I can remember the chesire like smile on my friend’s face two years ago as he came running up to us with a medal and certificate in hand outside of the gym where we just watched him compete in his first power lifting meet. He came in first for his weight class, an achievement we were all proud of especially since most of us were there to witness his journey to this moment. For months, he would push himself to his limits in the gym, struggling to get that last rep or reach that new personal record his program asked of him in order to be one step closer to achieving this dream. I had never seen such dedication in him before as I watched him during this time, often working out alongside him as we motivated each other to strive and reach our own personal bests. Needless to say, this feeling was only strengthened as he showed off the fruit of his labors with pride. He had won thanks to his hard-working spirit, unyielding regimen, and the helping hand of the steroids he had been taking. Yes, my friend won a competition with the aid of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), and no, he did not feel bad or guilty for doing so. It was a decision we were all aware of when he began taking it about a year prior in order to get stronger than what he thought was naturally possible of himself and a topic we didn’t think negatively of. In fact, we would joke about it, occasionally asking our friend if he had taken his “trenbologna sandwich”, a popular term used by comedic fitness personality Robert Frank referring to the use of the anabolic steroid Trenbolone, or if he could give us the name of his supplier if any one of us ever competed. Although we all had our fun, including my friend who seemed to enjoy it the most, it was at the expense of caricaturizing a very real and controversial topic throughout all of sports. The use of PEDs is an issue of much debate across the world of sports, mainly concerning their place within it. The general consensus from the fans and audience suggests that there is no place for them in this space as they lend themselves to a sense of being wronged and cheated. Yet, who is it that we consider as being “wronged” or “cheated” when the issue of PEDs is brought up in professional sports? The apparent answer from the fans and wider public often points to one’s fellow athletes who do not rely on these drugs and/or the integrity of the game for pulling it through the mud. In this sense, then, those who use steroids for performance enhancement should be chastised for making this decision and tarnishing the honor of their sport, portraying them in a demonizing light. While this criticism may be fair, the reality of the situation is that in many cases these athletes use PEDs out of necessity rather than enhancement. Thus, the issue then becomes whether or not an athlete should be held accountable for using steroids in light of their reasoning for doing so.
By nature, the world of sports is competitive both on and off the field as athletes constantly push themselves to perform as best they can. Yet, these standards expected of them are not set in stone and are constantly changing, pushing many to their limits and often beyond in an attempt to not get left behind and potentially lose their jobs. Often times, this pressure is what causes an athlete to turn to PEDs yet, as these shifting standards come not from the sport but from what the spectators expect of the sport, a potential justification for this damning act arises. As Joan Ryan discusses in her column “Is it time to legalize steroids” for SFGate, these “near-mythic characters” live in a world where there is a constant pressure placed on performing well. Ryan continues and notes that “Athletes have increasingly turned to pharmaceuticals to push their performances to the highest and most rewarded levels. Athletes who abstain from the performance-enhancers risk falling below the ever-higher playing standards and thus risk losing their jobs”, offering a glimpse into this pressure that most may not be informed about. This world of sports that has come to be held in such high regard by the fans and audience then paints the use of PEDs as a doubled edged sword, one that may be necessary in achieving what they come to desire from sports yet despised for desecrating this grand ideal they have become devoted to. In this sense, their use becomes a no-win situation where an athlete must be careful in either risking the possibility of falling behind and losing their job or risking a situation where they are caught and chastised for taking this “easy way”. While there is a sense that something greater is being wronged and cheated by the use of these drugs, it ultimately all converges back to the fans and audience who come to cast this feeling on the athletes for what they have come to expect regarding this view. This sense of mysticism that is thrusted upon athletes and their performances by the fans and audience is one that, from their perspective, encapsulates what sports must offer them to truly enjoy the experience. Brad Allenby explores this thought in his article “Is Human Enhancement Cheating?” for Slate by casting focus on two icons of sports who were infamously found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs, Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds. While both belong to two vastly different cultures of sport, cycling and baseball respectively, they carry with them a sense of grandeur and prestige in respect to their sport that is illustrated by their performances and successes. The Tour de France is a spectacle that takes France and Europe by storm and baseball is widely considered as America’s national pastime, ideals that have been given to them over the years by the fans and audience which, as Allenby states, grants sports a “psychological path back to a mythic Golden Age that becomes ever more appealing during a period of confusion and rapid social change” and that “Messing with that myth through enhancements, no matter what the reason, is simply not done”. To many, sports provide a break from the ordeals of life, a return to a “Golden Age” frame of mind where these troubles don’t necessarily exist in this space. The use of PEDs, then, can be seen as a threat to this view, one that breaks this idealized expectation in returning one to a contemporary frame of mind that ruins the “mythic” sensation of sports. In cheating one out this vicarious experience, it’s clear as to why the fans and audience would demonize athletes who violate what they come to expect from spectating them.
Barry Bonds (Photo: Jon Soohoo/Getty Images)
One needs to look no further than to Barry Bonds for an athlete who was held to this mythic status before being found guilty of steroid use. As Stew Winkel writes in his article “Barry Bonds and his Real Impact on the Steroid Debate” for Bleacher Report, both the fans and media were quick to label Bonds a “cheat” for using PEDs, yet this inadvertently set a precedence and warning for all who would be caught using them. He notes that in their rush to chastise Bonds and “diminish his career and keep him out of the Hall of Fame, the media- and by extension, many fans- essentially handcuffed itself to its positions. Once they so thoroughly and repeatedly demonized Bonds, all who follow must suffer the same fate” adding that “the line in the sand was drawn”. Winkel illustrates some recognition on the part of fans coming to terms with the power they seemingly possess over an athlete and the choices they make that affect their athletic career. In the case of Bonds, the fans believed themselves right to strip him of the honor they once gave him and those who would follow after him, creating an example to all, regardless of the sport, that “you can’t do this and you can’t get away with it” as USA Today columnist Christine Brennan stated regarding Bonds’ trial.
However, as Whitney refers to, this revelation of Bonds’ steroid use came at a time when he was to enter the Hall of Fame for breaking the record of most career home runs. From a certain point of view, Bonds’ use of steroids may be attributed not simply to breaking this record, but doing so for the fans and audience who expected him to do so in order to preserve their “Golden Age” perception of the sport as suggested by Ryan. Yet, Allenby’s notion that messing with this “mythic” view of the sport is something that is not condoned lends itself to the opposite view which spectators appeared to focus on, interpreting Bonds’ action solely on breaking the record for the sake of achievement, a selfish decision. In taking this stance to a point of no return, the fan culture came to inadvertently paint themselves into a corner as this standard they had come to set for all of sports did not truly reflect the entire picture.
Yet, does this mentality give them the right to chastise an athlete for simply trying to live up to these high, near impossible, standards expected of them? Some would likely argue that the answer would be “yes”, that the decision was theirs alone to make and that they knew of the consequences that would result from this decision. Yet, as Jere Longman touches on in his article “After Drug Tests, Is Anyone Left in the Weight-Lifting Room?” for The New York Times, this answer becomes “no” as he cast a focus on the use of PEDs in the 2016 Rio Olympics in which another “guilty” party arises. Longman writes that this drug use can be seen as akin to the use of special effects in films, that it “enhances the enjoyment of viewing because you see bigger-than-life people doing bigger-than-life things […] If everybody looked like normal people, chances are the NCAA, the NFL and the Olympics would not be multibillion-dollar entities”. Speaking of weight lifting specifically, a sport “riddled with doping problems”, Longman brings to light a double standard in which the spectators that criticize athletes for using PEDs in certain sports seemingly have no issue overlooking it’s use in other contexts such as this one. This focus on the entertainment value that PEDs may provide within sports further adds to this contradiction as it implies that, as long as it’s use is not known or public, then they can be used and, in a way, accepted. Then, it appears unfair for an athlete who uses PEDs to be demonized given the contradictory nature of those doing so, who can be seen as the guilty party for placing them in this position they find themselves in. In his exploration of athletic drug use, Longman comes to focus on what appears to be an interesting, and contradictory, truth, that within the world of weight lifting the use of PEDs is practically encouraged. The thought that something that is so frowned upon among other sports, like baseball and cycling, being seen in a completely opposite light appears baffling until the apparent reasoning behind it comes to be revealed. Longman notes how the sport is “riddled with doping problems” and that “If there is an argument to be made that any sport should permit doping, or even make it mandatory, that sport is weight lifting”, his reasoning being that we are entertained by these feats of power and that “we say we are against doping in sports. But we don’t care enough to stop buying tickets or watching on television”. This argument, that while the spectators may care about the issue but not so much that it drastically affects their views of the sport, continues the focus on entertainment’s role in this situation. The inconsistency of entertainment, in how one’s taste is always changing, offers a potential explanation for the shifting standards that the fans and audience hold an athlete accountable to, that it is used in such a way which can provide them the specific entertainment they desire, that which they expect. This illustrates the control these parties possess in the world of sports, one that may push an athlete to consider the use of PEDs, a decision which still primarily resides on them.
Mark Bell (Photo: Mark Bell/Instagram)
Mark Bell, a former pro wrestler and current powerlifter, is considered one of the strongest people on the planet, a feat he openly attributes to the use of steroids. For Bell, and numerous other powerlifters, the culture of this sport is accepting of the use of PEDs as this tightknit community better understands that which is lost to much larger and prominent sports like baseball. In Oliver Lee Bateman’s article on both Bell and powerlifting, “Beyond Myth: When Steroids are Just a Fact of Life” for Pacific Standard, he casts a focus on the personal aspect that a decision like this carries on an athlete. Bell, who “wasn’t a proponent of steroids then and I’m not a proponent of steroids now”, notes how a knowledge of these drugs developed over his years of powerlifting alongside his opinion of them. He states that “various federations and sports have their own rules. […] But of course it occurs to me, and it surely occurs to the athletes themselves, that if you can take X drug and secure another good contract — there will be that temptation, because some of these banned drugs can improve your performance”. In speaking of the various rules found within different federations and sports, it‘s clear that there can be no single stance on PEDs that will be accepted across the board as there will always be differing views and approaches to the issue. Bateman is able to illustrate this claim through Bell and his years of experience on the subject that has allowed him to come to this conclusion and realize that, if one was looking to blame someone for using PEDs, it would fall on all involved, spectators and athletes alike. This provides a solution to the fans’ and audiences’ contradictory stance on their use throughout all of sports as these involved parties can universally be found in each one, allowing the “blame” to be shared between them in such a way that represents both sides of the argument within the larger context of sports as a whole. In the following video, Bell, alongside fellow powerlifters Michael “Silent Mike” Farr, Megan “Megsquats” Gallagher, and Alan Thrall, candidly speak on the subject of why they personally do or do not use steroids in their athletic careers, demonstrating Bateman’s claim that there will always be differing views concerning this. While the issue of blame is not specifically brought up, the four approach the topic from an informed perspective that discusses both the good and the bad that comes from taking PEDs, each keeping an open and respectful mind to the views being presented. From this, they are able to speak on the use of PEDs in a more fair manner, incorporating their own beliefs alongside more popular and skewed views that relate not just to the powerlifting community, but to the larger world of sports and it’s perception throughout.
Returning back to my friend and his use of steroids, he was in position similar to that which Bell was in, having practiced power lifting for a few years before the decision to take steroids became a serious consideration. As Bell and the others discussed, steroids do not magically make one superhumanly strong, but rather aid in helping one reach “one level up” from their current standing. My friend researched and informed himself on the subject so he would not only use them safely, but only to reach this level of strength he desired, having stopped taking them once he did. As for the competition itself, it fell under the jurisdiction of a federation that did not test for steroid use in its competitors, a fact that played into his decision to compete in it in the first place. From my perspective, I do not think differently of my friend for using steroids as there was a clear, mutual understanding by all parties concerning this subject and its place in this setting, ridding any sense of cheating there may have been from the minds of the athletes and audience. So, should an athlete be held accountable for using PEDs when taking into consideration both the outside and inside pressures and reasoning that fuel this decision? Much like the issue itself, this answer is double edged in that regardless if it comes from the mouth of a fan or an athlete themselves, there will be those who argue against it. Thus, it’s safe to say that the use of PEDs throughout the world of sports is an issue in which everyone, athlete and spectator alike, should share accountability or “blame” for as they all contribute in one way or another to this choice.
Allan Thrall. "Why Do/Don't You Use Steroids? ft. Mark Bell, Silent Mike, and MEG SQUATS!" Youtube, 27 Oct. 2016, https://youtu.be/zZlbHp5sYPM.
Allenby, Brad. “Is Human Enhancement Really Cheating?” Slate Magazine, Slate, 9 May 2013, slate.com/technology/2013/05/human-enhancement-ethics-is-it-cheating.html.
Bateman, Oliver Lee. “Beyond Myth: When Steroids Are Just a Fact of Life.” Pacific Standard, The Social Justice Foundation, 29 July 2016, psmag.com/news/beyond-myth-when-steroids-are-just-a-fact-of-life.
Bell, Mark. Photograph of Mark Bell. Instagram, 17 June 2018. https://www.instagram.com/p/BkIZtCTg7f6/
Longman, Jeré. “After Drug Tests, Is Anyone Left in the Weight-Lifting Room?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Aug. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/sports/olympics/blinded-to-doping-amid-the-olympics-spectacle.html.
Ryan, Joan. “Is It Time to Legalize Steroids? / It's Certainly Far Too Late to Ban Them.” SFGate, San Francisco Chronicle, 20 Feb. 2009, www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Is-it-time-to-legalize-steroids-It-s-certainly-2821611.php.
Shutterstock. Photograph of Anabolic Steroids. Shutterstock, Shutterstock. https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/doping-sport-abuse-anabolic-steroids-sports-321572657
Soohoo, John. Photograph of Barry Bonds. Getty Images, Sports Illustrated. 28 June 2004, https://www.si.com/mlb/2016/12/08/jaws-2017-hall-of-fame-ballot-barry-bonds
Winkel, Stew. “Barry Bonds and His Real Impact on the Steroid Debate.” Bleacher Report, Bleacher Report, 3 Aug. 2009, bleacherreport.com/articles/229576-barry-bonds-and-his-real-impact-on-the-steroid-debate.ABC.