Sports and Ethics: The Debate Over Performance Enhancement

Several of my recent articles explore the continued debate over the use of performance enhancement substances with regard to possible baseball Hall of Fame nominees, the MLB blood testing for HGH, and suggested guidelines that differentiate between appropriate versus non-appropriate sports performance enhancement practices.

I know there are some who believe that performance enhancement drug (PED) use is no big deal, that maybe it would be best to just legalize all of it, and that the entertainment value of higher levels of performance is most important. Then there are those whose beliefs operate on a completely different plane, the opposite of that which I just described. And, of course, there are those whose thoughts on this topic fall somewhere between these two extremes.

MLB Union Opposed To Blood Test for HGH: Go Figure!!!

In today's NY Daily News, it is reported that the World Anti-Doping Agency is encouraging Major League Baseball to take a stand and start testing for use of HGH (Human Growth Hormone), something the MLB players union has not been in favor of. Yea, what a surprise!

The article World Anti-Doping Agency calls on Major League Baseball to implement HGH testing by Christian Red and Nathaniel Vinton delves into the idea that the players union feels it "inappropriate" for blood testing to be done. They are much more inclined to approve a urine test but seem to be opposed to a blood test for this or any other performance-enhancing drugs (PED).

Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez, and the rest: Are They Truly Hall of Fame Material?

In this Sunday's PARADE section of the Chicago Tribune, the article Do Steroid Users Have a Place in the Hall of Fame? raises a question that holds some heated debate within a variety of sports venues, something it will do for some time to come.

PARADE.com even has an online poll, asked from a different slant than their article title (be careful of this), for individuals to vote one way or the other. And the current statistical trend seems to be weighing heavily on the YES they should NOT be allowed into the Hall of Fame side of the equation.

For me, the answer is simple, and, aside from what some who read my posts might guess, has no direct relevance to the poor character choices these athletes have made and examples they have set.

A Time For Change?

In the wake of Tiger Woods’ indiscretions, the airing of his apology, Mark McGuire’s recent coming clean about his steroid use, as well as a host of other poor character behavior, I can’t help but reflect on how this past decade has inevitably changed the view of many regarding the values taught through competitive sports participation.

Justified Behavior, Unsportsmanlike Behavior or Assault: You Decide

Below is a link to a videotaped recent incident of a coach pushing an 11-year-old out of a handshake line after a youth football game. It is obvious that the coach was very aggressive toward the youth; however, it does not show anything that might have caused such an inappropriate response. Take a look:

Performance Enhancement: Where Do We Draw the Line? Part II – The Guidelines

Developing guidelines to address issues apparent in Part I of Performance Enhancement: Where Do We Draw the Line is certainly easier said than done; the complexities are obvious. What I would like to do is create a starting place, a beginning, from which we (and athletes) can more easily determine the point of performance enhancement that must never be crossed. The hope is to allow athletes the ability to continue striving toward their full athletic potential without risking their character and integrity or their physical/mental/emotional wellbeing. Below is my list, with explanations, of what these guidelines might look like:

Performance Enhancement: Where Do We Draw the Line? Part I – The Problem

We could make this simple and just say that using any performance enhancement deemed illegal is where:

> proper athletic training ends and cheating begins

> the attitude of “winning at all costs” exhibits major control

> the eroding of character/integrity establishes a strong foothold

It is a clear and definite line most anyone can understand, but is it clear enough? Does it truly define and clarify the underlining and intrinsic factors leading up to a choice such as PED’s (performance enhancing drugs)? Does that simplified definition give us the needed depth and breadth to rectify a problem that certainly has a gray area sitting between two extremes?

Great Article on the Pervasiveness of Steroid Use in Sports

I apologize to readers for not posting the 2nd installment to my Specialization in Youth Sports, Good or Bad article (something I will do late next week), but I came across a piece that references true experts, like Dr. Yesalis, in a discussion regarding steroid use that I thought was good and important to direct attention to. The title of the blog article is PSU Prof Yesalis and "Game of Shadows" authors Williams and Fainaru-Wada on steroid panel at Penn State; Yesalis says 95% of NFL players use HGH and it is from an online blog journal called Steroid Nation.

Steroids in Professional Sports and Youth Sports, WHY?

It is in the wake of the Mitchell Report, which sheds light on the pervasive use of performance-enhancing substances (Steroids, HGH, etc.) in professional baseball, that I direct this blog's attention to an article in the Sports Parenting e-magazine titled Denial, Apathy, and Win-at-All-Costs Sports Culture Fuels Steroid Abuse by Bruce Svare, Ph.D, http://www.parentsforgoodsports.org/iPages.tpl?pg=articles/steroidAbuse.

In his article, Dr. Svare provides good insight into the “why” behind steroid use in sports today and suggests an approach that will decrease and deter the risk of their use by young athletes.