David - is the end of your last paragraph meant to show that you're not serious about the previous paragraph, or do you stand by the previous paragraph but with the understanding that HGH isn't a magic enhancer for everyone?

Wow. Intelligent, thought-provoking commentary. Good thing major media companies don't do that. Might upset the public too much :-P

Nice post, David!

It's been my view for a long time that steroids in general should be legal and only used publicly under a doctor's care. So I stand by the previous paragraph. The last paragraph is to show that the effects of performance enhancing drugs may be limited. If there's no talent there in the first place, it doesn't seem to create it.

Look at Jose Canseco. He was talented enough to be drafted, but he may not have been strong enough to make the majors. It could very well be that if he let his body deveop naturally, by the time he was 24 or 25 he could have been a good player. But strengthening through drugs allowed his talent to be used to full effect earlier. If he didn't have a good batting eye and a good swing, all that bulking probably wouldn't have made a difference.

I think it's an issue of the gray area and the slippery slope.

If HGH is ok, then who's to say other drugs aren't?

It pushes the line further and further.

I'd go so far as to say that anything past vitamins should be banned. I'd rather watch a game where true talent is rewarded, not who has the best chemist in his pocket.

We've already seen Lasik and Tommy John surgically improve performances; if HGH has side effects on the level of those operations, it shouldn't be illegal--and it should become LIKE vitamins.

This post is spot on, in my opinion. I think the problem with PED's is in the health problems they can cause. When some athletes are using them, that puts pressure on others to use them, too. If they aren't harmful, though, what's so bad about that? There are plenty of legal supplements out there -- creatine, protein shakes, etc. -- that enhance performance or at least aid in building strength. I don't have a problem with athletes using substances like those, so if some miracle substance comes along without serious side effects, I wouldn't have a problem with it either.

Too many Jons posting. The second Jon is not the same as the first Jon.

Luft doesn't know what he's talking about. Both Growth Hormone and anabolic steroids like Testosterone are made normally by the body. Taking either one increases their effect and makes you into a "Super You." It may be true that HGH is safer, but not because it's "natural," and anabolic steroids aren't. It'd be nice if writers at SI could take five minutes to talk to a doctor before writing a story. It's not that hard. Instead we get nonsense like this, which doens't help the debate in the slightest.

But I'd consider it a compliment to be confused with dodgerthoughts.com Jon.

Look, it's a sliding scale. Nobody is going to call orange juice and Wheaties performance-enhancing drugs because people who have 'em for breakfast end up healthier than people who eat bacon and sausage. At the other end of the scale, a pitcher should not be allowed to replace his arm with a nuclear-powered cybernetic attachment capable of launching a baseball nine hundred miles an hour with a margin of error of three millimeters.

You can say that where to draw the line is arbitrary. But I don't think it's arbitrary. The test I would use is a simple one. Substances should be off-limits unless they are routinely used during times of reasonable health by non-athletes. People don't watch baseball because they want to "watch athletes push the envelope of human achievement." Believe me, the 900-mph-cybernetic-pitching arm would be a more spectacular, envelope-pushing feat of human achievement than Barry Bonds hitting 73 home runs or Roger Clemens pitching until he's 50 years old. But it would be a feat of human achievement entirely different in kind from the kinds of feats for which people enjoy sport. The appeal of professional sport is seeing people who have the same tools as the rest of us do extraordinary things. But if their tools are extraordinary, there is nothing extraordinary about the results, and sport becomes boring.

And where does that lead us? You write that steroids and HGH should be permitted because "if fans don't like it they can stay away from games and kill the sport." I believe steroids should not be permitted because fans staying away and killing the sport is THE MOST LIKELY RESULT of permitting them, and I don't want to see that happen. Your argument makes sense (from a libertarian mindset) if the question is whether steroids should be outlawed by the government, but the pertinent question is whether they should be banned by baseball. And that's an easy answer for me.

Well, slippery slope, sliding scale, whatever, we're already there. David's asking the sane question, "why one and not the other?" Reality asks more. Actual events, people and situations demand more than just knee-jerk condemnations.

PED's are going nowhere. How can any discussion about the issue proceed from another view? The United States's War on Drugs has failed so spectacularly that there can be no doubt that the war on PED's is also doomed to failure. Let's start by acknowledging the lack of real importance this issue really has. Why professional athletes should be held to a higher level of scrutiny than government officials or banking presidents begs a multitude of questions; virtually all of which are completely ignored by the mainstream media.

Anyway, Grimsley's situation should certainly challenge the debaters to come up with more creative ways to condemn Bonds.

I think we should start to treat baseball kind of like horse racing. In order to get the best athletes, I think once a guy makes the all-star team for the fourth time, we harvest his sperm and fertilize All-American softball players in order to breed a new generation of unstoppable athletes. Once they reach the age of 18 we can begin administering them doses of HGH and various other performance enhancing drugs. Before long, players like Mickey Mantle, Bob Gibson, Rickey Henderson, Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols will seem like AAA players in comparison to the average big leaguer.

Time to get serious now.

"If he didn't have a good batting eye and a good swing, all that bulking probably wouldn't have made a difference."

What's your point? Yes, PED's turn good players into great ones. Sorry, I'd rather just enjoy great ones as they come along naturally. And they do. You're acting like talent doesn't come around often enough without the aid of drugs. Baseball has been full of superlative talents throughout its history. PED"s are completely unnecessary to providing the game with players worthy of following in the footsteps of Mickey Mantle, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, etc. So why promote their use and risk any sort of even minor health problems? Nodody is complaining about the talent level in the major leagues. As great pitchers like Tom Glavine age, a young guy like Dontrelle Willis comes around. When a great hitter like Jeff Bagwell hangs up his spikes, a guy like Miguel Cabrera is right there to bang balls into the gap and over the fence. You're advocacy of PED's seems completely unnecessary to me. If you're not satisfied with how well the latest drug testing methods work, I would think support of further research into methods of PED detection would be a more noble pursuit.

Joe,

It seems to me people have been complaining about the level of pitching talent since 1994.

uh joe

mickey and willie WERE using PEDs

just not the kind you got a problem with

Another great read in this posted URL. Basicly, it points out that we need not look further than our own society and lifestyle to find the answers. We are a society that takes pills, medications, and other substances for just about everything. We pay players large sums of money, then watch the games on TV and go the parks to watch them live.
It's little wonder that, in this setting, players want some amphetemines to keep them at or near peak. Sure, it's a game/job that most enjoy, playing a three hour game. But throw in a five to seven game a week schedule, rigorous travel schedules, early workouts, stretches, practice... Hrmmm. So should we tell our workforce that travels a lot, organizes and plans meetings, and willing works 60+ hours a week that they shouldn't take No-Doze, caffeine, or other PEDs? Yes, they are legal. But the precedent is set.