|
On one view, I can see 'roids as a continuation of development in sports; such as new training techniques or equipment improvements. There has been alot of changes in the tools and preparation that athletes have to work with in innovating and evolving the game. I've old newspaper articles where people of the time were critical of Babe Ruth's record because it came at a time when the balls have been changed, so this type of consideration has been happening over a long period of time.
That said, I am against 'roids and other performance enhancing drugs and here is why. What sports is, in its essence is a challenge of human condition. We try to see who is fastest, strongest, which team cooperates best, and so on. To what extent can we adapt a body beyond what they were genetically limited to and still feel we are watching a human challenge. It becomes a slippery slope, and probably one we already are sliding down. As an entertainment, such is fine, but sports does go beyond that. It is an accomplishment of an entire group of people. There are (to my estimation) only three things that can really bring a population together to some extent; war, tragedy and sports - only one is positive. I watched the DVD of Pride of the Yankees the other day, and that kind of sentiment has been taken from sports. If one can look at the movies and cultural tales of this generation, I doubt it would be as "golden" as earlier sport events even with the records falling as they are. 'Roids are a short-term gain against long-term payback, and that type of win-at-all-cost attitude is a major problem with sports today, IMO.
|