Continuing on....

So let me address some questions posed to me.

"Can you give me proof that steroids tangibly improve an athletes performance?"
Well, I suppose that I cannot offer more proof than the fact that anabolic steroids (for these are the most common in athletics, they are the ones that have real bad effects if used improperly) are banned by almost every sporting organization in the world. Other than that I know that they help grow lean muscle and that they help muscles regenerate quicker (again, assuming they are used in moderation, with a strict diet, and in under the watchful eye of a physician). Also, if steroids do make one stronger, then they will improve a person's performance in most athletic endeavors. From what I have read on this recently (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/steroids/steroids_ff.html) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroids) (http://www.drugfree.org/playhealthy/Facts/FactLoader.aspx?ID=13), when used properly and for a short time, the side effects can be minimal, when abused or used for too long, the side effects can be great. Also, the side effects seem to be worse if the body is still developing. From what I have read, and considering that sporting bodies treat the drugs so seriously, I think that it is safe to say that for a lot of sports they can increase an athlete's performance.

For some athletes, perhaps not all, steroids could be in their self-interest. But that all depends on the athlete, their level of development, their desire to be better, and their willingness to risk their health (in a more serious way than merely playing the game would risk their health).

Quoting Ben "The one interesting point you made was that all sports lead to the sacrifice of health. However, this only leads to disprove your other arguments. Medical advances can improve your quality of life during and after your career is over. Tommy John takes nothing away (except a year of your career), it only gives." I don't know what other arguments you are referring to, but I would like to know which ones you mean. My problem with surgery is that it is just as "artificial" as steroids. Throwing more curve balls and sliders degenerates the arm (sometimes), just like sports can degenerate the body (sometimes). If my body physically cannot take the strain of throwing a massive amount of sliders then having ligament replacement surgery is just as artificial and performance enhancing as steroids. If one's body cannot take a 162 game season and they take steroids to make up for that (or drink a bunch of 5-hour energy drinks) then they are enhancing their performance with something unnatural. I think that was more my point about surgery and steroids.

As to the question would I take steroids. If I was a professional athlete and I viewed my talent/production level as insufficient then I would take a look at my level of training and see what I could do differently. If there wasn't anything I thought I could do training-wise, then I would consider taking steroids. However, I would probably get caught because I would not do it without having some people around me telling me the safest possible way to do it (acknowledging that anabolic steroids used solely for the purposes of increasing athletic performance are not safe in the long-run, even if used as "safely" as possible). But yes, there are certain scenarios under which I could see myself taking steroids. All of those scenarios are not possible anymore, so I think it is safe to say that I am not planning on taking steroids.

I don't think my arguments ever claimed that steroids are good for all of society. What I am saying about praising an athlete for steroid use is this: If we are right to praise athletes for playing sports, and we acknowledge that playing sports can severely damage your health, then if an athlete takes a substance that can help increase his performance in his sport then he can potentially be praised for that action. Not every athlete who takes steroids can be praised for taking steroids, but I think that in some situations they can be. This kind of praise will not be common, but it is possible. Moreover, I will not think poorly about an athlete who takes steroids. If they took them to get better at their given sport then what's my real problem? That they may destroy their bodies? That they are only doing it for fame? I know some athletes will mess their body up even if they never use steroids, yet I applaud anyway (and most are in it, be it a big reason or a small reason, for the fame. And I reward them by adding to their fame). I applaud athletes for "playing through" injuries all the time. I applaud them for risking their safety trying to catch a ball or stop a puck. I don't really see how I can say they are bad people when they risk their long term health for the chance to be even better than they are. Seems to me that they have been doing that all along.

Steroids are not good for all of society, regular ass people wouldn't feel much benefit from taking anabolic steroids. But if there was something out there that made you a better doctor but risked your health I think some would take it, and I would praise some of those doctors.

HAHA, I love how one of the labels is "Kyle's convenient ignoring of my posts." Sorry man, I just got caught up.