Mark McGwire didn’t want to say it in front of Congress but he finally came clean about not playing clean. He admits he used steroids and his admission will launch a torrent of speculation about others who are under suspicion (Senor Sosa? Donde esta?). There will be renewed debate whether McGwire, who has never come close in the voting for admission to the Baseball Hall of Fame should receive renewed consideration now that the truth has set him free.

With that Pandora’s Box open, look for some to revisit the controversial school of thought that steroids should be available to any professional or amateur adult athlete who wants them. The thinking goes the harm in steroids is minimal and they simply represent an advancement in technology, no different from fiberglass vaulting poles or specially designed swimsuits. Norman Fost, medical ethicist from the University of Wisconsin, pointed out track star Ben Johnson was vilified for using performance enhancing drugs in the 1988 Summer Olympics while American swimmer Janet Evans was hailed for winning a gold medal when she wore a top secret, high-tech fabric swimsuit. Fost asks rhetorically, “Why was Johnson condemned for taking a performance enhancing drug while Evans’ use of a performance enhancing swimsuit was praised?”

Supporters contend the harm of these drugs is overblown and most of the side-effects are either short-term or merely cosmetic. Moreover, if everyone had access to these drugs, any unfair advantage would be minimized.

Unfortunately, the physical and psychological side effects of these drugs are undeniably real and their long-term effects are unknown. In doses used for athletic performance enhancement most of these drugs have not gone through any long-term evaluation. It took decades for the world to see the horrific experiences of the East German female swimmers of the 1970’s who have health problems, difficulty with fertility and have given birth to deformed children.

Even if everyone has access to performance enhancing drugs, an advantage will always go to the athlete who is willing to take those unknown risks at the expense of those who prefer “to play clean”. The situation is clearly not analogous to equipment advances like the fiberglass pole or a high-tech swimsuit that may confer advantage but do not put the athlete’s health at risk.

Finally, there is the argument even most supporters of performance enhancing drugs concede – the effect on children. These drugs pose a serious threat to young people because many stunt growth or cause other harmful effects on physical or mental development. Mark McGwire’s success is a compelling reason these drugs are sought by teenagers – and a strong argument why they should not be allowed at the professional level.

If the situation is frightening now, consider the future. Advances in genetic engineering may soon allow scientists to inject a gene into a target muscle and increase its performance exponentially, something already successfully tried in mice. Such a technique could create genetically engineered performance enhancement that would dwarf today’s records. Imagine the slugger who could hit 250 home runs per season, the 115 mile per hour fastball, or the sprinter who could run 100 meters in seven seconds. Moreover, such techniques might be undetectable by testing. Other gene transfer techniques and stem cell transplantation could literally allow the body to repair and recreate damaged tissue immediately. Scientists in the field have acknowledged gene transfer therapy is already theoretically possible for athletes. Competitive athletics would be reduced to caricatured entertainment.

There is no bright line between seeking a competitive edge and “cheating” in competitive sports. But there is such a thing as cheating. It is almost certain the use of anabolic steroids in baseball or blood doping in cycling confer an unfair advantage, even if it is unproven scientifically. (Absence of proof is not proof of absence). Any way you cut it, the athlete who uses these drugs cheats not only his fellow competitors; he cheats the very nature of the sport.

Ultimately, the problem of performance enhancing drugs is one for both the culture of sports and for society at large. There are too many athletes who aren’t using performance enhancing drugs loath to point out a problem they know exists. The same is true of coaches, sports physicians and others (in baseball the Players’ Union has been guilty in the past). This “conspiracy of silence” creates a public crisis of confidence in the sport. In the case of physicians, this represents a dereliction of professional duty.

Competitive sports, from baseball to golf to track and field have inherent difficulties built into them. Even the greatest competitors are humbled by the limitations of their sport. Performance enhancing drugs allow athletes to circumvent those limitations and athletes, being human, will always seek that edge. Now that Mark McGwire has finally confessed, the lesson is we must redouble our efforts to keep these drugs out of sports.

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