Steroids

So this would never happen.  I know it.  But it makes sense.  To me at least.  Steroids should be legal in sports.  Why take so much time and focus trying to combat the widespread usage?  As the old adage goes, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

Let's discount for a moment the fact that steroids are illegal to possess, sell, or manufacture in the United States (and Canada as well).  Just because things are illegal doesn't mean that we don't do them.  In fact, these illegal things are sometimes glorified - murder in a Stallone film, marijuana in Colorado, underage drinking on any college campus.  Steroids could simply be added to the list.  But here's what I'm thinking...

Steroid "abuse" has become extremely commonplace.  At least, it seems that way.  I log onto espn.com and see that Ryan Braun had been linked to yet another steroid company.  An hour later, I see Jhonny Peralta is on the list as well.  This comes a week after Alex Rodriguez's slip-up and Lance Armstrong's admission.  We've been bombarded by Ray Lewis rumors and bogus Hall of Fame elections where everyone is guilty by association.  All of these men have been pumped up by the media.  Their athletic prowess is praised endlessly.  They've learned that the path to fame and fortune is to continue being the best at their craft.  It's like John Candy said in Cool Runnings: "When you make winning your whole life, you've got to keep on winning, no matter what."  Admittedly it's not just the media's fault.  Yes, they're a convenient fall guy, but some of the blame rests with the individuals - the athletes themselves.

And that's when we get to the crux of the issue.  Athletes are obsessed with winning.  It gets to them in a way that many of us can only dream of.  They are wired differently.  I'm not going to pretend that I understand the science that goes along with it, but perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they are physical specimens.  They are better than the rest of us, the proverbial cream of the crop, the best that we can imagine.  There are about 400 NBA players.  They are the 400 best basketball players in the world.  They are freaks of fitness and ability and are amazing physically in ways that we can't even imagine.

Since these athletes are the best in the world, we reward them.  Professional athletes are entertainers.  We are the consumers.  We pay for them to be the best, to wow us with their amazing skills and exploits.  So here's the thing...why don't we want them to be even better?  If steroids can make already incredible athletes even more incredible, why aren't we supporting this?  We're paying for the entertainment and expect to see the best effort and ability.  Well, shouldn't people who are getting paid millions of dollars be expected to push their bodies to the absolute limits?  Shouldn't they do everything they can to earn their paychecks?  To entertain the consumers?  If big is good, then bigger is better!  If fast is good, then faster is better!  Why do we not support this?

Advocating free steroid use may be detrimental to people's health.  I get it.  But so is sport in general.  We are paying people to risk their lives in the first place.  That is just the nature of things.  Athletes understand the risks going in.  They have the freedom to do what they want.  I'm a firm believer in utter and total freedom, so why should this steroids issue be any different?  We want to see the absolute pinnacle of sport.  Well, wasn't that Barry Bonds?  Wasn't that Lance Armstrong?  Wasn't that Mark McGwire?  When it was convenient, these sports stars were applauded.  They were seen as inspirational competitors who knew what it took to win.  Now athletes aren't as good, right?  No more 70 homer seasons.  No more back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back Tour de France champions.  I don't know.

Further, who decides what a steroid is or isn't?  Isn't Tommy John surgery a form of steroids?  Doctors are unnaturally improving an arm.  What about Oscar Pistorius?  He had no legs and had the most advanced replacements, some sort of alloy that bounced terrifically off the track and were super light.  Isn't that an unfair advantage?  It's a steroid, right?

It's interesting when we have these debates about what's accepted or what isn't.  Yes, I suppose the legality may play into it, but all unnatural additions are steroids, correct?  Why aren't these athletes seen as pariahs as well?  They are going to great lengths to achieve athletic superiority.  One is accepted, one not so much.  We're creating a minefield.  It's tough to navigate.