Major League Baseball players have used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) for many years. Testing was not implemented until 2002 through collective bargaining between MLB and the MLBPA. While testing began in 2002, players could not be suspended for PED use until 2005. The use of PEDs has social, legal, economic, ethical and political impacts. It raises an ethical dilemma for general managers who want to win but also want players to compete fairly without PEDs. The document examines both the pros and cons of PED use from each of these perspectives.

1. PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS 1
Performance Enhancing Drugs: The Major League Baseball Story
David Cummings
RSM 317 Section 2
1 November 2013

2. PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS 2
Introduction
Players in Major League Baseball (MLB) have used performance-enhancing drugs
(PEDs) for many years. However, the testing of PEDs did not go into effect until August of
2002. Bud Selig, the commissioner of MLB wanted a more rigorous testing program but the
Major League Baseball Player’s Association (MLBPA) cringed at the need for such a program.
However, during collective bargaining, the MLPA agreed to a relatively tame testing program
(Denham, 2008). Although testing began in the 2002 season players could not be suspended for
the use of PEDs until the 2005 season (McNeal 2011). In 1994, Bud Selig proposed random drug
testing on MLB players, but he postponed the matter after hearing reactions from owners and
players. At that point in time there had been no apparent problem with PEDs, but that soon
changed in 1998 with Mark McGwire. For one to fully understand PEDs they would need to be
educated about all the impacts of the drug(s). These impacts include the social, legal, economic,
ethical, and political. The impacts of using PEDs can be examined in each category. Social
impact would be if a player puts winning ahead of discipline. The legal impact would be the
athlete is innocent until proven guilty. Economic impact is any extra money and/or awards an
athlete would receive. The ethical impact would be winning at all cost mentality, where there is a
tolerance for unethical behavior. The political aspect would be Superstars are different from
average players. The use of Performance Enhancing drugs has changed the sport industry and as
a result of this Major League Baseball and its general managers are faced with an ethical
dilemma of trying to have their players play the game the way it is supposed to be played as it is
stated in the rulebook.
Social Interaction

3. PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS 3
In today’s society, the use of PEDs is not accepted, because it is considered cheating.
Fans like seeing big seasons from the best players on their favorite team. However, when an
average player comes in and puts up superstar numbers society starts to scratch its head and
question the ability of this player.
Cons
Looking at this side of the ethical dilemma from a general managers perspective would
be him saying winning is more important than fair play. It does not matter to him if his players
use PEDs or not, but as long as the team is winning he is happy. Barry Bonds and Roger
Clemens considered two of the best players of all time at their respective positions. However,
they will both be remembered more for their alleged abuse of PEDs than their record-breaking
statistics (Solberg & Ringer, 2011). Athletes act differently from non-athletes in the sense that
athletes act more to recommend breaking the rules or to bypass rules to gain a tactical advantage
(Solberg & Ringer, 2011). For many fans, baseball is more than a game, because it is America’s
pastime. The main goal of sport is to show off an athlete’s talent, where the physical and moral
gifts are rewarded. However, if a drug that affects those talents then it destroys the goal. Kids
look up to these superstars as role models, but if they see their favorite player using drugs they
might be prone to experiment with PEDs (Rutecki & Rutecki, 2010). Now as a general manager
taking this into consideration they have to decide if it is more important to win or to play fair.
Pros
Society can benefit also in some ways from athletes using PEDs. Although, it is illegal in
the United States, and in MLB, to use PEDs society has changed in the past and will change in
the future. However, this does not mean that PEDs will become accepted by society. In 1994,
when Bud Selig became the commissioner of MLB he wanted to implement a PED testing

4. PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS 4
program immediately. There had been no apparent problem with PEDs yet but Selig saw the
need for this program. However, the owners and players disagreed with him and the testing
program was not implemented until 2002 with collective bargaining (Denham, 2008). Although,
society likes seeing a team score a lot of runs they also want to see it done fairly (Solberg &
Ringer, 2011). With society having an opinion on the matter and with the testing program
implemented there are now more legal impacts with PEDs.
Legal Impact
If an athlete is being accused of anything they are innocent until proven guilty. However,
if a player uses steroids and plays he will be punished.
Cons
Players get suspended when they test positive for PEDs for a certain number of games. In
MLB currently there is a three-strike system. First offense is 50 games, second offense is 100
games and the third offense is a lifetime ban. The MLBPA accused the investigators, during the
Mitchell report, of overstepping their authority (Denham, 2008). When baseball asked for the
senate to step in they did not receive what they were asking for. MLB wanted Congress to
regulate legal supplements before they landed in the wrong hands, such as adolescents
(Schmaltz, 2002).
Pros
With PEDs coming into play in MLB there was a need for a testing program. However,
some argue it came too late, but it only took Bud Selig eight years of negotiating to have an
agreement to institute a testing program. One that has gotten better each year and can only
improve (Solberg & Ringer, 2011). Jose Canseco has taken credit for introducing steroids to
MLB, although the number of athletes will never be truly known, there were enough for baseball

5. PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS 5
to investigate the issue (McNeal, 2011). Major League Baseball is the first sport to test for
Human Growth Hormone (HGH) due to Bud Selig’s relentless negotiating at collective
bargaining (Denham, 2008). Athletes were going under the radar before on HGH because it was
genetically modified for the individual (Selig, 2013). PEDs are not free, so there is also an
economic impact with them.
Economic Impact
Players will receive bigger contracts and more awards if they use PEDs. If they do not
use them then they will not receive a bigger contract and will receive less or no awards according
Solberg and Ringer.
Cons
If a hitter uses PEDs and hits a lot of home runs the evidence shows that they will receive
a monster contract. Take Manny Ramirez’s $160 million deal and Alex Rodriguez’s $252
million contract for examples (Solberg & Ringer, 2011). For some players the perceived
marginal benefits of taking PEDs outweighed the marginal costs of being caught. Brady
Anderson for example is a player’s whose marginal benefit was dramatically better than the
marginal cost. His home run production in 1995 was at 18 and rose to 50 in 1996. He signed a 5-
year contract worth over $30 million and he never came close to hitting 50 homeruns in a season
again The costs of enforcing the PED policy are operational, including the expense of screening
players for drugs and the potential litigation costs that would have entailed with the players
union if a player was caught (Pantuosco, 2011). According to Pauntuosco, a $12 million
marginal salary increase occurs over the average lifetime of a baseball player’s career that uses
PEDs.
Pros

6. PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS 6
With player’s using PEDs the league can receive huge revenue boosts from fans that want
to see the superstars of the league play. Although, it costs a lot of money to have a strict drug
testing policy it is necessary (Pantuosco, 2011). Pantuosco also talks about players losing money
after being caught using PEds. Players included Barry Bonds losing $10 million in
endorsements, Jason Giambi who lost $4 million in endorsements and Roger Clemens losing $3
million. Another economic impact that occurs with this is that players who are accused are not
being voted into the Hall of Fame. Companies trying to use baseball players for its endorsements
only want ethical people portraying their product (Pantuosco, 2011). This brings the Ethical
impacts into play more so than people think.
Ethical Impact
Many player’s want to win but some need to win no matter how they do it. MLB with
implementing a drug-testing program has showed that they have no tolerance for unethical
behavior.
Cons
All athletes want to be the best at what they do and some take drastic measures to reach
their goal. Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire are two examples of this where in 1998 they had a
home run competition throughout the entire season with McGuire. Then in 2001 Barry Bonds
broke the record again hitting 73 homeruns in a single season (Solberg & Ringer, 2011).
However, Bonds lost $10 million in endorsements due to his alleged abuse of PEDs. Any player
who is tested positive is guaranteed to lose endorsements and not be voted into the Baseball Hall
of Fame. Companies will also talk with each other to make sure the athlete they are going to use
has not been dumped by another company for unethical behavior (Pantuosco, 2011). With PEDs
there are players who also choose to act ethically.

7. PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS 7
Pros
This side of the argument is all about lusory attitude, where all MLB players expect each
other to play by the rules and uphold the rules of the game (Solberg & Ringer, 2011). The use of
PEDs will increase fan bases because people like to be entertained in today’s society. The use of
PEDs is considered to be unethical. However, some players who are starting to look at retirement
can continue to play the game they love. Pitchers in their late 30s have been seen throwing
upwards of 96 to 99 mph, and they never threw that hard before. Steroids can extend a players
career and also help them recover back from injury at a faster pace (Solberg & Ringer, 2011).
Political Impact
Baseball players can be treated different than human beings however they are not above
the law. A superstar baseball player is no different than a young rookie trying to make it out of
the minors into the big leagues. The MLB logo is to be represented both on and off the baseball
diamond.
Cons
If players are not suspended for using PEDs then what is the point of testing players in
the first place. The MLBPA have some who want first time offenders to be banned for life rather
than the three-strike system (Rutecki & Rutecki, 2010). In 1994 the players did not want a testing
program but Bud Selig did not give up on the topic and finally implemented a testing program in
2002. It was a weak program but better than nothing. It served as an image management device.
Due to the work stoppage in 2004, Selig decided to slowly implement his program making it
stronger each year after it was implemented (Denham, 2008).
Pros

8. PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS 8
Bud Selig went to former US Senator George Mitchell to conduct an investigation of the
steroid problem in baseball (Selig, 2013). The MLB started to show that they would investigate
outside sources as well, including the Biogenesis investigation. Major League Baseball was
showing that they cared more about what their players were doing off the field as well as on the
field. The collective bargaining agreement that implemented the testing program was weak but
necessary. Selig has also continuously added to the testing program making it stronger each year
(Denham, 2008).
Conclusion
As PEDs are becoming more of an ethical dilemma in sports it is mostly seen in baseball.
The Mitchell report brought out the worst of it being televised on national television. However,
MLB has the best testing program in all of sports (Selig, 2013). The social, legal, economic,
ethical, and political impacts all interact with one another simultaneously. I think PEDs should
not be allowed in baseball and agree with the MLBPA that first time offenders should receive
lifetime bans. The excuse of the player did not know what was in the shot is complete bogus
because that player would go back and sue the doctor who injected it for violating his property.
The impacts that occur when a player is busted highly outweigh the impacts of using the drug to
receive a reward. Players try to get more money by using but the instant they get busted look
what has happened. Players lose all of their endorsement opportunities and being inducted into
the Baseball Hall of Fame. Some players may not care about money but it is every baseball
players dream to be inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame. PEDs have changed the sport of
baseball but fair play is the best way to play (Solberg & Ringer, 2011). The MLB is dealing with
this dilemma in many ways and will continue to grow in the field of fair play.

9. PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS 9

10. PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS 10
References
Selig, B. (2013, September 3). Interview by T Verducci. Exclusive Q&A with bud selig on
steroids, replay and more. Retrieved from
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130903/bud-selig-interview/
Denham, B. E. (2008). Calling Out the Heavy Hitters: What the Use of Performance-Enhancing
Drugs in Professional Baseball Reveals About the Politics and Mass Communication of
Sport. International Journal Of Sport Communication, 1(1), 3-16.
McNeal, S. (2011). PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS. Sporting News, 235(11), 32.
Pantuosco, L. J. (2011). DOES IT PAY TO BE UNETHICAL? THE CASE OF
PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS IN MLB. American Economist, 56(2), 58-68.
Rutecki, J. W., & Rutecki, G. W. (2010). A Study of Media Impact on Public Opinion
Regarding Performance Enhancement in Major League Baseball. Open Sports
Sciences Journal, 3140-148.
Schmaltz, J. (2002). PANIC ROOM. Flex, 20(7), 264.
Solberg, J. & Ringer, R. (2011). Performance-Enhancing Drug Use in Baseball: The
Impact of Culture. Ethics & Behavior, 21(2), 91-102.