Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 1:01am
The psychology that pushes steroids
Column: Spiritual Psychology
Last week I wrote about the steroid "scandal" and the congressional investigation of performance enhancers in sports. I suggested that Congress was opening a can of worms that would not close easily as the thorny issues crept out and mounted along with a widening net that would extend beyond sports and steroids. Well - surprise, surprise — that happened sooner than even I thought it would. A featured story in The New York Times this past Monday had the headline "Prominent Entertainers Cited in Steroids Inquiry." Rapper 50 Cent was named "among thousands of people whose names are turning up in an investigation into obtaining steroids or human growth hormones" initiated by the Albany County, N.Y., district attorney. One of the accused, hip-hop/soul singer Mary Blige, denied taking performance-enhancing steroids or anti-aging steroids. Adding to this bizarre turn, one of the accused, according to the Times report, is author, actor and producer Tyler Perry. Have we gone completely bonkers? Is our legal system running out of control? Or is it all about political egos jumping into the spotlight?
Are we now going to question the "home run" performances of these superstar entertainers? Will we take their awards away? What about all those greats of the past whose accomplishments were often assisted by performance enhancers including narcotics, alcohol, hallucinogenic drugs and God knows what else — since no one was paying that much attention and others even romanticized the "free-style" behavior? Will we strip the Pulitzer prizes from Ernest Hemingway, Norman Mailer and others — and burn their books?
The righteous rationale for this zealous action is the possible acquisition of drugs without prescriptions, or with prescriptions but no actual medical supervision. But since many of these substances are real drugs that are used for real medical conditions, it's well known that many can obtain them on a prescription basis with "need" being highly debatable and fuzzy and not likely to hold up against "medical discretion."
But are these investigations really about the health and well being of society — athletes, entertainers and young people? That's the pious talk: "Let's cleanse our sports arenas and theaters." Ask the accusers to say that slowly, and see if they can do it with a straight face!
If it were a slow news day, I might chuckle and understand. But do these investigators know that there's a war on, the economy is shaky, the housing market is collapsing, the dollar is sinking to historic lows, the trade deficit is soaring, the icebergs are melting and the viability of our planet is in question - and lawmakers are deeply disturbed about what performance enhancers 50 Cent may be taking? Is this story worth 10 cents?
While one of the stated intentions of exuberant lawmakers and the sports establishment is to discourage the use of steroids among young people, the avalanche of media attention, and now widening net, encompassing the entertainment industry may have just the opposite outcome — it could very well make steroids more alluring. Wouldn't it have been better for all concerned to have handled the steroid matter more quietly and in-house, rather than turning it over to the three-ring media circus that is now likely to find increasing favor with more prosecutors desperate for the limelight with the fantasy of a springboard to higher office?
Is this steroid affair, as I suggested last week, a smokescreen cover for the real agenda: protecting a shaky notion of "natural ability" and the sanctity of performance records based on unadulterated natural ability?
If that were the case, do we really know that the heroes of yesteryear were squeaky clean — the all-American Wheaties generations?
Athletes throughout history have always sought to enhance performance. In ancient Rome "athletes used performance-enhancing herbs and mushrooms in order to improve their performance in competition by making them faster, stronger and braver." In Europe performance-enhancers arrived on the sports scene in the 19th century in conjunction with the rise of spectator sports in England, suggesting that commercialization of sports and the use of performance-enhancers are intimately entwined. That pattern was mimicked in the United States. At one time, baseball players often led legendary debauched lifestyles. But starting in 1890, when baseball evolved into a serious business with real money at stake, "owners and managers were beginning to confine players to hotels, enforcing curfews, fining those with liquor bottles in the outfield and the bull pen, insisting on modest physical preparation for spring training." It wasn't until amateur international competition in the late 1920s that the first doping rules were instituted.
Now with the huge megabucks at stake, it's clear that players will do whatever necessary to improve their chances of success, maintain their level of success and build up strength and stamina, not only for performance but to lessen the impact of injuries from the stresses and blows to their bodies — their prime asset — from the abnormal physical demands of professional sports. With their economic and professional lives at stake in the face of obstacles and fierce competition, many will not overlook any elixir or mushroom that promises to assist.
Perhaps we need to recast the question. Looked at from the psychological perspective of the players, the notion of "risk" from performance-enhancers may have an entirely different meaning than for the sports establishment that is fixated on the bottom line, the fans wishing to maintain the mythology of "clean records" from the romanticized bygone days, and the media hungry for sensational exposes that can grab headlines that fulfill the media mantra "if it bleeds, it leads." The professed argument of sports managements in their anti-enhancement campaign is their deep concern for the health of athletes. The facts, though, don't support that.
For example, despite the high incidence of sports injuries, particularly among professional players, it's ironic that "There has never been a major national public survey of sports injuries in the U.S. — at least not since the 1970s" and that "not a single professional organization has made this effort," says American Sports Data, Inc. Is it possible that the sports industry doesn't want to know what will prevent injuries, because that might mandate changes that would not find favor with the fans?
Athletes are painfully aware that their careers, under the best of circumstances, are brief. After 15 years starting at age "20 something," it's likely to be over by the mid-30s — for others even sooner. Statistics on rookies in baseball punctuate that point: "Between 1902 and 1993, 5,989 position players started their careers and played 33,272 person years of major league baseball. A rookie position player can expect to play 5.6 years; one in five position players will have only a single-year career, and at every point of a player's career, the chance of exiting is at least 11 percent."
So there is only a brief window for success and achievement before you are a senior citizen in professional sports, if you last that long. The prospect of retirement in their 30s may lead some to conclude that whatever damage they may do from harsh side effects of steroids and other enhancers can be corrected or reversed after retirement — and if their enhanced muscle mass improves their performance and adds strength that may prevent injuries, thereby benefiting their health in the long run, why not? Weighed against the likelihood of lifelong physical problems and disabilities from sports injuries, performance- and strength-enhancers may look like a good trade off. One stark, disturbing statistic reported by Drs. Michael A. Glueck and Robert J. Cihak, Harvard-trained radiologists, speaks tons: "It is not a widely disseminated, downloaded or discussed fact that the average life expectancy for all pro football players, including all positions and backgrounds, is 55 years. Several insurance carriers say it is 51 years." That's 30 percent less than the average life expectancy for the general population today and equal to the life expectancy of the year 1900.
Football in particular encourages massive size. At one time there were few 300-pound players. But last year the number swelled to over 350. These massive machines of destruction have the express purpose of smashing down 180-pound running backs and quarterbacks. According to heart surgeon Dr. Archie Roberts, a former Columbia University star quarterback and now founder and head of the Living Heart Foundation, which screens retired football players, the weight factor is what is contributing to the early death of football players.
The demand for bigger and stronger players is also an invitation for the use of steroids — part of the duplicity in the war on performance-enhancers.
To recast the question, rather than asking how can we stop players from using steroids, perhaps we should ask: What can we do to help players develop optimally in healthy ways? In addition to banning and monitoring the use of harmful drugs, the sports industry must put teeth into its concern for the well being of players by introducing new equipment and rules that will lessen or prevent serious injuries. At the same time, it should encourage and support the search for safe products, foods and lifestyles that will enhance strength and stamina without compromising health. The life expectancy of athletes is another issue that demands serious investigation. A good starting point would be to initiate the types of independent studies of sports injuries suggested by American Sports Data.
(My book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is now available at Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches "Spirituality in Film" and leads "The Spiritual Forum" at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio, he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the president of the Association for Spirituality and Psychotherapy and is the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. His book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" has been published by Rowman & Littlefield. He can be reached at {email OmniCns@aol.com}OmniCns@aol.com{/email}. © Copyright 2008 by Bernard Starr.
Are we now going to question the "home run" performances of these superstar entertainers? Will we take their awards away? What about all those greats of the past whose accomplishments were often assisted by performance enhancers including narcotics, alcohol, hallucinogenic drugs and God knows what else — since no one was paying that much attention and others even romanticized the "free-style" behavior? Will we strip the Pulitzer prizes from Ernest Hemingway, Norman Mailer and others — and burn their books?
The righteous rationale for this zealous action is the possible acquisition of drugs without prescriptions, or with prescriptions but no actual medical supervision. But since many of these substances are real drugs that are used for real medical conditions, it's well known that many can obtain them on a prescription basis with "need" being highly debatable and fuzzy and not likely to hold up against "medical discretion."
But are these investigations really about the health and well being of society — athletes, entertainers and young people? That's the pious talk: "Let's cleanse our sports arenas and theaters." Ask the accusers to say that slowly, and see if they can do it with a straight face!
If it were a slow news day, I might chuckle and understand. But do these investigators know that there's a war on, the economy is shaky, the housing market is collapsing, the dollar is sinking to historic lows, the trade deficit is soaring, the icebergs are melting and the viability of our planet is in question - and lawmakers are deeply disturbed about what performance enhancers 50 Cent may be taking? Is this story worth 10 cents?
While one of the stated intentions of exuberant lawmakers and the sports establishment is to discourage the use of steroids among young people, the avalanche of media attention, and now widening net, encompassing the entertainment industry may have just the opposite outcome — it could very well make steroids more alluring. Wouldn't it have been better for all concerned to have handled the steroid matter more quietly and in-house, rather than turning it over to the three-ring media circus that is now likely to find increasing favor with more prosecutors desperate for the limelight with the fantasy of a springboard to higher office?
Is this steroid affair, as I suggested last week, a smokescreen cover for the real agenda: protecting a shaky notion of "natural ability" and the sanctity of performance records based on unadulterated natural ability?
If that were the case, do we really know that the heroes of yesteryear were squeaky clean — the all-American Wheaties generations?
Athletes throughout history have always sought to enhance performance. In ancient Rome "athletes used performance-enhancing herbs and mushrooms in order to improve their performance in competition by making them faster, stronger and braver." In Europe performance-enhancers arrived on the sports scene in the 19th century in conjunction with the rise of spectator sports in England, suggesting that commercialization of sports and the use of performance-enhancers are intimately entwined. That pattern was mimicked in the United States. At one time, baseball players often led legendary debauched lifestyles. But starting in 1890, when baseball evolved into a serious business with real money at stake, "owners and managers were beginning to confine players to hotels, enforcing curfews, fining those with liquor bottles in the outfield and the bull pen, insisting on modest physical preparation for spring training." It wasn't until amateur international competition in the late 1920s that the first doping rules were instituted.
Now with the huge megabucks at stake, it's clear that players will do whatever necessary to improve their chances of success, maintain their level of success and build up strength and stamina, not only for performance but to lessen the impact of injuries from the stresses and blows to their bodies — their prime asset — from the abnormal physical demands of professional sports. With their economic and professional lives at stake in the face of obstacles and fierce competition, many will not overlook any elixir or mushroom that promises to assist.
Perhaps we need to recast the question. Looked at from the psychological perspective of the players, the notion of "risk" from performance-enhancers may have an entirely different meaning than for the sports establishment that is fixated on the bottom line, the fans wishing to maintain the mythology of "clean records" from the romanticized bygone days, and the media hungry for sensational exposes that can grab headlines that fulfill the media mantra "if it bleeds, it leads." The professed argument of sports managements in their anti-enhancement campaign is their deep concern for the health of athletes. The facts, though, don't support that.
For example, despite the high incidence of sports injuries, particularly among professional players, it's ironic that "There has never been a major national public survey of sports injuries in the U.S. — at least not since the 1970s" and that "not a single professional organization has made this effort," says American Sports Data, Inc. Is it possible that the sports industry doesn't want to know what will prevent injuries, because that might mandate changes that would not find favor with the fans?
Athletes are painfully aware that their careers, under the best of circumstances, are brief. After 15 years starting at age "20 something," it's likely to be over by the mid-30s — for others even sooner. Statistics on rookies in baseball punctuate that point: "Between 1902 and 1993, 5,989 position players started their careers and played 33,272 person years of major league baseball. A rookie position player can expect to play 5.6 years; one in five position players will have only a single-year career, and at every point of a player's career, the chance of exiting is at least 11 percent."
So there is only a brief window for success and achievement before you are a senior citizen in professional sports, if you last that long. The prospect of retirement in their 30s may lead some to conclude that whatever damage they may do from harsh side effects of steroids and other enhancers can be corrected or reversed after retirement — and if their enhanced muscle mass improves their performance and adds strength that may prevent injuries, thereby benefiting their health in the long run, why not? Weighed against the likelihood of lifelong physical problems and disabilities from sports injuries, performance- and strength-enhancers may look like a good trade off. One stark, disturbing statistic reported by Drs. Michael A. Glueck and Robert J. Cihak, Harvard-trained radiologists, speaks tons: "It is not a widely disseminated, downloaded or discussed fact that the average life expectancy for all pro football players, including all positions and backgrounds, is 55 years. Several insurance carriers say it is 51 years." That's 30 percent less than the average life expectancy for the general population today and equal to the life expectancy of the year 1900.
Football in particular encourages massive size. At one time there were few 300-pound players. But last year the number swelled to over 350. These massive machines of destruction have the express purpose of smashing down 180-pound running backs and quarterbacks. According to heart surgeon Dr. Archie Roberts, a former Columbia University star quarterback and now founder and head of the Living Heart Foundation, which screens retired football players, the weight factor is what is contributing to the early death of football players.
The demand for bigger and stronger players is also an invitation for the use of steroids — part of the duplicity in the war on performance-enhancers.
To recast the question, rather than asking how can we stop players from using steroids, perhaps we should ask: What can we do to help players develop optimally in healthy ways? In addition to banning and monitoring the use of harmful drugs, the sports industry must put teeth into its concern for the well being of players by introducing new equipment and rules that will lessen or prevent serious injuries. At the same time, it should encourage and support the search for safe products, foods and lifestyles that will enhance strength and stamina without compromising health. The life expectancy of athletes is another issue that demands serious investigation. A good starting point would be to initiate the types of independent studies of sports injuries suggested by American Sports Data.
(My book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is now available at Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches "Spirituality in Film" and leads "The Spiritual Forum" at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio, he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the president of the Association for Spirituality and Psychotherapy and is the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. His book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" has been published by Rowman & Littlefield. He can be reached at {email OmniCns@aol.com}OmniCns@aol.com{/email}. © Copyright 2008 by Bernard Starr.