On this I disagree with you Solar. The quest to "be the best that they can be" would include everything that is at hand. You said that if it doesn't come in food it doesn't belong on your club. Are we going back to the stone age? No aspirin for a headache? No Tylenol for aches and pains? No salves and ointments for cuts and bruises.

Do you think the War on Drugs is a good idea - despite it chipping away at our Constitutional rights and putting more and more power into the hands of the police. Oh wait, they're doing it for our good.

My point is this; we use drugs constantly in our society. In all manner of shapes and varieties. About the same time that we stepped out of the trees, we stopped relying on our natural abilities. How did a weakling, with no fangs, no claws and fairly slow, get to the top of the food chain? Drugs are simply further along a continuum that starts with stone hand axes. They are simply another tool. Should training methods revert to earlier eras? Diets? Equipment?

Sportsmanship is an idea invented by "gentlemen" to differentiate themselves from those "vulgar" types. The American ideal has always been winning. And athletes have always been out there looking for that "edge".

And my point about the sportscasters was that their hatred for steroids is irrational in light of how their regular lives operate. IOW, don't preach to me on the "evils" of marijuana - and then go out a kill half a bottle of bourbon. They're just different drugs and it all boils down to preference. One other thing sportscasters, like the rest of the media, are at heart, leftists. I don't think they really "like" most of the millionaires that they cover.

Last thing, as for the player driving the motorcycle around the bases, that would be against the rules. But there is nothing inherently "wrong" with it (besides the fact that the bike won't fit in the batters box among other problems), it's just one of the arbitrary choices being made. As for that asterisk thing, are we going to put one before all records set before Jackie Robinson entered the big leagues? How about one for all pitching records before they lowered the mound? Fielding records before the era of large gloves?

So were steroids originally. You should check into the Drug laws and exactly why some drugs are banned. It often has nothing to do with their supposed good or bad effects. But other less savory sociological reasons. So all the rules that society sets make sense or are fair? Sometimes these rules aren't base on anything more than preference. Haven't we seen enough of the Left making rules "for our own good"? In any case yes, I want them lifted. I see no profit in spending society's time and money rescuing people from the rewards of their own stupidity. Banning drunk driving is not intrusive, as it resides in the area of privilege - which driving is; but lighting up in the privacy of my living room or using steroids in my gym? Why are we spending time and money trying Barry Bonds, doesn't the Federal government have enough bank robbers, terrorists and serial killers to run down?I believe you missed my point. You should remember that at one point steroids were NOT banned. And why are they seen as anything other than another tool? What is the difference between a new and more advanced piece of training equipment and drugs? Simply another way to get from point A to point B. Would that be anything like whatever it was Gaylord Perry used to put on the baseball. Or George Brett putting pine tar all the way up the barrel of the bat? Some tennis player going ballistic at the line judge? A golfer taking a mulligan? Or are those just some of the none sportsmanlike things we "wink" at.Uh, not when it was one of my main points in the first place.Point is, if you're going to make a big deal out of steroids, why should we show the same respect for records set when large portions of the population weren't even allowed to compete. Eras change. The people playing the games change. My point is that it makes no more sense to ban steroid users that it does to throw out records from other eras.If I were the boss I want to give the job to the sneaky SOB who managed to sneak the calculator in, and use it, without being caught. I never assumed life was fair. If I were the guy competingfor the job, why wouldn't I rat him out?

Yes, but these rules need to make sense and to not have been arbitrarily imposed. Also society has to have decided upon these rules. Look at Prohibition, something the was foisted upon the nation by a loud minority for "our own good". By the time it was done, there were more drinkers in the US, than before it had began. And organized crime had grown into a national menace.No, simple recognition that "nice guys finish last", and sometimes it's better to screw him before he gets the chance to screw you.That's assuming that WE did ALL agreed upon them and they weren't something arbitrarily imposed. Which is the point I raised with PED. This is a society steeped in drugs. As I noted from something to get you up in the morning to something to help you get to sleep at night. So why did we arbitrarily ban them in this instance? The reasons given make no since in light of other instances of not so fair play.But rules of the road are safety rules. Made in an effort to make driving safe for all of us. To go back to your motorcycle on the base paths, what catcher would want try covering the plate if the "runner" was coming in atop a powered vehicle?
BTW, it should be understood that simply because I'm against SOME rules at SOME times, it does not follow that I am against ALL rules at ALL times. Because I think some rules are silly that doesn't naturally lead to the conclusion that I'm an anarchist.Conservatives have never been about rules simply for rules sake. It's our leftist friends who want absolute control of every endeavor.In what why does allowing murder - or even taking a neutral position on it - enhance public safety? In what way does use of steroids harm public safety? If it doesn't harm the public, why are we making laws against it?Sure - if you can explain why a particular substance - which once wasn't banned - was. You speak of moving the goal posts, so how is changing the rules on PED's less than moving the goal posts. Especially in light of other "goal post moves"; like lowering the mound, changes to the strike zone, or changes in equipment and training methods or making the season longer or shorter. Explain to me why using a drug is any different than any of those other changes - unless of course you simply don't "like" drugs. On that case you, simply would like to legislate a personal preference, and that isn't conservative.

Again you miss the point, I never asked that they be let off Scot free, I only noted that the rules are stupid. And serve no rational reason.Uh, oh. We're into the "role model" excuse. To quite Charles Barkley on the subject of athletes as role models :"Just because I can dunk a basketball, doesn't mean I should raise your kids". Role models should be parents, and others close to the family. Not strangers on some far off playing field.Why not? Will these enhancements be available to all players?Because the rules make no sense, like the rules that used to keep blacks out of major sports. Do you think those rules made sense? How did they reflect on society, except badly.No, it comes down to a question of your personal beliefs. I see no more wrong with using PED's than I do with taking the handful of pills every morning that are - hopefully - keeping me alive. Much as I'd like to "caveman" it, and remove all these artificial life extenders from my existence, I've grown fond of the living, breathing thing.