If I’m being totally honest, I have to say that steroids in football don’t bother me, but steroids in baseball do.
The crux of it:
In baseball, I think that steroids give an unfair advantage to offense. The reason that that is a problem is that so much of what we like about baseball is evaluating how our players are doing measured against historical norms. . .60 homers, .300 average, etc.
I don’t think that loading up the defense on 'roids would be nearly enough to counteract the loading up of offense on roids. especially given the fixed confines of the stadiums.
However, football to me is just warfare. There’s an off-field general. And on-field general. There are men whose job it is to be GIANT and POWERFUL in short bursts (the O-line). There are men whose job it is to be fast over distance and jump high (receivers). There are men whose job it is to be an elusive bowling ball (RBs).
I’d think it would be more entertaining if every one of these attributes was enhanced to it’s bone-snapping limit. . .500 pound linemen. 4.0 speed in a 40 with a 50 inch leap, etc.
The difference with baseball is that in football the atrributes of good defense (size, speed, aggressiveness, also) can be enhanced hand-in-hand with the offense.
Anyone else feel like this (at least to some degree)?