No offense to Olemisscub who posted the article, but what a load of crap. Totally disregarding the fact that at least one of the scant examples used by the author would hardly be considered performance enhancing ( I don't think many would champion being drunk as a performance enhancer), the author goes on to name a few players who " once took an amphetamine", or were using pain medication for an injury, in a span covering 100+ years, and tries to compare it to over 100 people who were proven to have used performance and body altering drugs in a single season. Not at all convincing in my opinion. He could have at least brought up Dock Ellis pitching while tripping on LSD or something. It's not a direct comparison. The piece is pointing out how the cheating "line" is still so blurry. Even if you're going to declare modern steroids and PED's to be the end-all-be-all, then where on the scale does cheating become OK? The article tries to make it a direct comparison, IMO. It's eloquently stated nonsense. I have no problem drawing a line between systematic, concentrated steroid use and a few uppers. It's not nonsense. Again, where is the line drawn? How much cheating is OK, and what cheating is OK?