During the last few of years, Steroids have once again made a big splash in the oldest of professional sports: Baseball.  Each day, some new revelation, opinion, rumor or media storm transpires to include more players (or the same ones), deems steroids as serious threat to assaulting long standing records and to the frail human body, and most often mentioned as a ultimate deterrent: the usage by children.

Dennis Kurcinich, a U.S. senator once stated , “it is important to show that steroids cannot get you ahead…and teaching children that steroids are bad.”

First, steroids are not “bad.”  Abuse of them through overdosing, improper usage and lack of proper medical prescription and guidance is the real terrorizing factor, not the drugs themselves.  For those athletes that took them in the 1970’s, 80’s and early 90’s without medical supervision, inadequate personal knowledge of side effects and  the 2^nd rate resources, steroids did indeed have tragic results in some of these athletes, namely boxers, football players and track athletes, among others that "typically experimented." 

Like anything else considered taboo, illegal and performance-enhancing against the 'rules', written and/or unwritten, people shied away from advertising their usage, even to their own personal doctors, and going against proper medical advice or getting no advice at all. This is more likely the reason for the adverse reactions to Steriods - in much the same vein as breast augmentation went so horribly awry in 1960's through late 1980's.

To say steroids do not help, as the senator said in misspeaking about the ramifications and/or results, he needs to look at these immediate results: Ken Caminiti, NL MVP; Barry Bonds, multiple-MVP with usage (confirmed in illegally leaked GRAND JURY testimony); Mark Mcgwire,  former HR record holder; Jason Giambi, AL MVP; Ben Johnson, once the fastest man in the world (for a time); Jose Canseco, prodigious HR hitter; The 1970's Pittsburgh Steelers; and many others that were transformed into better ball players, became faster, stronger, etc.  

The caveat is to utilize them correctly; and to know how to reduce usage appropriately, while playing, and after retiring from a sport.

My viewpoint is this: The ‘real’ business of athletics is to obtain or reach the highest levels of performance through any means available. However, this sometimes is deemed unscrupulous by the media & legal perspective, yet with the substantial rewards (the money) to follow, a player rarely rejects the ability to improve his/her performance. 

And many GMs and owners, such as San Diego’s GM Kevin Towers, have understood that this is a player’s primary motivator.  Owners & General Managers have turned a blind eye for years to continue to attract record numbers to the park, the arena and the stadium while padding their bottom lines, unscrupulously and callously doing so at the detriment of the players and the fans.  (The media has played its part too in the lack of focus on this issue for years at a time.)

Professional and collegiate sports have grown into multi-billion dollar industries which promote vigorously the business aspects of sport over the dying respect of the supposely long-begotten days of youthful excitement of just playing the game for the game. And with this, persons that participate at an expert level, the game is no longer just fun, but a lifestyle, a career and end-all-be-all, to most players. 

With all the technology and desire to do it, would it not be better to monitor all athletes, knowing they are using, but to keep the steroids at reasonable levels with doctor’s analysis?  Many experts (doctors, not users) have stated that these chemicals can be safe and effective with proper management, dosages and prescription.  At least this would protect athletes, give a safeguard and possibly open dialogue to clean up voluntarily, without accusations and asterisks.

But more to the point, Steriods are to no greater detriment than other actions taken in sports to gain advantages. As Dr. Norman Frost states, "Every athlete uses unnatural enhancements," as a University of Wisconsin professor of Pediatrics and Director of the program in Medical Ethics he has been outspoken in his regard of Steroid usage since the 1980's.  Certainly, when one compares the usage of training methods that significantly improve performance, endurance and peak outputs, one can hardly argue against such usage of techniques solely based on their results. But Dr. Frost goes on, "My major point is that the multiple claims that these drugs are immoral are incoherent, disingenuous, hypocritical or based on unsubstantiated, false or exaggerated empiric claims." Why?

Because there is no compelling evidence that Steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs pose a health threat and can kill. For Fost, there is no compelling evidence the use of the drugs causes cancer or other serious ailments. "I think athletes should be allowed to use them if they want, preferably under medical supervision," he said.

In an interview, Fost recalled the day former Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson was stripped of the 1988 Olympic gold medal he won in the 100-meter dash after testing positive for taking steroids. On the same day, Fost said, world-class swimmer Janet Evans was bragging about the "slime suit" she wore that she said made her swim faster.

"She was quite sure it had shred precious seconds off her time. This was hailed in the press," Fost said.

In each case, Johnson and Evans used unnatural methods to achieve their goal of faster times and fame. But Johnson became the poster boy for drug use and Evans was acclaimed as America's sweetheart, he said.

"There are a thousand-plus drugs, chemicals, supplements, foods, etc., that athletes take to enhance performance, most of which are allowed," Fost wrote. Should we ban them all? he asked.

Another example of this false dichotomy: usage of high-altitude training to increase one’s red blood cell count, which is legal, while taking EPO is illegal to garner the exact same results.

The usually arguments against performance enhancers are: Character, physical disability and “rules are rules.”

Does it really take ‘character’ to carbo-load or utilize a special diet to enhance performance? Not if we define “character” as being of “Moral or ethical strength” which has nothing to do with the physical training process.

Physical disability is high prevalent in the NFL and NHL due to the violent natures of both sports, yet we rarely mandate much more than improved safety gear and regularly use Pain Killers (ala Brett Favre).  After retirement, most players are forever plagued by nagging injuries suffered in their sport. It is a fallacy to place a singular cause of these aggravations (in the pre-testing era) on steroids.

“Rule are rules” mentality means we should be even more appalled at the clear cases of violations of any rules at all. For example, Gaylord Perry for 20 plus seasons utilized a spitter which was flagrantly against the rules that outlawed it in 1920. Yet, a premier publication in baseball, The Sporting News, condoned and “wanted legalization” of the pitch in the 1960’s. Also, the commissioner at that time, Ford Frick, condoned the cheating while lobbied for legalization. But Gaylord is a HOF pitcher and no doubt will continue to be, as will Mr. Frick.

It is quite circumspect to critique harshly so many Steroid users as "bad" or "bad role models" when we, as a society, blantantly overlook others utilization of  gaining "an edge" on opponents through ANY means necessary to win, garner records or moreover, gain monetary success.

Have we ever stopped long enough to learn exactly what the long-lasting effects are, or what (if any) controls can exist? Or how we can change the usage, procedures or maintenance of any situation involving drugs (or other possibly useful ideas), without criminality introduced into the foray?

We sometimes talk of an open society, a tolerant society, but it does not truly exist.  In fact, more everyday, America becomes dead set against anyone trying to succeed or changing himself or herself, outside the perceived norm.  Some ways are harmful, but it is not solely due to the drugs, or techniques or the direct personal reactions to them.  Some of it is driven by a freedom-restricting, quasi-pious society afraid to properly address (or cope) with the spectrum of human behavior which is driven by instinctual, psychologically motivating and peer pressure-related factors. Accountability for steroids is mutual; and no one wants to address that, because it lessens the societal impact of the perceived wrong or future punishment to be meted out for the objectionable action.

Lastly, we overlook (and ignore) countless flaws of men or punish decent men (ruthlessly) without merit. Kenesaw Mountain Landis   was the first commissioner of MLB. He's well-known for the "Eight Men Out" scandal involving gambling and the throwing a World Series. What he's little known for is his racism and bigotry in including blacks in Major League baseball. Yet his 'overall' service is given induction into the  Baseball HOF.

In Ali v. United States the Justice Department refused the petitioner Muhammad Ali to forgo entry into the U.S. Armed Services under the conscientious-objector claim. At one point, before his Supreme Court ruling, he was under a 5-year federal sentence. Additionally, because of this, he lost his World Heavyweight Championship and the ability to box in the United States. Yet, after appealing the ruling of lower courts, he was justly set free of all commitments. His is a case of injustice for no productive reason but spite.