Now, you've noticed that I really don't give a shit about cheating in "professional" sports, Bill Bellicik, Rodney Harrison, Shawn Marrion, Barry Bond, who the hell cares, they're such contrived activities driven by American's pipe dreams of hyper-human athletic acheivement that it only stands to reason that everyone should be trying to transcend human athletic ability; the doctrine of professional sports in America is being more than human in every aspect down to cleats and night games - we cant turn that quickly on grass with just our feet or get a good grip, so it's okay to make us more that human by putting leather and spikes around our feet, humans can't see at night, the whole appeal of a night game is that we are doing something that human's cannot naturally do by playing in the dark with the lights on. My point is that it's alright to like these sports, I obviously do quite a bit myself, but get real it's not an honest effort at acheiving human athletic greatness, it's testing all facets of humanity, given the crown emotion, the intelligence of the players, the applied technology of the lights, the ingenuity of cleats, etc, but deceit is a highly human quality - has your dog ever lied to you? - steroids and Bellicek type cheating is only within what the culture of professional sports dictates, it is applying human ingenuity and technology (like HGH or whatever choice steroid) to make the game more exciting, etc.
Now, with that said, we probably know what I have to say on olympic sports; that, not because of the name 'Olympic Games' or any of that shit, but because it is an honest and international showcase of base athletic ability: running, jumping, etc (not running with a ball and throwing a ball to someone else and then running into a rectangle) - or so we thought. Well it was only a matter of time until someone embarrased a respectable country (Russia and China with their gymnastic scandals, yea, I don't respect Russia or China) by bringing the attitude of professional sports, which are closer to theatre in my mind than true athletics, to an international athletic competition. If you haven't heard, I speak of former multi-olympic gold medalist Marion Jones who has reacently admitted to taking steroids - and here's the great part - and lying about it for years that shes known about it (it's just so perfectly American professional sports culturish). So that's all well and good because we all are aware that steroid in that type of shit is just wrong, though many seem in denial that it's actually within the mindset of the professional sports they love so much. But now they're asking her relay team mates to return their medals, and it seemed like an issue deserving of discussion.
It is absolutly dispicable that she would do that and then lie about it in a pure athletic arena and I will be among the strongest supporters for the harshest punishment they can muster in order to discourage this type of behavior, but what of her team mates? She lied, even if she said she didn't know at the time, and they had no way of knowing, and now they will have to be associated with the extraordinarily embarassing act of their team mate and forfeit their Gold olympic medal. The first thought that comes to my mind is that they couldn't have won without this girl, and thus don't deserve the medals and they should rightly be taken away. I see no way to counter this argument besides that they were 3/4 of the team who were supposedly clean at the time, which is a majority of the relay - that says somewhere in my mind that it could be justifiable if they did not take the medals away, but it seems that bottome line they would not have won without the best female runner of that olympics...
5 comments:
theres an added aspect to this issue as well. Jones is a woman, and unless im mistaken is not the substance in steriods that aid in growing muscle a male hormone? Doesnt that make it even more abhorant?
I'm not sure what's in steroid, but good lookin' I hadn't thought about that at all I was thinking more big picture.
She's reported to have taken "the clear" which is the notorious baseball steroid that everone thinks is water or something stupid, but I really don't know what's in the steroid.
It brings up an interesting point besides that it's an attempt at becoming more male for women becasue they are natually not as muscularly 'built' as men, whether or not the steroid has male hormones in it. Is steroid use at the women's competitive level of athletics slightly more objectionable than male's, given the social stigma it brings? It is that the act is attempting to become more than the human's that male's and female's are, but I think this aspect you've brought up, that it is circumstancially a worse offense for women because of their social stature, is a valid one...
Women are still, unfortunatly, not equal in global society to men, though it is worlds better every year, but until a high political office belonging to a woman is not a big deal, the social position of women still remains in jeopardy, and it may always. But does this act of enhancing the female body to be closer to the male body, which is what it is becoming when more muscle is added - whereas in the male case it speaks more to the general disrespect of human athletic abillity - bring a negative social stigma to the whole of female athletes in the minds of the sports world? Is it that, even though I haven't consciously thought this before, that my mind, along with the misoginistic male-dominated sports world, has said that womens sports are not as good as men's sports so they want to make it better by being more like men or something? To what extent does the fact that this extra muscle on this woman brings her closer to the muscular structure and ability of a male have an effect on my opinion of womens athletics and the general social opinion of women on a whole? The reason I bring the socail stature of women up is that, I hate to agree with Donovan, like black people in our country, women to a slightly lesser extent, but black women like marion jones to the greatest extent, have to do a little extra to be treated equally, and the taking of steroids for a woman seems almost like it can be taken as an attempt at a "passing" of sorts, in the sense that she wants to be so great and dominant as a woman athlete that maybe, though she won't be compared with the men in ability because she's aware of that physical difference, she will be mentioned among the best atheletes of all time as a woman among me. I'm not sure but it's a worthy question for debate and consideration...
I just thought of a good way to think of professional sports when I was emailing a bunch of espn programs to try and get a response:
how good would Shawn Merriman be with all the steroid in the world stuck in his ass if he had no cleats on a slippery day? If he couldn'y dig his feet in and drive his tackle what use would he be?
i also just thought of the whole competitive advantage with the cleats thing. its in the rules okay, steroids arent, okay, but people could all take them and it wouldn't imply such a moral breach that it does in most eyes because it isnt according to the standards we set in pro sports
when you speak of the purity of traditional olympic sports, vs sports of today, would it not be wrong to look past the fact that runners today have specially designed nike and adidas kicks to comfort and support their feet. that swimmers don next gen apparel to glide through the water at otherwise unattainable speeds, or that even the alter their bodies (by shaving) to go faster than the "natural" man?
yea i know, especially in the swimming case and ive been opposed to that for years. it seems an irrelivant point in this argument but it is valid. even wearing clothes is objectable at this point and drinking water out of pre-supplied cups. these thigns just dont seem relevant to the current arguemtn, but im aware of them and if anyone objects as such im ready for that objection...
Post a Comment