Ghost of Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 I don't have much time, but I figured I'd ask something that has been on my mind for a bit. What exactly is the objection to performance-enhanching substances/techniques? And does the line blur between normal living and athletic competition? I can formulate one pretty solid objection to steroid use and that's the pressure it puts on otherwise good athletes to do long-term damage to themselves to measure up to the 'artificial' level. People talk about the 'integrity' of the game, but Jim Thorpe didn't have access to the 'legal' supplements, substances and nutritional and physiological science athleted have today. Is it 'unfair' that an athlete at a Division I top program gets better training than a Div 3 athlete(or a Div I in another sport?) Currently, tests of the Insulin Growth Factor on mice have yielded incredible results. This is potentially something that could reverse aging(not necessarily skin appearance but everything else.) The mice not only became stronger, faster and more agile, but they didn't lose their current levels as they aged. And the best part is, there don't appear to be any harmful side effects. Maybe someone like Jordan COULD play until they were 50. Would that be a bad thing, necessarily? Imagine a future where "bad knees" or "career-ending injuries" were a thing of the past? Would we put asterisks next to the athlete's name in the record books? WOuld there be a different standard for normal people who were taking advantage of such substances? Should athletes refrain from benefitting their long-term health and their career so that some fans can feel the game is more 'pure?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.