
The latest internet buzz surrounding the topic of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) involves a spray derived from a substance found on deer antlers. Similar to Human Growth Hormone (HGH) when it was first used as a PED in the late 1990's, it is very difficult to test for naturally occurring IGF-1, the active ingredient in this new PED. In order to test positive, a blood test must be conducted at the right time because the substance does not stay in a human body for extended periods of time like other PEDs. Currently, neither the NFL or MLB use blood tests to test for PEDs.
Although this PED is new, the discussion about the use of PEDs in sports is not. Athletes have always looked for competitive advantages and the lines are becoming increasingly blurred. How do you differentiate between what should be a legal performance enhancing substance (such as a protein shake) and an illegal one (steroids)? More importantly, is it possible for leagues to eliminate the use of PEDs since as soon as effective tests are developed for one PED a new PED takes its place? The biggest questions about PEDs though are: are they good or bad for sports, and what message are we sending to our children by embracing their use in professional sports?
After the baseball strike of 1995, attendance of MLB games plummeted by over 20%. By 1998 in the midst of a home run chase fueled by the use of PEDs, MLB attendance hit a record of 70.6 million fans, up 12% from 1997. With its popularity on the rise, MLB and Commissioner Bud Selig did not address the steroid issue until 2003 and MLB did not impose stiff penalties for PED users until after Congress became involved in 2005. Despite the fact that several top tier players (e.g. Alex Rodriguez, and Manny Ramirez) have tested positive for steroids, attendance at MLB games has remained well above post-strike attendance marks notwithstanding the economic recession the country finds itself in.
This begs the question, have leagues and fans accepted the fact that athletes will use PEDs? Are we willing to allow athletes to use PEDs so they can perform at their best and we can be more entertained? Most importantly, what message does this send to our children? Should we tell our children that PEDs are not for them but that professional athletes play by a different set of rules? Is that message really different than the reality that professional athletes are afforded certain privileges by society that the rest of us are not (Brett Favre, Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger)?
It's an interesting discussion but if the purpose of sports is to entertain us and PEDs provide a way for them entertain us more, maybe it is time for us to embrace their use in professional sports. Since the use of PEDs seems to be widespread, allowing their use in professional sports is possibly the only way to truly level the playing field. There will always be athletes who figure out ways around PED testing. Is it fair to punish the athletes who play by the rules since they are at a disadvantage against the ones who find ways to take PEDs?
If it isn't then professional sports need to do one of two things. Either legalize PEDs or impose even stiffer penalties on those caught using them. I'm not talking about a 50 game suspension, I'm talking about a lifetime ban. If we as fans believe that PEDs are detrimental to sports then let's make the punishment so severe that it actually deters athletes from using them. For those of you who feel this is too harsh, it really isn't any different than what would happen to most people if they were caught one time for felony use of a recreational drug. Most people would be terminated from their current job and have a difficult time finding new employment. Why should a professional athlete be treated differently?