It’s easy to judge when you don’t have to choose
Published 2:48 pm Saturday, July 19, 2008
By Staff
As has become standard in recent years, the beginning of the Tour De France has put performance enhancing drugs back in the spotlight.
One American rider has already been thrown off the tour and who knows how many other cyclists will test positive before the race ends?
Even those riders who pass all the drug tests remain suspects and with doping technology seemingly always advancing faster than testing technology, perhaps no champion will ever completely escape suspicion.
Basically, you're guilty until proven innocent, but there's no way to prove innocence because you're probably guilty anyway.
Whenever any athlete tests positive for steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, the public and the media love demonizing that person.
Even the shadow of possible steroid use follows an athlete as it's nearly impossible to talk about Lance Armstrong's seven Tour De France wins without mentioning the suspicions that swirled around him.
Armstrong accomplished something incredibly impossible, but he'll never receive his due because a vague cloud of suspicion always remains.
He'll get to date Sheryl Crow, one of the Olsen twins (even he's not sure which one) and will probably go onto romance plenty of women not yet out of diapers, but he will never be completely credible as an athlete.
If Armstrong cheated, it's hard to argue with his results and we should all consider what choice we would make in his position.
If he took steroids and they helped him win seven Tours in a row, they also helped him achieve fame, fortune and acclaim he would otherwise never have received.
Basically, a drugged-up Armstrong gets to live the good life and a clean Armstrong would have been a nice feature in the back of the sports section.
Taking banned substances equals cheating and we'd all like to believe we live in a world where nobody cheats and all accomplishments occur honestly.
Since we don't live in that sort of fantasy land, we must consider why athletes take these drugs and that there's a pretty good chance we would do the same.
If science made a pill that made me a slightly better writer, I can't say I would not break the law or risk negative health consequences to take it.
Were a shot to exist that would help me make the leap from being mildly successful and reasonably well-read, to nationally known and highly paid, I'd be foolish not to consider taking it.
It's easy to scold athletes who test positive for banned performance enhancing drugs, but who among us would not risk an awful lot to get slightly better and advance from the minor leagues to the majors?
If shooting some steroids would get you an NFL contract instead of cut in training camp, it's hard to imagine you would not at least consider using them
Moralizing and scolding comes easy when you will never face the same choices as the people you denounce.
In most lines of work, no particular illegal substance exists that helps someone get better and your average person never has to choose between his long-term health, his soul or his bank account.
I know how many people have been harmed by steroids and I understand the risk involved with taking them.
I also understand that if I was in a position where taking that risk might mean my kid's kids would never have to want for anything, it's a risk I'd at least have to consider it.