[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

In the Olympics, it's strict liability. It doesn't matter whether or not the intake was intentional, if you have steroids in your body it's considered an unfair advantage over competitors who don't have steroids in their bodies and you aren't allowed to compete. If Mother Teresa proved that someone slipped the steroids into her morning tea, she still wouldn't be allowed to compete as she would have an unfair advantage.

What I found most humorous about MLB's original steroid suspensions is that the steroids would stay in your body for months and a player's artificial size and strength would last for monthes, but the players were suspended for only 10 days if tested positive. This means that MLB had a drug system that allowed players to return to the playing field when MLB knew they were on steroids and had all the unfair advantages produced by steroids. MLB and the Player's Association were well aware you couldn't get rid of steroids and the benefits in 10 days.

One last point on players and drug rules. The rules (or lack thereof) aren't imposed on the players, they are approved and formed by the players. There are player representatives in the negotiations and formulation of rules, and all negotiated pacts have to be approved by player vote. In 1998 or 2001, if steroids weren't on the banned drug list, that's because the players didn't want steroids to be on the list.