 |
|
||||||||||
Breakroom... Pumped over performance enhancers...The other day, while trying to acquire a competitive edge in the form of a dozen Titleist Pro V1 projectiles, I found myself trapped in a pro shop, mired in a Barry Bonds debate. The topic was whether performance-enhancing chemicals made any difference in Bonds' home run record, and try as I might, I could not get out of there without declaring my position. One group claimed Bonds' performance to be tainted by drugs. The even more vocal opposition said that performance enhancers didn't matter and maintained Bonds merely is an example of a great athlete. The remainder said they didn't care to watch adults play what essentially is a child's game. Forced to say something before being allowed to leave, I fell back on the time-honored politician's tactic of evading the question by asking a question. "What do y'all think about Gary Player's statement on performance drugs in golf?" To a man, they all parroted Paul Azinger's opinion that performance enhancers wouldn't help a golfer, especially on the short grass with the flat stick. They took turns subjecting Player to various insults, the most common involving oncoming senility. Most of the debate participants were too young to remember when Player was harassed in the '60s for advocating weightlifting, running and healthy eating habits as avenues toward a better golf game. While others his age now are restricted to barstool counterweight duty, Player can still play; that should be proof enough of his physiological awareness. Most of the debate participants were too young to remember when Player was harassed in the '60s for advocating weightlifting, running and healthy eating habits as avenues toward a better golf game.To Azinger's contention that steroids aren't helpful on the green, consider this: those who manipulate performance enhancers rarely limit their potions to just one aspect. They often brew several concoctions, each ingredient to address a different performance problem – one for pain, one for strength and so on. With human growth hormone being touted as a fountain of youth to ordinary senior citizens, why wouldn't an athlete whose abilities are in decline give it a try? What about beta blockers, rumored to be popular with competitive shooters and archers for their ability to calm sudden spikes in one's heart rate? A 4-foot par putt can trigger a pulse burst that sounds like a revving sewing machine. There are even drugs to improve concentration. I know of a professional golfer whose average round dropped seven shots after he tapped into his children's prescription medication. He claimed he suffered from attention deficit disorder – I'm convinced his only disorder was of the eating variety. "I'll have dis order and dat one, and I'd like to order dessert right now." There are two glaring truths here. First, merely holding the position that the use of performance enhancers does not exist or that they have no effect further enables the Frankenstein enthusiasts to conduct even more experimentation. A friend who is a competitive weight lifter repeatedly lost at competitions even though at 155 pounds, he was able to bench press 340 pounds. He was able to clear an additional 100 pounds after a six-week program on anabolic helpers. Just think what a great big, rich professional athlete could do. The second truth is more harsh: Clean players eventually are forced by economics to compete against pharmaceutical science projects. To put this in perspective, imagine what would happen in the highly competitive golf maintenance industry if all of our anti-fungal, insect-removing, weed-suppressors were against the rules? Then imagine that the ruling bodies rarely enforced the rules, pretended that cheating did not exist and hinted that the banned substances probably were ineffective anyway. Here's what would happen: The rule-abiding superintendent would be at a disadvantage, trying to keep the world's supply of cutworms and armyworms from eating his pythium-infected goosegrass putting surface. At the same time, the rule-bending course down the road would look great, all while making honest superintendent guy appear weak, slow, incompetent – and unemployed. This is the same dilemma faced by modern athletes, many of whom hop on the needle to remain competitive or abide by the code of silence and fade into the pack . . . while the science experiments break records. Here's what would happen: The rule-abiding superintendent would be at a disadvantage, trying to keep the world's supply of cutworms and armyworms from eating his pythium-infected goosegrass putting surface.The enhanced athlete's deal with the devil often takes a heavy toll in the form of damaged connective tissue. Ligaments and tendons respond only to years of good clean work, while swollen muscles operate more like a 500 hp motor stuffed into a Pinto, tearing apart the drivetrain. Another factor to consider is should we cast that first stone from our three-bedroom ranch? Do we hold athletes to a standard that we violate by using performance enhancers in the form of anti-depressants, fermented grains and sleep-inducers, just to get through the day? Personally, I cannot cope on a daily basis without hot caffeine and a heaping dose of endorphins. I cannot begin to comment on Bonds' record because I still have not recovered from Mark McGwire's shredding of Roger Maris' single-season record of 61* home runs. Perhaps we should just add qualifiers to the asterisks. In drug-aided records, we could add *DA, which, no, does not stand for drug abuser. Randy Wilson can be reached at rwilson@turfnet.com. |
|
 |
 — The TurfNet Media Network: TurfNet.com, TurfNet TV, TurfNet Monthly, TurfNet Today, TurfNet Events — Connecting golf course superintendents worldwide, since 1994. © 1994-2008, Turnstile Publishing Company. All rights reserved. |
 |