Yesterday, Red Sox slugger, David “Big Papi” Ortiz has admitted that a New York Times article was correct when it name the Left Fielder as one of the players to have tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003 .
The Dodgers’ Manny Ramirez didn’t deny the report either. The former Red Sox starter star who’s already served a 50-game suspension for a failed test earlier this season, was also named in the Times report.
What’s interesting here, is that while Oritz admitted being on the last, he insists that he has no clue as to how or why he tested positive in the first place.
The next few weeks should be interesting.
Performance Enhancing Drugs.
Three words that have plagued the once stellar and untarnished world of baseball for years.
In December 2007, I wrote a post about America’s pastime and certain players’ use of anabolic steroids and how that has failed a country full of wide-eyed baseball fans ,who still believed their heroes were naturally gifted and that plus, conditioning, practice and drive allowed them to earn the term “slugger” the old fashioned way; NOT through chemistry.
While my opinion regarding the use of steroids hasn’t changed in the two years since originally writing that post, I’ve also chosen to look at the subject from a different perspective.
One could argue that PEDs (performance Enhancing Drugs) give fans more bang for their buck. Jose Canseco accused baseball superstar Mark McGwire of being a steroid pin cushion not long after McGwire’s record breaking season in 1998. That’s when he wowed the country and baseball fans around the world were completely wowed when he and Sammy Sosa both surpassed Roger Maris’ 61 homerun record in a single season.
Maris achieved that feat in the early 60’s and did it through grit and guts and probably a whole helluva lot of gin, but let’s face it, alcholol isn’t an enhancer unless of course, you consider that it helps make make homely people much prettier at closing time.
But herein lies the question I want to pose:
What really is the difference between any player using anabolic steroids AND a model who’s achieved superstardom in the world of fashion, glamour and thin, corporeal perfection courtesy of boob jobs, butt lifts, lipsocution, tummy tucks, Botox and collagen puffed bee stung lips? And then even with all that there’s the magic of make-up, lighting and technology. Her photographs are often air brushed and retouched to enhance her looks even more. It suddencly ceases being natural and becomes man-made and technolically enhanced.
Like an injection of Andro or any of the the countless other types of gym candy usesd to bulk up.
I’ve included a video, that was produced by Dove two years ago. It’s made the rounds on You Tube and in email inboxes and and perfectly exemplifies the concept of enhanced beauty. And in many cases, where there was none intially.
Granted, the model only poses for a camera and with the exception of long, enduring hours under hot lots and a photographers glare; there’s very little physical exertion or the need for a specific skill set. In baseball, it’s imperative that you have raw skills or you wouldn’t be playing professionally, be it on farm teams or up in the Big Show.
Nevertheless, if a model is paid ridiculous amounts of money simply for looking good while being photographed, how is that any difference from a player who juices? How is the enhanced beauty of a model any more wrong than that of a pro-player who shot up to give himself an edge in the game?
As I see it, a model is already pretty. Nature has been kind; Max Factor even kinder. That said, beauty is enhanced through all the applications and methods listed abve.
A truly talented baseball player can already hit a ball close to the Green Monster in Boston, but a few shots in the butt with PEDs can often mean the difference between a base hit and a homerun.
Fashion magazines sell more magazines when a beautiful woman graces the cover. In 1998, when the homerun record breaking drive was in full swing, baseball franschises sold more tickets and the game as a whole, had higher TV ratings than it ever had before.
So really, what’s the difference?
Let’s just say for instance, it’s ultimately determined that there is none bythe various regulating commissions, could you ever foresee a day when models are fined and suspended from multi-million dollar photo shoots or fashion shows for what amounts to be the very same offense as steroid users in college or professsional sports?