HOME / sports nut: The stadium scene.

What if Doping Were Legal?A Slate thought experiment.

By Daniel EngberPosted Monday, Aug. 6, 2007, at 11:39 AM ET

The San Francisco Giants' Barry BondsIt's been a rough stretch for pro sports. Last Thursday, Barry Bonds faced boos—and even a steroids awareness seminar—as he tried to break the all-time home run record in Los Angeles. The next day, Cleveland Browns offensive tackle Ryan Tucker was suspended from the NFL for using steroids. And we're just a week removed from the shameful drug haze at this year's Tour de France. We've reached a crisis point, it seems, when it comes to performance-enhancing drugs. But what if none of this cheating mattered? With your help, I'm going to conduct a little thought experiment: What would the sports world look like if every athlete could inject himself with God knows what?

RSS

The premise isn't new. After the Olympic doping scandals of the late 1990s, International Olympic Committee president Juan Antonio Samaranch tested the waters of drug legalization in an interview with a Spanish newspaper. "Doping now is everything that, firstly, is harmful to an athlete's health and, secondly, artificially augments his performance," he said. "If it's just the second case, for me that's not doping." But his proposal (if that's what it was) went over like a lead balloon. Sports officials sputtered about the spirit of competition, and doctors argued that legal doping would never be safe for the athletes. Within a few days, Samaranch backed off.

Related in Slate

Charles P. Pierce complained that sportswriters pay too much attention to steroid use, and Steve Chapman wondered if any sort of steroid-testing program could possibly work. According to William Saletan, steroid use isn't that different from corrective eye surgery. Justin Peters went over the history of anabolic steroids. Daniel Engber called human growth hormone the "marijuana" of performance-enhancing drugs and explained why it's so hard to catch athletes who use HGH. Jeff Pearlman argued that undetectable (or undetected) performance enhancers may still run rampant in the major leagues.

Our attitudes may be changing. A few weeks ago, freakonomist Stephen Dubner proposed on his blog that cycling might come up with a list of approved doping agents. And on Thursday, the respected science magazine Nature published an editorial calling for similar legalizations in all sports. "The transition would not be painless," the Nature editorial says. "Some people will undoubtedly harm themselves through the use of enhancements, and there would need to be special protection for children."

For the purposes of our thought experiment, let's leave aside the medical questions and the ponderous moralizing about the purity of sport. Instead, let's just try to imagine what would happen if doping were allowed—or at least decriminalized—in all the major sports. Pretend the leagues have decided to abandon all pretense of testing their athletes. It's still illegal to buy anabolic steroids without a prescription, but at least you won't have to worry about passing a league drug test. What would that world look like? How would it feel to be a fan?

Some sports might not be so different. It's hard to imagine that professional cycling, for example, would show any noticeable effects. In a sport like boxing, the system of rigidly defined weight classes would make it impossible for fighters to use steroids to bulk up beyond a certain point. They might use drugs to train harder, enhance their endurance in the ring, or recover more quickly from injuries. But those would all be plusses for the fan—we'd get to see more and better fights.

The effects of decriminalized doping would be much more apparent in a sport like baseball, where relatively small differences in individual ability play out across long seasons, and fans obsess over statistics. What would happen to the numbers if everyone in the Major Leagues were on the clear?

Home run totals would continue to rise. Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus has shown that the power surge of the last decade can be attributed to middle-of-the-road players who had the most to gain by padding their home run totals. For scrappy singles hitters and big-time sluggers, the risk of getting caught outweighed the potential benefits. (Guys like Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire were the exception rather than the rule.) But in our world, no one gets caught, so there's no reason for anyone to abstain from juicing. Suddenly, every player on every team bulks up, except the speedsters who don't want to lose a step with the extra pounds. Lineups get bigger and stronger up and down the line, but leadoff hitters—the Juan Pierre types—start to look ever tinier by comparison.

Meanwhile, the pitchers are all taking drugs, too. That means they're throwing harder but not necessarily with more control—so we'll see more strikeouts and walks around the league. Pitchers will also return from injuries faster and get by with fewer days of rest. Some managers decide to ditch their starting rotations altogether and instead march out a parade of amped-up relievers every game. (A guy like Eric Gagne might pitch the first few innings of a game and then get replaced by a Billy Wagner once his amphetamines wear off.) More innings from the best and hardest-throwing pitchers would make life harder for our pumped-up batsmen. Home run and strikeout totals may be up, but batting averages and ERAs remain in balance.

At the outset, different drug regimens would lead to widely divergent effects. Since different body types respond to drugs in different ways, some players would really benefit from the 'roids and others would lose out. (That's what happened to Jason Giambi and his brother Jeremy.) In the first few years of doping, you'd see some wild variations in statistics, and some awful tragedies. A few players might die of heart attacks, suffer career-ending injuries, or otherwise flush away their talent with the wrong doses of the wrong drugs.

With the help of their trainers, though, players would soon figure out the best way to improve their endurance and maximize their strength gain. At that point, you'd start to see uniform improvement around the league. If every player were similarly inflated, individual stats would start to regress toward the mean. In his classic essay "Why No One Hits .400 Anymore," Stephen Jay Gould argued that better training regimens and talent scouts have already improved the quality of baseball players across the board, which has had the effect of reducing variation in talent. A doped-up Albert Pujols would still be much better than a doped-up David Newhan, but the relative difference between them would be diminished. In other words, they'd both be closer to the league average. No one bats .120, but no one bats .400, either.

Gould's theory may not be borne out by the historical record, but his logic could hold for the druggy future. With no tests for steroids, baseball performance would become more tightly clustered. A guy like Ichiro might lead the league while batting .280. A guy who hit .250 might ride the pine. And let's not forget: Players who got injured would spend less time on the disabled list; performance-enhancing drugs could keep all-star careers going deep into their 40s. (Eventually, someone would break Cal Ripken Jr.'s record for consecutive games played.) Once again, the quality of on-the-field play would improve, reducing variation across the league. This might make for more parity, with tight pennant races and close games filled with home runs and strikeouts. Teams would regularly take the pennant by winning just 83 or 84 games.

But legal problems would throw off the competitive balance from time to time. Remember, performance enhancers have become widespread, but many remain on the black market. If drug abuse became an open secret in the pros, federal agents would converge on clubhouses in regular sting operations. Every once in a while, a network of major leaguers would fall to drug charges, and a few players might end up doing time. Young players might even wonder if the DEA is planting narcs in the minor leagues.

Some baseball fans would tire of the drama; others would long for the game they grew up watching. At some point, a group of wealthy investors would get together and form an alternate "clean" league, marketed to the old-timers and the prudes. (In real life, some sports—like competitive weightlifting—have already developed separate circuits for dopers and nondopers.) In this alternate league, players would undergo compulsory, random drug tests throughout the year. The commissioner's office would follow David Stern in implementing strict codes of conduct and personal style, to further enhance the league's wholesome image.

The differences between the clean and dirty baseball leagues would begin to look like the differences between NCAA and professional basketball. Some fans would gravitate toward the former, with its human-sized players and conservative approach to the game. Others would keep tuning in for the colossal spectacle of MLB …

We could go on and on. But now it's your turn: What do you think would happen if doping were decriminalized? Would sports be ruined, or would we march into a doped-up golden age?

Send your ideas, considered or far-fetched, to . (You can also post a message in the Fray.) In a few days we'll post a roundup of the most imaginative and enlightening submissions.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Daniel Engber is a senior editor at Slate. He can be reached at .

Photograph of the San Francisco Giants' Barry Bonds by Jamie Squire/Getty Images.

COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

Genetic manipulation is coming for both microorganisms and their human hosts, too. Parents wealthy enough will be in a position to choose what sort of muscle density their offspring will have, their height, their metabolic rate, their vision, the properties of their microbes, anything and everything that might enhance athletic performance. Look out into the future far enough and it's not hard to anticipate divergence of humans into multiple subtypes specialized to excel in specific roles. The unmodified human, drugs or no drugs, will be at a competitive disadvantage - and it will be true in more fields than sports.

Peer even further, and you might anticipate the rise of multiple species, all descended from humans. Or mostly, at any rate. The possibility of gene insertions from other species looms large.

One likely fact stands out. Early adopters will reap a competitive advantage. Some, perhaps many, of the tweaks that will become possible will be initially accessible only to the privileged who can afford them. The big story of the 20th Century in sports was the growing dominance of sport by athletes with humble roots. That won't necessarily be the story of the 21st.

I'm calling my bookie and betting on Harvard to sweep to a national championship in 2035.

--UrgeIt

(To reply, click here.)

Given that cycling tests its athletes much more rigorously and for many more substances and possible doping method than any other major sport, to assume cycling is more full of dopers does it a great disservice, but also lets everyone off too easily. It seems terribly naïve to assume that doping isn't rampant in most major league sports. Combine virtually non-existent penalties, lax or no testing, and salaries far beyond what the average professional athlete could get outside of sports and you have a system guaranteed to produce results. What the extensive and highly invasive testing regime professional cycling has taught us is that if an athlete can cheat, he will. Athletes will cheat even when it's likely they'll be caught. We already know what professional sports will look like with unchecked doping: we have it now.

--dizzyj

(To reply, click here.)

Purity of sport ended when athletes became professional. When athletes can only compete with the help of dieticians, sports psychologists, professional stretching coaches, and computerized stroke analysis, what's the point of holding back on drugs? Is there really a difference between shooting up with steroids and shooting up with a customized diet goo made with the precisely the right balance of pre-digested amino acids? Will Saletan already made the argument that lasik for pitchers is essentially the same as doping. Why are drugs used to aid recovery any different from a customized two hour massage after every work out to remove lactic acid buildup from muscles? And frankly, who the heck cares if a bunch of guys (and women) with bodies that are essentially freaks of nature want to make themselves more freakish? If the only way to become a professional athlete is to start training at birth and have every physical, psychological, dietary, and environmental aspect of your life controlled by someone else, there's just no connection between the weekend softball game and Sunday afternoon with the Yankees.

--junopwd

(To reply, click here.)

(8/8)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES