I think everyone agrees that if PEDs are prohibited, then using them is cheating, creating an unlevel playing field, and bad for any sport. The much thornier question--and the one King is ambivalent about--is why we've determined PEDs to be beyond the pale, unlike other drug and medical treatments, and whether that's really justified. As long as the same training and treatments are (at least theoretically) available to all competitors, then the competition is fair, so the only debatable question is whether PEDs should be allowed or not. The advantage they provide is only unfair if it's exclusive.

And the question King raises of whether PEDs are categorically different from other treatments isn't nearly is simple as some people here make it out to be. Example: "Masking pain with cortisone or correcting your vision doesn't make you better than you were." Better than you were when? Of course it makes you better than you were right before the treatment, or else it would be useless. Better than you ever were? If that's what matters, then an aging ballplayer who juices up just to keep playing at the same level a little longer isn't doing anything unethical, is he, because it's not making him any better than he was? Another example: "Lasik surgery makes a myopic person's eyes see at a more-or-less normal level." Normal for whom? Not normal for that guy, whose normal condition is myopia. Normal for the population at large? If that's the standard, then isn't it fine for anyone who's deficient in some way to use steriods to get himself to a "normal" level, but not to go beyond? That line would be impossible to draw.

I'm not advocating steroid use, but anyone who thinks the difference between steroids and everything else is obvious isn't giving it enough thought.

Take Cary's advice and be honest. If you hide big issues like this from him, you'll certainly regret it. Don't start a marriage with him and shut him out at the same time. If he can't deal with your issues, then the marriage won't be any good anyway.

And you don't have to decide exactly what you want out of life--or even how to approach the fidelity issue--before talking to him. Let him help you with all that. That's what a good spouse is for.

P.S. Awesome answer, Cary. Best I've read from you.

As I said in my previous post, this is a debate over not whether the rules should be followed but what the rules themselves should be. But still I want to take up a couple of things you said.

Based on what we know, the side effects of the interventions that we allow appear not to be as dire as they are for the interventions that we ban.

Seriously, you believe not only that the side effects of banned substances are categorically worse than those of the substances and treatments that are permitted, even assuming medical supervision in all cases, but also that this is the primary reason for their prohibition in professional athletics? Can you back up those claims, please?

Also:

It has also been cogently pointed out by some respondents that many interventions restore injured players to their previous level, but steroids take the athlete beyond any condition that he or she could attain by training alone.

These are two separate and independent issues that you've falsely set up as opposites, but nevertheless I only need to point out that steroids can be used to restore an injured player to his previous level (good luck defining exactly what that means, by the way), and that training alone won't give a nearsighted person 20/20 vision. The distinctions just aren't as simple as you're claiming they are.

Finally, complaining that the line between what's permissible and what's not is unclear and arbitrary, as King has done, is not the same thing as claiming that there should be no line drawn at all, and your apparent equation of the two is ... illogical.

... and if they stick with the Roman numerals for Super Bowl 50 it will be Super Bowl L. I mean, seriously, Super Bowl L? It looks more like a size than a number. Good luck to the graphic designer on that one.

His players' (apparently) high opinion of him is mitigated by the fact that they're a highly self-selected group, more so than with most coaches. No kid is going to play for Knight (esp. in Lubbock) who doesn't already think he's the shit, or at least is already predisposed to saying "Yes, Master."

The same is true for his players' high graduation rates. As someone said, it's reported that Knight only selected "good" kids for the team, and if that's the case then you can't give him the credit for them turning into good adults. If he'd coached the "bad" kids and guided them to success, then he'd have something to brag about.

If the best thing about him was that he knew how to win, how does he really stack up statistically, aside from total wins? I'm no stathead, but a quick glance shows at least a dozen coaches with better winning percentages, several of whom have a championship or two under their belt.

Chemistry is bunk in baseball. Not in basketball.

Please stand by. I'm trying to talk myself into this.

I'll buy it. But it'd be entertaining to hear you talk yourself into it.

... add to that the fact that there are only 5 players in the game at a time, and the relationships and communication among the players--both one-to-one and as an entire group--become even more important.

... that Republicans didn't fall in love with Romney. A self-made rich white guy, pro-business, fanatical about the GWOT and family values, etc. Plus, he looks the part, and he might be able to pull some swing votes from the Northeast. The minute I saw this automaton, I thought he was a Republican wet dream, especially against the unpredictable McCain and Giuliani. Was the Mormonism really that objectionable? What was the problem?