Do you care if pro football players use steroids/HGH?

But football itself is a tremendous health risk (mental, physical, etc). I just don't understand this reasoning.

The Major cost benefit analysis makes more sense though the jury is still out.

I just think the "say NO to drugs!" approach is more of a reaction brought on by societal pressures and conditioning and when contrasted with the brain and other injury aspect of football is inherently contradictory.

 

But it's not so easy to draw those lines. What's more legitimate about Mark McGwire taking Androstenedione than Dianobol? Nothing IMO except that one was banned and one wasn't (yes i know he was taking more....but for the sake of argument... )

I understand the respect for rule following for its own sake...but a guy willing to inject substance X to work harder, why do we ostracize him? Steroid guys work their asses off which is why they take them....in a puritanical sense isnt that something we should respect?

 

Sure there definitely is a cost benefit analysis here but it relies heavily on intangibles- I would guess overall that we'd probably be fine in a football free world on a net basis but hard to really say. I don't if the ideal steroid free NFL really is that much different from a steroid laden one (probably the one that exists today).

It's harder to make the argument that there are major benefits to using steroids if you properly punish people for using. There's no reason to create a culture where you have to take those extra risks to participate.[/QUOTE]

But doesn't that culture already exist in football? The whole thing is based on frenzied violence and pushing yourself past the limit, playing hurt etc.