Recently, the
issue of the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports like baseball has
been a predominant topic nationwide. On
one hand, some argue that steroids are good for the game. They are better
because it is more entertaining to watch players who are at their physical,
muscular peaks play against each other. The more homeruns are hit, the more
money teams make because of higher attendance ratings. On the other hand,
however, others argue that steroids should be banned from baseball. People say that steroids ruin the integrity of
the game and cheat clean players who will never be as good as ‘roided up
players. Also steroids are bad for your health. In sum, the issue is whether
steroids should be allowed through a business standpoint or if they should be
banned from an integrity standpoint.
My own view is
that steroids should be banned. Although personally I would not mind seeing
games where the strongest men hit and throw the ball as hard as humanly
possible, I know that it is morally wrong to allow the usage to run rampant
through sports. It would be unfair to those who wouldn’t use steroids and we
can’t stand by and watch sports players destroy their bodies for our
entertainment. This issue is important because baseball is our national pastime
and there have been records set over the past 200 years. If cheaters were to
break these, it would destroy the set clean image the sport has for itself.
How do the proponents of steroid use deal with the fact that steroids are *illegal?* Are they essentially arguing for a legalization of 'roid use? Also, if we allow for the use of enhancements, where does it stop? This is related, I think, to the topic of transhumanism and also to the definition of sports. Are they designed to highlight human accomplishment or merely to entertain? When does an enhanced player--by drugs or otherwise--become something more than human? And what impact does that have on the essence of sports?
ReplyDelete