Mark Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks’ billionaire owner, recently commented on steroids and sports at a University of Pittsburgh speech, I’ll get killed for saying this but I’m not so against steroids if they’re administered under proper supervision and there is no long-term damage.” Cuban noted medical practices like LASIK eye surgery and Tommy John surgery already improve athletic performance. He asked if that’s not considered cheating, why the double-standard when it comes to drugs?
“You administer them properly and fairly and set the rules strictly, as long as in doing so we recognize there are no negative long-term health-impact issues”

Cuban, a superrich windbag who lacks a mind-mouth filter, gets more publicity than he deserves. His uninformed pronouncements reflect the sentiment steroids should be made available to any professional or amateur adult athlete who wants them. And he has support from some experts who claim the harm in steroids is minimal and represents nothing more than a technology advance, no different from fiberglass vaulting poles or specially designed swimsuits. Fost cites Ben Johnson in the 1988 Olympics, vilified for using performance-enhancing drugs while American swimmer Janet Evans was hailed for winning a gold medal when she wore a top secret, high-tech fabric swimsuit.
The argument is basically the harm of these drugs is overblown and most side-effects are either short-term or merely cosmetic. The unfair advantage the drugs confer would be minimized if everyone had access to these drugs.

Yet the short-term physical and psychological side effects have been well-documented, even if they are occasionally overstated. As for long-term effects, nobody knows, since there has never been any long-term evaluation. It took nearly two decades for the incredible performances of East German female swimmers to come under scrutiny. Many of these young women were taken from their families by the Government at an early age, received intensive training and sophisticated chemical regimens leaving them with terrible physical and psychological complications years later. Some are now infertile or have delivered deformed children. Others have developed male sex characteristics and at least one felt compelled to undergo a sex change operation.
Because so much is unknown, these drugs must be considered far riskier than LASIK or Tommy John surgery. The athlete who accepts the unknown risks will always have an advantage over those who prefer “to play clean”. But there is no basis to compare these drugs to equipment advances like high-tech swimsuits that confer advantage but do not jeopardize athletes’ health.

The most compelling argument is the danger these drugs pose to children. Professional athletes’ success with performance-enhancing drugs is a main reason the drugs are sought by teenagers – and a strong argument for banning them at the professional level. Even Norman Fost, a physician-ethicist who supports their use professionally, acknowledges the risks to young people. He favors testing young athletes. His punishment for those distributing drugs to them is simple and straightforward- “Hanging followed by a fair trial”.

There is no bright line between seeking a competitive edge and “cheating”. But there is such a thing as cheating. Competitive sports are inherently difficult. Even the greatest competitors are humbled by their sport’s limitations. Mark Buerhle, untainted by any drug allegations, pitched a perfect game for the White Sox this year and set a Major League record by retiring 45 consecutive batters. Right after that he failed to win a game for six weeks. Tiger Woods occasionally fails to make a tournament cut. Performance-enhancing drugs permit athletes to circumvent the natural limitations of their sport. They confer an unfair advantage, even if unproven scientifically. Athletes using these compounds cheat their fellow competitors and cheat their sport.
Many athletes elect not to use performance-enhancing drugs but are reluctant to point out a problem they know exists. This “conspiracy of silence” extends to coaches and others (especially the Major League Baseball Players’ Union) creating a public crisis of confidence in sports. In the case of complicit sports physicians, it’s a clear dereliction of duty.

If today’s situation is disturbing, genetic engineering advances may soon permit scientists to inject genes into target muscles and exponentially increase performance. Gene transfer therapy, already theoretically possible, might allow the body to repair and recreate damaged tissue immediately. Such techniques might be undetectable by testing. Competitive athletics could become caricatured entertainment - sluggers hitting 250 home runs per season, pitchers with 115 mph fastballs and sprinters running 100 meters in seven seconds.

The future is problematic for the sports culture and society at large. Performance enhancing drugs mean greater paychecks for athletes and billionaire owners like Mark Cuban. But they tarnish competition and endanger the lives of athletes and would-be athletes. Mark Cuban’s foolish belief is that he can extract the value from performance enhancing drugs without realizing the eventual price.

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here