Ebenezer Samuel's suggestion, in his piece Steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs can be more about weakness than strength on NYDailyNews.com, that the use of these substances is a way for pro athletes to ward off possible physical consequences from their athletic careers seems a little perplexing.
As much as I might like to be more "understanding" (as Mr. Samuel implies) by presenting a scenario of reasonable justification for an athlete's use of PED's, it simply does not hold up to any logical scrutiny.
First, I do not believe any reasonable person would blame any athlete, or person, for legitimately using a drug that would bring them back to a normal healthy state after an injury, or protect them from becoming injured without creating an "unfair" advantage in the process. However, this is not the reason athletes are using these substances.
They are using these drugs to gain an advantage in their quest for dominance, whether illegal or unfair, no matter what the physical (and mental/emotional) consequences of their use might be. These athletes are much more concerned about "winning at any cost" and much less concerned about using any form of ethical compass when making this choice.
To put it differently - fame, fortune, supremacy, and all the other outside "perks" that come with athletic success are the primary factors behind what's going on, and the real $$$$$ generated for everyone else involved is one big underlying feature that creates an almost insurmountable obstacle to stopping their continued proliferation .
And this does not even begin to touch on the idea that they are creating a situation where "all must use to compete," nor the poor example they are setting for younger athletes wanting to follow in their footsteps.
Nice effort Ebenezer, but your suggestion is not very plausible in my view. I just don't buy it.