Not if everyone has equal access to that ability. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 02/02/2013 06:11:43 PM
Much of the problem with athletes juicing is the cascade effect: Increasingly prevalent juicing puts increasing competitive pressure on clean athletes as unfair performance enhancements become the rule rather than the exception. If you go the Combine knowing 90% of the people you are competing against for a spot on an NFL team are juicing, is that a case of "eight men out" or IN...? 
In terms of performance enhancement itself, the ethical line becomes blurry after a while; Red Grange and Gale Sayers did not have the option of anything like the off-season surgery that repaired Adrian Petersons ACL and MCL last year, and their careers suffered for it. Joe Theismanns career-ending injury would probably only be season-ending today. I am far more concerned about the severe damage many performance "enhancers" do to peoples bodies, and the growing pressure on millions of kids to subject themselves to it ANYWAY so they can compete with all the other athletes doing so. Take that away and I really do not care if pro athletes have access to advantages neither we nor their counterparts in earlier generations enjoyed, because that would remain true with or without drugs.
You and I cannot spend an entire year (and FOUR spinal surgeries) re-habbing so we can play football again, because we do not earn Peyton Mannings $20 million/year. Neither did Otto Graham, which is why, after playing in 10 championship games in 10 years (winning all but three,) he retired from pro football because he could make more money as a doctor. Peyton Manning would not trade salaries with his surgeon, but Otto Graham or any other '50s doctor would have cheerfully given $20 million for that surgeons modern medical knowledged and experience.
The bottom line is professional sports, competitive sports in general, are about equality of opportunity, not outcome. In that respect, I am more bothered that an injury like Peyton Mannings would be career-ending for either of Denvers last two starting QBs: They probably lack the money to spend on four spinal surgeries and a solid year of full time re-hab; even if they do not, no one would offer them $20 million/year (or even $20 thousand) for a comeback. If EVERYONE is or could be using something, be it 3/4" cleats or HGH, there is no competitive advantage, but any and all health risks to current/aspiring athletes become a serious concern.
In terms of performance enhancement itself, the ethical line becomes blurry after a while; Red Grange and Gale Sayers did not have the option of anything like the off-season surgery that repaired Adrian Petersons ACL and MCL last year, and their careers suffered for it. Joe Theismanns career-ending injury would probably only be season-ending today. I am far more concerned about the severe damage many performance "enhancers" do to peoples bodies, and the growing pressure on millions of kids to subject themselves to it ANYWAY so they can compete with all the other athletes doing so. Take that away and I really do not care if pro athletes have access to advantages neither we nor their counterparts in earlier generations enjoyed, because that would remain true with or without drugs.
You and I cannot spend an entire year (and FOUR spinal surgeries) re-habbing so we can play football again, because we do not earn Peyton Mannings $20 million/year. Neither did Otto Graham, which is why, after playing in 10 championship games in 10 years (winning all but three,) he retired from pro football because he could make more money as a doctor. Peyton Manning would not trade salaries with his surgeon, but Otto Graham or any other '50s doctor would have cheerfully given $20 million for that surgeons modern medical knowledged and experience.
The bottom line is professional sports, competitive sports in general, are about equality of opportunity, not outcome. In that respect, I am more bothered that an injury like Peyton Mannings would be career-ending for either of Denvers last two starting QBs: They probably lack the money to spend on four spinal surgeries and a solid year of full time re-hab; even if they do not, no one would offer them $20 million/year (or even $20 thousand) for a comeback. If EVERYONE is or could be using something, be it 3/4" cleats or HGH, there is no competitive advantage, but any and all health risks to current/aspiring athletes become a serious concern.