Enormous and Unwieldy

I want to pick up on something that Zach said. He wrote: "Players are lauded for MAKING PLAYS that RISK injury to their bodies." I think this is critical because there is an underlying assumption in your argument that steroids inherently improve your performance, but I'm not convinced that's the case.

Lets use the best case scenario, lets say you use steroids and it allows you to heal a little faster and you hit a couple more home runs. Is it not also likely to hinder your defense and your speed? Is it not also likely to take something away from the rest of your game?

One thing that people always forget is what a ridiculously great player Barry Bonds was before he became a hideous roid-monkey. Checkout his numbers from the 1990 season. he hit 33 home runs drove in 114, had a .406 OBP and stole 52 bases. He won the MVP and a Gold Glove. In fact, if you look beyond that absurd 2001 season, he was consistently a great player, and was excellent defensively until the last few seasons when he became enormous and unweildy.

The point is, even for Barry Bonds, how much did steroids impact his overall career. Did it actually make him a better player or, would normal, modern conditioning extend his career such that he would still be considered among the best ever? In fact I'll go one step farther, his association with steroids has inevitably tarnished how he is generally viewed. He probably will never be looked at as the best who ever played because plenty of people (idiots) will write his entire career off because of steroids. Had he not done them, he very possibly might be viewed as the greatest player baseball (or any sport) has ever seen. Now obviously this fits into your take that we should laud the "sacrifices" players make, but do we really laud unnecessary sacrifice? Do we really say "good try" when a player dives for a ball he could have caught without diving, especially if he he misses it? You rightly argue that we care about results. But in order for your argument to hold water there needs to be definitive proof that steroids help your results. Can you honestly say that steroids do something that modern and safe medical advances cannot do?

Here is another example, would you have players use corked bats? There is practically no scientific evidence that it tangibly impacts the distance that the ball goes. It pretty clearly is a matter entirely of psychology. Yet if that psychology helps the player should they use them?

Finally, I think we need to make a distinction between HGH and steroids. The line is much fuzzier for HGH when used in moderation and the long term impacts have not been proven to nearly the same extent. If a double standard exits it is for HGH and not steroids. It may be that over time side-effects are understood but as of right now there are few definitive downsides.