There's an unfairness involved when amped athletes compete with unamped athletes. I might watch a form of sport that featured, nay required, steroid-derived bodies. But I'll still prefer watching natural-born, albeit highly trained, individuals in any sport.

If we say that steroid use is okay, that it's just the use of modern biochemical technology, then can we say to no surgically or genetically altered competitors? Is it okay if a swimmer has his hands and feet webbed? How about replacing certain bones with titanium and ligaments with some form of genetically altered spiderweb?

These might all be very entertaining to watch, but unless all the competitors were equally augmented, it doesn't fit my definition of 'sport'.

I acknowledged that a lift of the ban would skew the risk-reward ratio for pros. and I certainly have no objection to high school and collegiate athletics banning substances that would impact the still-developing bodies of amateurs. My ambivalence is entirely because I don't automatically subscribe to the pervasive, and largely unquestioned, assumption that the ban in pro sports is presumptively valid.

But that's all really beside the point which is that, regardless of the utility of the ban, it exists and there are just no excuses for violating it "accidentally" any more.

like WWE, WWF, etc....no, wait.

Professional wrestling isn't a sport and has long since pretending to be. It's scripted performance art. The performers are tremendous athletes, to be sure, but then so are ballet dancers.

Any child who has athletic aspirations will know that drugs are the only way to go if you want to maximize your chances in such a highly competitive field.

I think it would be an absolute disaster if there were no ban.