Not boys, not summer, just business
And it is certainly not only the boys of summer with a problem. Try naming a sport, professional or amateur, in which there has never been mention of steroids and participants suspected of cheating. Aside from curling or some obscure local sport with extremely limited participation, the steroid stigma is alive and well. The obvious coverage of Barry Bonds and baseball as well as Marion Jones and the Olympics fuels the latest public and private debate on what it all means or should mean. The whole situation gives new meaning to the phrase ‘pros can cons’. While the discussion may be inevitable, having the discussion may be a little silly.
What is so difficult to understand and why is there so much chatter about what it all means? Other than providing filler for sports reports or talk shows, one point about the whole discussion should be central. There are rules, laws and all sorts of accepted conditions placed upon the world of sports. Participating in sports requires playing by the rules. One of the rules most people become familiar with early on is that cheating is not allowed. Determining the guilt or innocence of a participant regarding cheating should not be based on opinion and conjecture by the masses. Whether the authority having jurisdiction in the matter is a court of law or a governing body that regulates a sport, if the participant is found guilty they should suffer the consequences. Likewise, if the participant is found innocent that should be the end of the matter barring any form of appeal by others.
Without laboring over the idea represented by the ‘asterisk’ in the record books, that too is a silly discussion. One example being made notable by the allegations against Barry Bonds involves the previous home run record of Hank Aaron. If Bonds is determined to be innocent then of course his home run record should stand. But if he is found guilty and the timeline suggests an offense prior to that record it should be removed.
That people do not make this simply a matter of if you cheat you pay the price and if you don’t things are fine may indicate how people view honesty and what concessions they are willing to allow. The only gray area that should exist in checking honesty of someone is whether or not there are grounds to suspect cheating and then perhaps whether there is evidence to support the allegation. The final determination should be within an official body charged with the duty of such tasks.
There appears to be a contrast in opinions expressed publicly. The players may be relatively and perhaps understandably quiet on the topic. Opinions of those fostering sports within k-12 primarily speak to the damage done to sporting activities and potentially harmful challenge to young minds sorting out the proper way to compete. Those whose incomes are directly affected by the sports industry either now or in the future express distinctly different views overall. It seems a simple conclusion to draw. The powerful lure of wealth in the sporting industry is adversely affecting the judgment of those involved. It is really that simple. If you cheat, anything you gained was not earned. Because the industry dragged its collective feet in addressing the issue does not change that. It may complicate and prolong resolution but it does not change facts. To defend or try to redefine cheating to suit your preference only 
makes you complicit and does not remove guilt. Those who suggest it does or that something else demands it are in denial. Cheating is wrong and should not be rewarded or appear to be rewarded.
You had a choice. You made a decision. Now live with it. Removing credit for achievements made while cheating is fair and what the offense demands. The rules and ethics that guide fair play in sports as in life cannot be abandoned. Play by the rules or pay the price, end of story.