golfrewind.com

Seems to be a bit of a hot topic with some, but after Tiger's Lasik surgery, (which I heard gave him 20/15 vision, still searching for that article...) I've been reading a lot of debate over whether this is cheating or not.

McGuire admitted to using "Andro", which which was totally legal at the time... we all know, or think we know, that Lasik is not harmful like steroids, but it does seem to give an edge. What if some day chemists derived a "steroid" that was without all the risk, and it only enhanced the body's ability to bounce bank from injury and enhance workout results?

Also, not all vision problems are correctable with the procedure, so, perhaps some people get can get an edge that some other players might not be afforded.

Perhaps there should be some limit to the amount of "fix" that can applied to the eyes? Say, 20/20 vision?

I thought this group might have some opinions on the matter.

I think there's a difference between getting your vision laser corrected and using steroids. Steroids are used to enhance you abilities, not fix them. Vision correction on the other hand is correcting a birth defect, not enhancing something that already is good.

You can't compare a "corrective" surgical precedure to performance enhancing drugs. That's like saying anyone who wears glasses, or contacts, is "getting an edge," or that anyone that has surgery of any type is enhancing their performance. That's just crazy.

i dont see how their can be any debate, lasik is something you might have done even if you didnt play golf or any sport. steroids as 14nsome said enhance your abilitys when lask corrects it.

It might be corrective if he brought his vision to 20/20, but he's been given visual accuacy that he wasn't born with... something like "enhancing his body", one might say... As i mentioned before, what if there were drugs, or surgical procedures totally safe, like say, growth hormones which are given to short, but healthy children... can Tiger take those hormones?

Bringing up this topic is not "crazy", unless Slate writer William Saletan, and the editors of NPR are "crazy"...

Unless you'd all rather talk about what we wore on the golf course today, or the best way to fix a slice, I'll just go back to that...

I had Lasik surgery about 5 years ago. The only "edge" I got out of the procedure was no longer needing to fool with contacts or glasses. My vision was 20/15 at first and there was no noticable difference in my ability to see things at a distance, other than finally being able to see without corrective lens. It was a pain for reading and writing, because I then needed bifocals. The doctor explained to me that the 20/15 vision would probably settle to the more "normal" 20/20 with time, which it has.

That anyone would consider it a form of cheating is incredible to me. I believe that Tom Kite had Lasik surgery several years ago as did other professional golfers. I don't remember this being an issue before. Could it be that because Tiger had it, people want to assume he now somehow has an unfair advantage over others?

Lasik does not give a person the ability to "zoom" in on a target like the Bionic Man. To compare Lasik with steroid use is like comparing arthroscopic knee surgery to smoking marijuana.

Here's a quote from Sporting News about colored contacts:

that sounds like a visual advantage, and that's an article about specially colored contact lenses that help athletes see better...(like the redish colored ones so baseball players can pick up the seams on the pitch better)

Maybe we could develop contacts that map out your swing plane? So, as I asked in the initial post, where's the limit to outside influence on vision?

They're just trying to get a story. Any story with Tiger in the headline is going to make bucks, and they know it. It doesn't mean it's not just a trivial, ridiculous claim.

Not all vision problems can be corrected...true. Not all problems with any body part can be corrected. Casey Martins Leg cannot be corrected, Tigers vision and knee could be fixed and so could Greg Normans hip, which was a problem he was born with. Norman had his hip fixed, enhancing his body you might say. And I suppose Jack Nicklaus is a cheater because of his ceramic hip... Maybe Vijay Singhs weird tooth he had put in his gap gives him added confidence and a mental advantage that he was not born with... cheater

I just don't see the connection between taking substances, or steroids and having a corrective procedure done... steroids are a non issue in golf, so I guess they are just doing their job and trying to find a story, I dunno. It's not as if no other humans have 20-15 vision, my sister does, always has. But like pingsrbest said, with lasic it is temporary, Tiger probably has 20/20 vision by now... It seems to me that to cheat you must break some kind of rule. Is Tiger better off without contacts, probably, does the surgury make him a cheater....no

wow... did you know Tiger was considered to be legally blind without his glasses or contacts. Prior to lasik surgery, without his glasses or contacts, he would not have even been able to see the ball on the tee.

The limit is in rule 14-3

Except as provided in the Rules, during a stipulated round the player must not use any artificial device or unusual equipment:
a. That might assist him in making a stroke or in his play; or
b. For the purpose of gauging or measuring distance or conditions that might affect his play; or
c. That might assist him in gripping the club, except that:
(i) plain gloves may be worn;
(ii) resin, powder and drying or moisturizing agents may be used; and
(iii) a towel or handkerchief may be wrapped around the grip.

B. RIght
I completely see your point. It is acutally a tough one to gain an opinion on. By making his eyes better then what can be attained naturally he makes himself better than humanly possible. Knee surgerys get the athlete back to where they were, not 30% better. I say we make our judgements when we really understand both sides.

Ah, thanks shootin4par, to tell you the truth, I can't make my mind up either, which is why I have turned to you wise folk here at GR. See? I'm not crazy after all!

I'm a big fan of Slate and Saletan and I also read this article http://slate.msn.com/id/2116858/ last week. Putting Wood's example aside I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the comparison. Many athletes are having their eyesight improved beyond what is considered normal. Many of them had very marginal eyesight issues to begin with. Having ones eyesight surgically improved to 20-15 or 20-10 provides an artificial edge. There is no doubt that steroids are infinitely more harmful from a public health standpoint, but as far as providing an artificial edge I don't see that much of a difference.

Very interesting debate, I guess the main question does improving ones eyesight increases ones ability to perform certain task. I think the question has to be looked at in the perspective is this an enchantment of the athletes natural ability. That is were the slippery slope takes over is wearing of contacts or glasses enhanced the ability of the athlete. I think this is a debate that has a number of sides and each is right in there opinions.