Sports are one of the most ubiquitous types of entertainment found in the world. In the United States sports make up the largest group of entertainment that we indulge in. Sports is the largest form of entertainment that we invest our time and lives in. Sports lowest on the totem pole (the NHL, Arena League, Minor League Baseball etc... ) are worth millions as teams and possibly billions as entire leagues. The Dallas Cowboys and the New York Yankees for example are both individually worth 1.85 billion dollars (according to Forbes). Think about that for a second, two sports teams are worth more than most states will spend on their education in a decade. Considering how much time and money the world invests in sports the outcry against Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDS) can be understood. With billions of dollars at stake you want to protect your product from any hint of indiscretion or cheating. Sports are meant to exemplify the best in human performance and many of us believe the use of PEDS undermines this integrity.
While many would have us believe that there is a fine line between cheating and purity in sports, the truth of the matter is that there is not. As time and sports science has progressed the line between cheating and purity has become more blurred. It is time we took a deeper look into how we understand PED’s and PE (performance enhancers) when it comes to sports. (If you have not part one of my Performance Enhancing series I encourage you to do so in order to get a complete picture what PEDS are and how they are defined in our society today.)
Our puritan idea of sports is encouraged by movies like “The Natural” and “The Blind Side”. We want to believe that sports are the culmination of hard work, dedication, and practice. A pinnacle combination of mind and body. This view casts a negative perception on PED’s and PE. They are connected not only with cheating the game, but also the process. The man who hits 760 homeruns on his own is a hero. One who does it with steroids is a chump, a cheater. This romanticized notion view of PE(D)’s in sports is seen through a rose covered glass and only becomes important when records are being broken and when titles are being won.
The reason I say this is not because of Lance Armstrong or because of the debacle that took place in Baseball known as the 90’s and 2000’s. While these are both good examples they are both too obvious and too big. You see, to show our selective hate of performance enhancers we need to avoid the obvious and look for the minute. We need to find a place where the only obvious reason for change was directly linked to a title or world records. For this we do not need to look farther than golf and swimming.
“Belly putter.” That is right “belly putter”. I remember sitting in my car driving to Knoxville on a lonely Saturday morning listening to radio personalities talk about a “belly putter” controversy in golf. For those of you who do not know a “belly putter” is a type of putter that allows a person to anchor into and pivot off of their core for greater control. This putter has been around for decades and while it has been a point of controversy, it has not been a threat until Keegan Bradley captured the 2011 PGA championship using one. After this victory the putter became so much of a threat that both the European and US governing golf bodies have amended their rules and bylaws to ban these putters.
Think about how ridiculous this sounds. (from what little I know I do understand some golfers believe that the only part of the body that should touch the club is the hands and that this is a part of golf and the skill involved. especially when it comes to putting.) With all due respect to golfers everywhere, this is ludicrous. You now have golf balls that have been scientifically engineered to cut through the wind better to reduce drag. You have putters that are created out of titanium for better control and drive. For heaven's sake how is a “belly putter” not just a showcase of ingenuity? Surely if I am allowed to use a driver that was designed in a lab to increase my driving capabilities by 20%, I should be afforded to use the ancient technology of anchoring something to my core for better control. Of course, as with many things in life, I am apparently incorrect in thinking this considering the rules have been changed, the only thing I really ask is why wait till right after the first major has been won using it?
This is not the only time recently that gear has been outlawed in a sport. Did you watch the Olympics this past year? By any chance did you watch any of the swimming events NBC shoved down our throats? If you did catch it you probably noticed that the swimmers no longer looked like reject Starfleet officers, but instead like swimmers once again (see pictures below for suits). The reason for the drastic change in wardrobe was not because of a scientific breakthrough, no, it was because the suits worn in 2008 were banned.
2012
The reason for the drastic change? No it was not because it took swimmers upwards of 40 minutes to get dressed. And no it is not because Star Trek sued. The simple answer is that the suits on the left were too fast. The suits from 2008 were giving swimmers an edge that was allowing them to make world records look like high school swim meet times.
While I do understand that it takes time for any governing body to implement changes, it is funny that they act only when records are being shattered too quickly. When athletes from days past are made to look inferior that is when we step in. These two examples create a perfect platform to show the larger issue surrounding PE(DS) in sports.
As I said at the end of my first PED post: “A PED is just a performance enhancer and context is the only thing that makes them permissible or not.” This definition holds true for sports, but more importantly the context that makes them permissible seems to be directly tied to records and championships. You see it just so happens that sports step in to change a rule only when it threatens to hurt their bottom line. Only when there is a chance that people will lose interest and stop watching do league's change the rules. Yes it is as you feared, what is permissible in sports seems to be directly linked to money...
In baseball we all want to say that we have never liked cheaters or performance enhancers, but that simply is not true. During the 60’s and 70’s players were so hopped up on amphetamines that they could have played for days at a time, all the while increasing their ability to focus in a game that is decided by milliseconds. Batters can use pine tar to get a better grip on the bat, but God forbid the pitcher use it to alter the spin/trajectory of the ball (even through the whole point of the game for the pitcher is to do his best to fool the batter using different pitches, spins, and trajectories).
In the modern sports world we are seeing an identity crisis as leagues struggle to keep up with developments in sports science and medicine. Sports firms spend millions of dollars each year trying to take milliseconds off a runners time; trying to make a pitcher's fastball a tick faster. All the while as a whole leagues are burdened with the task of trying to decide what development should and should not be introduced to their league.
Think for a second about a steroid shot taken to improve recovery or the infamous “elk antler extract” that Ray Lewis took to recover. Is the use of a drug for recovery permissible? If so at what point is it not?. At what point does a new piece of gear go from a acceptable development to an instrument of cheating detrimental to the game?
In sports the context that makes something permissible is tied directly to fan acceptance and more importantly revenue. Not to be cynical, but in sports the almighty dollar reigns supreme and it is only when fear that a new technology will interfere with the “integrity of the game” that it becomes forbidden. When records become mundane, a fan bored, that is when it is time for change and action. A new technology is fine if it does not directly break a record, or if it helps everyone perform marginally better. However if a new technology helps everyone become Babe Ruth or Michael Jordan then something is wrong and it must be banned.
There is something to be said about humanizing and devaluing sports too much. If something makes a sport seem mundane then the entertainment value and more importantly the challenge and mystique of it go away. With that said though we have to be careful where we draw the gray line. We have to make sure that we do not simply ban something because we do not like how it is changing the game. Sports are always evolving and we can not let our romanticized view of the past interfere with this. If you ask me we need to remember that context is what makes something forbidden or permissible and when it comes to sports we need to let the “good of the game” guide our context and not profit of the almighty dollar.
If You Enjoyed this article you will also enjoy: Performeance Enhancing Part OneProtecting The StudentsNot Guilty: Defending the Steroid Era In Cooperstown
Also as always if you enjoyed the article share it. If you disagred with it or just want to say something please express yourself by leaving a comment below.
No comments:
Post a Comment