In my first blog entry at Baseball Digest Daily, I briefly examine the main issue people have with the 'Juiced' era. The question involves whether it is the technology or the morality of taking performance enhancing drugs. Thus, the moral controversy is an interesting one.
"Todd McFarlane agrees with this comment when he discusses that when he was in college, if he was offered a pill that would have gotten him into professional baseball, he would have said, 'I’ll take two.'"
This sentiment is shared by Dan LaBatard who states in a March of 2006 article in the Miami Herald,
"Let's say you are an accountant, mailman or secretary. And there are two people in your business who aren't as good as you are (let's call them Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa) getting a lot more rewards because of some secret potion, powder, or pill that isn't against the rules of your workplace. You aren't going to go looking for that secret elixir that might make you better and add five years of money to your career? You are going to fall behind your competition by applying ethics? If so, good for you. You are a noble person. And, rather literally, a loser. You are going to be devoured for being less competitive and cruel than your cutthroat surroundings."
Truly, who can disagree? People continually argue how they are willing to do anything for their families. Then why is a man made a goat for doing the same thing any other person would have done? In my opinion, it is because people did not want Barry Bonds to break the all-time home run record.
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!