The Dope on Drugs
The Governing Board of 327 Words wants to suspend me for using performance-enhancing drugs. Traces of caffeine, marijuana, and alcohol have been found in my urine—as well as my coffee cup, bong, and shot glass respectively. Without admitting using these substances, I categorically deny that they have enhanced my performance—and I think the evidence speaks for itself. So while it blathers on, I’ll just sit here quietly and listen, and try not to bother anyone.
Why shouldn’t athletes be allowed to dope themselves up, anyway? Isn’t the ability to ingest massive amounts of pharmaceutical enhancements a measure of physical prowess, too? I’m definitely impressed by someone racing up the Alpe d’Huez; but being able to shoot oneself up with steroids on a regular basis is pretty amazing, too.
Some would say that it’s not fair to use performance-enhancing drugs in athletic competitions. But if everyone were allowed to use them, then no one would have an unfair advantage. The person who could stomach the most drugs would be no different than the one who could suffer the most training.
Of course, doing drugs is bad for athletes; we want to protect them from hurting themselves. But playing football, or riding bulls, or racing NASCAR cars is dangerous, too; maybe drug-taking should just be considered another occupational hazard.
I don’t find the “purity of the sport” arguments very compelling, either. Any competitive activity is going to be tainted; the kids in Mimi’s 3rd grade class already cheat in kickball and two-square.
Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right; maybe, though, if you add up hundreds of wrongs, you at least get an “acceptable.”
If Floyd Landis turns out to be guilty of using banned substances to win the Tour de France, then I have a two-part reaction.
First, I’ll be sad he was so careless as to get caught.
And second, to alleviate that sadness, I’ll be turning to my own stash of banned substances.
Why shouldn’t athletes be allowed to dope themselves up, anyway? Isn’t the ability to ingest massive amounts of pharmaceutical enhancements a measure of physical prowess, too? I’m definitely impressed by someone racing up the Alpe d’Huez; but being able to shoot oneself up with steroids on a regular basis is pretty amazing, too.
Some would say that it’s not fair to use performance-enhancing drugs in athletic competitions. But if everyone were allowed to use them, then no one would have an unfair advantage. The person who could stomach the most drugs would be no different than the one who could suffer the most training.
Of course, doing drugs is bad for athletes; we want to protect them from hurting themselves. But playing football, or riding bulls, or racing NASCAR cars is dangerous, too; maybe drug-taking should just be considered another occupational hazard.
I don’t find the “purity of the sport” arguments very compelling, either. Any competitive activity is going to be tainted; the kids in Mimi’s 3rd grade class already cheat in kickball and two-square.
Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right; maybe, though, if you add up hundreds of wrongs, you at least get an “acceptable.”
If Floyd Landis turns out to be guilty of using banned substances to win the Tour de France, then I have a two-part reaction.
First, I’ll be sad he was so careless as to get caught.
And second, to alleviate that sadness, I’ll be turning to my own stash of banned substances.
posted by Professor Dave at 12:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home