Golf and PEDs

[LongTimeListener]

Vijay Singh's lawyer says other players have tested positive but haven't been punished. Singh is suing the PGA Tour for reputation damage after he was cleared of an unannounced suspension. Ginsberg would not identify the number of drug-test exceptions alleged or his information sources. “Those are fair questions, and by the end of the litigation you’ll have all the answers,” he said.

http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/vijay-singh-is-about-to-bring-the-pga-drug-policy-to-its-knees-110613

Tactic aimed at settlement? Or downfall of another sport?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I hate to say it because I care about it, but most people are numb to this. They just don't care anymore.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Oh, I think there's one name in particular that would make people care.

 

[JC]

I hate to say it because I care about it, but most people are numb to this. They just don't care anymore.

Nor should they.

 

[JackReacher]

Zzzzzzzz

Even for that one name. Zzzzzzz

 

[Big Circus]

Oh, I think there's one name in particular that would make people care.

You guessed it:

 

[JC]

Oh, I think there's one name in particular that would make people care.

Yeah but he's clean, Hondo said so.

 

[Stoney]

This guy?

 

[Machine Head]

Oh, I think there's one name in particular that would make people care.

You guessed it:

Back in the mid 90s I'm at a gate waiting to catch my flight out of Atlanta. Day after a sports event. At the same gate Stadler is sitting a few seats away working a bag of Wendy's and a couple of bottles of Heineken.

Up walk two guys, one of whom starts talking to Stadler about his swing. The guy's swing, not Stadler's. How screwed up he was, how he fixed it and so on. In great detail. Just obnoxious.

I wanted to punch the guy and ask Stadler for a beer in return, but didn't.

One of the regrets in my life.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I hate to say it because I care about it, but most people are numb to this. They just don't care anymore.

Nor should they.

Yes, they should, for reasons articulated here over and over. You are forcing your colleagues to risk their long-term and short-term health, along with legal repurcussions, in order to compete on a level playing field with you. That's not fair.

 

[maberger]

I hate to say it because I care about it, but most people are numb to this. They just don't care anymore.

Nor should they.

Yes, they should, for reasons articulated here over and over. You are forcing your colleagues to risk their long-term and short-term health, along with legal repurcussions, in order to compete on a level playing field with you. That's not fair.

i've not heard the argument articulated quite that way before, and it does make for a strong case about the workplace and for the affected athletes to fight against this.

but why should the PUBLIC care? it's a work place issue. the public doesn't care about actors taking PEDs and having inordinate amounts of cosmetic surgery, all in a bid to look younger and buffer and to keep getting roles.

 

[LongTimeListener]

In golf particularly, fans have a concept of honor. Could be bull****, but when you have a raging argument about whether Tiger is a cheater depending on whether his ball moved or "oscillated," the willful violation of drug policies and a cover-up by the tour would have a huge effect.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I hate to say it because I care about it, but most people are numb to this. They just don't care anymore.

Nor should they.

Yes, they should, for reasons articulated here over and over. You are forcing your colleagues to risk their long-term and short-term health, along with legal repurcussions, in order to compete on a level playing field with you. That's not fair.

i've not heard the argument articulated quite that way before, and it does make for a strong case about the workplace and for the affected athletes to fight against this.

but why should the PUBLIC care?

Because, at that point, it's cheating. Competition is sullied, and competition is the product.

It's not the same as a Hollywood production, because there, the product is the art work. Competition to participate in the art work is just incidental. In sports, the product is the competition.

Let's say you are a big chess fan. You are watching the chess Olympics. But one guy breaks the rule and uses an extra pawn. Wouldn't you care, as a fan?

 

[Armchair_QB]

This guy?

Winstons and cheeseburgers are PEDs now?

 

[Alma]

Zzzzzzzz

Even for that one name. Zzzzzzz

Why? It'd be cheating. Do you generally find cheating OK?

 

[JC]

I hate to say it because I care about it, but most people are numb to this. They just don't care anymore.

Nor should they.

Yes, they should, for reasons articulated here over and over. You are forcing your colleagues to risk their long-term and short-term health, along with legal repurcussions, in order to compete on a level playing field with you. That's not fair.

I don't buy that that for a second. Players long term health is affected by cortisone shots, legal painkillers and playing through injuries all the time. I imagine the "legal" supplements they take have the same long term effects. Where's the proof HGH administered by a physician is bad for you long term?

 

[Stoney]

I hate to say it because I care about it, but most people are numb to this. They just don't care anymore.

Nor should they.

Yes, they should, for reasons articulated here over and over. You are forcing your colleagues to risk their long-term and short-term health, along with legal repurcussions, in order to compete on a level playing field with you. That's not fair.

i've not heard the argument articulated quite that way before, and it does make for a strong case about the workplace and for the affected athletes to fight against this.

but why should the PUBLIC care?

Because, at that point, it's cheating. Competition is sullied, and competition is the product.

It's not the same as a Hollywood production, because there, the product is the art work. Competition to participate in the art work is just incidental. In sports, the product is the competition.

Let's say you are a big chess fan. You are watching the chess Olympics. But one guy breaks the rule and uses an extra pawn. Wouldn't you care, as a fan?

As often is the case when this issue comes up, **** you are moving goalposts and changing your argument. In your first post you suggest the problem is forcing others to take PEDs (which is not what's happening) and allegedly risk their future health (despite a lack of medical proof that they actually are), in your second, you suggest the reason is to protect the integrity of the competition. Two different things.

As for the first contention, the way you phrase it is bull****. Nobody is forcing anyone to take PEDs. But you can say they are putting additional pressure upon their competition when making a voluntary CHOICE whether to take them. And, in that sense, the analogy to Hollywood/showbiz industry is right on point. When an aspiring actor or model loses a job because the other guy was taking PEDS and thus looks more buff, he faces the exact same sort of pressure, the exact same sort of incentive to take PEDs to keep up with his completion and preserve his career. It is a valid analogy.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I hate to say it because I care about it, but most people are numb to this. They just don't care anymore.

Nor should they.

Yes, they should, for reasons articulated here over and over. You are forcing your colleagues to risk their long-term and short-term health, along with legal repurcussions, in order to compete on a level playing field with you. That's not fair.

i've not heard the argument articulated quite that way before, and it does make for a strong case about the workplace and for the affected athletes to fight against this.

but why should the PUBLIC care?

Because, at that point, it's cheating. Competition is sullied, and competition is the product.

It's not the same as a Hollywood production, because there, the product is the art work. Competition to participate in the art work is just incidental. In sports, the product is the competition.

Let's say you are a big chess fan. You are watching the chess Olympics. But one guy breaks the rule and uses an extra pawn. Wouldn't you care, as a fan?

As often is the case when this issue comes up, **** you are moving goalposts and changing your argument. In your first post you suggest the problem is forcing others to take PEDs (which is not what's happening) and allegedly risk their future health (despite a lack of medical proof that they actually are), in your second, you suggest the reason is to protect the integrity of the competition. Two different things.

As for the first contention, the way you phrase it is bull****. Nobody is forcing anyone to take PEDs. But you can say they are putting additional pressure upon their competition when making a voluntary CHOICE whether to take them. And, in that sense, the analogy to Hollywood/showbiz industry is right on point. When an aspiring actor or model loses a job because the other guy was taking PEDS and thus looks more buff, he faces the exact same sort of pressure, the exact same sort of incentive to take PEDs to keep up with his completion and preserve his career. It is a valid analogy.

It's a valid analogy as a workplace issue. I'm explaining why the public would care more about one than the other. The public doesn't care why Brad Pitt got the role over Russell Crowe. It just wants to enjoy the finished product. Again, in sports, the competition itself is the product. Hence, an extra pawn in chess would essentially ruin what we're watching. One player got to break the rules. The other one didn't. It undermines the product.

And bringing up integrity of competition, in this context, is not at all "moving the goal posts." The integrity of the competition is undermined precisely because players have to choose between their health/good citizenship and their prowess on the field. Remove the health issues, remove the legal entanglements, and I have no issue with PEDs whatsoever. I do not think that they are inherently corrosive to competition.

And I agree that you have to assume that PEDs are dangerous to health - or at least you have to assume that there is some question about whether they are dangerous to health. And I think that that question legitimately exists. PEDs are illegal. Cortisol is not illegal. There are reasons. I understand that some of those reasons are political.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Why take PEDs when Nike, Callaway, Titleist, etc. can put PEDs into your equipment quite legally? I will admit that if some quack came up with a back pain treatment, every guy on every tour would use it if they thought it worked if it was a combination of HGH, horse tranquilizer and paint thinner.

 

[Chef2]

Oh, I think there's one name in particular that would make people care.

You guessed it:

Back in the mid 90s I'm at a gate waiting to catch my flight out of Atlanta. Day after a sports event. At the same gate Stadler is sitting a few seats away working a bag of Wendy's and a couple of bottles of Heineken.

Up walk two guys, one of whom starts talking to Stadler about his swing. The guy's swing, not Stadler's. How screwed up he was, how he fixed it and so on. In great detail. Just obnoxious.

I wanted to punch the guy and ask Stadler for a beer in return, but didn't.

One of the regrets in my life.

Met Stadler at the Sprint International at Castle Pines. Unbelievably hilly course. Just a ***** to walk.
Stadler after his round. "I can't wait to be done walking this ****ing course."