Macfistowannabe said:
Irvine's comparison had me thinking about Enron for whatever reason. Steroids to sports seem like Enron's accounting practices. Sure it brings in the big bucks, but is it fair?
i think this makes some sense, but the difference -- and i know this, because i worked on a documentary about Enron and then WorldCom -- is that Enron's accounting practices were used to hold up, essentially, a house of cards. when that house came crashing down, ordinary investors lost thousands and thousands of dollars, some people lots their life savings. that's a huge consequence, and probably not comparable to whatever damage has been done (and probably not all that much ... remember, steroids today are not like what the wundermadchen of East Germany were injected with) to, say, his liver.
fair, however, is a good point. should sports be fair?
i totally put faith in sports, and like the gymnasts on here, the Olympics for a former swimmer like me is akin to the World Series and the Super Bowl all wrapped up into a single week. i reflexively despise the cheaters, like the East Germans and the Chinese women in the early 90s, and since the financial rewards of swimming are minimal at best -- multi-millionaires like Phelps and Thorpe are the exception not the rule, and they're also the two best male swimmers EVER, *and* we have them competing at the same time, it's quite a time for swimming -- i find a purity in the sport that i would never expect of the NHL or the NBA, which are money making enterprises.
but then again, sports are unfair. in southern california, there's a swimming pool everywhere you look. not so many swimming pools in, say, Mongolia, hence the lack of Mongolian success in the pool at the Olympics. someone is always going to have an advantage, and it's as much to do with resources (good coaches, facilities, nutrition) as it is with hard work and talent.
i dunno.