I will preface my discussion with this story. This weekend the team I coach traveled to Arizona to play a conference game. We took the bus on this three-day excursion and the men’s team was also along for the ride. As I was doing the readings for this week I had to stop because unfortunately carsickness took over and I needed a break from the comput
er screen. I looked up and asked the men’s coaches whether or not, they would use performance enhancing supplements, thinking it would start an interesting conversation about the topic, where I could be the devil’s advocate and try and probe to get them thinking. Boy, was I wrong. I am not sure if I hit a nerve or if they didn’t like getting questioned, but the nice conversation I was anticipated turned into a one sided yelling match about creatin. YIKES. Thank goodness there are no more road trips this season and I know now not to try and have an intellectual discussion with overly competitive men.
Before the yelling match ensued, I was able to ask them each if they would use performance-enhancing drugs. They had mix answers, some saying, “no, never” and others saying, “yes
, if I could get away with it”. Interesting. The younger crowd said no and the older said yes…now why is that? The older coach spoke about how players now are much better athletes and he attributed this to diet, strength and conditioning, equipment, basically advancements in knowledge and technolog
y, which I tend to agree with. This raises the question that Simons brings up regarding allowing the advancement of knowledge and technology to be implemented but not performance enhancing drugs and where we draw the line. He also talks about the records being broken for performances and that if they are taking drugs; they are not achieving the same things on eq
ual playing fields. So if Henry Aaron set the homerun record with a wooden bat and Mark McGwire set it with an aluminum bat, regardless of drugs, wouldn’t the homerun record still be on different playing fields?
I would definitely say they are not on equal playing fields, but I also believe the record is still valid. In terms of equal playing fields, I think it’s safe to say that if Mark McGwire or Sammi Sosa played in Aaron’s day and they were as fit as they were when they played, that they would have not only set the homerun record, but it probably would’ve been a lot higher than 70; but those guys didn’t play back then, they play now were everyone has advanced and everyone is on equal playing fields as far as technology and knowledge, just like Aaron was on an equal playing field within his time. What I am trying to say is, it doesn’t make sense to compare players from different eras because of the advancements of the game and athletes, but because the athletes advance on a relatively similar scale the records they set are valid due to the advancement of the athletes around them.
This brings me to performance enhancing drugs. My initial reaction, like many others is to say they are absolutely wrong, and then I think if we are allowing these other performance enhancers in sports, then why not drugs as well? It is not as if these drugs will take an average Joe to a pro, but it will take an accomplished athlete to an elite athlete. I believe there will come a day when drugs will be allowed, but right now is not the time. Athletes are still developing and growing with “natural” enhancements but as soon as that plateaus, there will be a place for safe or controlled substances. For now, performance-enhancing drugs will remain a taboo subject and only time will tell how people react towards it in the future
.
rachelsthoughtsonsports 