I talked about Xavier Nady and the PRP therapy that he’s getting on his elbow in today’s UTK. I got some new info on it that’s really fascinating and couldn’t wait for tomorrow’s column. There’s a factor with Nady that hadn’t been taken into account. Having had Tommy John surgery previously, Nady’s ligament is in fact a tendon. PRP has been used far more frequently with tendons, so that would make this more likely to succeed right? Maybe. Tendons used to replace ligaments undergo something called ligamentization. The tendon turns into a ligament over a period of years. That likely means that Nady’s tendon graft is now anatomically a ligament, returning this to the same kind of procedure that Takashi Saito had. Then again, it’s never been done on a grafted ligament … or tendon … or whatever it is now.
It’s this kind of fascinating crossroad of baseball and medical technology that makes my job fun.
And, in other news, A.J. Burnett will miss his next start as he recovers from his arm graft. Roger Clemens was not available for comment but Dr. Andrews reported the surgery went without complications.
It's pretty easy to see how the lines between "performance enhancing" and "corrective" and "recuperation enhancement" are going to get impossibly fuzzy.
Remember when some people thought that Tommy John surgery made you better than you had been before? Any day now, a procedure will come along where it's true -- and then what do you do?
I'm probably in the minority here, but I say bring it on. What's so holy about natural ability? It would be fun to watch Koufax-elbow throw 100 mph sliders to Ruth-wrists, who would hit them 500 feet. The point of the game is an entertaining competition, and that would be both entertaining and competitive. Our collective reverence for the genetic lottery strikes me as a little irrational.
Injuries are natural, so surgery to restore an injured arm is just as unnatural as surgery to improve an uninjured one. These lines are impossibly fuzzy because there's no principled way to draw them. Why try?
Eh, I disagree. Why not just have robots play the game then? I get that the line is already fuzzy because of things like advanced medical techniques, LASIK surgery, etc. And I get that everyone is tired of the sanctimonious outcry over steroids. Still, I like the idea of people playing at an incredible level naturally. It's a testament to just how amazing these people are at what they do.
You say we have too much reverence for the genetic lottery, but I'll take random chance (and, of course, years and years of incredible dedication and hard work, which you leave out) over an extreme willingness to push the limits of science in the pursuit of personal greatness, wealth, entertainment, whatever. I like that they pursue these things instead with a sense of humanism, an appreciation for what the human body, mind, and spirit is capable of.
In many ways, allowing for unnatural enhancement (and I fully admit we don't even know at this point what's natural and what isn't) detracts from this specific appeal. Watching these guys perform under the auspices of "natural" ability makes you realize just how impressive they really are. And that means something to me.
because no matter how scientifically enhanced a player may be, he's still going to have to be strong mentally. Emotion is a huge part of the game, and your example of robots will never match that.
Actually, I don't think you're right. Mental strength is only important because mental weakness is possible.
Example: A robot who has been 0 for his last 11 and facing Johan Santana can be programmed to have no emotional memory whatsoever of what has happened previously, except to know what pitches, location, etc. that Johan has used.
A human, of course, being conscious, struggles with things like confidence and memory and emotion. But these things only play a part in the game because humans play it. Were robots to play the game, mental strength and emotion simply wouldn't be part of the game.
This is a somewhat ridiculous conversation, I understand.
Just to be clear -- mine was not a "how can we hold back the ungodly tide of medical advances" post. I'm trying to point out that the line between "fix what's broken", "new training technique", and "Illegal Performance Enhancement STOP STOP STOP" is already much less clear than the media and the fans tend to want to make it. Especially when we really have no idea how much (if at all) most of the illegal techniques really help elite baseball players perform better on the field.
I'm reminded of the line the Olympics tried to draw between amateur and professional. Today, we all pretty much dismiss that attempt as rampant classist elitism, intended to keep the riff-raff out of the Gentlemen's Club of international amateur athletics. And so it was, in large part -- but not entirely. There really was a component of trying to preserve a purity that was easy to want but hard to define. I wonder if future generations will look back on the struggles against PEDs and medical advances the same way.
Before someone brings it up, I do have some sympathy with making known-to-be-destructive PEDs and techniques illegal, especially when kids are choosing (myopically) between success now and a pleasant life sometime after. But let's be honest -- HGH abuse probably isn't any more long-term detrimental to health than, say, pitching for the University of Texas for 4 years, or playing at all in NFL.
Simply, a dietary supplement is a performance enhancer. Anything you put in your body that improves how your body functions in some way, shape or form, is an enhancer. And though some supplements are considered legal now and used widely, that can change on a dime. Consider the recent FDA recall of hydroxycut or the ephedra scare from five years ago. Before that, androsterone was legal when Mark McGwire was using it.
Probably because a)people in all walks of life have the procedure done in their own lives. Not everyone shoots themselves up with steroids, and b)it's not illegal.
i think biologically/genetically enhanced players will be more difficult to ban. if you can get a doctors note for ADD medicine to replace greenies, why not a doctors note for stem cell therapy? or perhaps a myostatin inhibitor or RNAi (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/03/11/steroids.future/) as raised in this SI article.
While we are a long way from understanding the genetics of what makes a good athlete, prenatal testing is advancing rapidly. it is now very easy to screen IVF embryos using only 1 cell. those tests they offer now to guide your child to their ideal sport are currently BS, but the day will come.
i'm still waiting for the phillies to name me director of cloning and stem cells. trust me, i will find and fix the gene that has left ryan howard unable to hit lefties.
How are those procedures different from using anabolic steroids? Well, a short perusal of the most general source known to man, reveals the following possible side-effects to steroid-use, depending on dosage, length of abuse and with the usual caveats that should go with any scientific study's conclusions:
elevated blood pressure, harmful changes in cholesterol levels, increase the risk of cardiovascular disease or coronary artery disease, acne, accelerate the rate of premature baldness for males who are genetically predisposed, liver damage development of breast tissue in males, reduced sexual function and temporary infertility can also occur in males, testicular atrophy, symptoms of dependence and withdrawal, apoptotic effects on neurons that may lead to possibly irreversible neuropsychiatric toxicity, mood disorders, progression to other forms of substance abuse, depression, [hypo-]mania, psychotic features, and possible increased tendency towards violence. Significant psychiatric symptoms including aggression and violence, mania, and less frequently psychosis and suicide have been associated with steroid abuse.
Female-specific side effects include increases in body hair, deepening of the voice, enlarged clitoris, and temporary decreases in menstrual cycles. When taken during pregnancy, anabolic steroids can affect fetal development by causing the development of male features in the female fetus and female features in the male fetus.
A number of severe side effects can occur if adolescents use anabolic steroids: may prematurely stop the lengthening of bones, accelerated bone maturation, increased frequency and duration of erections, and premature sexual development, alterations in the structure of the heart, resulting in hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, heart attacks, and sudden cardiac death.
Otherwise, yeah, it's exactly the same as taking supplements, getting replacement tendons and getting eye surgery. You can question whether steroids aid batters and pitchers, but to talk about performance enhancement with no discussion of the severe risks run strikes me as irresponsible.
That's a pretty sobering list of potential side-effects -- but no worse than the list that goes with (say) most antidepressant drugs. Is the use of antidepressants a performance enhancement that should be banned? If not, why not?
The fuzzy line most people seem to be trying to draw is the line between "fixing a problem" and "enhancing beyond what's normal". But which conditions we call "problems" and which we call "normal" are social conventions, not objective facts.
To put what I mean a little more clearly, just because it's difficult to draw the line does not mean it's impossible to do. The existence of the dawn does not disprove the fact of night and day.
25 comments have been left for this post.
Sounds like a quasi-stem cell genesis ... intriguing stuff there!
(better not let the scientific ostriches get wind of this)
No, it's just the body doing it's normal replacement/regeneration. Nothing for ostriches to not see here.