Steroids, Lasik Eye Surgery, and sports

**HighandWide** · 12-09-2006, 04:49 PM

For my gradschool pre-theses I compared the use of steroids to lasik eye surgery in sports. For the longest time I have always wondered why one was legal and the other was not. Note this was before it was made illegal. Basically the reason steroids are not allowed in sports is because it creates and "unlevel playing field." It is a "preformance enhancer."
My 25 page paper was presenting lasik eye surgery under the same light. You are doing something outside of what is "natural" for a person, in order to preform better. It is amazing to see the research done on how baseball players batting averages increase for pre to post surgery by almost 32%. The testimonials sound exactly like one of a steroid user. Those how are baseball fans know that this is a HUGE swing in performance. This increase can be seen in all sports including football, basketball, and volleyball.Yet one is illegal and one is not....interesting!!??
Any comments and concerns on this idea....

**Snrf** · 12-09-2006, 04:57 PM

I think thats a daft comparison, one is a medical procedure with no negative health repercussions and which is merely levelling the playing field for those born with a disadvantage, the other are self-prescribed drugs with side effects (which will discourage some) so it doesn't level the playing field, it makes it more unfair.

**cfiler** · 12-09-2006, 04:58 PM

I want to use both. Haven't had lasik yet, but depending on what's happening with my military application I may be getting the military to pay for my surgury.

I hate having to wear glasses, and with improved vision, I know that I could perform much better physically in sports.

**Jack Rabbit Slim** · 12-09-2006, 05:01 PM

I think it goes beyond the performance enhancement. As you know whatever sports idols do, so do the kids who idolize them. Basically, if my favorite sports guy does steroids why can't I? Thats what kids think, therfore will do. Also lasik eye surgery side effects are nothing close to what aas side effects are, especially in kids. The way you compare the two, just as performance enhancement alone, I agree, its the same but I think it goes beyond that for legality purposes. just my 2-cents

**HighandWide** · 12-09-2006, 05:05 PM

Yes but it is your personal choice to take steroids ...shit smoking cigs or dip or drinking can have side effects too...And for the sake of "medical procedure" isn't it true that a doctor can perscribe steroids....

Which brings me to my point. They are both medical procedures. I wouldn't say those 6'6'' 180, with a mom at 6'0'' 115 and a dad at 6'6'' 185 have a "level playing field" with someone with must leaner genetics.....would you? So steroids would

merely levelling the playing field for those born with a disadvantage

As you know whatever sports idols do, so do the kids who idolize them. Basically, if my favorite sports guy does steroids why can't I? Thats what kids think, therfore will do.

and you guys are looking to far into it because I can just make the arguement for kids and tabacco and we can start going around and around in circles

**Jack Rabbit Slim** · 12-09-2006, 05:22 PM

I may looking to far into it, but any gov. or sports industry is not just going to make steroids legal or ok to use in a sport based just on a comparison to lasik eye surgery. They will look at all aspects and ramifications it will have on the sports players and public alike.

**HighandWide** · 12-09-2006, 05:50 PM

I agree with you completly but just find the arguement intersting and one that you can really defend....this arguement reminds me alot of the debate between marijuana and cigs or alcohol

**HighandWide** · 12-09-2006, 06:01 PM

http://www.slate.com/id/2116858/

a good read on the topic

**Snrf** · 12-10-2006, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by HighandWide

I wouldn't say those 6'6'' 180, with a mom at 6'0'' 115 and a dad at 6'6'' 185 have a "level playing field" with someone with must leaner genetics.....would you? So steroids would

so steroids would what?

And who's got a 6'0 115lb mom anyway?

I can just make the arguement for kids and tabacco and we can start going around and around in circles

what argument for kids and tobacco?

Dude based on your spelling alone I'm amazed you managed to write a grad school paper, as far as I can tell you based it on a slate.com article, well done!

the two are completely different, this argument is ridiculous, and whats with the

and you guys are looking to far into it

We're looking too far into it? You saying your grad paper is only meant to stand up to the flimsiest and most superficial of examinations? What school did you go to? I can't imagine it would be very good if they'd take some half-baked argument comparing proven medical procedures correcting congenital deformities (because thats what vision problems are) with the self-prescription of illegal, possibly dangerous steroids.

The two are a million miles apart, yeah that little bit in the article about whoever it was using those lenses to give him supranormal vision could be compared to using steroids (without all the healthrisks/side effects), but there is no real argument against the use of them being adopted by all players (once again due to lack of risk/side effects from contact lenses).

Anyway that article isn't comparing illegal steroid use with lasik, its comparing Mark McGwires use of (legal) androgel with lasik....

I can't see the comparison at all.

**Foskamink** · 12-10-2006, 07:16 AM

hey, can people without glasses get this surgery to improve there vison if they already have good?

sorry im just always interested in stuff like this

**NotSmall** · 12-10-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Snrfmaster

I think thats a daft comparison, one is a medical procedure with no negative health repercussions and which is merely levelling the playing field for those born with a disadvantage, the other are self-prescribed drugs with side effects (which will discourage some) so it doesn't level the playing field, it makes it more unfair.

Agreed, one of the daftest I've ever heard in fact.

**STYLE74** · 12-10-2006, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Snrfmaster

so steroids would what?

And who's got a 6'0 115lb mom anyway?

what argument for kids and tobacco?

Dude based on your spelling alone I'm amazed you managed to write a grad school paper, as far as I can tell you based it on a slate.com article, well done!

the two are completely different, this argument is ridiculous, and whats with the

We're looking too far into it? You saying your grad paper is only meant to stand up to the flimsiest and most superficial of examinations? What school did you go to? I can't imagine it would be very good if they'd take some half-baked argument comparing proven medical procedures correcting congenital deformities (because thats what vision problems are) with the self-prescription of illegal, possibly dangerous steroids.

The two are a million miles apart, yeah that little bit in the article about whoever it was using those lenses to give him supranormal vision could be compared to using steroids (without all the healthrisks/side effects), but there is no real argument against the use of them being adopted by all players (once again due to lack of risk/side effects from contact lenses).

Anyway that article isn't comparing illegal steroid use with lasik, its comparing Mark McGwires use of (legal) androgel with lasik....

I can't see the comparison at all.

I am very impressed with your view on this subject snrf and you bring up many good facts.

**NotSmall** · 12-10-2006, 10:12 AM

The article on slate.com is crap as well, it states that natural vision is 20/20, 20/20 is just a benchmark, many people naturally have greater than 20/20 vision anyway.

Besides that the comparison is just absurd, the reason steroids are banned in competitive sports is surely because if they were allowed where would it all end? - You'd have guys just trying to outdope one another and the results could be catastrophic, the same is hardly true of corrective eye surgery.

I also don't believe you wrote a 25 page paper about this HighandWide, if you did then post it.

**Snrf** · 12-10-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by NotSmall

I also don't believe you wrote a 25 page paper about this HighandWide, if you did then post it.

I would also like to see this paper!

**Snrf** · 12-10-2006, 04:30 PM

for this 25 page paper, I wanna read it!

**UpstateTank** · 12-10-2006, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by HighandWide

For my gradschool pre-theses I compared the use of steroids to lasik eye surgery in sports. For the longest time I have always wondered why one was legal and the other was not. Note this was before it was made illegal. Basically the reason steroids are not allowed in sports is because it creates and "unlevel playing field." It is a "preformance enhancer."
My 25 page paper was presenting lasik eye surgery under the same light. You are doing something outside of what is "natural" for a person, in order to preform better. It is amazing to see the research done on how baseball players batting averages increase for pre to post surgery by almost 32%. The testimonials sound exactly like one of a steroid user. Those how are baseball fans know that this is a HUGE swing in performance. This increase can be seen in all sports including football, basketball, and volleyball.Yet one is illegal and one is not....interesting!!??
Any comments and concerns on this idea....

I see where you're coming from for this paper...Yea I see the points everyone else was making not favoring your topic of choice, but I think its kinda interesting...nothing like ruffling some feathers!

**HighandWide** · 12-10-2006, 07:51 PM

I will post it after I recieve my grade. This will give me times to make my edits so it looks good for all ya. And i didn't use the gay as slate.com article as a reference. Just something i read awhile ago that got me intrested. References included interviews with facilty and researchers, comprensive studies, scientific journals. And I only assessed the POSITIVE EFFECTS of both. I made it clear in my paper...mainly to save my ass and not sound so pro AAS that steroids should be banned. It was for a sports law class and was called a pre-thesis. I guess it means it was just practice for my real one next year. I was just comparing the positive effects of both on sports performance

And hey F*cker who is critiquing my spelling on a steroid forum. Sorry im not proof reading and spell checking. I'll be sure to do so in the future

And don't worry about my grad school....Just know that I'm getting paid to go there
And also know that at the grad school and professional level admin enjoy and admire students who think outside the social norm.

And I know what congenital deformaties of the eye are and I explained that but mostly focused on the degradation of vision because that is more common

**bigfish** · 12-10-2006, 07:57 PM

I think that anyone who has used steroids no it's not fair. If I played sports still at any level I would not do them. I just couldn't live with the fact that I had to do them to succeed. I do think lasik could help a player be better. In high school I can remeber like 2 times that my contacts popped out during the game and I player very different from there on out. thank god I was near sighted playing football. But we all know steroids are a big unfair advantage. imagine having to fight yourself on juice while you're not, you'd get your asses kicked or shit ask your girl who she like to have sex with you or you on juice.

**collar** · 12-10-2006, 08:43 PM

i hear baseballers take gear anyway.

**Snrf** · 12-11-2006, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by HighandWide

I will post it after I recieve my grade. This will give me times to make my edits so it looks good for all ya. And i didn't use the gay as slate.com article as a reference. Just something i read awhile ago that got me intrested. References included interviews with facilty and researchers, comprensive studies, scientific journals. And I only assessed the POSITIVE EFFECTS of both. I made it clear in my paper...mainly to save my ass and not sound so pro AAS that steroids should be banned. It was for a sports law class and was called a pre-thesis. I guess it means it was just practice for my real one next year. I was just comparing the positive effects of both on sports performance

And hey F*cker who is critiquing my spelling on a steroid forum. Sorry im not proof reading and spell checking. I'll be sure to do so in the future

And don't worry about my grad school....Just know that I'm getting paid to go there
And also know that at the grad school and professional level admin enjoy and admire students who think outside the social norm.

And I know what congenital deformaties of the eye are and I explained that but mostly focused on the degradation of vision because that is more common

I wasn't critiquing your spelling, I was pointing out you seem unable to put forward a decent rebuttal that actually made sense

I can just make the arguement for kids and tabacco

So steroids would

and you guys are looking to far into it

see? what kind of rebuttal of our arguments is that?

And anyway your spelling errors weren't merely of the "hit the wrong key" variety, for example you repeatedly spelled performance wrong.... It's hard to believe you wrote a 25 page paper on "preformance enhancers" without learning how to spell it.

**zimmy** · 12-11-2006, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Snrfmaster

I think thats a daft comparison, one is a medical procedure with no negative health repercussions and which is merely levelling the playing field for those born with a disadvantage, the other are self-prescribed drugs with side effects (which will discourage some) so it doesn't level the playing field, it makes it more unfair.

i totally agree exept for the no negative health part... there are quite a few issues that come about from it.

**Snrf** · 12-11-2006, 05:04 AM

True, but comparatively speaking, and for the majority of users (at least that I know) there haven't been any negative repercussions. Whereas the majority of steroid users have negative health effects.

Besides, I would have thought the guy who supposedly wrote 25 pages on this subject would have picked up on that.....

**Foskamink** · 12-11-2006, 06:03 AM

hey, people. whats the effects like for people who dont use glasses every? can u still sharpen up ur eye sight?

**HighandWide** · 12-11-2006, 12:08 PM

You are still missing the point. I am talking about ATHLETES who do it for the puropse of improving on-field performance. The exact reason why athletes take steroids .

And referring to the

I can make the same arguement for kids and tobacco..I Was referring to the pervious post stating that

As you know whatever sports idols do, so do the kids who idolize them. Basically, if my favorite sports guy does steroids why can't I? Thats what kids think, therfore will do.

He/She was making a point that it should be illegal because if kids see it they would want to do it...I was then referring to this being a similar reason why kids pick up smoking

and the

whole you guys are looking to far into it

I was referring to the bases of my paper....Beside that I agree with everything you all are saying

**HighandWide** · 12-11-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Foskamink

hey, people. whats the effects like for people who dont use glasses every? can u still sharpen up ur eye sight?

I'm not sure what you are taking about here but I have heard of and there are "natural" ways to enhance vision. However I'm not to sure if they actually work. Also using eyewear has the potential to weaken your eye because they become dependent on them. Not wearing them seems like a good way to slow the incline or stop the onset of poor vision, which has be studies, it is not fail safe.

And to everyone who is concerned about my writting style it is grad-school. Not a doctors program. Though we are set to a high standard don't think I have to publish my research like you see in many scientific studies. Most of those are doctors or people who were paid to do research

**biglouie250** · 12-11-2006, 04:21 PM

LASIK -gets you to normal. no one is asking the doctor to give them xray vision. i find the stats you are using may be coincidental and not a correlation to lasik surgery because players could and have used contact lenses and or glasses. also from a scientific stand point you cant/shouldnt limit it to one sport. patrick ewings jumper didnt get better after he got lasik. 5 NY giants past and present had Lasik and they couldnt catch a cold.

steroids - move you past your bodies normal potential plain and simple.

not a good comparison IMO, i think your fishing here bro. JMHO though

***Doc.Sust*** · 12-11-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Foskamink

hey, can people without glasses get this surgery to improve there vison if they already have good?

sorry im just always interested in stuff like this

if you8r vision is 20/20. youcantget the surgery, it wont make you the 'bionic man"