freedom&justice
05-07-2007, 10:16 PM
In the latest Men's Journal, on newsstands tomorrow, David Kushner asks the Dallas owner what he thinks about performance enhancing drugs in the NBA. Cuban responds:
Drugs that are detrimental to your health should be outlawed. But if it's not bad for your health and it'll enhance your performance, why should you not be allowed to take it? It makes the game more interesting. It just makes sense. But it doesn't make sense in the context of the current controversies over drugs in sports.
To me this all comes down to two things:
Who do we trust to decide whether or not something is "bad for your health"? If it's the same people who gave us thalidomide, Vioxx, lead paint, trans-fats, or whatever it is that killed Elvis, then I'd just as soon we hold off.
Would it really make the game more interesting? We go to games to cheer the efforts of Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, and the like. They work with hoops and balls. The NBA is a showcase for their talents with tools that include a basketball, high-tops, sweat, and creativity. If cutting edge therapies become the major factor in who wins games, then the Bryant and Nash take a backseat to anonymous chemists A and B -- who work with pipettes, safety goggles, and centrifuges. Imagine the post-game interview (apologies, I am a total ignoramus): "Ever since my bio-engineering team fused an extra molecule to my supplemental glycogen, I've been snagging more late-game rebounds, my jumper is falling nicely, and my sex life is out of this world! Now if you'll excuse me, there's somewhere I need to be ..."
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-24-30/Mark-Cuban-Wants-Performance-Enhancing-Drugs.html
:lmao
Drugs that are detrimental to your health should be outlawed. But if it's not bad for your health and it'll enhance your performance, why should you not be allowed to take it? It makes the game more interesting. It just makes sense. But it doesn't make sense in the context of the current controversies over drugs in sports.
To me this all comes down to two things:
Who do we trust to decide whether or not something is "bad for your health"? If it's the same people who gave us thalidomide, Vioxx, lead paint, trans-fats, or whatever it is that killed Elvis, then I'd just as soon we hold off.
Would it really make the game more interesting? We go to games to cheer the efforts of Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, and the like. They work with hoops and balls. The NBA is a showcase for their talents with tools that include a basketball, high-tops, sweat, and creativity. If cutting edge therapies become the major factor in who wins games, then the Bryant and Nash take a backseat to anonymous chemists A and B -- who work with pipettes, safety goggles, and centrifuges. Imagine the post-game interview (apologies, I am a total ignoramus): "Ever since my bio-engineering team fused an extra molecule to my supplemental glycogen, I've been snagging more late-game rebounds, my jumper is falling nicely, and my sex life is out of this world! Now if you'll excuse me, there's somewhere I need to be ..."
http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-24-30/Mark-Cuban-Wants-Performance-Enhancing-Drugs.html
:lmao