To: IamConservative
Absolutely! Let 'em juice their hearts out! Does anyone complain that rock stars' performances are chemically enhanced? Why is it so different in the arena of sport? I honestly don't understand why people are offended by the use of steroids in this entertainment industry when in other forms of professional entertainment it's okay.
To: munchtipq
Absolutely! Let 'em juice their hearts out! Does anyone complain that rock stars' performances are chemically enhanced? Why is it so different in the arena of sport? I honestly don't understand why people are offended by the use of steroids in this entertainment industry when in other forms of professional entertainment it's okay. I have a personal friend who tried for years to make an NFL cheerleading squad. More for resume' building purposes that any childish fantasies about being a cheerleader. She tried and was cut 4 or 5 years in a row. She tried a sixth time, made the cut and "started" every game for 3 years. ("Started" meaning she made the performing squad for every game. The cheer squads have starters and reserves just like the team.) The difference? She got a boob job. She could always dance circles around her competitors, but it took a pair of 36 D's to make it.
22 posted on
03/07/2006 12:07:06 PM PST by
IamConservative
(Who does not trust a man of principle? A man who has none.)
To: munchtipq
The analogy to rock stars being chemically enhanced is flawed in that in sport (be it baseball, football, hockey, etc) where there is physical competition and one can have an unfair competitive advantage through the use of these drugs. Now, if everyone was using thereby leveling the playing, then that's okay....;-)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson