Pretty muchOriginally Posted by Marc Overmars
Charlie
Pretty much
Charlie
Well no.Pretty much
Charlie
If it was not legal do you think he'd really be allow to play. what they did to him no way affected what he has been able to do.
on the other hand if they did not pump drugs into him, he may never have been able to achieve what he has
If he was 'normal' and didn't require drugs he may never have been able to achieve what he has. That's the issue for me. You can't discriminate against those who have been disadvantaged, and so he should be allowed to play. But the extent to which he has benefited - above the 'normal' - cannot be clear.
It allowed him the opporunity to play football. I still find this whole thing absurd, Barcelona probably made an exception in this case because of the talent they saw in him, doing exactly what he does now (well less so this season actually). How much was it the treatment and how much was it because of working hard at becoming better or how much was it merely Guardiola playing him more centrally? Like you say, this cannot be clear (well for you anyway) so you'll never be satisifed.
Isn't it more a question of giving him the same opportunity as everyone else to play the game? He hasn't been given some superhuman drug which enables him to fly over tall buildings and not kneel before Zod.
It's the same as giving a kid glasses to be able to read like the rest of the kids.
Performance enhancing drugs are drugs which are used constantly in order to better ones performance over and above what they would normally be able to achieve week in week out. Not a drug which assists the development or a child, in line with the rest of the kids out there.
It's better to burn out, than to fade away.
Its an interesting philosophical debate. Is there a lower age limit on performance enhancing drugs? Are drugs only performance enhancing when they enhance a 'normal' person's performance as opposed to a weaker person's one. If so, what is the dividing line? If the relative improvement is the same, is this not sim[ply penalising the better physical specemin?
Its a debate that could be widened. A footballer taking cocaine will be punished. Another taking anti-depressants - that arguably will enhance his mental state, and therefore his performance, will not be. A footbally taking EPO will be banned, yet another taking protein supplements to boost muscle mass won't be.
In fact most questions of drugs inviolve a wholly artificial line being drawn by human beings, that itself depends largely on culture, timing and technology. So speed is illegal here, Khat is legal in Yemen. Cocaine and Laudinum (heroin) were legal 100 years ago. Not now. Yet Ritalin and Valium aren't. And synthetic drugs are being manufactured all the time that aren't illegal because lagislation hasn't caught up with them yet.
If you were an alien - the whole thing would look like a load of bollocks.
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
Just leagalise the lot, then it's a level playing field.
It's better to burn out, than to fade away.
If Messi's treatment was medical treatment (and there is no real way of telling if it made him superhuman or if he was already going to be ridiculous so it's moo) could you not then say that any form of medical treatment that solves a natural problem is wrong?
Like any player who has ever had an organ transplant, or solving dodgy cartilage or even asthma inhalers that contain steroids. Anything that without the treatment c/would have curtailed or hampered a football career. It would probably go for every single player out there, so you can't just draw the line at one player.
Unless it's Underhill.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote