Jason Ormond Lasik Eye Surgery vs. Steroids: An Analysis of What Makes Steroids an Unacceptable Form of Performance Enhancement Cheating has been part of baseball ever since the game s creation. The first professional baseball game was played in 1846 between the New York Knickerbockers and the New York Baseball Club. Sure enough, 20 years later, baseball had its first conspiracy, the curve ball. There is a great debate over what pitcher threw the first curveball, but its appearance brought about as much controversy as steroids have today. Some players considered the act of trying to deceive a batter to be unsportsmanlike. In fact, non-curveball leagues were even formed, in which pitchers could throw only fastballs. 1 Of course, ultimately, the curveball did survive, and it has become a fundamental part of the game. Today, the most significant controversy in baseball involves the use of steroids, and while the curveball did eventually gain acceptance, it appears steroids will probably never be accepted as a legal training aid. However, another form of performance enhancement, Lasik eye surgery, has received no such attention from the public or the media. The reason steroids have received such negative attention, and have actually been banned from the Major League of Baseball (MLB), while Lasik eye surgery has gone unnoticed, involves several factors: level of familiarity, level of destruction to the human body, observable effects, social stigma, and the importance, in the eyes of the fans, of the integrity of the game s statistical categories. Scientists have proven that steroids do enhance athletic performance. Steroids, basically a manmade version of the male sex hormone, testosterone, do this by raising the level of testosterone in the athlete s body. Steroids are taken in one of three ways: through direct injection, by mouth, or through skin creams. The reasons athletes take steroids include an increase in protein synthesis which helps put on muscle, prevention of muscle tissue destruction caused by heavy exercise which shortens recovery time, increased aggressiveness which allows athletes to do more reps, the placebo effect, rapid recovery from injuries, increased energy level, and increased endurance. 2 While steroids do not directly impact an athlete s performance on the field, they certainly do affect an athlete s training regimen, so it is no surprise that many baseball players decided to take steroids. Indeed, another reason athletes decide to take steroids is to achieve something never done before. Steroids have allowed baseball players to hit more home runs than ever. According to Brian Arthur s analysis of the evolution of technology, if performance enhancing drugs follow the evolution of other technologies, they will continue to improve with time, allowing athletes to achieve feats once thought impossible. 3 This possibility of achieving legendary status, along with the other benefits, serves as ample incentive for a professional baseball player to take steroids, as can be seen in the vast number of players who have either admitted to using steroids or have tested positive for their use. In 2003, when the MLB finally began penalizing and testing players for steroid usage, they found that over 5% of 1,438 players tested positive. 4 Similarly, since then, over 100 prominent MLB players have either admitted to or 1 Ken Burns, Baseball, VHS, Directed by Ken Burns (PBS, 1994). 2 Charles Yesalis, The Steroids Game, (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1999), 24-31. 3 Brian Arthur, The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves (New York: First Free Press, 2011), 124-25. 4 More Than Five Percent of Players Test Positive, Sports Illustrated (November 13, 2003).
tested positive for taking steroids. 5 Clearly, all the negative media reports which regard steroid use as an epidemic in the MLB are justified. However, over the past few seasons, commissioner Bud Selig has been able, for the most part, to eradicate steroids from the game, although some players still do test positive from time to time. 6 As with steroids, scientists have proven that Lasik eye surgery enhances vision above the average level, which improves hand-eye coordination and, as a result, performance on the baseball field. Needless to say, vision is vitally important when trying to hit a 90+ mile per hour fastball thrown from over 60 feet away. From the moment the ball leaves the pitcher s hand, the batter has.4 seconds to determine whether he will swing, decide where the ball will end up, decide how aggressively to swing, and lastly, to actually swing the bat all things that rely heavily on hand-eye coordination. 7 Lasik can greatly enhance one s vision, even beyond the level of 20/20 (i.e., 20/15 or 20/10 eyesight). For example, Mark Hendrickson, pitcher for the Florida Marlins, was having trouble seeing his catcher s signals behind the plate, even with glasses. Hendrickson was legally blind in one eye and had 20/50 vision in the other; however, after surgery, his vision was improved to 20/15. 8 As with steroids, many players have used Lasik to improve their play on the field; however, Lasik does not receive nearly the same attention that steroids do. One reason Lasik does not receive the same attention is that the average Americans have had much more experience with forms of vision enhancement than with performance enhancing drugs. This means the general public is much more familiar with Lasik eye surgery. A National Health Survey, carried out in 1980, found that 51.7% of the American public 3 years of age or older had either eyeglasses, contact lenses, or both. 9 This means that if someone in the U.S. does not have any form of vision enhancement, it is almost guaranteed that they know someone who does. Lasik has gone nearly unnoticed as a form of performance enhancement because of this level of familiarity the general public has with other, similar forms of vision enhancement. Another reason steroids receive so much negative attention is that they are much more destructive to the human body than Lasik. Steroids have many documented health consequences, such as higher blood pleasure, increased risk of heart attack, susceptibility to injuries, risk of liver cancer, infertility, and severe acne and cysts. 10 Steroids also have negative mental effects, such as intense mood swings, mania, hypomania, and depression. 11 While there are some risks to Lasik eye surgery, such as over or under-correction, persistent dry eye, or even loss of vision, these mistakes occur much less often 5 Players Linked to Steroids and Human Growth Hormone (HGH), http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/bse-liststeroid-hgh-users-baseball.html 6 Chris Jenkins, Players Admit Steroids Changed Baseball, USA Today (March 17, 2005). 7 Gary Milhoces, The 10 Hardest Things To Do In Sports, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/healthscience/casestudies/20030415-10mostdifficultsports3.pdf 8 Lasik Gains Popularity Among Professional Baseball Players, http://www.lasikeyesurgerycorrection.com/baseball_lasik.html 9 Eye Care Visits and Use of Eyeglasses or Contact Lenses, Data From the National Health Survey Series 10, no. 145 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_145.pdf (accessed February 25, 2011). 10 Anabolic Steroid Abuse, National Institute on Drug Abuse, http://www.nida.nih.gov/pdf/rrsteroids.pdf 11 Harrison G. Pope & David L. Katz, Psychiatric and Medical Effects of Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use, Archives of General Psychiatry 51 no. 5 (May, 1994) 375-382.
than the bad health consequences associated with steroids. 12 One important reason that we, as a society, reject steroids as an acceptable form of performance enhancement is that there is a good chance the steroids will harm an already healthy person. 13 In addition to the bad health consequences, the effects of steroids are observable, which is yet another reason why they receive so much negative attention. For example, a baseball player who is using steroids is much easier to spot than one who has received Lasik eye surgery. The observable effects of steroid usage include oily skin and acne, acceleration of male pattern baldness, breast enlargement, and an enlarged head and neck. 14 The ability to spot players who fit the mold of a typical steroid user leads to intense debate in the media over who is and who is not doping, and this debate only adds to the negative attention that steroids already receive. On the other hand, there is no telling who has or who has not gotten Lasik eye surgery without access to medical records. Along with these reasons for why steroids are an unacceptable form of performance enhancement in the eyes of the public, there also seems to be a social stigma surrounding the use of steroids in sports. This is odd when one considers that there is another group of entertainers, whose life expectancy is 22% below the national average and who suffer from tendinitis, muscle cramps, pinched nerves, a high incidence of mental health problems and heart attacks, and anxiety levels that threaten to cripple their performance as professionals. These entertainers are orchestral musicians, and a majority of them use beta-blocker drugs to control stage fright and thereby enhance their performance. Yet, these same beta-blockers are banned in sports. 15 Over the next few paragraphs I will explain why performance enhancing drugs, like steroids, hold such a negative stigma when combined with sports. As with the curveball, originally there were people both for and against the use of drugs to enhance athletic performance. As author John Hoberman writes, doping in sport has been banned for the past 25 years, yet less than a century ago European scientists were discussing pharmacological aids to athletic performance without any qualms. 16 One major reason for this is that sports then held considerably less social and political importance than they do today. Consequently, not many people cared whether or not athletes were doping. However, sports began to receive much more attention following the first modern Olympics in Athens in 1896. As time passed, and sports began to gain more importance with the growth of international sporting events, the Germans began to experiment more heavily with performance enhancing drugs. This usage by German athletes became widespread, at which point, the debate over drugs rightful place in sports began. However, it was not until the Germans started the use of UV treatment 17 on athletes that people began, for the most part, to object more strenuously to the use of performance enhancing treatments and drugs. 18 This view developed because these treatments were becoming more and more artificial, especially with the new UV light treatments, which were administered by machines. Finally, a consensus arose that such practices ruined the honorable competition that sport was meant to be. 19 12 J. Bradley Randelman, Lasik Eye Surgery, http://www.medicinenet.com/lasik_eye_surgery/article.htm (accessed February 25, 2011). 13 Hoberman in William J. Morgan, Ethics in Sport, (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007), 239. 14 Charles Yesalis, The Steroids Game, (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1999), 52. 15 Hoberman in William J. Morgan, Ethics in Sport, (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007), 236. 16 Ibid, 237. 17 Note: UV treatment turned out to be completely ineffective as a form of performance enhancement. 18 Ibid, 237-39. 19 Ibid, 239.
Reasons for the social stigma surrounding steroids are the effects it has on the equal playing field, the danger it places on the user, and the pressure it puts on other players to use steroids in an effort to level the playing field. As demonstrated earlier, it is scientifically proven that steroids do in fact enhance athletic performance, thereby giving steroid users an unfair advantage. Furthermore, not only does such use tip the playing field, but it also exposes the user to a multitude of health problems. Then, the use of steroids by some players makes other players feel as though they must also use steroids in an attempt to stay competitive. 20 The problem with this is that players should not be forced to use steroids and expose themselves to the ill health effects that accompany steroid use, which is one reason why steroids hold such negative connotations today. Expanding on this idea that steroids destroy the honorable competition of baseball, the use of steroids almost completely falls in line with how our society views the act of cheating. Author Gunther Luschen writes: Cheating in sport is the act through which the manifestly or latently agreed upon conditions for winning such a contest are changed in favor of one side. As a result, the principle of equality of chance beyond differences of skill and strategy is violated. 21 Granted, the MLB could legalize steroid use, which would allow players to use steroids; therefore, using steroids would not be considered as cheating. However, as mentioned previously, this would pressure many players to also use steroids, but such a move would be incredibly unpopular because of the health consequences associated with steroid use. This is why drugs, such as steroids, are banned from the MLB. Nonetheless, players knowingly take steroids to improve their training regimen, which translates onto the field and enhances their performance. Such an act not only impacts their own play, but also improves the likelihood that their own team will win. Therefore, baseball players using steroids are, by definition, cheaters. Finally, one last reason steroids receive so much negative attention is that the statistical categories impacted by steroid use are of much greater significance to baseball fans than the categories affected by Lasik. Two of the most famed records in baseball are the single season and the career home run records. The first was formerly held by Roger Maris (61 home runs in a season), and the latter was formerly held by Hank Aaron (755 home runs in a career). However, now they are currently held by one player who has admitted to taking steroids, Barry Bonds (73 home runs in a season; 763 career home runs), and several other steroid-using players have also surpassed these earlier figures. These accomplishments have dropped Roger Maris all the way down to number 6 in the record books for most home runs in a single season. These never before seen power numbers achieved by players who are now able to become stronger, and can recover from the wear and tear of a 162 game season faster than ever before, have allowed for some spectacular home run displays. Contrastingly, Lasik helps players with hand-eye coordination, which increases players performances in statistical categories that receive far less attention than the home run records. In conclusion, there is no one overriding reason why steroids receive so much negative attention while Lasik receives almost none. Both steroids and Lasik are forms of performance enhancement, but steroids have been proven to harm the human body, while Lasik is generally seen as an improvement with little risk involved. Also, many Americans use similar forms of visual enhancement, so they are 20 Michael Lavin in William J. Morgan, Ethics in Sport, (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007), 266. 21 Gunther Luschen in William J. Morgan, Ethics in Sport, (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007), 201.
more accepting of its use in baseball. Also, steroid-using players are much easier to spot than players who have received Lasik. Then there are other social views which classify steroids as a form of cheating, which not only gives one player an advantage, but can also pressure other players to follow suit in an attempt to regain a level playing field. And lastly, the fact that the home run records have fallen at an alarming rate due to steroid use upsets many fans, because those records are some of the most celebrated in all of American sports. Clearly, there are many reasons a person could disapprove the use of steroids in baseball, which is perhaps why these substances have received such adamant protest from fans, players, and owners alike. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Kevin Crim from the Writing Lab for his help in the revision of my paper, and I would also like to thank Jack Adams for reviewing my paper as well. Lastly, I would like to thank Janet Davis for her commentary feedback.