Of Apples And Oranges
Sylvester Stallone has admitted to using Human Growth Hormone to bulk up for the new Rambo movie. Why is anyone concerned?
Forgive me, but I do not see how Sly's use of HGH is even remotely the same as, say Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds. Stallone is an entertainer. He is a Hollywood celebrity. He is just a famous guy. What he puts into his body does not affect the outcome of games, of seasons, of records. He's 61. What he is doing is akin to botox for men.
Who is he cheating by doing this? The answer is only himself. If it makes him feel better about himself, so be it. Would I do anything like that? Of course not. I'm not that vain. But he is, and vanity is not a crime (though I believe illegal purchase of HGH is).
Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds did not take the same stuff to look better. They didn't do it to feel better about themselves. They did it to enhance their performance in a competitive environment. They wanted an edge. That edge sent them over the top. One has seven MVPs and is the home run king. The other has seven Cy Youngs, over 350 wins and is second all time in strikeouts. Neither would have numbers like that without drugs.
And that is a tremendous difference.
If you believe Stallone's HGH use is wrong because of the message it sends to children I ask you to look through your DVDs and CDs at home. Please remove Goodfellas (cigarettes, alcohol, cocaine), Breakfast Club (cigarettes, marijuana), Platoon(alcohol, marijuana), Invincible (alcohol), Elf (alcohol), Grease (cigarettes), The Godfather I, II & III (cigarettes, alcohol). These films portray drugs in a positive light. There are others there as well.
Also, remove from your music collection the following: the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Elvis Presley, Black Sabbath, ACDC, Ozzy Osbourne, Motley Crue, Guns n' Roses, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Merle Haggard, Dion, the Eagles and Jimmy Buffett. Each of these have portrayed alcohol or drugs in a positive light at some point during their careers.
We do want to be consistent.
In my eyes, what Sylvester Stallone did is little more than a boob job.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Forgive me, but I do not see how Sly's use of HGH is even remotely the same as, say Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds. Stallone is an entertainer. He is a Hollywood celebrity. He is just a famous guy. What he puts into his body does not affect the outcome of games, of seasons, of records. He's 61. What he is doing is akin to botox for men.
Who is he cheating by doing this? The answer is only himself. If it makes him feel better about himself, so be it. Would I do anything like that? Of course not. I'm not that vain. But he is, and vanity is not a crime (though I believe illegal purchase of HGH is).
Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds did not take the same stuff to look better. They didn't do it to feel better about themselves. They did it to enhance their performance in a competitive environment. They wanted an edge. That edge sent them over the top. One has seven MVPs and is the home run king. The other has seven Cy Youngs, over 350 wins and is second all time in strikeouts. Neither would have numbers like that without drugs.
And that is a tremendous difference.
If you believe Stallone's HGH use is wrong because of the message it sends to children I ask you to look through your DVDs and CDs at home. Please remove Goodfellas (cigarettes, alcohol, cocaine), Breakfast Club (cigarettes, marijuana), Platoon(alcohol, marijuana), Invincible (alcohol), Elf (alcohol), Grease (cigarettes), The Godfather I, II & III (cigarettes, alcohol). These films portray drugs in a positive light. There are others there as well.
Also, remove from your music collection the following: the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Elvis Presley, Black Sabbath, ACDC, Ozzy Osbourne, Motley Crue, Guns n' Roses, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, Merle Haggard, Dion, the Eagles and Jimmy Buffett. Each of these have portrayed alcohol or drugs in a positive light at some point during their careers.
We do want to be consistent.
In my eyes, what Sylvester Stallone did is little more than a boob job.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
posted by E-Luv at 9:36 AM
3 Comments:
You might want to re-write this blog entry since it’s full of holes. For example, you say you ‘don’t see how Sly’s use of HGH is even rometly the same as Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds” because “Stallone is an entertainer”. And??? So?? Is an entertainer any les of a job/career/occupation than an athlete like Bonds or Clemens? Are not people in both occupations considred role models?
In fact, one can conclude from your remarks that only athletes should not take drugs to enhance their performance. Yup… That’s the American way, isn’t it?: We don’t work hard on our own to reach our goals, we take a drug in order to get immediate results or to Get Results That We Could Not Have Achieved Any Other Way. You called it an “edge”. I call it fraud and unethical -– even if it is a Hollywood actor.
Speaking of Hollywood, you also said that “what (Stallone) “puts into his body does not affect the outcome of records.” Really? Are not the Oscars and the Emmys a record of achievement like the world series?
As far as your reference to kids listening to music or watching movies that “portray drugs in a positve light” in order to support your arguemt… UGH!!!! Let’s just say that I’m glad to know that you’re in favor of legalizing drugs like cocain, LSD, heroin and marajuana for all people. Except, of course, those people we put on pedistals called athletes. - Tango
You want me to rewrite my blog because it's full of holes? How about rewriting your comment because it's filled with spelling errors?
Point: Entertainers, celebrities, athletes are not "role models", they are people. Some of them -- the ones who stand out in extraordinary ways -- might be role models. But just because someone is a celebrity does NOT make him or her a role model.
Point: Steroids and HGH enhance an athlete's performance. They do better. How is Stallone cheating? The only person he is hurting is himself. Is the sanctity of film in question because he takes drugs? No. Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens is in a different category.
Point: Last time I checked, Rocky Balboa and this last Rambo flick are not exactly Oscar material. Stallone didn't enhance his acting performance. Again, not the same.
Point: Please point to where I said I thought drugs should be legal? Simply put, I didn't.
If you intend to make comments here, please comprehend what you are reading and please use proper grammar and spelling.
You’re correct. I should have used spell-check before submitting my entry. However, I’d rather make typographical errors as apposed to errors in basic logic and reasoning. Cases in point to your points:
1) Entertainers, celebrities, athletes are not role models”?!??! Are you sure about this? Do you really want me to challenge you on this statement? Further to your first point, you contradict yourself in your second sentence by saying that they ARE role models if they “stand out in extraordinary ways”. So, are they or aren’t they role models? Isn’t “standing out in extraordinary ways” one of the attributes of a role model? If famous people – people who standout like actors and athletes – do not have an effect on others, we wouldn’t be talking about them and you wouldn’t be devoting an entire blog entry to them and their use of performance enhancing drugs.
2) I never said he was cheating – I said that it was unethical and fraudulent. (talk about “comprehending what one reads”, couldn’t I say that about you?) In addition, I never said that there was any “sanctity” with movies/films. Nor did I allude to this. In fact, if you re-read what I wrote, I put actors on par with athletes. More to the point of your 2nd point, if your re-read what I wrote, I commented on the false manner in which some people “enhance” their performance instead of just working hard for it – naturally, without drugs.
3) True, the Rambo movies are not Oscar material. But that’s irrelevant to the argument. My reference to the Oscars and Emmys was refute your comment that athletes and sporting events are the only occupations that have records for achievements that could be negatively affected by performance enhancing drugs. Specifically, the forth sentence of your second paragraph in your 2/01/08 blog: that an actor like Stalone’s taking HGH “…does not affect the outcome of records.” More to this point, if Stalone didn’t take HGH to enhance his performance in movies, then why would he take it? The answer can be found in the very first sentence in your blog which states that he took HGH because of his role in the movie. Hence, an actor taking a drug to enhance his performance on the screen is just like an athlete who takes drugs to enhances his performance on the field/court. Lastly, I Seriously Doubt That Hollywood Would Cast Pee-Wee Herman Or Woody Allen As Rambo Or The Terminator – Unless, Of Course They Started Taking HGH.
4) Ok… If you want me to, I’ll point out where one can conclude that you said drugs should be legal: your sixth and seventh paragraphs as they relate to the entire premise of your argument. Carry your comments to the next logical conclusion: if one believes that the positive references to drugs in music, movies, etc. are bad because of the message it sends children, then one should “remove them”. Thus, if one disagrees, then one should keep their drug-referenced movies and songs because the use of drugs as they purport is ok – hence, should be legal.
As far as your last sentence: “if your intend to make comments here…”, it looks like I’ve hit a nerve by pointing-out problems with your blog entries. Please enlighten me. I thought the internet was public domain – akin to “free-speech? Or is this just your sandbox where only those who agree with you can play in? I hope you’re not going to get so incensed by being challenged – without malice -- that you take your ball and go home… P.S. I used spell check. ~Tango.
Post a Comment
<< Home