I never really know what to say on the steroids topic (and whatever I do have to say won't be nearly as incisive or funny as what Chuck Klosterman has to say), though I'm pretty sure that folks have it backwards. Insofar as there's a rationale for keeping athletes from doping up, it's not because it gives them an unfair advantage, but because it will kill them. In other words, it's good ol' liberal paternalism. After all, we actually allow all sorts of performance enhancers, from Creatine to vitamin-boosting to shoulderpads. The problem, as I understand it, is that anabolic steroids vastly increase the rate of heart attacks, liver cancer, and blood clots. Allow them to become normalized, and you'll see a rapid increase in health problems all the way down the athletics ladder.
The catch is, these effects appear to be way overstated. The quantities used are many multiples above what anyone would ever take, and there's been no long-term epidemiological studies conducted. Seems we need some of those. If the substances aren't particularly harmful, there's no reason to ban them. If they are deadly, you don't want them becoming the norm in high school locker rooms. But this is an empirical question, and until it's actually answered, the pressure to allow anabolic steroids will only grow...
