# Jason Giambi admits to using steroids **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2004, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jason-giambi-admits-to-using-steroids/277668 "2004-12-02T07:07:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jason-giambi-admits-to-using-steroids/277668/121 "2004-12-11T00:57:42Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > This is a non sequitur. Please show me where I am arguing that public opinion should be or is the foundation for making steroids illegal (or where anyone else is, for that matter). Don’t restate something that does not assert this even implicitly. has anyone ever felt shame in the absence of a negative social opinion about what it is they felt shame for? if the negative opinion of others (in this case, the general public) is not the reason a player would be ashamed of taking steroids, what is? please provide one example where someone felt shame about something that was not frowned upon, if negative public opinion is not implied at least implicitly. > [@](#): > > Quite a curious crowd you’re running with. Equally interesting is the fact that you are intimate enough with this group to know they would still oppose steroid use even if the act weren’t unhealthy, yet you don’t know why that would be. Apparently your Vulcan mind meld was incomplete (I’m assuming you obtained your knowledge through some medium other than conversation, since that would have permitted the simple enough option of just asking them). am i not asking? i just haven’t yet received an answer i find satisfactory. the sentiment that steroids should be banned as “unfair”, regardless of the health concerns involved, has been expressed in this very thread. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I will continue to believe that non-doctor-prescribed steroids are illegal for the same reason that most drugs are: they are harmful to the people abusing them. and i’ll continue to believe that steroids should be legal for the same reason i believe all harmful drugs should be: a person should be able to harm himself if that is his wish. > [@](#): > > No. And if you pose a hypothetical where murder doesn’t actually kill someone, I’ll change my opinion on that as well. do you mean to imply that steroids and “performance-enhancing drugs” are harmful _by definition_? > [@](#): > > I would probably continue to draw the line between banned performance aids and permissible aids. You understand that in your hypothetical, steroids are no longer banned, correct? (In addition to being as healthful as mother’s milk.) i’ve argued that “performance enhancing drugs” should not be illegal, so of course that is part of the hypothetical. as an example of the sentiment i wish to dispel, i give you the young girl who lost a medal in the olympics a few years ago because she was found to have pseudoephedrine in her system. she was given the decongestant because of a cold she had. it was certainly not harmful to her. i can see amateur sports wishing to ban substances that are harmful, to protect the children involved, but then should they not ban the substance only when it is present in harmful amounts? i don’t argue that she shouldn’t have lost her medal; she broke the rules. but i will argue that the rule was without merit. > [@](#): > > I’ll try one more time. It is a rightly illegal substance that provides an unfair advantage for those willing to risk their well-being over those who follow the rules. To summarize: it is both illegal, irresponsible and cheating. I think most people quite properly find this to be dirty pool. again, i won’t argue that jason giambi wasn’t irresponsible. he cheated. he broke the rules. i don’t agree that steroids _should_ be illegal, as i think people should be able to harm themselves if that is there desire. however, this word “unfair” keeps popping up. would the advantage gained by the use of steroids be “unfair” if they weren’t banned substances? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2004, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jason-giambi-admits-to-using-steroids/277668/122 "2004-12-11T11:45:07Z")
> [@Ramanujan](#): > > has anyone ever felt shame in the absence of a negative social opinion about what it is they felt shame for? if the negative opinion of others (in this case, the general public) is not the reason a player would be ashamed of taking steroids, what is? I myself have felt ashamed about something I had done that nobody was aware of, nor was there any chance someone would find out. > [@](#): > > please provide one example where someone felt shame about something that was not frowned upon, if negative public opinion is not implied at least implicitly. I’m not sure where you’re going here. There is a general public sentiment that can crystallize around certain activities. Stealing is bad. It’s wrong to take advantage of someone weaker. Whatever. These opinions form because those activities (at least insofar as this “majority” is concerned) are bad, evil (pick your own adjective). People avoid these activities if they are morally advanced because they agree it would be wrong. Less-advanced people avoid them because they fear society’s reaction (I believe this is the type you’re pointing out). But in either instance, the act isn’t “wrong” because the public disapproves. The public disapproves because the act is wrong. And anyone who falsely denies having done such an act is to some extent reinforcing the public perception of the nature of the activity. So, your hypotheticals are a little silly. They amount to, “Well, what if the public didn’t consider these acts wrong, what if we stripped these acts of anything that could be considered wrong–would they still be considered wrong?” Uh, no. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jason-giambi-admits-to-using-steroids/277668/123 "2004-12-12T03:34:05Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I’m not sure where you’re going here. There is a general public sentiment that can crystallize around certain activities. Stealing is bad. It’s wrong to take advantage of someone weaker. Whatever. These opinions form because those activities (at least insofar as this “majority” is concerned) are bad, evil (pick your own adjective). People avoid these activities if they are morally advanced because they agree it would be wrong. Less-advanced people avoid them because they fear society’s reaction (I believe this is the type you’re pointing out). not exactly. i’m saying that the only reason one denies doing something is because that something is considered wrong by whomever the act was denied to. the person himself might not have considered it wrong, therefore, denial is not a valid basis for considering something wholly wrong. is homosexuality “wrong” in your mind? the majority of people in this country believe it is, and people will deny their homosexuality until they no longer feel vulnerable to society’s opinion because of that. so, denying steroid use doesn’t make it wrong (as you pointed out), nor is it even an indication that it is wrong; it is an indication that someone would be looked down upon for doing it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jason-giambi-admits-to-using-steroids/277668.md?page=6)