Originally Posted by hchamp
A guy using steroids isn't exploiting his employees, stealing from the electorate, or abusing little kids. He's just hurting himself. And the thrust of his article is regulate performance-enhancing drugs so that no-one is hurt. What's wrong with that?
(The better analogy with your examples is to acknowledge that evils exist and do whatever is necessary to ensure no-one is hurt.)
No, but a player doing steriods is reducing the earnings and value of the players who chose not to do the illegal drugs.
Think of it this way - assume there are two players, A and B. player A is a 35-110-.310 player and player B is 30-100-.300 players absent of the illegal steroids. In our little thought experiment, both are competing for essentially the same last spot on a team. Best player gets the $5 Million contract.
But player B decides to cheat and break the legal rules for an advantage, sacrificing his future health, and possibly shifting the risk and danger of steroid induced mental and health problems on society. And goes up to 40-125-.330 in his performance.
The result is that player B gets the contract, player A does not make the team. In essence, player B has cheated player A out of $5 million. Player A certainly has a grievance against player B.
In reality, though, it is tough to identify the A's and the B's. And multiple positions are available. But in general, we can see an illegal wealth transfer from the A's to the B's. And you can see the pressure put on the marginal A's -> stay clean and get forced out, versus switch to the B's and get the contract.
That's why I don't mind the hell that Barry is going through - it's changing the costs of the actions for all of the other players in the league and increasing the value of being an A player. And it reduces the effect of shifting the risk and danger of steroid induced mental and health problems on society.