Steroids in different sports. . .

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)?

If they legalized steroids in football, they might as well just pre-cut everyone’s ACLs.

When you talk about defense in baseball, you’re really talking about pitchers. I think it’s reasonable to think that a pitcher can be helped by steroids. You’re not going to be helped by bulking up, but steroids can help with your training regimen, help you recover more quickly and completely from outings. They may not be helped as much as a home run hitter, but pitchers have been caught using steroids, and who’s a better judge of what may or may not help a pitcher’s performance than the pitcher himself?

Steroids should bother us not because some name in a dusty old book may be changed, but because steroids are hazardous drugs. Look at pro wrestling, which is a steroid laden enterprise given a free pass because it’s entertainment instead of legit competition, those guys are dying left and right from heart attacks and suicides.

When I talk about defense, I’m talking about the pitcher, the fielders, and the ballpark.

If you allowed steroids, you’d have to consider “does allowing pitchers and fielders to use steroids effectively balance the hitters using steroids?” The ballpark stays the same. That’s probably a big problem with it.

And expanding ball parks is going to have a positive effect on the offense, too.

I agree with the OP in principle: bigger, faster and stronger, applied equally to offense and defense, could make pro football a more exciting sport to watch. However, knowing that these guys were seriously mortgaging their present and future health for my entertainment, I think I’d feel some Roman Colosseum-type guilt for enjoying it. I mean, as George Will put it ten years ago, football is rapidly becoming an arena too dangerous for people with human knees and necks. I can only imagine that would go through the roof if 380 pound linemen with 10% body fat became the norm.

Currently, football players are dying, becoming cripples, and losing cognitive powers at an alarming rate. Make it unlimited steroids and these guys will be exploding in the locker rooms. You’d be effectively saying that in order to play football at this competitive level you have to be willing to die by age 40. I’m not willing to watch that sport.

About half the baseball players caught using steroids have been pitchers, who benefit from a little extra zip on their pitches or the ability to bounce back a little faster. I don’t know if steroids confer an equal advantage to pitchers as they do to hitters, but there seems to be a roughly equal amount of cheating taking place.

Haven’t you people heard. The NFL did a complete and fair evaluation and football is completely blameless. 'Don’t you trust the NFL. How unamerican that is of you.