Moller and Posnanski on Steroids

Both Joe Posnanski and Will Moller come to a realization that few American sports enthusiasts have been able to wrap their heads around. For both these authors, performance enhancement through use of steroids, amphetamines and the like is simply nothing about which to get too excited, and for good reason. The reality is that those who have been relied upon to perform have been “enhancing” that capacity for performance through artificial and often illegal means since time immemorial. The fact that media access and modern technology have rendered this reality all the more visible does not require us to re-imagine history, specifically the 1980s era, as it was not.

There are those who actually believe that performance enhancing drugs are anything but a detriment to fair competition; indeed, people like Princeton ethicist Peter Singer believe that performance enhancing drugs are the only means of ensuring fair competition, lest those with superior genetics exploit those genetics to an unfair end. This mentality was, to at least some extent, prevalent in previous generations, in which MLB Baseball players not only took “greenies,” but also Cocaine. It was believed that a dose of Cocaine might sharpen the sense of a pitcher, for example, helping to keep him sharp for longer periods of time. Similarly, certain steroids allow for certain kinds of players to exercise their muscles for longer periods of time. As such, the similarities between those engaged in the highest levels of sport today and those who preceded them are quite striking with regard to enhancement of performance. The only difference is that Willie Mays did not have HGH at his disposal, for example.

In order to write Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll spent most of his time locked away in an Opium den, spending countless hours under the influence of this extremely impactful substance. To be sure, Carroll was enhancing his writing performance by engaging in illicit substances. And yet, few would ever take issue with the drugs taken by certain artists, which undeniably have furthered the art that so many love so much. Similarly, Barry Bonds was a spectacular player well in advance of his having ever conceived of taking steroids; Bonds was an all-star and a gold-glove winner, leading the league in stolen bases and routinely putting up staggeringly impressive statistics. Now, Bonds then took to hitting far more home runs than he ever had and the same audience that gravitated toward his non-home-run greatness were all the more intrigued once Bonds began hitting the long ball.

Ultimately, the audience and the audience alone are to blame for the proliferation of that which they have deemed so grossly offensive to their own sensibilities, or so it seems. Realistically, this kind of enhancement of performance is the same kind that has been driving our creative community for many years, on account of which we derive pleasure from the art that emanates from this community. Whether a transformational novel or a sublime athletic performance, we wish for nothing more than to witness greatness on whatever stage is before us. For some, these expectations are too great, and they know as well as we do that they wish to see only the best. After all, anything short of this is simply insufficient to sustain us and, as such, is simply unacceptable for a professional. Some students take amphetamines to stay up longer and some doctors drink large cups of coffee to stay focused longer. It should not be so offensive to American sensibilities that those upon whom we most often rely for production often attempt to ensure that the degree to which they are able to produce evolves commensurate with the expectations of those for whom they produce.