Earlier today, I published a little post that called for more energy to be dircted towards considering the scientific evidence of the effectiveness of performance enhancing drugs rather than the constant speculation of "who took them and who knew about it?"
I stand by what I wrote, more than anything we need to figure out how much steroids actually helps. However, I don't want anyone to think that I believe that if we find steroids don't help players very much, that I would be OK if they were legalized or penalties relaxed.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I abhor cheating. The way I see it, what is the fun in winning if you took the easy way out? The fun of competition comes from knowing you (and your teammates) gave your all and came out on top. For instance, Mike Cunningham, in a comment to the previous post, referenced my golf affliction, and I think that is where my sense of fair play comes from -- if you don't count all your strokes, not only do you cheat your opponents, but you cheat yourself into thinking that you are a better player than you really are.
That being said, I believe that the weight of an offense should dicatate the weight of the punishment. After all, someone who generously dips into the "give a penny/take a penny" tray is not viewed as the social miscreant as someone who robs a bank.
In other words if we ever come to find out that steroids make very little difference in performance, then Barry Bonds should still be viewed as a jerk, but it shouldn't keep him out of the Hall of Fame. If on the other hand, we find out that steroids have a significant impact on the outcomes of careers, then by all means, remove his records and bar him from coming within 100 miles of Cooperstown.
I've always said that it is the integrity of the outcome of games that counts most. Finding out how much steroids matter would help in determining how much integrity has to be restored.
