When Lance Armstrong was banned for life from competing in professional races because of doping, all of his career achievements were nullified. If the Tour de France officials were to give his medal for the 2005 Tour to the next person in line who did not dope or use illegal substances, the winner would be Jens Voigt, a German racer who came in twenty-eighth place. When facing situations like Armstrong’s, it seems that everyone now in professional sports dopes, but this was not always the case. Fifty years ago, if a baseball player could constantly hit the balls out of the park, he would be seen as a hard working athlete. Now, people would claim he used steroids. It could be argued that society is to blame, as fans of sports constantly are seeking something new and exciting, whether it is as monumental as a biker who overcame cancer to win the Tour de France seven consecutive times, or as trivial as an underdog comeback in a regular season game. When it comes to spectating these events, fans have made it clear: entertainment is the priority. Doping and steroid use is another way to make the game exciting. Since steroids are a drug created to resolve a medical problem, it is unrealistic to ban it entirely, and the current state of sports and society creates a setting wherein some controlled recreational use of steroids could be beneficial.

Because steroids are so taboo, there are a lot of people who know very little about what they actually are or what they do, and form opinions without any real factual information. Many people who oppose steroids cite medical consequences, like the common rumor that steroids lead to stomach ulcers. However, Guslandi and Tittobello named Steroid Ulcers: a myth revisited debunks the misconception that use of steroids will lead to stomach ulcers, and demonstrates that that phenomenon is dependent upon the coexisting use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. This implies that the use of steroids has its benefits and often the qualms people cite against it are unfounded, and the benefits of steroids perhaps outweigh the negatives. 

Simply put, anabolic steroids promote muscle growth. Not only does that make it easier to get your summer body ready faster and with less work, it also allows your muscles to grow larger than human biology might otherwise permit. When used legally, this is a great aid for victims of generative diseases which eat away at muscles, and is also an amazing solution for sick people who require a life-saving surgery, but might be too weak to survive going onto the table. Ever since the 1970s, substance abuse was found in many sports, calling for a way to screen people and ban them from playing, at which point the anti-doping administration began to require athletes to present their urine for substance testing. Since then, the technology has only advanced, and it is possible to find perpetrators even long after they are done playing – Lance Armstrong’s case is the perfect example. However, the athletes are finding different ways to dope and different substances to abuse to skirt these investigations. The Economist sheds light on a specific drug that was not previously known despite being used by athletes competing under the USA Track and Field; the article discusses how its use not only compromises the level playing field that is ensured by a world of sports without drugging, but also a lack of trust of the athletes who did choose to take a new drug. Those against steroid use often reference this “level playing field,” wherein all athletes compete only with what skills they naturally possess, and a fair game results. And while a level playing field would certainly be agreeable, it is nearly impossible to achieve in reality. Uniqueness is taught to children from a young age, and, indeed, an individual person will excel at some things and fail at others. Furthermore, some people are wealthier and can afford the highest quality trainers and equipment, as well as all the (legal) nutritional supplements available. Or, some athletes were born into a family who might not be as wealthy, but has connections to get onto a team at a good school and eventually maybe onto a professional team as well. Another athlete might not have been born with the greatest athleticism, but possesses an amazing work ethic, and are therefore able to carry themselves with their hard work into achieving their dream of becoming a successful athlete. And some people were simply born better; they were born with an incredible athletic prowess. They hardly work, and constantly eat unhealthy food, yet still are able to be their class’s top athlete. And for those naturally skilled, there are those against whom biology seems to be working. There is a “limit” to how big each person’s muscles can get, regardless of how much they work out, how much Muscle MilkTM they drink, or how many Fiber One Protein Power BarsTM they can shovel down their throat. Any number of combined traits can go into a single person. The playing field is inherently not level, which leaves three options available. First, maintain the ban on anabolic steroids, but also ban every other protein based substance and high quality training device. Keep the athletes in an enclosed community and monitor their food, drink, sleep, and training. This will keep the playing fields as barebones as possible – the only edge they have on each other is the random ones assigned at birth via genetics. The second option is to keep things exactly the same. The ban on steroids persists, but everyone is free to train however they would like, adhering to the arbitrary rules set. The argument that steroids are banned only to maintain a level playing field, however, would then be abandoned. There also would still be a race of sorts between the drug peddlers and the officials keeping them out of the game, but at least the enabling of dangerous drugs and methods of cheating would be eliminated. The final option is to remove the abolition of steroids. This option follows the same logic as an argument about the legalization of any drug: it can be monitored for safety, it can raise revenue, which could be particularly helpful for the women’s sports that make less than their male counterparts, and it actually contributes to a level playing field more so than any other option. If two athletes are competing, and there is about a ten-pound difference between the maximum muscle growth designated to the two of them at birth, how can those ten pounds be watered down so that the differences in pure strength and speed are lessened? Everything must be increased. For example, if one athlete can lift one hundred pounds while his opponent can only lift ninety pounds, the difference between the two athletes’ lifting ability is ten percent. If they both take steroids to the point where the first athlete can lift 200 pounds while the second only can lift 190 pounds, the ten pounds only make up five percent, which makes those ten pounds less significant than before the steroid use. In summation, an X pound difference at 100 pounds is twice that of an X pound difference at 200 pounds, so the logical way to reduce the gap in athletes is to permit both to use steroids. This argument is only valuable, however, if the consumer is determined to have a level playing field, rather than one where competition is based upon natural differences. 

In order to understand the arguments surrounding the legalization of steroids, it is imperative to understand why people are using steroids in the first place. This might seem to be a silly question, but a fully informed decision cannot be made without knowing motives. It should not be surprising to know that the main reason people take, or ought to take, steroids is for health benefits. For example, a study was conducted to see if the addition of antivirals to steroids would help give victims of Idiopathic Facial Paralysis, also known as Bell’s Palsy, more strength in their facial muscles. Because Bell’s Palsy is a reaction where muscles weaken in the face causing part or half of one’s face to droop, it was the perfect candidate for a steroid trial. Even though this trial, the addition of antivirals to steroids, did not assist in the recovery of the patients, “In this meta-analysis, antivirals did not provide an added benefit in achieving at least partial facial muscle recovery compared with steroids alone in patients with Bell’s Palsy” (Quant 685), it is a good example of the real intention for steroids: medicinal. Based upon this information, the motive question must be altered to ask why people use steroids recreationally. This answer might be more unexpected: self-image. Rebecca Evans, the social services and public health minister of Wales, spoke out on the issue, saying steroids were “not just a problem in sport – it is a wider societal issue…” and goes on to say, “[t]here are a worrying number of young people, especially men, purchasing and taking illicit substances for image reasons and some then participating in community sport” (Steroid Use for Image Reasons 'worrying', Says Minister). In fact, even when only athletes who use steroids to gain an advantage while playing sports are considered, much of the use is at a lower level. While the media and researchers focus on professional athletes, banned substances are also often “used by US cyclists at lower levels of the sport, necessitating a broader view of the patterns and motivations of substance use within the sport” (Henning). The more information is presented about steroids and doping, the more obvious it is that abusing the drugs has very little to do with fame and fortune for professional athletes. 

Once the purposes for steroids have been understood, it is necessary to understand the consequences of these decisions. Jeff Mitchell, a psychologist who has published pieces in human studies, makes a note of this in his work, “Living a Lie: Self-Deception, Habit, and Social Roles.” Mitchell is focused primarily on the use of steroids as an unfair advantage in what is an otherwise skills based playing field, and looks at the psychology behind that choice. Ultimately, he is not in favor of the use of drugs, but more so for the mental and interpersonal consequences rather than for the psychological medial concerns most often cited. Mitchell himself is an intellectual man and in the argument of “nature vs. nurture” seems to fall on the team of the latter, which could offer some bias, as he seems to value the choices made by humans perhaps more strongly than his colleagues would. He offers an argument that addresses the consequences and effects of steroid use beyond the normal physical ones. Although Mitchell is not directly focused on steroids in the athletic arena, his central argument is about self-deception, which certainly ties into the reasoning behind why athletes decide to use steroids and dope. In fact, while making his arguments, the examples he gives are almost exclusively about steroid use and the great lengths athletes go to rationalize their decision. So much so, in fact, that after the steroid induced death of shot-putter Reichenbach, the first man in the Olympic games to be banned for substance abuse, his fans barely knew about his problem, “even after Reichenbach's death, his fellow-travelers at the gym he had run were still maintaining that the deceased had only used steroids sparingly, and was undoubtedly the deceased had only used steroids sparingly, and was undoubtedly the victim of mononucleosis infection which had attacked his heart” (Mitchell 154).  He cites John Dewey’s Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology for his insight in human behavior. It mentions the perceived supremacy that humans have for themselves, and how it is wrong to create conditions that increase inequality, claiming “[t]o take advantage of conditions after they have come into existence is one thing; to create them for the sake of an advantage to accrue is quite another thing” (Dewey 3). On the other side of the spectrum lies Frank Frisch, a Chapman University professor in California. Frisch argues in his Tedx Talk at Chapman University that the use of steroids allows humans to reach fuller potential and achieve more impressive feats, which is ultimately what many other medications do. He also considers steroids to be a natural drug and is therefore of the mind that they should be legalized, at least partially. Dr. Frisch is a professor of biology and is an expert in anatomy and physiology, and therefore is qualified to give his opinion as he certainly has reasonable information backing his ideas. It is important to note that many of the medical arguments made against recreational steroid use are not focused solely on their influence in athletics, yet they have been tailored to fit the discussion. Therefore, either every study on steroid use can be entered in as evidence into the debate on athletic recreational use, or else entirely new studies must be conducted targeting athletes.

When it comes to the issue of legalization of steroids, there are many options besides the simple black and white of illegal versus legal. In present day America, indeed, there is a range of situations wherein steroids are legally used and often encouraged, like the case of Bell’s Palsy. There are also areas where it is illegal, like a teen using it to bulk up and attract more mates, and times when it is seen as more of a taboo or restriction for the sake of equalizing, like in sports. The fact that one drug has so many uses and such a range of situations wherein its use is so differently regulated forces one to wonder if it should be completely legalized, or if it should be legalized more than it is now. There are certainly those on either side of the debate who have medically supported arguments, but the issue is that many lives have been augmented and many hurt by steroids. Given much of the evidence collected, it seems the most reasonable and beneficial to society that steroids be legalized but held in a state of control. This state of control perhaps ought to be a more lenient one than that currently in place, and perhaps the use of steroids could make its way into such sporting events as running, where science implies humans have already evolved to compete at their peak without the use of performance enhancing drugs. In a world where marijuana is becoming increasingly accepted, it seems as though medical steroids, although ones less controlled than at present, might be on the horizon and with good reason. Since this is an argument located somewhere in the middle of the extreme spectrum of “no one should access steroids” to “it should be available in the checkout counter next to the ChapStick in little travel sized tubes,” there are several sources for either side of the debate in order to give a broader view of the pros and cons. There has been research done for decades on the topic and with every variety of bias, but it is clear that steroids do serve a real medical purpose in many cases, and the current full illegality in sports is not a successful program, and therefore some change is called for.  A relaxation of stringent regulations could be the first step in creating a more entertaining and leveled playing field, yet the maintenance of some control would preserve integrity of the sports and health of the players. 
