@TerrorFists
See you there!
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Anderson Silva is a cheater. Does it matter?
Collectively, a sigh of disappointment could be heard around the proverbial MMA world as news broke that Anderson Silva failed a drug test. Not "The Spider", pretty much anyone but this guy. A huge part of what makes sports amazing is that we occasionally get to see a once in a lifetime talent awe us with their jaw-dropping abilities. Basketball had Michael Jordan, golf has Tiger Woods, boxing had Muhammad Ali, and MMA has or had, depending on your level of cynicism, Anderson Silva.
Much has been made on whether or not this tarnishes his entire legacy. Will he still be remembered as an all time great, or was he just a very good cheater? Honestly though, I think the more important remains, does it, or should it matter? Journalists and fans alike have participated greatly in the "cheating is worse in combat sports" argument. Understandably so, it's an easy argument to make, you get into a cage and try your best to literally beat your opponent into submission. Any chemical advantage can only increase the odds of a devastating finish to your opponent. The only trouble with this argument is its arbitrary nature. Is "doping" bad because it gives the cheater an advantage, or is because the advantage is "chemical"? If it's the former then why not ban caffeine, whey protein, and carbohydrates while we're at it? All of those are proven to enhance athletic performance, and if that's our main concern it seems hypocritical to ban some substances and not others. If doping is bad because it's a chemical enhancement specifically, then where do we draw the line?
Hypothetically if a fighter creates a concoction that enhances performance using ingredients that have not been previously discovered by scientists, is he/she cheating?
This is not to say that there shouldn't be rules, or even banned substances, but the stigma attached to cheating in athletics is a bit unfortunate. The media and society at large has the tendency to assign deeper moral implications with fighters and athletes in general that are caught cheating. Cheating in sports in the sense that the rules aligned with any particular endeavor are an arbitrary set of guidelines that its participants agree to. Breaking those rules is what we call unsportsmanlike behavior. However it's not as if they (said cheater) has violated an infallible set of rules written in stone.
To bring it back to Anderson Silva, it is unfortunate for the fans that he cheated, or that he got caught cheating if you believe that ignorance is bliss. Many will replay his highlights in their mind's eye and wonder how much of that was steroid fueled? Is Anderson Silva a great fighter who just happened to take steroids on a single occasion? Is he just a pretty good fighter who propelled to greatness with the assistance of banned substances? Or is he, as he still claims, an innocent fighter that is the victim of a tainted lab test. Those questions may never be answered, but maybe it doesn't matter.
Much has been made on whether or not this tarnishes his entire legacy. Will he still be remembered as an all time great, or was he just a very good cheater? Honestly though, I think the more important remains, does it, or should it matter? Journalists and fans alike have participated greatly in the "cheating is worse in combat sports" argument. Understandably so, it's an easy argument to make, you get into a cage and try your best to literally beat your opponent into submission. Any chemical advantage can only increase the odds of a devastating finish to your opponent. The only trouble with this argument is its arbitrary nature. Is "doping" bad because it gives the cheater an advantage, or is because the advantage is "chemical"? If it's the former then why not ban caffeine, whey protein, and carbohydrates while we're at it? All of those are proven to enhance athletic performance, and if that's our main concern it seems hypocritical to ban some substances and not others. If doping is bad because it's a chemical enhancement specifically, then where do we draw the line?
Hypothetically if a fighter creates a concoction that enhances performance using ingredients that have not been previously discovered by scientists, is he/she cheating?
This is not to say that there shouldn't be rules, or even banned substances, but the stigma attached to cheating in athletics is a bit unfortunate. The media and society at large has the tendency to assign deeper moral implications with fighters and athletes in general that are caught cheating. Cheating in sports in the sense that the rules aligned with any particular endeavor are an arbitrary set of guidelines that its participants agree to. Breaking those rules is what we call unsportsmanlike behavior. However it's not as if they (said cheater) has violated an infallible set of rules written in stone.
To bring it back to Anderson Silva, it is unfortunate for the fans that he cheated, or that he got caught cheating if you believe that ignorance is bliss. Many will replay his highlights in their mind's eye and wonder how much of that was steroid fueled? Is Anderson Silva a great fighter who just happened to take steroids on a single occasion? Is he just a pretty good fighter who propelled to greatness with the assistance of banned substances? Or is he, as he still claims, an innocent fighter that is the victim of a tainted lab test. Those questions may never be answered, but maybe it doesn't matter.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)