Sorry if this is too philosophical or doesn't make any sense but here's my opinion on PEDs: I completely understand that there are cultural and financial motivations for players to take PEDs. However, the rules in MLB clearly state that if you are caught using banned substances three times, you are banned from the game. If a player tests positive for an illegal substance, that means he was cheating. In every single sport including cycling, there are some players using banned substances and some who only use approved substances. The players using banned substances are using them to gain an advantage which is inherently unfair by the rules. If the rules are not enforced, then the best cheaters will be rewarded, which damages the integrity of the game and disrespects those that follow the rules. Every baseball player past and present who has cheated or attempted to cheat has damaged the integrity of the game. That includes everyone in the past who took Cocaine or Speed or doctored the ball or corked their bat. It definitely includes Pete Rose and the Black Sox. There will always be rules and there will always be rule breakers, that's human nature, especially with the high stakes these days. Sports where the rules are better defined and respected will always be at a higher level than those where that isn't the case. It's fundamental to any sport or any societal institution for that matter. It requires agreement and acceptance from both the participants and the enforcers. With regard to PEDs, it is critical that both sides (players and MLB) are in full agreement on the list of banned substances and the testing process. That is why the situation associated with Braun's positive test and MLB's response was so concerning. Sometimes it is then indirectly stated that the "integrity of the game" is an abstract concept that shouldn't be used as an argument against PED users, or that PED use does not appreciably damage the integrity of the game. In other words, the players and MLB should just agree to reduce the list of banned substances. Baseball is entertainment, the fans want to see the best players, other sports do it, etc. If everyone is allowed to take a substance and it is widely available, that does even the playing field. There's a very strong argument for allowing substances that primarily aid in injury recovery or help survive the 162-game schedule. Regarding this debate, it is important that the sports, media, and fans come to a general agreement on exactly what is a PED and what isn't. It should be addressed as a major panel/study involving all major sports, preferably as equally as possible. Because PEDs are not clearly defined and evolve with time, we have no choice but to evaluate baseball players in the context of their peers from the same era. In the "steriod era", steroids were legal in MLB and the media/fans went right along with it. That's why the home run record is 73 and not 61 and there is no asterisk and no way to retroactively change what Bonds accomplished. It's also why the BBWAA is walking a slippery slope with hall of fame voting and why the Braun situation is so complicated. Under the rulebook, Braun is clear, but the "cloud of suspicion" lingers. So while I think that Braun was taking PEDs, he was legally cleared and his accomplishments should not be diminished. That's also why I am generally in favor of likely PED users like Bonds and Clemens being in the hall of fame, even though I disapprove of their likely PED use.