and requires down time during recovery. If you are willing to bet your career on a doctor and his scalpel -- go ahead. Models and actors do it all the time.
Its the same idea.