A perfectly valid question almost no one is asking. This guy is.
Just to be clear: I’m not advocating that steriods be legalized. In fact, I think that’s probably a terrible idea. I’m simply puzzled. The professional sports establishment is in the midst of a major witchhunt against alleged users of performance enhancing drugs. But no one–so far as I can tell– has articulated a coherent explanation for what should be banned and why.
“James,” one of the commenters on the “Free Fernando Vina” post brought up the issue of Lasik eye surgery. That’s a very good example. It is perfectly legal for an athlete to undergo “performance enhancing” eye surgery, that moves him from, say, the 50th to the 95th percentile in sight. It is not legal for that same athlete to take “performance enhancing” hormones that move his testosterone from the 50th to the 95th percentile–even thought the additional advantage of the eye surgery may be greater than the additional advantage conferred by the exogenous testosterone. Now, there may be a perfectly valid distinction between those two interventions. But what is it? Shouldn’t it be spelled out before we drum Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds out of the Hall of Fame?
It is nice to know I’m not the only one confused by the hypocrisy. In my opinion, all performance enhancers should be on the table when it comes to consenting adults. Sports or otherwise. Life might be shorter for some but it would probably be more interesting. Shouldn’t that be their choice as long as they are not hurting anyone else?
The war on drugs has changed the list of readily available substances and enhancements available. It has not done a damn thing to change humans basic desires to be something they are not, to rise higher than they otherwise could have and the propensity of a given subset of our species to flameout in spectacular blazes of glory. Our James Dean and Marilyn Monroe types will always be among us.