Say It Ain't So


I get my news from ESPN.

I know, I know, but the CNN "Ticker of Terror" just gets me so damn depressed. I'd rather listen to color commentary on the latest women's collegiate softball game than hear about the implications of bird flu on U.S. foreign policy. Call me provincial.

If you spend any amount of time with Stuart Scott and Company, you're innundated with steroid stories. Barry Bonds. Floyd Landis. Justin "Say-it-ain't-so" Gatlin.

In essence, I believe there are two sides to the steroid debate, and I'm not sure which side I'm on.

Side #1: Everyone else is doing it, so I have to do it too.

Athletes argue that they'll have no shot at titles, endorsement deals, and trophy spouses if they're deprived of performance-enhancing drugs. The competition is taking super pills, and if the "I-want-to-be-clean-but..." athletes don't join in, they'll have to resign themselves to has-been status.

Side #2: Steroids are wrong. They provide an unnatural advantage, allowing weekend warriors to achieve elite-level performances without hard work. Drugs are bad!

The puritans of sport insist that we can turn in world-class performances without drugs.

If we assume the first argument is true, steroids are now an accepted part of the competitive landscape. They're implicitly endorsed by the athletes that use them and the lax testing standards of the organizations that run sports.

If the second argument is true, a complete and total ban on performance-enhancing drugs should be put in place. No one would have access to testosterone cream, dianabol, human growth hormone, or EPO. Those who test positive would receive a lifetime ban from their chosen sport.

Here comes the gray area. Some performance-enhancing drugs are sold over the counter, in places like GNC and your local Rite-Aid. They're not as potent as Wisterol, but they provide the same function.

They allow athletes to train longer and harder, reaping greater benefit than baseline human physiology will allow.

I take three of them myself. EPA/DHA, whey protein, and creatine monohydrate. All three of these substances came from my local mall. They aid recovery and energy production under load. They increase my ability to move more weight more often.

Maybe they should be banned too.

The macro-issue at play is one of social acceptance. Fish oil, protein, and creatine are widely accepted and widely available. No one has ever said: "Jon, I can't believe you're on that fish oil. That sh*t will screw you up." My substances are "okay".

They're accepted because they don't have horrible side-effects, and they don't cause the dramatic increases in performance attributed to anabolic steroids. Regardless, I know they've accelerated the realization of my athletic potential, just like steroids.

Maybe the issue isn't so black and white. It becomes a matter of degree. Some is fine, but too much is too much.

In today's article on the Crossfit main page, Malcolm Gladwell advocates setting limits on acceptable levels of banned substances rather than banning them entirely. He argues that this would stall the evolution of banned substances, because athletes wouldn't seek new and undetectable drugs if they were allowed to use the ones already in existence.

Essentially, Mr. Gladwell is encouraging us to reset the baseline of human performance. From "natural", we go to "ever-so-slightly-enhanced".

His argument makes great sense from a policy perspective. It's easier to reset the rules to existing conditions than to try and alter reality. We let them use what the use now, but no more than that.

This is the same argument made by those who stand behind the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Everyone's using it anyway, so let's be rational and adapt our laws to accomodate victimless use.

Unfortunately, rational thought and moral standards don't always mix. Ideally, we'd ban this steroid use, because it constitutes cheating, plain and simple. Rationally, we set limits on it's use, because it's going to happen anyway.

As I stated, I don't know where I come down on the issue. On one hand, I think steroids are wrong. They de-value hard work and dedicated effort. I think taking legal supplements does the same thing.

I certainly don't want to credit creatine for my athletic successes--I want to credit perserverence and full-throttle workouts. Can I? The argument can be made that I'd be a lesser athlete without my pills and powders.

On the other hand, if it will make me that much better, do I have an obligation to maximize my potential through a combination of drugs and hard work? If I accepted anything less, would I be short-changing myself?

I want to cry everytime I see one of my heroes struck down, accused of doping. Justin Gatlin meant a lot to me. Some guys had Superman, I had Justin.

He would beat other world-class athletes in the 100 by 10 feet! It's the equivalent of winning the Masters by 20 strokes, or the Tour de France by 100 miles.

It was beyond impressive.

Justin existed in another world. He was running on a different track than the other guys, blasting through at a whole new echelon of performance.

Now he's running on the same track as a guy named Floyd and some assh*le named Barry.

I may switch back to CNN...

Photo courtesy of espn.go.com.