Drugs IN Sports versus Entertainment AND Sports

Is it more about the competition, or the fun of it?

Is it more about the entertainment, or the drive to be the best?

Is it for the fans hoping for victory, or is it for the players striving for glory?

It all boils down to: Are drugs more beneficial to the entertainment of sport — and, therefore, pushes the athletes to be the best and strive for glory? — or are drugs viewed as detrimental to the fairness of sport — and, therefore, it’s more about the fun of it and athletes are just trying to put on a show and be the best they can naturally be — and the athletic prowess is entertaining enough?

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sports have so many conversations surrounding them: everything from who has the most championships and all of the other wild statistics that analysts comment on in their suits day after day — regardless of the sport — to scandals regarding anything from hit-and-run accidents, to domestic violence cases, to doping scandals, to the paying of college athletes, to the kneeling during “The National Anthem” and everything in between.

However, when people discuss drugs in any sport, most of the discussion revolves around whether or not someone should have an asterisk by their name after breaking a record or winning a championship, if they didn’t get caught beforehand (consider Barry Bonds* — or any number of professional baseball players — or Lance Armstrong*, for instance). This is a valid discussion because while “no one else was doing it”, these were the ones that got in trouble for, by the rules of their respective sports, cheating. Obviously, there are rules against all sorts of drug use in most major sports, but this conversation focuses on whether or not this is the type of rule we as consumers want to see altered for the betterment of “sport as spectacle/entertainment.”

Less of the conversation focuses on whether or not it is about the spectacle of the sport, or, in other words, for the fanatic (fan) because, after all, sports are a source of entertainment for many, or whether it is about the professional athletes trying to be the best they can be and try to win as many championships in their respective discipline(s) for as long as they can.

So to speak, is it about the professional athletes being professional athletes and striving for glory and to go down in history as one of the best in their respected sports (no drugs)? Or, is it about professional athletes pushing their bodies and putting on the best show they can put on for their fanatics — building personas and acting accordingly to their prominent features — and getting the crowd behind them for a possible accomplishment/achievement that would generate more hype, more economic gain, and more myth behind the future “legend” (drugs)?

However, the first issue that comes into this debate is the idea of “fairness”, or the idea of everyone being on the same, level playing field. This means that if one person is gaining an advantage through the use of drugs — whether that be steroids/HGH, amphetamines, cocaine, or opiates — that means everyone should probably be using drugs in order to make it a “level playing field”. Take baseball for instance. Fans want to see a pitcher throwing 90 mile per hour curveballs on a consistent basis, but they also want to see those same pitches get launched out of the stadium 500 feet on a consistent basis as well. If no one is using drugs, then the one who uses drugs gains an upper hand because they are the only one with an increased advantage. This would be like Lance Armstrong (without drugs) racing a bunch of little kids that just learned how to ride bikes.

This thinking fairs on the side of the athletes brutally competing back and forth, striving for glory, trying to be the best they can be, but, understandably so, discusses fairness amongst the athletes. But, this thinking also leaves out the idea of the fan, for which these athletes play for, from which these athletes gain economic and emotional support from, and for who the fans are dying to see win it all. Thinking of the fan brings in an entirely different perspective.

Sure, the fans want to see their teams or individual sport icons win a championship or, better even, multiple championships in a relatively short amount of time. But, what else do fans want to see? They want to see the longest bombs (home runs) in baseball; they want to see the hardest hits in football and hockey; they want to see the longest drives in golf and the most posterizing dunks in basketball and the biggest smashes in tennis. Championships are awesome, but few teams or individuals get them at all and it is even more rare to get them often. So, a fan has to live for match-by-match and game-by-game scenarios in which, even if “they” are losing — including themselves in the team dynamic — they (the fan) are still enjoying the spectacle of watching these extraordinary athletic feats, like beating a world record in a track race, and amazing sport plays, like a baseball player jumping out of his shoes to catch a fly ball in the stands. That’s not to say these athletic feats couldn’t be done without drugs, as they have been happening on for years, but it’s just to say that maybe these feats would happen more frequently and with more vigor, therefore, making the sport “more entertaining”.

Another aspect of this conversation is, who does it matter more to and/or who is it worth more to? On one hand, the fans love and admire their team and hope only the best for them and want to see the biggest plays and best performances for years upon years. The fans are invested in more ways than one. They dish money out for tickets to sporting events and apparel and memorabilia and are invested emotionally by being on the edge of chaos for a championship win or a gruesome, heart-wrenching defeat.

On the other hand, the players are human beings as well — no matter how impressive of one athletically — whom have their own lives to live and families to care for. The athletes are invested economically as well by this being their livelihoods and emotionally by them striving to be the best for as long as they can or being devastated by an injury. Is it more about the fan who just has an admiration and passion for the team and includes himself/herself in the team dynamic by saying such phrases like, “Ughhh! ‘WE’ lost!”? Or is it more about those who can suffer bodily injuries and may have future issues due to the years of wear and tear they’ve put on their bodies for the mere entertainment of the fans and glory of being a “legend”?

Hence, this comes back to the main issue. Do fans want to see their athletes perform the best they can for as long as they can and, thus, condone drug use in order to see that come to fruition for the best entertainment one could ask for? Or, do fans want to see their athletes strive in their natural abilities for as long as they can and appreciate the time they have with these athletes putting their bodies and talents on the line for as long as they humanly can or want to or are economically/emotionally/physically capable of?

The other end of the spectrum looks at whether the athletes want to push their bodies to the ultimate limit in order to be the best they can be for as long as they can and go down in history with their fanatics for the entertainment and gusto they provided and, therefore, condone the use of drugs for entertainment and ultimate glory? Or, do athletes strive to be the best in their natural abilities for as long as they naturally can and provide to the fan base the most they can before their body needs the extra, possibly “unnecessary”, supplements and, therefore, going down in history for being a stud without the added boost?

Would we rather see Jon “Bones” Jones beat Daniel Cormier in a UFC fight “after a weekend of cocaine” — whether that means he was tired after doing all of that cocaine, or whether that means he was amped up on cocaine — or would we rather see an average fight where they casually go back and forth and there is a declared winner rather than a viciously brutal knockout?

Should major sports organizations have separate leagues for the dopers and non-dopers so that there is uniform fairness across the league? Or do fans have to deal with “cheaters” and have to watch as their favorite players’ reputations become tarnished?

Entertainment for the fans, or ethics for the athletes? Fairness to athletes — either drugs for all or drugs for none — or the next best thing in sports entertainment? What do fans want? What do fans get?

Do we have a choice?