Emergency repost:

I'm sorry Kevin, but you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Saletan quote:A star player with access to the best stuff and the best medical supervision isn't taking the same degree of risk.

No, walkoff. I think it's you who need to work on it. Or at least take some memory lessons. It seems you can't connect two points if they aren't written in the same paragraph.

It's as if you're reading Kevin for the very first time.

I know, lost cause, but I felt like it needed to be said.

My eye doctor recommends against LASIK, he says the downsides simply aren't known yet. He also says that a significant number of procedures cause problem w/ cloudy vision, etc.

He won't have it done on his own eyes.

I won't have it done to mine either, but his concerns are overblown.

Lasik has been performed for about 20 years now. Long term problems are minimal, with the worst being dry eyes. I wouldn't not get Lasik for fear of long term problems. Although I would get a copy of all the measurements they do so that when you eventually get cataract surgery, you have it (it's useful to have the pre-Lasik measurements for the cataract calculations).

The problems I would consider is the acute ones -- i.e. will the Lasik work? And it does, the vast majority of the time, very well. And it's a relatively easy procedure, so the skill of the practitioner doesn't have a great effect on the result in my experience. But sometimes you need multiple enhancements to get the desired results. And there's always the risk of getting an infection or inflammatory response that could comprimise your vision. Essentially, what it comes down to is: do you really want to get surgery (even very safe surgery) on a healthy organ?

Personally, I wouldn't have it done because I'm cheap and I don't mind my glasses. But I wouldn't advise against it.

Right here: A star player with access to the best stuff and the best medical supervision isn't taking the same degree of risk.

Yet you don't reference those parts in the article in connection with the argument about McGwire and Anro. Why is that?

it was the stuff we don't know about and the stuff he took the fifth on during his congressional testimony.

Point me to the exact part in McGwire's testimony where he invokes his right to fifth amendment privilege.

If you want to make the argument that McGwire juiced, and that's what contributed to the 70 homers, and NOT the Andro, and that Saletan's wrong for not agreeing with you, then make that argument. But don't lie about the argument that Saletan *is* making, then claim that he's wrong for making an argument that he never really made.

You're right. Greg Maddux would be a homeless man if not for LASIK. It isn't like he won lots of Cy Youngs and was considered once of the best ever at what he does BEFORE LASIK.

Wow. Well, that certainly wasn't the point I was trying to make. Maybe I should have added a smiley face or something to that second paragraph - now that I read it it may sound a little snippy. Not my intention :)

When I was talking about taking the risk, I was thinking about the 19 year-old kids on the bubble who want to play in the Majors and want every advantage they can get. It might not be a rational decision. Obviously it's difficult if not impossible to quantify the amount of help that steroids LASIK gives a player. It probably doesn't hurt a player's ability, or at least, the players are obviously willing to take the risk that it will help.

Like steroids, I imagine it would help hitters more than pitchers. Of course, I have no idea.

I haven't heard of any players who've expressed regret about getting LASIK surgery. Have any players come out against it?

Yet you don't reference those parts in the article in connection with the argument about McGwire and Anro. Why is that?

Because I had already referenced it once attached to another comment and figured you would be able to remember it a couple hundred words later.

Point me to the exact part in McGwire's testimony where he invokes his right to fifth amendment privilege.

It was in his opening statement. He refused to talk about the past. If he said it once, he said it a thousand times.

But don't lie about the argument that Saletan *is* making, then claim that he's wrong for making an argument that he never really made.

I wasn't lying. I just have a problem finding readers who can remember more than one paragraph at once.

Point me to the exact part in McGwire's testimony where he invokes his right to fifth amendment privilege.

Shredder, here's the quote:

He also refused to address allegations of steroid use leveled against him and other ballplayers by his one-time Oakland A's teammate Jose Canseco -- the author of a recent tell-all book on the issue -- and said he would not be "naming names."

"My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family and myself," McGwire said.

Who is kevin, and why do we bother with him?

It was in his opening statement. He refused to talk about the past. If he said it once, he said it a thousand times.

I didn't ask about that. I said tell me where he invoked his right to fifth amendment privilege. You said he did. You should be able to point me to the point where he did it. Saying "I refuse to answer these questions" is much different than saying "I refuse to answer these questions on the grounds they may incriminate me. Don't waste your time, though, because he never took the fifth. Another thing you lied about.

I wasn't lying. I just have a problem finding readers who can remember more than one paragraph at once.

As others have said, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. I suggest reading the article again, only this time, pay close attention to where one of his arguments ends, and another begins. You might want to prepare an outline if it would be more helpful.

I had LASIK surgery a few years ago, and I'm thrilled with the results. My wife is not willing to have it done.

My vision has normalized to around 20/25 or so, which I'm totally satisfied with. I had a minor complication and needed to go back for an adjustment of the flap.

It's not for everyone, though. The worse your vision is, the greater the chance of complication.

Who is kevin, and why do we bother with him?

If you find the answers to these questions, on your deathbed, you will achieve total consciousness.

So you'll have that going for you, which is nice.

I don't really have much to add to this discussion beyond pointing out something which might seem obvious but I feel is pretty important:

If you're a professional baseball player and you're going to get corrective eye surgery, do it right at the end of the season, so you give your brain as much time as possible to acclimate itself to what are quite literally "new" eyes. You're going to want to play a lot of catch and work some in the batting cages, too.

People can acutely misjudge distance (and hence motion) for weeks after they get new glasses. I wouldn't want to pay some guy $10 million to play baseball only to watch him screw up for the first two months because he couldn't be bothered to get the surgery sooner rather than later.

A star player with access to the best stuff and the best medical supervision isn't taking the same degree of risk.

This was in discussions about the health risks of steroids and the like. Not sure how this applies to a comparison of HGH and Lasik.

No, walkoff. I think it's you who need to work on it. Or at least take some memory lessons. It seems you can't connect two points if they aren't written in the same paragraph.

So where is the comparison of HGH to Lasik? You are making a connection that the author did not. He compared Andro and Lasik. He made no such comparison to Lasik and anything else, either express or implied. Rather, his point is that Andro and Lasik are not that far apart, but one is cheating and the other is not.

Don't waste your time, though, because he never took the fifth. Another thing you lied about.

Oops, Shredder. You just embarrassed yourself. See post 38. Too bad lithium doesn't work.

Shredder, I'm surprised you haven't told me to go #### myself yet. Usually, you trot that one out first and go from there.

Are you on sedatives?

I can say a lot of things that jeopardize myself without incriminating myself. The fact is that he didn't take the fifth, and you're either too ignorant of the law to realize that, or you're lying. Which is it?

Here's the whole quote:
"I have been advised that my testimony here could be used to harm friends and respected teammates, or that some ambitious prosecutor can use convicted criminals who would do and say anything to solve their own problems, and create jeopardy for my friends . . . My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family, or myself."

Refusing to answer questions to protect friends and family is not taking the fifth.

This was in discussions about the health risks of steroids and the like. Not sure how this applies to a comparison of HGH and Lasik.

Perhaps because I wasn't talking about LASIK.

I know. You get easily confused.

McGwire did not take the fifth.

...as best I can tell Mark McGwire took the Fifth without taking the Fifth.

McGwire's prepared statement which he read to the Committee does a bit of a fast shuffle, never coming out and saying he will refuse to answer questions by asserting the privilege against self-incrimination....

What a surprise. kevin's wrong again.

Dear Abby,

I participate in an internet discussion board discussing baseball-related issues from time to time. Often, I find myself agreeing -- in broad terms -- with the substance of various arguments made by a poster called "kevin."

Unfortunately, kevin's method of argumentation is so misleading, intellectually dishonest, or simply false that I am often tempted to change my position rather than find myself debating on the same side as kevin.

Do you have any suggestions?

Sincerely,
A Booster in Philly

What a surprise. kevin's wrong again.

Shredder, only you could somehow rationalize that someone telling a congressional committee that, under a lawyer's advice, he was not going to answer questions because it might incriminate him as not taking the fifth.

PhillyBooster,

You have two options:

A) Shoot kevin (or tape his mouth shut, whichever you prefer) so he won't be able to make his arguments. That way you can keep your point of view without feeling compelled by his idiocy to change.

B) Change your mind. Then shoot kevin for making you change your mind.


Sincerely,

Not Abby

Unfortunately, kevin's method of argumentation is so misleading, intellectually dishonest, or simply false that I am often tempted to change my position rather than find myself debating on the same side as kevin.

Tell me about it. I don't even necessarily disagree with kevin, but there's some validity to Saletan's arguments, which he just belittles. And kevin is such a dick about it that it makes me want to side with Saletan that much more.

Of course, kevin's already embarrassed himself on the fifth amendment thing, so I'll have to settle for small victories, I guess.

Shredder, only you...

Only me? Really? Because I just linked to a law professor who is making the exact same argument. So apparently it's not "only me". Apparently people who know a thing or two about the law feel the same way.

he was not going to answer questions because it might incriminate him as not taking the fifth.

Another lie. Despite the fact that it's in black and white for the whole world to see, kevin keeps lying about it. Amazing.

Dear Abby,

I participate in an internet discussion board discussing baseball-related issues from time to time. Often, I find myself agreeing -- in broad terms -- with the substance of various arguments made by a poster called "kevin."

Unfortunately, kevin's method of argumentation is so misleading, intellectually dishonest, or simply false that I am often tempted to change my position rather than find myself debating on the same side as kevin.

Do you have any suggestions?

Sincerely,
A Booster in Philly

Dear PhillyBooster,

I have reviewed some of the posts on your baseball site and have come to a couple of conclusion.

You should just agree with kevin. He is obviously a lot smarter than you are.

Sincerely,

Abby

Oy.

The problem with the guy's argument is that if you don't want to allow any ariticial enhancements, then the professional athlete cannot wear glasses or contacts either to help their vision. He is trying to justify steroids, but he does not back up with any credible source his statement that:

"A star player with access to the best stuff and the best medical supervision isn't taking the same degree of risk. Furthermore, steroids are a crude, early phase of enhancement technology. Chemists are trying every day to refine compounds and doses that might help pro athletes without bad side effects.

I am sure there are researches looking into making steroids better, but this guy wrote an article without any credible cites, just his word. Why would I believe him.

BTW, I have had LASIK surgery. I had worn glasses since I was 9 yrs old and switched to contacts at 21 yrs. Glasses have always given me headaches, the kind of headache that make you want to barf your guts out. It was getting where I was about to not be able to wear contacts anymore cause of changes in my eyes. So to keep from going back to that hell, I did LASIK and have been happy as a clam.

It's pretty hard to take a guy seriously when he opens up his piece with a paragraph like this:

A month ago, Mark McGwire was hauled before a congressional hearing and lambasted as a cheater for using a legal, performance-enhancing steroid precursor when he broke baseball's single-season home run record.

This paragraph makes me suspect that Saletan wasn't even really following the Congressional hearings and the steroid controversy at all. If he was, he would probably know that McGwire wasn't hauled before Congress because he was using andro during the home-run record season, a piece of common knowledge which McGwire himself acknowledged years ago. The real reason he was hauled before Congress was because of the various allegations in Jose Canseco's book, among which were allegations that Canseco and McGwire were injecting each other in the rear ends with illegal steroids in a bathroom stall years earlier as teammates. And when directly questioned as to whether he had ever used illegal steroids, he pointedly refused to answer the question under oath.

If Saletan can't even get simple basic facts like this straight, he should just stick to his usual political commentary.

Primey for 49.

Perhaps because I wasn't talking about LASIK.

Correct. I should have said contacts, although the point of the article was how lasik achieves what contacts do, so I don't really think it hurts my point.

Of course, you still really don't address how he never compares HGH to contacts.

49 is the alltime greatest fake letter in primer history

You're wrong kevin, just admit it. It's ok.

This guy Saletan is a #### whackjob. Look at this ####:

Kevin calling someone a whackjob on the subject of steroids is like Bobby Fischer calling someone antisocial.

I don't recall having met anyone else who'd consider what I have pondered:

I've thought of having only one eye done, my dominent one. Then if something went terribly wrong in the operation or after 20 years, I'd still have one eye.

look who's talking: anyone who says the steroids hearings were "stalinist show trials" and inspired an admiration of Timothy McVeigh needs to STFU when it comes to the alleged extremity of anyone else's opinions.

If you're a professional baseball player and you're going to get corrective eye surgery, do it right at the end of the season, so you give your brain as much time as possible to acclimate itself to what are quite literally "new" eyes. You're going to want to play a lot of catch and work some in the batting cages, too.


I think this should be true of *any* surgery, not just corrective eye surgery. Obviously, with eye surgery it's more true because there's no chance your eyes will get better on their own, whereas with injuries there is some sense in trying to rehab them without surgery, but I am still frequently amazed by players who choose to have surgery late in the offseason.

What the hell? Contacts lenses the latest fad for journalists?

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3559064

Stan McNeal looks at Brian Roberts's eye enhancements

I believe that Maddux had his done between starts.

It's kind of funny. One of my own private warning bells for a steroid debate getting out of hand is if somebody tries to haul the poor Lasik surgeons into the discussion. It's always struck me as obtuseness bordering on trolling.

It's a pretty good criticism of Slate in general, now that I think about it. They're so focused on being provocative that they're sometimes just stupid.

anyone who says the steroids hearings were "stalinist show trials"

Wow, I happen to agree with that!

I believe that Maddux had his done between starts.

0-3 prior to his surgery, won 5 straight after (it was in the link)

>"It's kind of funny. One of my own private warning bells for a steroid debate getting out of hand is if somebody tries to haul the poor Lasik surgeons into the discussion."

Personally, I've found the entire steroid debate to be uninteresting. Then again, I'm probably looking at it differently than most.

I'm probably looking at it differently than most.

Why? Did you have LASIK?

>"Why? Did you have LASIK?"

Nope. To make a potentially lengthy post very short, let's just say that I see the argument that steroids are a form of "cheating" as largely missing the point at hand. The claim that steroids are tantamount to cheating is, in my opinion, almost entirely based on premises which don't bear weight under scrutiny.

The argument is analogous to the so-called debate of "Nature vs. Nurture." At the end of the day, it's not really important, because both say that the world is fundamentally deterministic. People who see steroids as cheating fail to grasp exactly how much determinism already fuels their notion of "fair play," and hence are unable to see that steroids are really just a small aspect of the larger picture at hand.

But I'm speaking in vague terms. If I have the time tomorrow, and you (or others) are actually interested, I could try to take the time to really flesh out my point of view.

But my idea that steroids is "uninteresting" is largely based on a philosophical perspective. There is another context that the problem can be viewed from which concerns me a great deal - that of physical well-being and the risk/reward ratio, and the greater effect of an unrealistic skew of this ratio on society as a whole.

POST #4: I believe that if you wear contacts for a long time, that diminishes the degree to which you are an ideal candidate for LASIK. So if you want to consider LASIK, consider it sooner rather than later with your doctor

Not really true. This is really only a factor if you are wearing hard or gas permeable lenses. Patients wearing these types of lenses need to discontinue lens wear for roughly one month per decade wearing this type of lenses. Patients in soft lenses need only be out of their contacts a week or so prior to the surgery.

POST #5: My eye doctor recommends against LASIK, he says the downsides simply aren't known yet.

The first refractive surgeries were done in the late 1940's. Lasers were first used in the early 80's. I believe the LASIK procedure itself debuted in 1990. Most of the better LASIK surgeons have performed on the order of 10-30,000 procedures. I think we've figured out most of the downsides.

POST #6: For many patients LASIK provides a resounding yes to #'s 3 and 4.

POST #11 Yes, I did consider I might be going blind if it went bad

The chance of an eye going blind if estimated to be at less than 1 in 100,000. This chance will be reduced if the surgeon uses disposable instruments, as infection is the leading (only?) cause of blindness.

POST #15 I agree that LASIK isn't likely to a pro golfer much aside from comfort issues. However, there is probably a small percentage of golfers who can't acheive normal (20/15) vision with contact lenses. Also, the increase in comfort is nothing to sneeze at, especially in dry environments.

POST #18 I have no problem with corrective surgery on the eye in principle, but the odds have to better than they are for me to do it. And, yes, I have loads of friends who've done it and had no trouble. The problem arises in the irreversibility of the procedure. You do it and it goes south, you're ####. Right now I see fine with my glasses. They're inconvenient, but I see just fine. If I have the surgery, perhaps I see a little better - probably will - or, perhaps, I see worse and, perhaps, I don't see at all. That seems a low reward, high risk proposition in terms of actual gain versus potential loss.

I think you are failing to consider the biggest reward of the surgery.....convenience. You are no longer dependant on glasses or contacts for everyday activities. The possibility of better sight is secondary to the other benefits.

POST #20 To make your glasses even lighter choose smaller frames. Also, ask your doctor about lenses with a high index of refraction. I believe lenses are now out with indices as high as 1.81. Of course the higher indices also bring higher price.

POST #34 I agree with just about everything said in this post with one glaring exception.
And it's a relatively easy procedure, so the skill of the practitioner doesn't have a great effect on the result in my experience. I believe the skill of the surgeon is very important. A good surgeon is less likely to create a free-floating flap or a buttonhole flap. The most important things though are that you have a surgeon who has great equipment and who properly screens patients to make certain they are good candidates. Most complications arise on patients who are "borderline" candidates.

If anyone who was posting earlier in the thread has questions about LASIK or other forms of refractive surgery feel free to email me or just post them here and I will try and get to them tomorrow.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am 3rd year optometry student currently at my first clinical externship. My current site performs LASIK and PRK 1 day per month. I have mild myopia and have not yet had LASIK, although there is a reasonable chance that I will in the future.

Also, comparing LASIK to steroids is quite frankly ridiculous.

Since I might as well get the free advice:

Hey Skewed, I'm a lifelong glasses user. I've been thinking about getting contacts, but I'm not sure where to go. All my friends say that the relatively new "daily" contact lenses are the best. What kind of contacts would you recommend (keeping in mind the obvious facts that you haven't done a check on my eyes yourself)?

I would recommend trying Focus Night and Day lenses. They allow the most oxygen to the cornea and patients typically report good comfort and wettability. Bausch and Lomb will be relaunching Purvision shortly which is also a great lens. These are monthly disposable lenses which are approved for overnight wear for up to one month.

If you need to have astigmatic correction in your contact lenses you will need to follow the advice of your optometrist as many things factor into fitting toric lenses well.

I rarely fit daily disposable lenses. I feel they are overly expensive and difficult to handle. Some patients love them though and they can be particulary useful in patients who suffer from chronic allergy problems or contact lens overwear.

The first refractive surgeries were done in the late 1940's. Lasers were first used in the early 80's. I believe the LASIK procedure itself debuted in 1990. Most of the better LASIK surgeons have performed on the order of 10-30,000 procedures. I think we've figured out most of the downsides.

Actually, we have probably figured out most of the short and medium term downsides. It is not clear to me that we know anything definitively about what will happen to a 25 year old who had the surgery as they approach 45 or 50.

I just ordered my first pair of glasses yesterday. I'm pretty confident they will only be used when I'm flying and driving.

"I don't even necessarily disagree with kevin, but there's some validity to Saletan's arguments, which he just belittles."

Well, I don't necessarily agree with kevin's arguments (as he has presented them), but there's also some validity to his basic point.

Using contact lenses to correct vision IS therapeutic. Ingesting andro (and possibly other, stronger drugs) to add muscle mass is NOT therapeutic.

It's not just a trivial distinction, but it seems to have completely eluded Saletan.

I just ordered my first pair of glasses yesterday. I'm pretty confident they will only be used when I'm flying and driving.

You didn't say "reading", but your comment made me recall that LASIK doesn't/can't correct for the need for reading glasses that typically arises later in life. At least that's my understanding.

SP may or may not be interested in the comments of my optometrist, who had recommended a year before my surgery that I try a local (Seattle) clinic for LASIK, which at the time was around $3500/eye. I instead chose a Vancouver, BC-area clinic which did the procedure on both eyes for US$1000. I then went back to the optometrist for a checkup (insurance paid, what the heck) and he examined me, leaned back, and sighed. "You went to Canada, didn't you." (Not a question). "Well, you got the results you wanted."

He seemed a little put out, so I asked him why. He said there was some scarring around the perimeter of the flap that (and I had to drag this out of him) probably wouldn't have any effect on my vision. I could tell he was annoyed, though, maybe because I didn't go to the place he referred me to. I was wondering how optometrists in general feel about an industry that essentially allows me to stop paying optometrists, and whether there are, ah, arrangements between clinics and ODs that take those feelings into account.

Using contact lenses to correct vision IS therapeutic. Ingesting andro (and possibly other, stronger drugs) to add muscle mass is NOT therapeutic.

It's not just a trivial distinction, but it seems to have completely eluded Saletan.

Well, yes and no. While correcting vision is generally therapeutic, correcting it to 20/15 or 20/10 may not be. Assuming that a correction to these levels does aid in hitting a baseball, then may be it becomes performance enhancing, at least if we use 20/20 as a baseline. If so, it becomes a difference in degree, not in kind. I think his article really misses by not addressing this point directly.

He goes by "Will," btw. Not Billy or William. He's a nice guy. I met him at a conference in Rome.

And I look forward to Inquisitor's longer argument on steroids and cheating, since I'm probably the foremost proponent of the cheating line at this site. I can't wait to see which premises collapse beneath the weight of scrutiny and how the view I hold is deterministic. Should be fun. (Inquisitor: If I don't see your longer argument, point it out to me. And, btw, you still owe me a reply for our initial argument.)

One of my own private warning bells for a steroid debate getting out of hand is if somebody tries to haul the poor Lasik surgeons into the discussion. It's always struck me as obtuseness bordering on trolling.

One of my own private warning bells for a steroid debate getting out of hand is if somebody tries to play metaphysical games with the word "enhance" by denying that LASIK surgery constitutes an "enhancement". It's always struck me as obtuseness bordering on trolling.

One of my own private warning bells for a steroid debate getting out of hand is if somebody tries to play metaphysical games with the word "enhance" by denying that LASIK surgery constitutes an "enhancement". It's always struck me as obtuseness bordering on trolling.

I view LASIK as minor surgery to correct a congenital deformity (correcting a misshapen lense).

However, I do agree that the difference between therapy and enhancement can be rather thin on occasion.

I view LASIK as minor surgery to correct a congenital deformity (correcting a misshapen lense).

However, I do agree that the difference between therapy and enhancement can be rather thin on occasion.

IIRC, this issue has been raised before, at least with respect to how much a player's ability to stay healthy is part of their performance. I tend to think that some therapies are performance enhancing (if you could not have played without the cortisone shot, then it enhanced your performance). Others, not unreasonably, disagree.

>"And I look forward to Inquisitor's longer argument on steroids and cheating, since I'm probably the foremost proponent of the cheating line at this site. I can't wait to see which premises collapse beneath the weight of scrutiny and how the view I hold is deterministic. Should be fun. (Inquisitor: If I don't see your longer argument, point it out to me. And, btw, you still owe me a reply for our initial argument.)"

JC, I don't think I saw your reply to our first discussion. I have something of a sporadic schedule, so if a topic moves off the first page by the time I'm able to check Primer again, chances are I've forgotten about it completely, heh.

*does a quick Google search*

Are you talking about this? Or another thread? I think I did respond to you in this thread, but if not feel free to point it out.

---------------------------------

The primary argument against steroids, at least from an ethical dimension, is that it's a form of cheating. Players using steroids are given an unfair advantage over players who don't use steroids. The key word here is unfair. So far as I can tell, this is what makes steroids cheating. It's unfair. You have all these players in the game, and they all should be playing on a "level" playing ground. No one person should have an unfair advantage over the other.

But what makes steroids unfair? Baseball is a zero-sum game, so players are always trying to gain an advantage to help them win. Pitchers get new pitches, hitters try better bats, fielders use new gloves, etc. etc. etc. The entire game is revolved around an arms race, both in terms of equipment and in terms of physicality. But the better equipment isn't what we're concerned with (even though some consider arm protection a form of cheating by the batter). The hypothetical that I believe to be of interest is that of the physical body.

Let's say you have two players, Diligent and Dawdle. Dawdle is kind of a lazy bum. He'll put his work in, and he'll do all the stretches and everything, but he won't do anything more than necesssary. No extra batting cage work. No weight lifting. Nothing.

[YES! I LOVE YOU MARCO SCUTARO! *cough* Erm, back to steroids...]

Now Diligent, on the other hand, works out every day. He weightlifts, watches his diet, puts extra batting cage work in, tries to learn how to take better routes on the ball, etc. etc. etc.

The human intuition (or rather, desire) in this case would be that Diligent is the better baseball player. Except he isn't. Dawdle is by far the better baseball player. Diligent sucks. He's barely above replacement level. The fans cringe whenever he steps into the batter's box, and pop Tums whenever a ball is hit in his direction in the outfield. He's that bad. Dawdle, on the other hand, is great. He's always on the short list for the All-Star Team (sometimes making it, sometimes not). He's a sure bet to hit 20+ Home Runs and is an above average fielder.

Does Diligent "deserve" to be a better player than Dawdle? Probably. But is he? Nope.

This situation, I believe, highlights an important distiction we should make between the real world and what I call the playground world. In the real world, things are inherently fair. In the playground world, fairness, and the expectation of a level starting field, reign supreme.

The simple fact of the matter is that the playing field was never level to begin with. There are guys out there who work their asses off, and will never have the intrinsic talent to be able to play one inning in the Major Leagues. I'm not saying that professional baseball players are lazy. I'm just saying that much of what allows them to be good baseball players was never theirs by choice. They never worked for having good genes. Just like some of them never worked to have good parents. Or some of them never worked to have great coaches. There are literally a countless number of things outside of an individual player's control in terms of what makes him a good baseball player. And yet, for some reason, there is an expectation that there should be a level playing field - that no player should attempt to "cheat" his way to an advantage that he can obtain without having to "work" for it.

The playground world, I think, is just one facet of a larger debate concerning determinism and free will. People like to believe that their fates are largely of their own choosing - you face consequences for your actions, and doing the "right" thing will garner you better results than doing the "wrong" thing. This is the fundamental moral dimension of free will; the ability to choose is what makes you morally responsible for an act.

But, so far as I can tell, that's not how the real world works. There are millions of people, I'm sure, who would make the same or better choices than professional athletes have made. But for reasons outside of their control, they aren't able to make it. Is that "fair"? Not really. There's an element of determinism involved in the making of a ballplayer. A kid born in the suburbs of LA to loving parents with great "athlete" genes and a love for baseball, who lives in a neighborhood with a phenomenal little league baseball coach, and lives a, by and large, comfortable life, ends up being a baseball player. While the kid born in Sudan who is hunted down, shot, and killed due to no fault of his own, by accident of birth, will never see the majors. Even if he was "born" with the "good" genes.

People get mad when baseball players try to cheat their way into success, arguing that the playing field should be level. Well, the playing field was never level to begin with. And they say that cheating is wrong because it's trying to gain an advantage that you didn't have to "work" for, or that you weren't "born" with. Well, if not having to work for something is the criterion for cheating, then steriods is just one tiny thing in a very, very long list. And, to me, the distinction between being "born" with something (or having a "natural" skill) and getting it from a pill is dubious at best. Either way, the player didn't get the skill the way you really, deep down, fundamentally, wanted him to get it anyway. It's like alcohol and drug use - it's a socially acceptable label for the same thing.

But that's just from a very philosophical, very broad context. And, looking back, I probably didn't explain it as well as I could have (having written it in between doing actual work and watching the end of the A's game, heh).

But I'd like to hear your, or any other, thoughts on this argument. Honestly, I have yet to find anyone who really disagrees with my argument as it stands. More often, I get the, "Well, I still think steroids is cheating" response. But that's ok. I think free will exists, but I can't say anything against the arguments which say it doesn't.

Well, yes and no. While correcting vision is generally therapeutic, correcting it to 20/15 or 20/10 may not be. Assuming that a correction to these levels does aid in hitting a baseball, then may be it becomes performance enhancing, at least if we use 20/20 as a baseline

I believe somewhere around 85% of the population can acheive 20/16 vision if healthy. 20/20 simply isn't the right baseline to choose if you want to talk about enhanced vision. If you want to talk about enhanced vision you need to be talking better than 20/10. The theoretical limit of human vision is 20/7. Although LASIK can give "enhanced" vision, it is certainly not a guarantee.

POST #84 To answer your question, your optometrist probably has a comanagement agreement with the site he wanted to send you to. Your optometrist would do all the pre-op and post-op care and would be compensated between $300 and $600 for a total of 7-8 visits if the surgery was uncomplicated. The site I work at does free LASIK consults, as well as 1-3 pre-operative exams, and post op exams at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. All these visits are included in your LASIK fee. Also the the site I am at includes lifetime enhancements in the cost of the surgery. I don't believe many of the discount places offer the same level of care as well as having inferior instrumentation. Can you still get a good surgery? Yes. Would I rather pay the extra ~$2000 for the higher level of care? Yes. But that is largely a personal risk/reward decision for each patient to make.

SP may or may not be interested in the comments of my optometrist, who had recommended a year before my surgery that I try a local (Seattle) clinic for LASIK, which at the time was around $3500/eye. I instead chose a Vancouver, BC-area clinic which did the procedure on both eyes for US$1000. I then went back to the optometrist for a checkup (insurance paid, what the heck) and he examined me, leaned back, and sighed. "You went to Canada, didn't you." (Not a question). "Well, you got the results you wanted."