Heck, just toss the whole “meat body” out of the equation and make it all robot-run.

I agree with Sean: “What we should be aiming for is sport that is as close to nude Greek wrestling as we can get- where the athlete, not doctors, money, or drugs, is the force behind the competition.”

All professional sports should really be, is the organized, codified form of one kid challenging his friend, “Hey, I bet I can do ______ better than you can!” “Oh yeah? You’re on!”

The idea that all enhancements are relatively equal is flawed. We’re talking about percentages- Gatorade, oxygen, cortisone…. all minimal advantage. Blood doping (and all of its chemical cousins) is putting someone on another level. This again speaks to my equipment argument- there have to be regulations somewhere, and the science is there to show where those methods stand.

What we should be aiming for is sport that is as close to nude Greek wrestling as we can get- where the athlete, not doctors, money, or drugs, is the force behind the competition.

1) First, regarding the “what about athletes later in life” argument, my honest answer is that this is the job these people chose. Professional athletes always put their bodies on the line, and took a huge risk in making the commitment to become athletes often at the cost of other skills. My personal opinion is that general athletic culture, while great for team building, communication, fitness, and socializing, is also often very destructive and misleading. The fact that most college athletes are mediocre or failing students is tremendously offensive and depressing to me. If a pro career doesn’t work out, most very good amateur athletes discover their investment does not pay off, because they lack any other marketable skills.

2) The “what about the children” position is a classic argument for keeping any substance completely illegal/banned. In the case of steroids, there are three points of refutation. First, is the point Riley made, that we have lots of examples of one set of rules for adults, and a second set for children (e.g. drinking, porn, renting a car, etc.). Second, is that making something totally illegal often prevents “safe usage knowledge.” Safe usage knowledge is often mistakenly seen as a gateway to dangerous behavior (i.e. safe-sex ed leads to teenage sex). Thus, by keeping steroids completely illegal, the youth who do use them are using them in an information void, making their behavior doubly-dangerous. Third, and most important, is that the more our culture accepts steroids and other performance enhancers, the less stigma surrounds the behavior and the easier for coaches, family members, and friends to know who is using and who isn’t. If a young person is using, but is not ashamed or afraid of getting in trouble, it is easier to make sure that person uses correctly.

I recognize each of those points has its weaknesses, but it is extremely hard to generalize something like athletics and enhancers for non-adults. You can’t protect kids and teens from everything or make sure every decision is correct. The best we can hope for is good information and transparency. No one ever stopped a determined teen with a set of rules.

@Solitha Why is requiring drug use an ugly step? I do not understand arguments that idealize athletics as some noble pursuit. It’s a physical and mental competition in which every advantage, from stadium acoustics to the chemical compounds of shoelaces is scrutinized. Whether an athlete is chugging Gatorade, getting oxygen on the sidelines, injecting cortisone into their joints or blood doping, I don’t see how one enhancement is better or more tolerable than another. And yes, if you choose not to juice, you likely would get kicked off the team, just as someone who refused to train, to adhere to the nutritionist’s diet plan, or listen to the coaches instructions would be kicked off.

You’re talking about some Platonic Ideal of Sport where Greeks wrestle in the nude. I’m talking about today’s billion dollar industry where the few athletes who do succeed are entertainment icons, while the millions who never quite make it lead lives of desperate mediocrity because they put all their eggs into a very demanding and very fragile basket of athletic ability.

Eager for your further rebuttals.

I only see two ways…

One, changing from ban to regulate suddenly makes the testing that’s not working, work. I can’t even find a logical starting point in that assumption.

Two, changing from ban to regulate suddenly makes the athletes who have been flaunting the rules, strictly abide by them. That’s as ignorant as saying repealing Prohibition wiped liquor violations out of existence.

That’s not even considering the possibilities once you go beyond human vs human to allow chemical enhancement. What then is the justification against other oh-so-small enhancements? Even with a line drawn, what about the athletes that want to compete on an even field based on natural, trained ability? Do they just get kicked off to the sides because they choose not to “juice” and thus can’t be seriously considered for sponsorships or teams?

“Allowing” drug use in athletic competition is, in reality, basically the same as requiring it. And that is an ugly, ugly step to take.

We already have different sets of rules for adults and children. Adults can drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, drive cars, have access to pornography, gamble, gun ownership, etc…

How would adding steroid use to the list of regulated behavior allowed only for adults really make a difference?