The argument against performance-enhancing drugs in sports is that the drugs give players an unfair advantage. But how do P.E.D.’s differ from Tommy John surgery? Or pre-emptive Tommy John surgery? What about rich kids? Is their access to superior coaching, facilities and equipment a similarly unfair advantage? In a society that embraces plastic surgery, Botox injections, Viagra and all kinds of enhancements, what moral line do P.E.D.’s cross?
Klosterman's answer is an interesting counterargument to mine, one that might have some merit ("There Are No Sound Moral Arguments Against Performance-Enhancing Drugs"). It's worth checking out.