Better Baseball Through Better Chemistry
Not likely.
The steroid controversy in professional sports, and baseball in particular, seems far overblown. It is surely another way for Congress to compromise the choices individuals make and to gain attention. In the case of steriods, the wholly moderate effects are borne almost completely by the user and no one else. The only exception I can see is if a spouse may be harmed by the increased aggressiveness shown by heavy steroid users.
When scientific studies are done, it seems steriod use is modest among professional athletes (how Congress takes testimony from Jose Canseco and has no scientists speaking to the extent of use that can be documented says a lot about their agenda). Studies say that about 6% of athletes use them, others say far more, but they have only rumour and annecdote for evidence. Jose claims most pro baseball players use them. This seems false on the face of it.
If many pro athletes were using steroids and if the effects are so harmful as to warrant public outcry, then where is the evidence? Of the few documented effects of steroid use that are replicated (most show that effects are highly dose-dependent and individual), the one that is most reliable is an alteration of blood lipids: lower HDL and the same or higher LDL. This corresponds to an elevation of cardiovascular risk, but where are the heart attacks in MLB? None. The only ones that have any reliability are heart attacks among football players attempting to lose weight and taking ephedra and undergoing dehydration.
Body builders are more at risk from manipulating their insulin levels and becoming insulin-resistant in spite of their muscle mass and high activity than they are from steroids.
Should we change baseball records to have an asterisk for possibly steroid induced performance? Steroid users do not gain mass or lose fat unless they train hard. Even then the average muscle gain is 4 pounds and this is almost insignificant in large athletes who are already training and far above the average, and pitiful, muscle mass of American males. And speaking of asterisks, where are the asterisks to show records set with moderate travel schedules, shorter season and preseason, and mostly day ball to set off the older, easier times from today's hectic and stressful season for a modern player, with incessant travel and night games and 3 relievers per game?
I don't think anyone can seriously claim that pro baseball players have harmed their health or have increased their performance by anything more than modest levels by the (documented) limited use of steriods.
This is surely no public health matter, few are, and Congress is one of the least able modern institutions for addressing it. If it were not for the antiquated antitrust laws of our country, Congress would have little power in the matter. But, currently, baseball has an exemption from the antitrust law; one that I feel is proper since it is not a cartel, but a league of competing and cooperating teams, subject to much competition.
I don't doubt that with large doses, combined with GH and insulin injections, that someone who trains and eats like a pro body builder might gain far more than 4 pounds of muscle. Of course, it is hard to separate the effects of the steroids from the hormones. So, let's agree, body builders are weird and not a model anyone should think of following. I have noted that longevity among body builders is not good.
The steroids make them insulin-resistant and then they take insulin on top of that! A recipe for disaster. And then they take or inject GH, which is an insulin antagonist.
The result, they are insulin resistant even though they are active, and they have high insulin-like growth factors that are cancer promoting. We know Arnold had a bad heart valve, others whose names I forget died of cancer. So, I regard body builders as the far end of the distribution, where gains and risks are large.