ItsTheBlog™

Is copying off a friend's test cheating? Yes. Is claiming extra deductions on your tax return cheating? Yes. Is taking a secret drug that is supposed to make you stronger, able to recover from injuries faster, and keep you healthier cheating? No--unless it's steroids.

You see, the answer in today's day and age is that performance enhancing drugs are illegal. One need look no further than Floyd Landis, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, and Shawne Merriman to determine that steroids are not okay. They are not okay because in today's day and age the public opinion has weighed in and decided that the detrimental effects of steroids on a player outweigh the benefits received from the drugs (ie. increased performance).

The problem is that when these players were confronted with this situation, there was no public opinion for them to rely on. Instead, these players were forced to consult a crystal ball in an attempt to predict what side the public would ultimately weigh in on. They were forced to make a decision, back then, of how the public would react to steroids once they learned enough about it to make an educated decision.

Most fans live in a world where all drugs, herbal supplements, and other substances should be completely banned. The problem with this camp is that it denies the reality that many people take drugs every day. Be it a steroid to suppress an allergic or asthmatic reaction or a multi-vitamin to keep someone healthy, people in today's society routinely take over-the-counter and prescription drugs to improve their health. One need look no further than the medicine cabinets of today's average American to learn that he partakes in a variety of subtances. The average life expectancy statistic can attest to this. As the life expectancy of an average American increases, so does our use of substances to maintain our health.

A small minority of fans believe that all drugs should be legal. There are two ways this argument is made. First, these fans argue that the sports world should be a free market where each player is judged based on his talents alone and that drugs should play no part in consideration of how a player performs. The second argument is that the professional sports league has no place regulating this aspect of an athlete's life. Sadly they are both mistaken.

Addressing the first argument, a free market only works when every player is on a level playing field. When one player uses performance enhancing drugs to increase his stats, the non-using player is therefore at a disadvantage simply because he does not use (either by choice or because he is not aware of the drugs). One may argue that the athlete has no one to blame but himself for failing to take advantage of this drug, but this disregards the risk of harm the drug may have on the athlete.

The problem here is that the league has a duty to take care of its members. Even the NFL recognizes this and offers a pension program to players who have taken part in a certain number of seasons in the NFL. Recognizing that players might suffer long term trauma, the NFL has established a disability program where players are compensated for the injuries they suffered while playing football.

The problem with arguing an open market theory is that this would force the responsible sports league to completely forego that duty. It is as if the NFL would say "I don't care about your injuries, play and injure yourself, but we are not responsible."

Long gone are the days when a league would completely distance itself from an athlete who ended up injured from participating in the sport. Instead, leagues are undertaking a duty to ensure the safety of their athletes.

The second argument mentioned above is that a sports league has no place regulating this in an athlete's life. However, this could not be further from the truth. In the four main sports (baseball, basketball, football, and hockey), there are all sorts of regulations regarding equipmeny. Your bat can only be this light, the field must only be this long, etc. However, leagues have already taken steps to regulate aspects outside of an athlete's performance on the court. Take the basketball dress code for example. Here the league has chosen to regulate a non-athletic aspect of an NBA player's life. Thus, this type of regulation is not without precedence.

Additionally, there are the side effects of steroids that must be addressed. The main purpose for most sports to place steroids in the "illegal" category is because of the harm posed to the players who use them. This isn't an instance where the league is trying to stifle performance. No no. In reality, each league is trying to do its best to make its league more competitive. Instead, the leagues have determined that the risk of harm from the use of steroids far outweights any competitive advantage it may give to its players.

Interestingly enough, the effects of steroids vary depending on who is using them. Males tend to become "feminized" when they use steroids and experience things such as: reduced sprem count, impotence, development of breasts, and shrinking of the testicles. Females experience: facial hair growth, deepened voice, and breast reduction. Common side effects to both sexes include: acne, bloated appearance, weakened tendons, premature heart attacks and strokes, and liver damage. Additionally, steroids may stunt the growth of adolescents. Steroids also include numerous changes on the internal structures that may be hard to see from the naked eye ('roid rage anyone?).

How prevalent is the use of steroids? Even the PGA is toying with the idea of implementing a drug testing policy. Tiger Woods has put forward the idea that the PGA should be proactive instead of reactive, and I couldn't agree more.

The problem with professional sports leagues is that they are reactive. Drug testing is only implemented after it becomes a problem. In sports that demand a competitive edge out of every athlete, it is simply unfair to change the rules halfway through the game.

Is it fair for Barry Bonds, who has relied on steroids for numerous home runs, to have to play the rest of his career without those drugs? Yes. No one gripes about an umpire who consistently calls the outside corner of the plate. But when the umpire changes the size of the strike zone just a little bit halfway through the game, it isn't fair. In the same vein (pun intended), it's as if Major League Baseball banned steroids during the seventh inning stretch of his career.

Please don't misunderstand what I am trying to say. Am I condoning Bonds use of steroids? No. I am only proferring the argument that Major League Baseball should have been more proactive before this became an issue, rather than changing the rules halfway through the game.

MLB should take a page from the NHL. When the NHL instituted a rule requiring all players to wear helmets, it grandfathered the rule in. Let's back it up. Why did the NHL do this? Because the benefits to the players outweighed the risk of harm they would experience by playing without a helmet. Take one look at the smile of an NHL player for proof of this. But, rather than forcing every player to wear a helmet, the NHL exempted players already playing and allowed those players to finish off a career without wearing a helmet. Should MLB grandfather in steroid use? Well no. But it's attitude should be alot less "holier than thou" when dealing with players who have taken steroids. Afterall, if a drug testing program had been in place before, this would never have been a problem.

And that's my three cents.

--Legal Pundit

Labels: drugs, Floyd Landis, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Shawne Merriman, steroids