A Boring Post about a Boring Sports Hypothetical

I thought I’d make an uncharacteristically long post re: a hypothetical question I was thinking about:

If a new form of steroids, or ‘performance enhancing drugs’ was created, and it was harmless, should it be allowed in professional sports? 

Currently, one of the arguments against steroids in pro sports is that they not only pose a health risk to the athlete, but to everyone influenced by pro athletes who also may use steroids.  In this hypothetical, that argument would be negated.

The remaining case against steroids is more abstract, and relates to the integrity of the game.  Does one want to see the best athletes, or the best ‘natural’ athletes?  Here, the word ‘natural’ is subjective.  We consider training and ‘supplements’ to be natural, but ‘drugs’ to be out of that realm.  Spitting hairs, we could break down the difference between ‘supplement’ and ‘drug’, and what category this new steroid would fall under.  But, if this drug hypothetically had similar but somehow harmless properties of anabolic steroids, I’ll assume it could be considered a ‘drug.’

I would argue that pro sports would have to allow this.  If this steroid was created, many average people would probably use it, and would be less interested in sports if the gap grew smaller between themselves and the athletes they paid to watch.  The idea of what’s ‘natural’ is so subjective, I don’t see how they could say that training etc is any more acceptable than using safe performance enhancing drugs.

This should change our perspective on current performance enhancers.  ‘Anti-steroids in sports’ crusaders make the argument that using steroids somehow lacks integrity on a level beyond just health concerns, that it somehow taints the sports.  

This issue sort of manifested recently with the NBA banning the new shoe that allows wearers to jump higher.  Even though the sport is not designed with these technological improvements in mind, pro sports needs to be more accepting of them and adapt to accommodate them.  Obviously, the slippery-slope argument would consider dramatic changes like bionic limbs etc.

I believe that the ‘bad for your health’ issue is the only acceptable argument against steroids in pro sports, and that we have to accept new advancements that can push the limits of athleticism.