I have to agree with some of Richard Todd's points and disagree with others. I have a baseball background that goes back to the early '50 (little league) through HS ball and into the Pacific Coast League. There were people then who used beer to calm down before a game and one would suspect uppers and anything else to enhance performance. In this whole mess, we are referring to drugs that have been labeled "illegal" that once were not registered or considered problems. We all think that steroids so increase performance that a player cannot possibly play without them. That is an illusion created by the press and rampant focus on something that supposedly changes the game. Athletes will use whatever they can to get an edge over the competition. That is just the reality of competition. We had uppers which became illegal then steroids which became illegal then HGH and other substances. When will we outlaw aspirin or ibuprofen? There may be some slight advantage those drugs give because they ease pain and an easing of pain may allow an athlete to perform when they normally wouldn't.

I think we need to define when people were using these things illegally and intentionally and then forget it. As far as I know, there is no drug that can get a bat on a ball or guarantee an accurate peg from third to first. Where we should be focusing is on the damage these drugs do to the body with even casual use. While we should be encouraging athletes to perform at a high level, we can't expect them to do so 24/7 because some coach with awards and reputation is his eyes, demands levels of performance that drive athletes to seek alternative methods to keep from getting cut or benched.

Are these drugs a problem to the game? I think not. They are a problem for people. It's going to be hard to convince anyone to stop looking for the edge against an opponent. At some point, we will end up banning everything and in that ban we will lose some valuable talent because of injury or who simply don't want to go through the process of proving themselves innocent in an atmosphere of assumed guilt. Make no mistake about it, any testing program is based on assumption of guilt and the "test" will show that your are not guilty.

What has happened to our country where this is looked at as something acceptable? What message are we sending to youthful athletes? I, for one, would urge MLB and other professional sports (The NFL blood packs. Does that increase preformance? Should blood packing be illegal?) to issue statements and programs that focus on educating young athletes to the dangers of using these drugs. But we are in such a prohibitive society that banning something and punishment is the only answer we can find. Baseball only suffers by the wide exposure of an athlete and subsequent public apology. It's disgusting on every level.

My solution is education. We spend the same amount of money would would spend on testing on education about the negative effects of using performance enhancing drugs of any sort. We should focus on what happens to the body when we stress it to the point of unhealthfulness. We should use as models athletes and others who used them when younger and suffered major damage and health effects later.

- Ted Peterson