In Defense of PEDs?

Last week I was discussing Armando Galarraga's near perfect game with a friend of mine and made the following point:

I didn't see the game live, but when I heard about it, it more or less ruined my night. I don't know why, I don't know how, but in the pit of my stomach I felt absolutely awful. Around the same time, during Game 2 of the NBA Finals, with about two minutes left in the game, the refs blew a call where a ball out of bounds should have gone to the Lakers (this was the play where Garnett and Gasol were fighting over and it was determined that the ball went off Gasol). The refs consulted instant replay, as there was under two minutes left to play, but let the call stand, and thus blew the call. Rajon Rondo then hit a jumper to put the Celtics up five, and that was the game. The refs thus had an adverse effect on the outcome of the game.

Now the following day I barely heard a peep about this blown call, which quite possibly determined the outcome of an NBA Finals game. Yet for forty-eight hours all the sports talked about was Jim Joyce's blown call, which ultimately had no determination over the outcome of the regular season game.

Why is this? Why do we as fans place such emphasis on records like this? And if we believe these records are so important, more important than wins and losses, should we not simply legalize the use of steroids and other PEDs in professional sports, but actually mandate their use, as they will help increase the probability that the "greatest" records will be achieved?

Steroids II

One short addition I would like to make to Dr. Fost's argument is the role of journalism in this affair. A professional who has specialized in a particular trade his entire life and devoted his career to it will have difficulty being forced out of that said profession to pursue another. If he can, he will do whatever is possible to maintain his position in the world he knows and is or was significant in. This is purely speculation, but I believe many "journalists", or more appropriately "columnists", have jumped on the steroid wagon to further their careers. Sensationalism, controversy, feigned investigation and serving as the bridge between superstar and Joe Six Pack is a perfect way to stay relevant. The result is perverted cyclical incentive system for journalists, the supposed watchdogs of society and government. The journalist will report the steroid situation negatively because if he doesn't, what is the point in a cash-strapped newspaper in retaining him? The plot thickens when said newspaper is desperate to stay afloat and is consequently tempted to lower standards for sales.

In an internet world where opinion is a dime a dozen, a journalist cannot rely on opinion alone. He must instead perpetuate whatever sensational controversy is going on at the time, demonize and make it seemingly relevant, and continue the routine to maintain his stature.

I am an enormous sports fan but I do not take them too seriously. Consequently I do not take sports journalists too seriously. This is certainly not mean to be an insult to them or their profession, but in the grand scheme of things I do not find it terribly important. My only point is that like all businesses, and all people for that matter, when faced with difficult prospects, difficult decisions must be made. In the case of steroids in baseball, I feel many so-called journalists abandoned their principles to become gossip columnists and promoters of lies to simply prolong their own inevitable deaths. This is not about being for or against steroids. It is about approaching the topic in a rational and fair manner with integrity and reason serving as guides. I cannot name a single journalist that has done that when it comes to steroids in baseball.

The Arbitrary Demonizing of Steroids