On the "drug vs drug" question, are you implying that the competition is reduced to who takes the best or most drugs? I would have to disagree. These are professional; highly-trained athletes who work long and hard to be the best at what they do. Taking drugs makes them better, but they don't work any less hard. Drugs just raise the standards a little more.
As a general rule, the more elite your level of something, the lesser the difference in ability between you and your peers. Also, at the elite levels you get diminishing returns on your "investment" of more training.
Thus, at the level of, say, the NFL, can you really imagine an athlete turning down a drug that will boost his performance by, say, 5%, when he is training 100 hours per week to improve by 1%?
Also, athletes who do not take steroids are probably weeded out at the high school and college levels, so by the time you make it to the NFL you probably have few, if any, "natural" players.
W.r.t. steroid testing, I could be wrong but last time I read on the subject the tests used were easily circumvented.
As a general rule, the more elite your level of something, the lesser the difference in ability between you and your peers. Also, at the elite levels you get diminishing returns on your "investment" of more training.
Thus, at the level of, say, the NFL, can you really imagine an athlete turning down a drug that will boost his performance by, say, 5%, when he is training 100 hours per week to improve by 1%?
Also, athletes who do not take steroids are probably weeded out at the high school and college levels, so by the time you make it to the NFL you probably have few, if any, "natural" players.
W.r.t. steroid testing, I could be wrong but last time I read on the subject the tests used were easily circumvented.