PEDs

There has been much ado about PEDs in the last 10-15 years, with baseball and cycling being two of the sports that seem to regularly be in the spotlight for offenses. My take on PEDs is a little different...

I have to start by conceding right out of the gate that the definition of "drug" is debatable. For the purposes of my thoughts on the subject, I'm using the term to mean any article taken that is intended to affect the structure or function of the body. Yeah, I know, that's pretty broad. But I have to start there so that the rest of the discussion makes a little bit of sense (hopefully).

There isn't a professional athlete on the planet that hasn't taken PEDs.

The real question for me that determines whether or not someone is "cheating" is whether or not they have taken a banned substance. And I mean during the time that it was banned by the governing body. Athletes are always looking for ways to enhance their performance with drugs that are not illegal or banned. I can't prove it but I would bet there is a pretty sizable industry out there of scientists and/or pharmacologists that make a living by staying a step ahead of the banned substance list.

By my definition, PEDs can be about anything. Are you sucking down a Gatorade Prime 01 before your ride? Are you taking a pain reliever before you start your run? Are you taking amino acids before you lift? You can see where I'm going with this, right? And that's why I think that every professional athlete takes PEDs. I'm okay with that. But I'm NOT okay with athletes using banned substances or abusing substances or methods that in and of themselves are NOT banned (for example, blood transfusions).

The debate over Lance Armstrong will never end. When people want to fight about it, I take the air out of their sails when I say right off the bat that I think he's taken PEDs. However, I don't think he's ever taken any illegal or banned substances. And I don't think that he won all those TDFs "only because he took PEDs". If winning the Tour was as simple as taking some totally legal PEDs, I don't think Lance would have dominated the sport for so long. That guy has to pee in a cup probably 450 times a year. He's not taking banned substances. Talk about a detailed health record... they have enough urine from that guy to tell you what he's eaten every day for the past 10 years!

Regardless of the PED issue, as you guys referenced, I appreciate athletes that do great things not only for the sport itself, but outside the sports arena. As a much as I rant about him, Brett Favre has donated lots of money over the years through his foundation and other organizations. Lance Armstrong's "Live Strong" foundation has grown beyond what anyone probably ever imagined. Andre Agassi built an entire academy in Las Vegas that gives full scholarships to underprivileged kids. And last but not least, your favorite Ed, Tiger Woods, gives away in excess of $10 million every year (he also agreed to give away $750 million to some lady named Elin Nordegren!).

This is a rabbit trail, but it's another thing that disappoints me about the athletes that earn $100 million during their careers and then are broke two years later. What that means is they haven't established themselves in such a way financially to be philanthropists for the rest of their lives. They can't even pay their own bills, let alone use the wealth that they once had to help others.

Sorry, back on track. PEDs aren't necessarily illegal, and if they're not banned, I don't see how you can really be mad at someone who uses them. Can we appreciate athletes who try to do it in a "pure" way? Sure. But you can't call someone a cheater for drinking Gatorade anymore than you can call someone a cheater for having a 13-pound bike. It's not illegal. Phil Mickelson was accused of cheating when he was using a 20-year-old club that was NOT illegal and he was pissed about it, and I think rightfully so. He was operating within the framework of the rules.

And I feel the same way about PEDs. If it's not illegal...