Still More on Steroids

[lhynard]

I never thought I would have so many posts devoted to steroids, but I do....

Last time I brought them up was in light of Dr. Paul Bloom's talk on my campus.[1] Bloom found from his studies that it was primarily the fact that most people think most people think that steroids are cheating, not that they actually logically came to that conclusion

Comments

[thefaeway]

Consider, then, a sport such as auto racing or perhaps downhill skiing/long jump sort of thing where the sport itself is probably more dangerous and damages the body more than steroids.

Should they still be illegal in those sports where the inherent risk of sport is greater?

[lhynard]

good question

I'm not sure though that steroid use would give an advantage in downhill skiing, though. :)

[mallon04008]

One of my favorite podcasts is EconTalk. A few weeks ago, the interviewee mentioned Schelling's hockey helmet dilemma as an explanation for a point he was making. I was not familar with this problem, so I looked it up. It comes from a paper by Thomas Schelling called "Hockey Helmets, Concealed Weapons, and Daylight Saving: A Study of Binary Choices with Externalities" This argument is that in the NHL, people getting their brains bashed in was a big problem, and everyone knew the solution was to wear a helmet. Yet virtually no one did. The reason was that, although it was unquestionably safer, there was the risk of appearing less macho or (a more practical concern) having one visibility limited by a helmet. The answer was that they would only do it when the league mandated it. The steroid situation in sports strikes me as being an analogous one.
I know economics is not your favorite subject, but you may enjoy the EconTalk podcast. Sometimes it is about dry and technical thinks, but often it is about about social subjects, like

[lhynard]

The steroid situation in sports strikes me as being an analogous one.

I'm missing the exact analogy.

[mallon04008]

I mean analogous in the sense of similar situations (or the sake of clarity, I'll use steroids in baseball as opposed to sports in general):

1. Both not wearing a hockey helmet and using steroids in baseball presented clear and increased risk.

2. In both cases, there was something to be gained by participating in the more risky activity (or at least a perceived gain...for this example, it doesn't matter)

3. Players who wanted to refrain from the more risky activity felt unable to do so as they would be putting themselves at a disadvantage (again, real or perceived, not relevant here)

4. Thus, many to all players participated in the more risky activity until the league prohibited it.

My posting was is support of you statement:
However, if one person is taking steroids, this forces all the others to also, if they wish to compete. It is indirectly forcing all the athletes to harm their bodies.
I think I should have mentioned that before :-)