Pro to the question "Should performance enhancing drugs (such as steroids) be accepted in sports?"
Reasoning:
"Who among us hasn't used performance enhancers, preferably with ice and an olive? Steroids, synthetic substances similar to testosterone, can be as benign as those that are commonly prescribed for allergies and as harmful as those that have sent many retired athletes into physical decline; as with any medication, the effect depends on the dose and frequency of use...
For the most part, however, the only thing certifiably bad about steroids is that they may improve athletic performance. Somehow we've decided that the only hardworking professionals who shouldn't be permitted to enhance their performances are athletes. Amphetamines were staples in professional training rooms in the sixties and seventies...
Then there is the myth that steroids are turning players into freaks. Players have always been freaks. That's what makes them so different from the rest of us. No normal person can throw a baseball 98 miles an hour. Normal people can't run a slant-in and catch a football with a 250-pound linebacker waiting to cream them...
It is time to admit that not all steroids are dangerous and that every individual and every situation cannot be addressed with the same set of rigid rules. Instead of banning steroids, we should control them. Cool the hysteria; educate without scaring."
"Truth and Consequences: Yes, Roger Clemens Is a Jerk. But Congress Shouldn't Make a Federal Case Over Whether He Lied About Using Steroids," Texas Monthly, Apr. 2008
"Tony Romo Is the Greatest Cowboys Quarterback Since...," Texas Monthly, Sep. 2008
"Truth and Consequences: Yes, Roger Clemens Is a Jerk. But Congress Shouldn't Make a Federal Case Over Whether He Lied About Using Steroids," Texas Monthly, Apr. 2008