For $250 million, would you take performance-enhancing drugs?

WFW.

I brought up Lasik surgery to my girlfriend when I was explaining my thoughts on the ARod situation last night. I think Lasik surgery, in a way, is worse. Who knows what is next? Eyeball implants? I mean, seeing the ball better is a bigger plus than being able to hit it an extra six feet.

 

But I do agree that LASIK surgery is much more "performance-enhancing" than steroids. Maybe somebody with a medical background (DocTalk?) could explain the difference between steroids and elective vision surgery as far as performance enhancement is concerned.

 

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but IMO it's such a ridiculously absurd hypothetical, although I should expect nothing less from the bozos at ESPN.

Because if you were in a position to make $250M by taking PEDs, you'd probably already be a filthy fucking rich ballplayer to begin with.

Is ESPN asking me if I'd rather be
a) Me
OR
b) A-Rod

Uh, B please.

 

I asked a buddy yesterday if PEDs made him a better teacher, would he take them? He would

If steroids made me a better journalist, a stronger writer and guaranteed me more scratch, I'd take them. I'll worry about the consequences after I enjoy the benefits.

 

Right. And that doesn't absolve ARod taking them, but it makes it understandable. Especially in light of him looking at the culture of baseball.

The way I look at ARod and 'roids is this: He was keeping up with the Jones' - as someone said elsewhere - and it was the only way he could ensure/insure (I'm drunk and can't remember the proper one) he would continue to be thought of as the greatest player of his generation.

Now, I think he fucked up. I think he would've gone down as the greatest player ever, especially if he was never named. But while I fault him to a degree for fucking up, I can also understand why he did it. And since I assume most professional athletes take steroids or something similar, I don't fault him all that hard.

 

Greed and insecurity got the best of him. He had everything going for him -- depending on when, and if, he started taking them -- so the drugs really weren't necessary. That's what sucks about his situation, Bonds' and plenty more of them.

 

I agree on all counts. Greed and insecurity are two dangerous, dangerous drugs.

 

You can change that last sentence to read "culture of America."

Watch a game on TV, you'll see PEDs being advertised. Can't get a boner? We got a pill for that. Can't sleep? Got a pill for that. Got to take more piss breaks than you did 10 years ago? Got a pill for that. Want to lose weight without exercise or dietary changes? We got a non-FDA approved pill for that.

 

Yep.

We sure don't hold ourselves to the same standard we're trying to judge A-Rod and other ballplayers on. Obviously, they know what they're getting into as far as their celebrity status but it doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

 

So, no contacts or glasses, either then, right? Surely, they must enhance your performance, if you know, your vision needs correcting.

 

The line needs drawn somewhere.

Also, what about the amount taken? It sure as hell seems like Bonds took about 10x the amount Joyner had taken.

 

Depends on how you define "take."

If it's one shot in the ass and done (as some speculate A-Rod did) to satisfy the criteria, sign me up.

If it means mainlining the shit for a decade like Chris Benoit or Lyle Alzado, count me out.