on cheating | River Is All Wet

First, read this (another quality post from Josh).

As for performance enhancing drugs (p.e.d.), I certainly can't disagree with Josh that they probably get used a lot more than we'd like to think. where i don't totally agree, though, is in thinking that these guys do things that can't be done otherwise.

Have you ever watched the Shaolin monks (the real ones, not the movie guys with wires and special effects)? Or other martial arts experts who compete at a high level? I seriously doubt there is much p.e.d. use in those activities, and the things they do seem inhuman, nearly impossible.

The point is, I think the human body is capable of far more than the average person can really conceive of. What is impossible for us, is largely impossible because we're out of shape, we don't train our minds or our muscles, and we're too busy tapping on keyboards and eating donuts.

So while i think the drugs are fairly pervasive in some sports (the NBA is likely pretty clean, and those guys do stuff that defies logic), I also think that there are real performers who are clean, and they perform because they are naturally talented and gifted, and it's their job to hone their skills.

If your average joe made it his full-time job to run faster and jump higher, and had an expert staff of trainers, sure, he would never be Beltran or Cemens or Kobe, but he would be far more than the he probably thinks he could.

So why the drug use? Because most of these people are already performing at a very high level. The drugs are not necessarily about turniing a bad player into a great one, they're about giving a good or even great player that edge. The 5 or 10% extra to compete, win more. It says as much about the drive to win, the value of competition and victory over all else–winning the game as well as the contract, the TV time, etc–as it does about our desire to be entertained.

Comments (5) Add A Comment

October 25, 2006 12:02 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Great post by River, great post by Josh. And any sports post that talks about Shaolin Monks deserves a lot of reads. When Mark McGwire was hitting 70 homers, everyone believed he was, shall we say, aided chemically. A bottle of Andro was even found in his locker. But Andro was legal then and everyone liked McGwire. So he was a great guy and it was OK. It wasn't until he made his shameful appearance before Congress that everyone turned on him and, of course, he was long gone from baseball by then. Rafael Palmiero? He lied. Off with hi s head. Barry Bonds...very few ever really liked him so his body transplant was quickly met with derision and suspicion. The guys who played the media well, had a lot of leeway. No one played the media better than Pete Rose. Everyone believed he was juiced while he was playing. But he was Charley Hustle and everyone loved him. And then he gambled on baseball and he became Charley Hustler and was disdained and dismissed. As you say, we want to be entertained, we want to cheer performance wherever it comes from. But don't lie to us.

Arthur Pincus

Total Comments (790)

October 25, 2006 12:47 PM ET

Yep, lying is the evil no one can take.

River, I totally agre, the human body can do amazing things. And the roids only elevate the good to great, and the great to amazing...but I think the avg joe on the street really doesn't care that their are roids at all...he just wants to sit back and watch amazing things no matter how they happen.

And in the world where we are always trying to top the last feat with something more amazing, roids is an easy way to make that happen.

I wonder if Bonds had just said, "Yep, I took them. I felt pressure to be the best, and I was getting old and didn't like that...so I took some things to stay on top. It wasn't agains the rules of the game at the time, and I took a calculated risk with my body." Would we all hate him? Or would we be impressed with his honesty?

Josh

Total Comments (5881)

October 25, 2006 12:56 PM ET

josh's question is a good one except...Barry Bonds ever being willing to say that is about as likely as me hitting 74 hr next season. On the other hand, how could his image be worse than if he did come 'clean'. Impressed with his honesty? Probably not. Willing to let him play and not boo his every move? Probably.

October 25, 2006 02:39 PM ET

True, but Bonds has always been hated...he's just an all around prick...

What if we replace Bonds in his current situation with Big Mac? And then he comes clean? I think people would be like, "Well he did wrong, but he fessed up, and he seems sorry..." And the story would fade.

At least in my hypothetical universe it would.

October 25, 2006 02:50 PM ET

If you put (Not So) Big Mac in position to offer a real explanation--not an apology--absolutely the world forgives and forgets. Now all anyone can rememer is that **** at the hearings last year. Pretty dumb.