PEDs in Sports: Why Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens Should Be in the Hall of Fame

Ever since the feds raided BALCO and we all learned that Barry Bonds was a cheater, there has been an ongoing debate over PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) in sports. 

For the most part, the entire country has come to the following consensus:  Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Jose Canseco, and everyone who has either tested positive for or been caught up in any of the multiple government or independent investigations on PEDs are all cheaters. 

They shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame. 

Their records should be abolished. 

They are the evilest of evil, the scummiest of scum, the ugliest of the ugly. 

They cheated to gain an advantage and should be punished for it. 

The part of me that wants to eliminate all cheating from sports, both pro and amateur, agrees with this. I want PEDs out of baseball, football, hockey, basketball, bowling, golf, NASCAR—hell, I even want it out of gymnastics, swimming, and curling.

The realistic part of me knows that the scientists who are making the PEDs will always be a step ahead of the scientists who are testing them. After all, who do you think made more money? The guy who invented the Cream and the Clear, or the guy who helped the government figure out how to test for it? 

Given that, is it really fair to tarnish Barry Bonds for doing something we’re pretty sure a large percentage of the pitchers he was facing was also doing? 

OK, maybe that statement isn’t fair. Maybe it wasn’t a large percentage. Maybe none of them were using. But, we don’t know. We can’t know. 

I understand that there are tests that detect most types of steroids. It’s a no-brainer to include all of these types of PEDs on banned substance lists and to punish those who test positive for them. You can be relatively certain (as long as you’re testing often enough) that only the players who test positive are using them, so it’s perfectly fair to punish those who are caught.

But what about the PEDs you can’t test for? 

Take HGH, for example. 

Today, there is no test for HGH. The only way an athlete gets caught doing HGH is if the government happens to arrest the guy who sold it to him. Even if they catch your "doctor," they can’t prove you did HGH beyond any reasonable doubt unless you admit to it.

So, is it really fair to punish anyone for doing HGH when, for all you know, everyone is doing it? Is it really fair to punish players for taking a substance when you’ll never have a failed test to prove they took it? Is it really fair to punish only the players who can’t afford the "good stuff" that can’t be detected by the tests done by the MLB, the NFL, the NBA, or the NHL?

Isn’t the only fair way to deal with PEDs to take them off the banned substance list until or unless you can test for them?

Rodney Harrison was punished for taking HGH, even though he never failed a test. He was punished because his name came up in an investigation and he was later forced to admit to the NFL that he took the banned substance. Had his name not come up, he’d probably still be taking HGH today.

How many other athlete’s names haven’t come up? How many other athletes are still taking HGH today?

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?