Thursday, August 4, 2005
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Medicine and the modern pitcher
On his 43rd birthday, Houston Astros pitcher Roger Clemens has become his generation's Nolan Ryan, the Official Hero to American Middle-Aged Men everywhere.
No Red Sox fan can have an uncomplicated opinion of Clemens -- however, this Alan Schwarz article in ESPN.com provides a nice illustration of how medical advances made Clemens' long career possible:
posted by Dan on 08.04.05 at 04:51 PM
Pfui. Mister claimed Red Sox fan. How about, 'his generation's Luis Tiant'???posted by: dave s on 08.04.05 at 04:51 PM [permalink]
And for continuing on and on and on, Atlanta's Julio Franco. 46 and still ticking
So why is surgery OK but steroids are not?posted by: Whitehall on 08.04.05 at 04:51 PM [permalink]
It's unreasonable to require average players to assume the health risks of steroids in order to be competitive. That isn't the case for surgery, which doesn't come with the same risks, and serves as an attempt to repair an injury in order to restore them to their prior ability (bionic implants to boost performance would be a different matter).posted by: fling93 on 08.04.05 at 04:51 PM [permalink]
Modern orthopaedic surgery gets more miraculous by the day, for athletes, trauma injuries, seniors etc.This is improved further by modern physical therapy techniques and procedures.
So if you ever wonder about the good parts of American medicine, this is one of them.posted by: save_the_rustbelt on 08.04.05 at 04:51 PM [permalink]
To the contrary, I think most Red Sox fans have an utterly uncomplicated view of Clemens:posted by: alkali on 08.04.05 at 04:51 PM [permalink]
I was greatly disappointed when Jose Canseco declined to support the use of steriods before the Congressional commitee as he had in his book. This is not to say that I support their use, or Canseco's position in "Juiced". But I think the argument should be made, particularly because I think there is a strange taboo which hovers over enhancements by way of drugs, and not those by way of surgery. In the long run, this taboo ought to be diffused. As an earlier post argues, the harmful consequences of steriods should justify their prohibition. But what if a company created a steriod with less harmful side-effects? Not to mention other advances in drugs which may help attention, memory and a whole other host of mental abilities. If these should enhance play, ought they to be illegal?posted by: Michael Patrick Gibson on 08.04.05 at 04:51 PM [permalink]
Post a Comment: