Jan 31, 2011, 8:48 AM EDT
One of these sorts of articles comes down the pike every six to eight months or so, and I usually link them:
Laws and ethics are not based on what is easy and what is hard to control. They are based on standards of justice and what is ethically right. The reason I believe doping should be allowed is that I see nothing unjust or wrong about professional athletes using chemical compounds and medical knowledge to improve their abilities and performance. Let me rephrase that: there is nothing wrong with taking steroids.
The reason I link them: I’ve yet to have a reader refute the central logic. At least not one who actually reads the article and meets the argument on its own terms rather than one who engages in the circular “steroids are bad because they’re banned and they’re banned because they’re bad” logic that the linked article criticizes.
If performance enhancing can be safely used under medical supervision — and that’s the big if, and where my knowledge on the subject is the most hazy — what’s the problem?
(thanks to Ron Rollins for the link)
- Ian Kinsler hopes Rangers go 0-162, calls GM a “sleazeball” (132)
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (103)
- Manny Machado calls $519K salary for 2014 “disappointing” (88)
- Is Barry Bonds really getting a “fair hearing?” (85)
- Ryan Braun calls himself an “artist,” doesn’t care what fans on the road will shout at him (76)