On Steroids
I figured I'd throw out another bound-to-be-controversial opinion of mine.
I can't understand why performance-enhancing drugs are not allowed in competitions. I frankly don't see where one draws the line between them and other things people do to enhance their performance, such as exercise and diet and clothing/equipment. I'm sure some of you will post where you can see that line. I'm curious as to what it is.
Because if we are talking about the fastest human for example, then I think it is more fair to call the guy who wins running naked while having taken steroids than the guy who wins without steroids running in a sleek, skin-tight, wind-tunnel tested running suit and $500 custom-fitted running shoes. I am not suggesting we return to nude Olympics as in Greece -- there are obvious issues with that -- but I am suggesting that the equipment is less "human" than the steroids the first guy is taking. Steroids are chemicals taken into the body and becoming a part of the body. They become a part of the human who consumes them. This is no different than eating food. Food is a mix of chemicals every bit as much as steroids are. We are what we eat in a very literal way. We eat protein, fat, vitamins, sugars, metals, and other miscellaneous chemicals, and that plethora of stuff is exactly what our physical bodies are. How is it any less fair to take steroids than it is to eat lots and lots of eggs for the protein? I honestly don't see what the issue is.
Now, personally, I would never want to take steroids, because of the side effects. But maybe if I could win a gold medal, I would deal with the side effects. The athletes already make huge sacrifices.
So, dear readers, what am I missing here?
It is my hunch that this is just another example of the general population having some antique idea about biochemistry. We proved that there was no difference between organic and inorganic matter (by the old definitions of "from living stuff" and "from dead stuff", respectively) ages ago....
I can't understand why performance-enhancing drugs are not allowed in competitions. I frankly don't see where one draws the line between them and other things people do to enhance their performance, such as exercise and diet and clothing/equipment. I'm sure some of you will post where you can see that line. I'm curious as to what it is.
Because if we are talking about the fastest human for example, then I think it is more fair to call the guy who wins running naked while having taken steroids than the guy who wins without steroids running in a sleek, skin-tight, wind-tunnel tested running suit and $500 custom-fitted running shoes. I am not suggesting we return to nude Olympics as in Greece -- there are obvious issues with that -- but I am suggesting that the equipment is less "human" than the steroids the first guy is taking. Steroids are chemicals taken into the body and becoming a part of the body. They become a part of the human who consumes them. This is no different than eating food. Food is a mix of chemicals every bit as much as steroids are. We are what we eat in a very literal way. We eat protein, fat, vitamins, sugars, metals, and other miscellaneous chemicals, and that plethora of stuff is exactly what our physical bodies are. How is it any less fair to take steroids than it is to eat lots and lots of eggs for the protein? I honestly don't see what the issue is.
Now, personally, I would never want to take steroids, because of the side effects. But maybe if I could win a gold medal, I would deal with the side effects. The athletes already make huge sacrifices.
So, dear readers, what am I missing here?
It is my hunch that this is just another example of the general population having some antique idea about biochemistry. We proved that there was no difference between organic and inorganic matter (by the old definitions of "from living stuff" and "from dead stuff", respectively) ages ago....