[hobbes1]

to agree that the roids need to be cleaned out,

Excepting the fact that currently they are an Illegal (in most cases) substance, why? Science is science. Weather its puting 50 lbs. on Barry Bonds, or Making Nascar vehicles 2 seconds faster per lap, the choice to excel is in the hands of the individual athlete.

For instance. Suppose then, steroids are banned by the league. Then A really cagey player decides toward the end of the season, when he is run down and tired to have his body chemistry checked, and is found to be testosterone deficient. The only cure for that, is, testosterone injections. (or simpler) If the Athlete had Aids same treatment....Would his Job be denied, because of the prescribed medical treatment?

I really don't think it should matter.Not morally, not for the (ha ha ) "purity" of the Sport, as long as the league is willing to allow radically altered ball fields, and manipulate the height of the pitchers mound for a desired outcome, an athlete should be able to, should he so desire, push himself BEYOND his genetic limitations, if that is indeed his desire...(I am not advocating full blown WWF style obvious Abuse....I mean look at HHH, the guy is 275, and shredded to the bone, ALL THE TIME....that is just not humanly possible....)....I am talking about Baseball as it currently exists....Frown on it perhaps, keep it under control, but really, why should it matter?

[BluesDuke]

Excepting the fact that currently they are an Illegal (in most cases) substance, why? Science is science.

Science may indeed be science. But a professional sports league or federation has the right to sculpt the rules under which its game will be played. (I happen to agree about the pitcher's mounds; the ballpark issue is in a sense not relevant. I understand that more of the new parks were built to favour hitters, but if you look back to the pre-cookie cutter parks, there were as many of them that favoured the hitters as favoured pitching. But the pitcher's mound and the strike zone are something else entirely, since a good pitcher will prevail even in a bandbox park - or, in a park favouring the hitter opposite his pitching, as think for one of righthander Allie Reynolds having success in Yankee Stadium, or lefthander Warren Spahn in Braves Field and County Stadium.) Especially since it is a health issue in hand with being an issue of competition perception.

Now, let's say baseball does in due course ban the roids. (The NFL and the NBA have.) But a player does come down as you posit with a testosterone deficiency. Did the deficiency occur by nature's course, or did it occur as an explicit result of steroid abuse after the steroid ban took effect? If the former, he could very well obtain medical treatment with no prospective loss of playing time or playing employment; if the latter, depending upon the disciplinary procedures put into place to enforce the ban, he could very well find himself out of the game. And that would not be improper, inasmuch as baseball does have the right to make its rules and enforce them and if baseball should choose to ban a player for steroid abuse, that would be well enough within baseball's rights.