If  it is because steroids are effective then so are many other legal drugs such as cortizone and many kinds of pain killers.  I read Carlos Zambrano had Lazik surgery to help improve his pitching.  Andy Petite said he took steroids to help recover from an injury?  What is the moral difference between having surgery to improve performance and taking a drug to improve performance?  Tom Brady had a terrible knee injury requiring surgery.  Would it have been wrong for him to take a steroid to reduce his chances of injury?  Would it be wrong to take a steroid to help heal?

To me, the only real issue with steroids is the health issue.  I think Marvin Miller is just blowing smoke pretending there is no evidence as to health risks from steroids.  Even if people aren’t dying en masse, I think there is evidence that steroids dangerous.  It’s pretty fatuous to say that, because lots more people die from smoking, we shouldn’t be concerned with steroids.  I also found his arrogance astounding in saying (in another part of the interview) that the union should not have agreed to testing even though the membership was in favor of it.  This isn’t the UMW circa 1945.

It very well could have cost Oswalt money.  But how do we value that?  There’s such variability in how much steroids help players (former top-prospect Larry Bigbie would be happy to tell you) that I think it would be impossible to distribute the money accordingly with the tax.  Can we arbitrarily say “well, if Oswalt took steroids he would have had 5 more win shares [or whatever is used to quantify contributions] so he gets $5 million of A-Rod’s salary?  Based on what we know about many of the players that took steroids, if I were Roy Oswalt, I would probably encourage them all to so I can get a good chunk of their salary.

And what about the guys that never made it?  The guys that dropped out of the minors because they couldn’t cut it?  Are the current players to pay them, too?  Because if steroids are taking away from Oswalt’s salary, they must be crushing guys that, because of them, only made $9,000 a year in the bus leagues.

From my book (p. 118)

Though the relative salary differences between players ought to be roughly the same—with superior players making more than inferior players—the overall play of the game can improve with the ratcheting up of individual performances. When the athletic abilities of all players improve, there will be more spectacular plays in the game…. If the overall level of the game rises, then this ought to create more fan interest, which generates financial gain to owners.

But relative competition is NOT all that matters to fans.  All heightened training routines raise the absolute level of play as well.  And, at least so far, fans appear to be willing to pay the most to watch the highest absolute level of play as well.  So raising the absolute level of play increases revenue and, hence via MRP, player pay.

Since competition is head to head, stats may not change.  But fans may enjoy watching 400 lb linemen knock each other around more than they like watching 300 lb linemen do the same, or Olympic speed impact between 240 lb linebackers and 225 lb running backs more than the lighter, slower alternative.  And so it may be for the long ball–even if nobody can detect any difference in the number of them, the characteristics of a bruiser pounding the ball may be valued by fans relative to a graceful hitter doing the same.

This matters in the discussion because an increase in the absolute level of competition is a value created for some fans.  You can argue you don’t think that value is legitimate, but that’s an interesting argument for a libertarian.

Consideration of economic return to players generates a PED incentive from the absolute, as well as relative, perspective.