There was an interesting commentary article published recently in the Huffington Post. It takes a look at the use of steroids and Human Growth Hormone
by athletes, a topic of hot debate among many people today. You can read the entire article here
. However, the point that's really fascinating is that the author draws a comparison between the use of skin care
treatments and plastic surgery
by reporters to the use of steroids by baseball players. The author writes:
"I especially enjoy it when the commentators themselves have obviously had eye jobs, botox injections, follicular implants to enhance and prolong their careers under the unforgiving lens of HDTV."
This is a really interesting take on the choices that are made in any professional career. After all, each of us does things in our line of work to improve how others perceive us. For baseball players, it's performance-enhancing drugs. For sports commentators on television, it's a little help from Botox
. We all want to look younger, fresher, stronger ... and we do what we can to make that happen. The argument against these two things being the same is, of course, that looking better doesn't help the individual do his or her job. Steroids actually enhance performance. Better looks only boost confidence, an important - but tangential - means of doing your work better. So they aren't exactly the same. But they're similar. Question of the Day: Are reporters who use appearance-enhancing services being hypocritical when criticizing athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs? photo link