Posted 02 May 2011 - 15:33
In most cases, I've never really cared about performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports. I know that it is technically cheating, but that's all that all drugs are in a sense - cheating. I can never manage the necessary leap of faith to ignore the hypocrisy of people talking about how heroic it is to sacrifice yourself (your mind, your health, your whatever) for your sport, yet there's some magical line in the sand where it all becomes morally wrong. I'm not talking about laws set out by specific countries or specific sports - if the law says a certain substance is illegal, then it's illegal, I'm talking about the morality of taking that substance, as I don't believe for a second that it's anyone else's business what you put in your body as a civilian.
Where does it become 'wrong' to pump your body full of anything that will help you succeed? Is willingly shortening your life and damaging your health not, if viewed from a certain angle, even more admirable then not taking those drugs? Sports fans like to talk about the sacrifices made and risks taken by athletes in the pursuit of perfection - surely there's something to be said for someone that not only sacrificed the off season in the gym, as they all do, but is sacrificing untold years of his life down the road? Why should 'Doing whatever it takes to win' have an asterisk beside it? Racing is different than most sports, of course, but I'm always a little surprised at how angry people get when they talk about performance-enhancing drugs. Well, what exactly is Cialis? What's Viagra? What's Rogaine? What are the five thousand other drugs you can find at the drug store, designed to, in effect, cheat your biological makeup? To enhance your performance in life, to give you an unfair advantage over people who don't use it? Why should it be alright for you, but not for a baseball player? Is it because we all want to believe that pro sports are the same thing we played when we were kids, where all that mattered was playing fair, and realizing that no one really does that once they reach a certain age forces us to abandon this cozy ideal?
I don't necessarily agree with any of that, but we should be trying to see arguments like this from every possible side. If you approach a debate to find 99% of people on one side, then the chances are good it needs to be reexamined.