A New Kind of Political Muscle

New at Reason: Jacob Sullum asks the unaskable about steroids in pro sports.

Comments

[josh]

Those who worry about the slippery slope of legal steroids are ignoring the muscle-bound elephant in the room - athletes already DO use steroids. Thinking athletes will stop just because you (or the pres) say "don't do it" is just plain hubris. It also adds to its appeal - it must be really good if they feel a need to outlaw it to keep things "fair."

Secondly, the "NASCAR effect" won't happen - as anyone who has actually trained for a sport should know. Big muscles don't always enhance performance. Being able to bench an extra 100 pounds is not going to do much to improve your game, unless your game is weight lifting.

I train at a boxing gym. I am in better physical condition than many of the fighters I spar with. I can lift more, do more chin-ups, and have a better overall physique. It means nothing. I still get whacked around the ring by skinny 20 year olds.

Lastly, steroids already ARE prescribed by doctors and used by people safely. Granted, it's for actual ailments as opposed to gaining muscle mass, but so what? Motive doesn't change toxicity.

As to the actual dangers of steroids, I don't know who to believe. The 'experts' are always trying to have it both ways. They say they give an athlete an unfair advantage, while at the same time say steroids impair performance, especially when it comes to endurance. So to justify the 'cheating' aspect, steroids makes you better. But to deter use, they then say it actually makes you worse. Which is it?

And what about Creatine? Isn't that unfair?

[Paar]

"Victory would be determined by the extent to which an athlete was willing to abuse drugs, rather than by talent, etc."

The point, A of B, is that athletes have even less to do with their "talent" than they do with their drug consumption choices. If you're going to withhold praise and acclamation from all those whose accomplishments rely on "unfair advantages," you're going to have to withhold it from everyone.

[JDM]

"If you're going to withhold praise and acclamation from all those whose accomplishments rely on "unfair advantages," you're going to have to withhold it from everyone."

Who's talking about praise?

[Jason Ligon]

Gadfly,

Here is all the reason you'll ever need. Asparagus - the anti drug.

http://www.asparagusfest.com/eatingcompetition.htm

[jim]

So a 12 year old female gymnast should take massive doses of a testoterone analog so that she may compete with the 15 year olds?

[J. Alexander Lowman]

Apparently, a lot of people that have been posting don't know a whole lot about steroids or sports. I know a doctor who would totally prescribe me steroids and not feel unethical about it if they were legal and I actually had a chance to become a professional athlete. The risk from taking steroids, as the article says, is way overblown.

Besides, as josh stated, athletes already DO USE STEROIDS. It's not like nobody does and if they were suddenly allowed that everyone would start and all the HS and college athletes couldn't keep up. WTF are you talking about? HS and college athletes already do take supplements. They may not be anabolic steroids (although I'm sure many do), but they're drinking weight gainer shakes, they're ingesting creatine, etc. Hell, when I was a swimmer in HS we took plant extracts that were supposed to increase your blood's ability to carry oxygen. Were we cheating?

[joe]

"If you're going to withhold praise and acclamation from all those whose accomplishments rely on "unfair advantages," you're going to have to withhold it from everyone." Only if you define all advantages as "unfair." Taking performance enhancing drugs is less like having longer legs, and more like starting before the gun goes off.

The argument "but they're already taking steroids" is a variant of "prohibition doesn't work," and is inappropriate in this case. If you have a population that has to submit to testing on a regular basis, prohibition can certainly work. Not a good policy for the citizenry as a whole, but perfectly reasonable for those people who get to earn $millions for playing a game.

[Robert Hutchinson]

But if their innate abilities do not negate their accomplishments, why would their use of artificial enhancements that are available to everyone?

Which feat would you be more impressed by--someone multiplying two 4-digit numbers in their head in 5 seconds, or something accomplishing the same task in 5 seconds by using a calculator? Furthermore, to bring the issue of modern training equipment etc. into the analogy, wouldn't you still be more impressed by the former person even if she has also spent years learning all sorts of shortcuts for multiplying numbers in her head?

The best athletes are admired for their innate talents, and are admired for the time and effort they put in to become the best, not for their finding a way, any way, to shave a few seconds off of a record.

The irony is that legal restrictions and league bans on steroids discourage athletes who use them from seeking medical guidance, so they're more at risk than they would be if steroid use were permitted. As with recreational drugs, prohibition makes steroids more dangerous, not less.

This argument, utilitarian at best when dealing with an unjust government restriction, doesn't hold up at all in the context of a private organization's rules. The athletes agreed to the rules when they signed on--any future lack of medical guidance ultimately rests on their shoulders (ignoring the legal factor, of course).

[rst]

So a 12 year old female gymnast should take massive doses of a testoterone analog

There's a difference between taking a testosterone analog and taking massive doses of a testosterone analog. And besides the fact that the hypothetical athlete is a child, a professional adult athlete should be able to choose to take performance enhancing drugs unless the organization or league - not some silly government - disallows it. The competitive advantage of compounding one's body with extra chemicals is functionally no different than a human being born secreting too much of the chemical in the first place, which is arguably an existing congenital condition under which athletes excel.

Steroids are harmful when abused which, for you prohibitionists who have forgotten that word, means excessive use above and beyond safe dosage.

[josh]

I'll repeat: you guys know absolutely ZILCH about what it takes to be a successful athlete.

The calculator analogy is way off, as is the starting before the gun. How so?

If one athlete eats like crap and another eats 'smart,' is the smart one cheating? He's giving himself an advantage. So is the athlete who gets to bed early instead of drinking at night. Is the early to bed guy cheating?

Assuming steroids improve performance (again, this is not a given, especially depending on the sport), how is a steriod regimen different from any other means of training supplementation? How are they different from Gatorade (which I drink, while many of my sparring partners stick with water. Am I cheating?), Creatine, vitimins, whey protein, Powerbars, etc?

And wouldn't the (supposed) performance improvement negate at least some of the (supposed) harmful side-effects? Example:

Maybe if I were taking steroids, I'd be a better boxer and my ribs wouldn't have gotten cracked while sparring. How many injuries would I avoid?

[Gadfly]

Golf, I think, is the only sport where chemicals don't help. Maybe pool...

[JDM]

The most important point is the one most missed by the pro-drugs-in-sports advocates here. In a metaphysical sense, athletics have nothing to do with records or winning. They are entirely aesthetic.

The danger in allowing an anything goes approach to drugs, blood doping, etc. is that the league would become an more an exercise in who's willing to take the biggest risks with drug use, an arena which is entirely outside of what makes sports worthwhile, rather than what people want it to be about.

When I see an NFL quarterback stand in the pocket, and deliver a perfect pass in spite of the 275 pound linebacker who runs a 4.4 40 crashing into him with bad intents, it is far far different kind of risk taking and ability I'm admiring than would be the case if I were thinking - "wow, now that guy isn't afraid to take dangerous amounts of performance enhancing drugs."

Stop immanentizing the eschaton.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"Stop immanentizing the eschaton."

That's real catchy. Can I use for a bumper sticker?

Question: If he were real, would it be moral to ban the Incredible Hulk from the NFL?

[Josh]

JDM:

I'm not missing anything.

1. Success in sports isn't determined by who's willing to take the most risks. It's who takes the most rewarding risks. BIG difference.

2. You are assuming that bigger risks with drugs will equal bigger payoff. That is not reality. That's not how drugs work, regardless of whether they're taken for medication, performance, or recreation.

3. "When I see an NFL quarterback stand in the pocket, and deliver a perfect pass in spite of the 275 pound linebacker who runs a 4.4 40 crashing into him with bad intents, it is far far different kind of risk taking and ability I'm admiring than would be the case if I were thinking - "wow, now that guy isn't afraid to take dangerous amounts of performance enhancing drugs.""

How would steroids help the quarter back in this instance? Being able to lift heavy weights does not translate to coolness under pressure, accuracy, timing, or technique.

Steroids might prove beneficial by adding weight, which could help prevent injury when the linebacker slams into him. Do you find injuries admirable?

Regardless, you're too late. He probably isn't afraid to take perfomance enhancing drugs. He quite likely already is.

So explain to me, JDM, why an athlete whose crime is to be less admirable in your eyes, deserves to be put in a cage?

[thoreau]

I know zilch about sports. But there is one aspect of this discussion that I like a lot:

So often, somebody on this forum will say "I don't like such-and-such practice of that private person, or business, or organization, or whatever". Others will jump in and start saying "It's a private business! Let the owner decide. It's none of our business." A slightly more intelligent response will be "Let the market decide." But that response misses the point that the poster is in fact part of the market, and he's deciding that he dislikes something so he won't patronize that business.

In this thread everybody is basically acknowledging that sports associations should have the right to ban or allow steroids, and they're arguing about whether or not that would lead to better athletic competition. In other words, they're discussing whether or not they would voluntarily patronize a business association that voluntarily allows or disallows certain practices (in the hypothetical case of the government butting out).

[JDM]

Josh,

Perhaps you should read what I wrote, make a better guess about what I'm saying, then try again.

Douglas,

I say ban the Hulk!

[Russ]

So a bunch of people voluntarily get togther to organize a sporting league, and they come up with a bunch of rules by which they agree to abide. The rules cover both "on field" aspects, like how many time-outs you get to use, as well as "off field" aspects, like when you have to declare your roster for the season.

One of the rules is that athletes mustn't use any of the substances on a specified list. Some do, some don't. Some of those that do get caught, some don't. Some of those that get caught get punished, some don't. Some people are happy with the status-quo, some aren't.

Some of the people who aren't happy, decide to speak up about it. They talk to other people, who talk to even more people. One of those people lives in the White House. He takes the opportunity to tell everyone how he feels about it. Then everyone starts talking about it.

So fucking what.

Things will change, or they won't. Some people will still be unhappy, some will still fail to give a rat's ass.

In the end, unless I see an act of Congress dictating to the bunch of people how they can or can't operate their league, count me in the group that doesn't give a rat's ass.

[thoreau]

Russ-

I have a 3-letter word for you: FDA

I don't know the precise laws (as opposed to private league regulations) regarding steroids and sports, but I do know that most (all?) steroids require a prescription. If Bush is commenting on steroid use he isn't just some average citizens and sports fan voicing an opinion. He's the man in charge of the regulatory apparatus. His comments on steroids are in fact everybody's business.

[josh]

JDM:

OK, I read it again. I'm understanding your post to mean this:

If steroids are allowed, everyone will take steroids. Once everyone is taking steroids, they will need to find something else. This something else wil automatically be unhealthier/riskier.

Not only that, but it would be a bummer if every athletic achievement was tainted by the use of steroids.

Sorry, am having trouble figuring out what else you could mean.

Re the Hulk, he shouldn't be a problem so long as no one pisses him off. But ultimately the choice is up to the poobahs in charge of the league. Same with roids.

[C L]

Who is the deformed guy in the picture?

[Xmas]

Umm...yeah...

I think I'm gonna have just say here that injecting and ingesting steroids are bad ideas.

But more to the point of the article, first, I don't think a doctor would even come close to ethically supporting the use of steroids simply to increase muscle mass in an otherwise healthy person.

Second, if steroids were legal and allowed in professional sports, we would then run into what I'll call the NASCAR problem. Simply put, whatever athletes that can afford the latest and greatest drugs and training will vastly outperform others. The sports' authories would then have to regulate what drugs could be used, on what regimen, with what training in order to preserve any sense of competition (like you have in NASCAR, where the specifications and equipment used on the cars are heavily regulated). Heavy monitoring and regulating of the athletes' drug use puts you right back where you started before you allowed steroid use, so there is no real gain.

Third, and most importantly, allowing steroid use for professional athletes requires steroid use for high-school, amateur and collegiate athletes. Otherwise, non-professionals will never be able to move into the professional world as they would be woefully undersized without following the same steroid regimen as the professionals. Considering the small number of prime working years for the majority of athletes, you cannot force the non-professionals to spend a few years bulking-up.

[Gadfly]

I've always wondered why they test for the performance enhancing drug, marijuana.

[MadPad]

I gotta agree with Xmas on this one. I can cede the libertarian viewpoint of letting someone do as much as they can with as little government intervention as possible - if you want to power down steroids to bulk up have at it.

But as far as introducing them into competitive sports goes, I think that's probably not a good idea.

But as a matter of law, aren't the steroids bans in most sports decided and enforced not by the federal government but by individual commissions and organizations that govern the competitve rules anyway?

[Phyllis Schafly]

Since professional sports were started up by the unholy alliance of robber barons and prohibitionists to keep the masses busy with something beside getting drunk and fornicating it seems that steroids is just the next step. It's all a stupid waste of time and money anyway.

If folks are stupid enough to let their kids take them, or allow their kids' coaches to give them so they can have the next Dennis Rodman or Kobe Bryant, then they should be allowed to do so.

[JDM]

If performance enhancing drugs were allowed in sports, almost no one could compete without them. Victory would be determined by the extent to which an athlete was willing to abuse drugs, rather than by talent, etc. In effect, athletics in leagues which allowed carte blanche drug use would become more drug taking contests, and less sport. I can see the appeal in that to libertarians.

Maybe the LP should reinvent itself as a sports league for libertoids. It could introduce the sport of Liberball which could consist of sitting in the participants' grandmothers' basements and smoking pot.

Also, the government shouldn't be involved in banning drugs from sports.

[Steven Crane]

The NHL, at least, has had no trouble with people using performance-enhancing drugs. There's been many a drunk.. but generally, the league is pretty sporting.

[AJMB]

Steven Crane has obviously never heard of Sudafed.