Steroids should be legalized in sports.

First of all, steroids gives one the ability to be stronger, it doesn't automatically make on stronger, it heals muscles after workouts quicker, letting you work out more--work harder.This is false. A review spanning more than three decades of experimental studies in men found that body weight may increase by 2–5 kg as a result of short-term (<10 weeks) AAS use, which may be attributed mainly to an increase of lean mass. Animal studies also found that fat mass was reduced, but most studies in humans failed to elucidate significant fat mass decrements. The effects on lean body mass have been shown to be dose-dependent. Both muscle hypertrophy and the formation of new muscle fibers have been observed. The hydration of lean mass remains unaffected by AAS use, although small increments of blood volume cannot be ruled out.[5] The upper region of the body (thorax, neck, shoulders, and upper arm) seems to be more susceptible for AAS than other body regions because of predominance of androgen receptors in the upper body. The largest difference in muscle fiber size between AAS users and non-users was observed in type I muscle fibers of the vastus lateralis and the trapezius muscle as a result of long-term AAS self-administration. After drug withdrawal, the effects fade away slowly, but may persist for more than 6–12 weeks after cessation of AAS use.[5] The same review observed strength improvements in the range of 5–20% of baseline strength, depending largely on the drugs and dose used as well as the administration period. Overall, the exercise where the most significant improvements were observed is the bench press.[5] For almost two decades, it was assumed that AAS exerted significant effects only in experienced strength athletes, particularly based on the studies of Hervey and coworkers.[23][24] In 1996, a randomized controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated, however, that even in novice athletes a 10-week strength training program accompanied by testosterone enanthate at 600 mg/week may improve strength more than training alone does.[5][25] The same study found that dose to be sufficient to significantly improve lean muscle mass relative to placebo even in subjects that did not exercise at all.[25] A 2001 study by the same first author, showed that the anabolic effects of testosterone enanthate were highly dose dependent. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] So, you are wrong in your claim that steroids simply heal muscles. Empirical data shows that steroids can significantly increase lean muscle mass and improve ability in exercises such as the bench press. Steroids directly increase athletes' strength. You say sports is a judge of someone's athletic prowess, and that is how much they practice and how much of an affinity one has for the sport. So, amount of time practiced is actually increased with steroids as I mentioned before. Judging the athletic prowess of a person and the athletic prowess of a person enhanced with steroids are very different things. This isn't to say that there would be no reason to test the athletic prowess of various people enhanced with drugs. But this implies that each person participating is taking the exact same amount of the exact same drug. Even if this could be monitored, that EVERY SINGLE ATHLETE participating in a given sport is taking the same stuff to preserve fairness, what you have now done is corrupted the sport. Now it is virtually impossible for someone who doesn't take the drug to go pro when everyone else is using drugs. In essence, you're forcing people who want to play professional sports to mess with their bodies and take drugs with questionable effects. And what if someone wants to watch sports where you don't have a bunch of artifically enhanced druggies? Also, steroids show the affinity of players-- it shows how they would take risks to succeed in something they love. With all due respect, are you serious? First, that isn't what I meant by affinity, although this is just a misunderstanding I suppose. By affinity I meant moreso talent. But regardless, why in the world would we want long-term and permanent damage to be mandatory for professional athletes? Who in their right mind wants to watch a ton of people do something RECREATIONAL while slowly harming their bodies? There are enough diseases and wars in the world that hurt people, that we don't need to add to damages with our recreational activities. Yes, steroids are harmful to the user's body, that is known, but are smoking and alcohol outlawed? Also, athletes know the risks of taking steroids, and that is their choice, we can't go making choices for them, they need to make their own decisions. In addition, stepping on any professional sports field is screwing up your body. In football and hockey, players crush each other, leaving brain and other injuries. In baseball, players put nearly 100 pounds of stress on their arms each time they throw. Every time someone plays pro sports, they are "screwing up their body" as you said. Players know this, but still take those risks, just like they should be allowed to for steroids. The only reason smoking isn't outlawed is because it is a custom borrowed from before we knew it was harmful. Alcohol isn't outlawed because it has little to no harmful effects at all if used reasonably. If we are comparing to other substances, how about illegal drugs like meth and crack cocaine? But that isn't even the main problem with steroids in sports. Even if you are a libertarian and hold that people should be able to do whatever they want to themselves as long as it doesn't affect others, the primary problem with steroids, as I have mentioned, is corruption of every sport in which they are allowed. Your speech about "choice" makes you come off as some sort of libertarian. But any reasonable libertarian knows that the key qualification is that whatever the person does does not harm others. Corruption of sports in general and essentially kicking out anyone who doesn't also want to participate in your self-destructive actions is harmful to others. Hockey and football are unfortunate cases. I'll speak about football. Part of the essence of football is the violent tackling that occurs. This is a major problem and not a good thing. There are cases of children who received concussions that could cause massive permanent damage if not treated, but whose coaches hid the fact so that the children could continue playing. This is exactlly the sort of corruption of sporting I mean. It isn't worth it any more when the costs outweigh the small benefits of entertainment. If we allow steroids in sports, the same thing will happen, where coaches will make sure their children get on steroids while young. Do you know what kind of damage that does to the bodies of adolescents? You would have to ban steroids for younger people and allow it for older, but this is simply unreasonable. Steroids will make sports even more entertaining then they are now. Fans absolutely love records being broken and athletes playing at a higher and higher level. This is what players can achieve with steroids. If they don't want to risk their health in the future by taking steroids, then maybe they aren't cut out for an industry where it is all about doing everything to succeed. It is definitely going to make fans more appreciative of different sporting events. People will love it? Then why was there such a violent backlash when it turned out Lance Armstrong had used drugs? Fans liked it at the time because they thought it was legitimate, and this perfectly supports my point. When people found out the real reason for some of his success, he was removed from the Hall of Fame and even lost support for his cancer foundation. There is a common understanding among people that what athletes do means nothing if they are simply artifically enhanced to do so.