The London Olympic Games and the Tour de France are on the horizon in Europe. Here in North America, the baseball season is under way, with football soon to follow. All of which means that around the world, in gleaming state-of-the-art facilities and dingy state-of-the-meth-lab basements, chemists are hard at work making molecules for athletes to swallow, snort, apply and inject into one another’s butts.

Almost all sports fans decry the use of performance-enhancing drugs. It’s cheating. It gives the user attributes he or she did not rightfully earn. It just feels wrong to most fans. It feels wrong to me. But I have a question that almost inevitably leads to heated arguments—which leads me to suspect that we’re dealing with deep emotional issues as much as intellectual analysis.

My question is: Why is it not questionable for a Boston Red Sox team doctor to have surgically and temporarily stabilized Curt Schilling’s peroneus brevis tendon by suturing it into deep connective tissue before Game 6 of the 2004 American League Championship Series against the New York Yankees? (The jerry-rigged nature of what is now called the “Schilling tendon procedure” begat the Beantown-blessed bloody sock.)

Okay, the question is usually worded more like this: “Sure, steroids are cheating, but why was it legal for them to sew Curt Schilling’s ankle together for a few hours just so he could pitch?” If I, a Yankees fan, put the question to a Red Sox fan, I quickly add, over my shoulder, “Stop chasing me with that fireplace poker, I’m not saying it wasn’t okay, I just wanna know why it was.”

Barry Bonds, who allegedly used so many steroids that other hitters looking to beef up could just lick him, probably ruined his chances for admission to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Schilling’s bloody sock is already on display there.

Pitcher Mordecai Brown mangled his hand in a piece of farming equipment, which earned him the nickname “Three-Finger” but made his curveball better. Pitcher Antonio Alfonseca’s hereditary polydactyly gave him six fingers per hand. Do we need a five-finger rule?

Furthermore, why is “Tommy John surgery” okeydoke? When I was a boy, when a pitcher’s arm fell off, he just pitched with his other arm. Sorry, I slipped into caricature-old-man mode for a second there. Let me try again.

When I was a kid, if a pitcher suffered damage to the ulnar collateral ligament of his elbow, he either kept trying to pitch through the pain, or he retired. But in 1974 orthopedic surgeon Frank Jobe replaced pitcher Tommy John’s ligament with a tendon from John’s arm. And John pitched in the major leagues until 1989. So many pitchers have performed so well after Tommy John surgery, some young pitchers have considered having it done electively.

The usual answer I get is that surgical procedures merely allow the athlete to return to his or her previous, natural condition. They do not enhance anybody’s performance. Which seems reasonable—until I wonder whether it was natural for some athletes to break down under the stress when other athletes stay whole.

Speaking of what’s natural, let’s talk about my all-time favorite Olympic athlete, seven-time cross-country skiing medalist Eero Mäntyranta. Because Mäntyranta, who competed for Finland in the 1960s, was straight out of Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters.

Mäntyranta has a genetic condition that can bring about fantastic increases in red blood cells, hemoglobin and oxygen-carrying capacity. Which is a pretty terrific thing for an endurance athlete to have. (Much, much better than an extra finger on each hand.)

Actually it’s blood doping, but natural. Well, it’s natural if a mutation is natural. And although most world-class athletes probably won’t have a single major Mäntyranta-like mutation, I would bet they have a constellation of uncommon, performance-enhancing genetic constructs. So if users of performance-enhancing drugs are disqualified, should holders of performance-enhancing mutations be barred, too? Stop levitating the poker, Magneto, I’m just asking.

13 Comments

1. 1. renchiro 04:30 PM 5/18/12

   You make a great point, one that nobody wants to talk about. My favorite is also about blood doping. We all know increasing one's hemoglobin count in blood increases muscle performance. So if you train at high altitudes or even just exist at high altitudes you increase your hemoglobin count. When you go back down to the real world at sea level your hemoglobin is, of course, elevated and surprise you perform better, no argument about that. But, if an athlete takes blood out of their body some time prior to an event to stimulate hemoglobin production and then replace the blood before competition elevating hemoglobin, that's cheating!!! The only difference between the two is that going to high altitudes to train costs much more. So my argument is that either we make it illegal to train at high altitudes or take the ban off of blood doping; you cannot have it both ways. Real issue is not about the rules but about the emotions the rules or lack of them that are generated and the conflicted self image we have about ourselves. Somehow, messing with internal body systems is wrong but manipulating external systems is ok. The irony is that both systems are in play all the time and we need to address it from that perspective.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. sparcboy 08:07 AM 6/4/12

   Laser eye surgery isn't mentioned, but many athletes, from golf, tennis and baseball have their normal vision tweaked with the laser method to give them better eye sight than they had naturally. Isn't that cheating as well?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. sparcboy in reply to renchiro 08:08 AM 6/4/12

   Athletes also use tents to sleep under that keep the oxygen levels decreased to mimic high altitudes. It's not the same as training in high altitudes, but it does result in an increase in red blood cells.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. promytius 10:42 AM 6/4/12

   Wait - Money is what it's all about, and another 'm' word, morality, has nothing to do with the big 'm' word, Money. The only problem with enhancements is when someone outside brings it up; Money talks, ethics walks.
   I found this phrase particularly disturbing, "other hitters looking to beef up could just lick him" - really.
   This is just bitching punctuated by a few science words. Just pay the $150 for your ticket and get a $10 hot dog and do behave.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. r0b3m4n 01:02 PM 6/4/12

   My favorite was the snowboarder gold medalist who lost his metal for testing positive for pot. If he had done vicodin, codine or another pain killer he would have been fine. But using non-commercial pain-killers and his Gold is revoked.
   
   Also the article makes it sound like deigner babies would be ok in these games. Gonna have to raise the hoop height pretty soon.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. TTLG 01:56 PM 6/4/12

   This was the nicest short article I have read in some time: funny, informative and thought provoking. Congrats to Mr Mirsky. (Unless, of course, it was written using performance-enhancing drugs like caffeine or deadline panic. Then to be fair I guess I would have to withdraw my kudos).

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. blindboy 08:15 PM 6/4/12

   There is no such thing as a level playing field so why pretend. Competition in most sports would probably be safer and fairer if restrictions on performance enhancing drugs were lifted. World class athletes already have massive support in terms of nutrition, biomechanics and psychology. These benefits are far from evenly spread. Why not add a pharmacist? just some out dated notion of fairness I suppose.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. BigInScience 08:46 AM 6/5/12

   Interesting and entertaining article Steve! I think one PED (performance-enhancing drug) we may be hearing more about are SARMs (selective androgen receptor modulators), also known as "selective steroids." I discussed this in an article "New 'Selective Steroids' To Be Abused By Athletes: Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs)" http://ow.ly/bmU2L

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. BigInScience 08:48 AM 6/5/12

   Interesting and entertaining article Steve! I think one PED (performance-enhancing drug) we may be hearing more about are SARMs (selective androgen receptor modulators), also known as "selective steroids." I discussed this in an article "New 'Selective Steroids' To Be Abused By Athletes: Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs)" <a href="http://ow.ly/bmU2L">http://ow.ly/bmU2L</a>

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. hb 10:50 PM 6/5/12

    Why can't we just lift the ban on performance-enhancing drugs? The pharmaceutical industry would be more than happy to supply athletes with all the drugs they want, and we would have a level playing field.
    
    We can't do this because doping is a health hazard. You can't just mess with hormones, and that's what steroids are, even if you do this under medical supervision. Hormone replacement therapy is one thing; it is meant to ensure normal, healthy hormone levels which athletes already have. It's quite another thing to try and create supermen and -women.
    
    Of course, some (many?) athletes are willing to risk their future health for present glory, and these athletes have an unfair advantage. So, we are stuck with drug testing, doping scandals, etc.
    
    We can either ban steroids and risk cheating. Or we can permit drug use and risk health problems. I would think that a ban on performance-enhancing drugs is the responsible course to take.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. denisosu 11:34 AM 6/10/12

    Great article, but still just the tip of the iceberg.
    
    The biggest unfair advantages people have do not come from any form of cheating. For example, being really tall is an enormous and totally unfair advantage in sports like basketball, football, volleyball, tennis, swimming, rowing ... Having fast-twitch fibres that enable you to run faster, jump higher, etc. is a very unfair advantage in many sports too.
    
    We've got so used to these that we forget how unfair these advantages are just because they are "natural".
    
    A few sports (Boxing, wrestling, judo) make an effort to level the playing field. But the reality is that the 99% of people who are not among the very tallest of their gender group, and/or to not have incredible natural speed have almost no chance to succeed in most of our top sports today - which means they miss out on college scholarships, leadership opportunities, friendships, networking, fame, fortune and many other benefits of being elite athletes - and in most cases, even miss out on the opportunity to compete at high-school level.
    
    This is truly unfair!
    
    I'm not suggesting there's an easy fix. I am a huge fan of all these sports. But I do wonder if there are steps we could take to level the playing field a little bit so that everyone would have a chance to complete in competitive sports, for example:
    - why is it that the top sports for both boys and girls (football, basketball, volleyball) are the ones where height and speed are so important? Could schools make a conscious effort to promote sports where these are not quite so critical (soccer, golf, ..), so as to involve more people? Sure these sports exist, but they don't have the glamour, the fans, ...
    - why is it that even in sports where size doesn't nominally have to be such a big advantage (baseball, hockey) we incorporate elements which make it hard for average-sized players to compete? For example, hockey skills do not depend on size, smaller players could be very good players, but the very physical checking allowed means that they rarely survive at top level. In baseball, the huge emphasis on power-hitting and home runs means that very few non-power-hitters can make it into the lineup of most teams. [In theory, shorter players should have a smaller strike-zone in baseball (according to the rules) but how often do you see that???]. In golf, we keep making the courses longer - they used to say "you drive for show, you putt for dough", but recently it's the long drivers who are winning most ...
    
    I wish I had an easy solution to propose ...
    
    
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. Pete2100 12:30 PM 6/12/12

    In isolation, it wouldn't bother me if well-informed professional athletes competed in the lab as well as on the field. The problem is that many of these performance-enhancements are unsafe to use, and if they are used or indeed sanctioned at the highest levels, there will be pressure to use them all the way down through through the amateur and scholastic ranks.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. nuria 08:03 AM 7/24/12

    wow!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this