The first is the question of the player’s health. This is not one to be dismissed lightly, even though, in almost every other context in professional sports, it is always secondary to profits in the mind of management. And the second, more hazy argument is that it is somehow unethical to ingest a substance that will make you play better. Too often, it seems, the former consideration is used to camouflage arguments based primarily on the latter.
Can someone seriously argue that it is ethical to take a drug to make a performance possible, but unethical to take a drug that makes that performance better? Isn’t making a performance possible at all the ultimate performance enhancement?...Sports are rife with drugs. Without drugs of one sort or another, the NFL season would never begin, and the baseball season would end sometime in June owing to a lack of participating teams.
Pierce (as usual) raises an important and fair question: What is the real difference between administering to players (ie. Tony Romo) painkillers such as Toradol (without which they'd likely be unable to play at all) - the dispensing and long-term effects of which are under dispute - and a "performance enhancing drug" which might allow a player a better chance of returning to action a week after a particularly physical game?
Is the former okay simply because the team is in charge? After all, we've certainly learned enough in recent years to safely conclude that team medical staffs do not prioritize players' short- or long-term health concerns over #winning, as I was just saying to my good friend Colt McCoy.