11/23/24
January 14, 2004
'roid rage; that explains it.: McEnroe claims he was unknowlingly taking horse steroids for six years. No horse comparisons were forthcoming from Tatum O'Neal.
Yeah, garfield - I also thought the most interesting thing about the article was Agassi's comments - to the effect of "why are people [McEnroe] choosing to discuss this issue"? McEnroe should be commended for speaking out about what he knows considering how it could tarnish his legacy. This is presuming Mac is telling the truth, that it happened without his knowledge or consent. I wonder, at the risk of making an inflammatory statement, about other big players like Becker and Lendl, who grew up playing in Europe, where there was possibly a more lax approach (or should I say aggresive approach?) to drug use and abuse?
posted by vito90 at 10:39 AM on January 14, 2004
I know that we have had a variety of discussions at SpoFi regarding drug use, and I realize that this poll is hardly scientific, but I find it interesting that only about 12% of the respondents change their opinion about McEnroe based on the revelation. 
Do people really care that much about steroid use in sport? Are we fooling ourselves in pretending that there is such a thing as "pure" sport?
posted by smithers at 10:54 AM on January 14, 2004
I think the problem with doping is that not everyone does it. If everyone was juiced, let the best juiced athlete win...we're almost to that point now...but don't fool us and other competitors into thinking its au naturel. btw, I voted with the majority in the above poll.
posted by garfield at 11:53 AM on January 14, 2004
I don't think people care that much, but it's an easy opportunity to pass judgment on someone famous, and who can pass up an opportunity to do that?
posted by rcade at 11:55 AM on January 14, 2004
Maybe Mac is preparing for a run in the Kentucky Derby. Snort!
posted by worldcup2002 at 12:28 PM on January 14, 2004
We expect our heroes to be supermen and then when they do what it takes to be supermen, we turn our noses up. We're shocked... SHOCKED, that a man with biceps the size of our thighs isn't just a genetic freak but that he might be juicing. Listen. These guys take tremendous physical risks by taking steroids or most any enhancing drug. That, as far as I'm concerned, is punishment enough. And if I can come up with something that does the same thing as ten horse steroids, but it's not on your banned list I can get away with it until you legislate? It's foolish. Sports for the last forty years have regarded enhancement drugs with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy and it's been good enough for grampa.
posted by forksclovetofu at 08:14 PM on January 14, 2004
Funny aside: Tonight at the Staples Center as the Lakers took on the Nuggets, a sideline reporter interviewed Jimmy Mac. Guess who was at his side. One Tommy Lee. The funniest thing is that they seemed to be wearing the same outfit.
posted by lilnemo at 12:12 AM on January 15, 2004
forksclovetofu: the point of banning certain substances in sports is not simply that they convey a performance advantage for someone who uses them over someone who doesn't. If that were true, protein would be banned. Substances are banned because they convey a performance advantage and are harmful to the user. Think about it. You've got a substance that gives a performance advantage, but that increases your chances of having a heart attack at the ripe old age of 26 or so. Some dumb or desperate person uses it, figuring that that Olympic gold medal is worth the risk...and what about their competitors? They have two choices: stay clean -- which, depending on the substance, could effectively mean no longer being competitive -- or risk their health or life. That is not a choice that an athlete should have to make. It's not about an unfair advantage; it's about creating a situation where people don't have to risk their lives to get a level playing field.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:11 PM on January 15, 2004
It's not about an unfair advantage; it's about creating a situation where people don't have to risk their lives to get a level playing field. lil_brown_bat: I disagree. For example, consider marijuana. It is hardly a lethal substance, and in fact in some contexts it is considered to have medicinal benefits. Yet it is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Why? Presumably because it allows an athlete to assume a more tranquil state that would serve as a performance advantage. Yes, there are some substances which will do serious harm to the athlete when consumed in vast quantities. However, when seen in the context of these other substances on the list, and when WADA's slogan is "Play True", I can only conclude that gaining an unfair advantage is what the whole thing is about.
posted by smithers at 04:11 PM on January 15, 2004
Hang on a sec, smithers -- I wasn't saying that WADA bats 1.000; in fact, it's my contention that they're like any bureaucracy and in terms of their day to day operations (and a lot of their policy formation) have forgotten their original guiding principle which is as I stated: ban drugs that are a)harmful AND b)convey a performance advantage. Marijuana is an excellent example of a drug that fails to meet both criteria, and that WADA should most emphatically not be concerning itself with. That does not, however, mean that the answer is to throw up your hands and say, "WTF, let the best pharmacist win!" Do that, and you'll get exactly the situation I described. The problem is that, by banning substances such as marijuana, WADA doesn't have a moral leg to stand on. They have to redo their lists and their policies to be strictly consistent with the basic principle of harmful AND performance-enhancing, and then they will be in a position to do some enforcing.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:48 PM on January 15, 2004
brownbat: wasn't my point. I think that there SHOULD be rules banning most drugs. My point was that it's hypocritical to demand the most of our athletes and then be appalled if they take drugs. The rules are good to be in place. Public opinion towards your hero, however, shouldn't alter when you discover that superman is popping pills. And the response to that poll seems to support that theory.
posted by forksclovetofu at 09:12 PM on January 15, 2004
lil_brown_bat: I understand your arguments, and to some degree I agree with them. I just can't seem to shake the feeling that there is a fundamental shift beginning to take place in terms of social acceptance.
posted by smithers at 09:41 PM on January 15, 2004
We're a Medicate Society, and it extends to every manner of disease or illness, behavioral problem, cosmetic deficiency, or athletic shortcoming. Rather than face the problem or accept the limitation, we'd rather pop the pills. So yes, there has been a fundamental shift. The question is whether that shift should be accepted and incorporated into law, or if it should continue to operate outside the law.
posted by dusted at 10:56 PM on January 15, 2004
Presumably because it allows an athlete to assume a more tranquil state that would serve as a performance advantage. I tried playing basketball stoned a couple times. All it did was make me wander off the court to the snack machine for Twinkies.
posted by wfrazerjr at 12:01 AM on January 18, 2004
wfrazerjr: hoops+booze = good....hoops+joints = bad
posted by smithers at 12:11 PM on January 18, 2004
After the cocaine revelations, this isn't that shocking. But what's with Agassi acting like a snookered salesman: "Well, you try to find the understanding in why some people choose to say the things that they do and in reference to those specific quotes or admissions, I am not quite sure who that benefits."