View Full Version : Druggie Athletes

December 3rd, 2004, 10:48 AM
This question from CNN.com today:

"Should records be stripped from athletes if it's proven they used banned substances?"

Using Barry Bonds as an example, he took the Most Homeruns in a Season title, then beat it again. If he used steroids one season but not the other, do you strip his homerun title? Which one do you strip if you do? What if he did, but he did it unknowingly (as the case may turn out to be)...

Also, Do you take away all those home runs for that season? This has particular implications, because he is only a few away from beating Babe Ruth's AllTime total, and then 41 away from having the all time homerun record. Does he deserve to have that title if you strip one of his seasons records from him?

Hard choices....

December 3rd, 2004, 10:58 AM
People make choices, and unfortunately, bad ones. Athletes know what they are doing, they know the rules, they know what they got themselves into. I do believe in forgiveness however, but tell that to all the people that really did give all their best efforts without cheating. These people are not misinformed of the consequences, if they decide to violate the rules, they are bound to the consequences. If that means losing their hall of fame title, i'm very sorry, but that's how it goes.
In the case of stripping away scores from seasons past, there is nothing we can do about that, it happened, it's in the past, we should leave it there, we can't go back in time and just erase all that and have rematches.

December 3rd, 2004, 11:15 AM
This question from CNN.com today:

"Should records be stripped from athletes if it's proven they used banned substances?"

Hard choices....

Most top athletes misuse drugs in their training programmes from time to time these days. As a number of top British politicians, law enforcement officers and social workers have commented recently - we appear to be losing the battle against drugs.

What is needed is a total social rethink, and I for one am not holding my breath on that one.

December 3rd, 2004, 11:54 AM
First, let's not confuse steroid use with the larger drug war. I don't think these two issues are directly related. If you are going to use them as synonomous, explain how you are getting there. Steroids have only recently been considered illegal. They do not appeal to the mass public as their usage is specialized. Unlike other illegal drugs, steroids are intended to enhance performance, not behavior.

Second, the question of Bonds, Giambi, et al. is a matter of cheating. This is sports, though, not a classroom test or a science experiment. Cheating is a part of the game. There is a talk show host who sums it up pretty well, "If you're not cheating, you're not trying and it's only cheating if you get caught." Well, two, three years ago, Bonds and Giambi may have cheated, but didn't get caught. If the guy with the corked bat gets away with it, good for him. How many times in a football game does an offensive lineman hold? How many times does he get caught? If, after the game, video review shows the o-lineman cheating, should his team be penalized retroactively? I know the o-linesman's act occured during the game and is a different type of cheating than using steroids. On the other hand, let's remember that this is sports and we shouldn't get into the habit of changing records when guys do things illegal, socially unacceptable, or have been found to cheat.

Finally, the bigger question is what baseball will do with these guys now that they have been caught. It has been proposed that their stats get erased. Ok. You know my take on that. Does that mean they should also be banned from the game? If their actions are so detrimental that we should consider them personas non grata, then shouldn't the game make a consistent statement and ban them outright? I would say, they got caught, and they should be penalized. The penalty should deal with the present and future. The past is history and should remain alone.

December 3rd, 2004, 03:32 PM
I actually agree with SK here...

Still using Bonds as an example (simply because of the records he's obtained, he's arguably the most extreme case in the news), the use of steroids was inexcusable. Now, obviously, that stance may change somewhat if the "unknowingly" part of the story turns out to be true.

The way I see it, if you're a professional (insert sport here) player, you know the rules; you know what you can and cannot do to enhance your performance. As far as steroids only recently becoming illegal, that's the point. If you were to look back at Barry Bonds's career record, his performance has hit a dramatic spike only recently; meaning, he hasn't always been the Bonds we see now. So, my answer would be "No." Don't take away all his records, don't even take away the recent ones. Until either A) Bonds admits to illegal steroid use outright, or B) it can be proven some other way, what he's earned is his. As far as the future goes, though, I wouldn't want to see him with the ability to continue to ignore the rules of the game. If I had a say, I'd vote for a ban.

If we screw up badly enough at our jobs, we stand the chance of getting fired, right?

December 4th, 2004, 01:34 AM
It all comes down to human nature. Rewards (money, fame, self esteem etc.) vs. the chance of being caught and the punishment. Increase the chance of being caught to near certainty and the punishment to Draconian, change the human mindsetset from amoral to moral, then perhaps all this bother will become history. In the case of cheating - recent records and medals should be recinded, historic miscreants recorded and publicised.

January 4th, 2005, 04:48 AM
Using Banned Substances Has Long Been A Question Of Debate.
Some People Believe That In Case It's Proved That An Athlete Has Used Substances, He Should Be Punished Severely.i'm In Favor Of That View.
However The Question Is That Whether Supervision On Using Banned Substaneces Is Strong Or Not. Do Supervisors Manage To Stop Or At Least Curb To Some Point Using Of The Substances?
It's Clear That Supervision On Substance Abbuse Is Limited To The High Ranked Athletes. If You Break A Record Then You Are Exposing To Doping Control. So, Do We Assume That Drugs Are Consumed Only Among Top Athletes... That Is, Not. I Believe That Drug Abbuse Is Exercised Much More Among Low Ranked Atlethes Then It Is Among Top's. However They Usually Don't Face Any Control.

I Believe That, Banned Drug Practices Is A Great Problem Not Among Top Sportsmen But Among The Rest. However Supervision On Banned Substances Is Not Adequate. So Many Athlete Do Better Than They Have To. And Many People Make Money When They Bet On Them.

January 4th, 2005, 04:51 AM
Money and the thought of fame are often corrupting influences.