2008 Woodie Awards
A closer look at steroids and HGH
Ben Nielsen
Issue date: 11/2/07 Section: Sports
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Human Growth Hormone worked brilliantly for Paul Byrd, didn't it? I mean, who can forget the fabled season of 2003 when he blasted 76 home runs, drove in a near record 184 runs and won the World Series MVP with his walk-off home run in game six. Now, with the revelation of his HGH use, all of that is tainted.
Wait, he was a pitcher? He's only struck out 100 hitters in a season three times in 12 years? This doesn't make sense. I thought steroids hit home runs? I thought HGH "improved" your performance beyond one's wildest dreams? I'm confused.
I understand the logic that steroids do enhance one's body, therefore, it enhances their play. What I do not understand is why people assume players receive some magical talent when one takes these substances.
They do not become better hitters, better defenders or pitchers. What they become is, in many cases, healthier human beings.
Consider what Mark Sisson, a former World Anti-Doping Agency official, said to Sally Jenkins, a columnist for the "Washington Post."
"Most people don't realize it, but training at the elite level is actually the antithesis of a healthy lifestyle," said Sisson. "The definition of peak fitness means that you are constantly at or near a state of physical breakdown."
"It's ironic that the professional leagues and the IOC, the ones who dangle that carrot of millions of dollars in salary or gold medal endorsements, are the same ones who actually created this overtrained, injured and beat-up army of young people. They don't care. These organizations then deny the athletes the very same drugs and even some natural 'health-enhancing' substances that the rest of society can easily receive whenever they feel the least bit uncomfortable. If you walk in a doctor's office and say, 'I feel terrible, I can't work,' he says, 'Let's fix you up.'"
This brings up an interesting point: at what point is denying athletes like Byrd, who are or were recovering from major surgery or suffering severe pain, medicine that will allow them to live a life with less physical strain become a negative thing?
Wait, he was a pitcher? He's only struck out 100 hitters in a season three times in 12 years? This doesn't make sense. I thought steroids hit home runs? I thought HGH "improved" your performance beyond one's wildest dreams? I'm confused.
I understand the logic that steroids do enhance one's body, therefore, it enhances their play. What I do not understand is why people assume players receive some magical talent when one takes these substances.
They do not become better hitters, better defenders or pitchers. What they become is, in many cases, healthier human beings.
Consider what Mark Sisson, a former World Anti-Doping Agency official, said to Sally Jenkins, a columnist for the "Washington Post."
"Most people don't realize it, but training at the elite level is actually the antithesis of a healthy lifestyle," said Sisson. "The definition of peak fitness means that you are constantly at or near a state of physical breakdown."
"It's ironic that the professional leagues and the IOC, the ones who dangle that carrot of millions of dollars in salary or gold medal endorsements, are the same ones who actually created this overtrained, injured and beat-up army of young people. They don't care. These organizations then deny the athletes the very same drugs and even some natural 'health-enhancing' substances that the rest of society can easily receive whenever they feel the least bit uncomfortable. If you walk in a doctor's office and say, 'I feel terrible, I can't work,' he says, 'Let's fix you up.'"
This brings up an interesting point: at what point is denying athletes like Byrd, who are or were recovering from major surgery or suffering severe pain, medicine that will allow them to live a life with less physical strain become a negative thing?
Be the first to comment on this story