Athletes and Doping

Floyd Landis was accused of having elevated testosterone levels after is 'come-from-behind' stage win in the Tour de France. It makes you wonder why anybody would be stupid enough to take performance enhancing drugs at that point. (Did he figure he had no chance of winning, so might-as-well take something to climb up in the standings. Only the stage winner, overall leader, and a couple random cyclists are tested, so odds are good he wouldn't be tested.) However, testosterone only helps out if it is taken over a period of time. Would one shot really help? Could there have been some shenanigans going on where he was framed? Or could it actually have occurred legitimately. Hopefully this will be sorted out soon.

However, a big question is, why do we care? There are a whole slew of 'performance enhancing' drugs that are legal. There are others that cannot be detected. Why are we so concerned about some but not others?

A simple answer could be that we care about the long-term harm to the athletes. But, an athletic career only lasts 10-20 years, while there are much more time to live after that. A logical athlete wouldn't sacrifice his life for it. Or would he? With the short span of the career, there is no option to 'do it later'. All of the rewards come in the short time. Perhaps if all prize and endorsement money were paid out over a 50 year period, there would be an economic incentive to not harm the body. However, there is still the pride incentive. As long as professional sports are a big thing, and athletes are idolized, there will always be the desire to enhance the body in the short term, with possible long term consequences? Should we care? After all, there are plenty of other things athletes do that could be harmful long term. (Look at the knee injuries in many sports.)