It was recently reported that UFC MMA fighter, Cung Le has tested positive for HGH - a performance enhancing drug (PED) - after his fight with Michael Bisping in Macau.
Upon hearing this news, I was surprised. Not because he was confirmed for being on PEDs, but I was surprised he got caught. It's very unusual for athletes at Le's level and notoriety to actually get caught.
To be perfectly honest, this should come as a surprise to no one. I'm serious: if you still believe that any pro-level athlete in any contact sport (Football, Boxing, MMA, etc...) isn't on PEDs then you are living in a fantasy world.
Take a look at the photo above. Cung Le is 42 years old. Does that look like a "natty" physique to you? It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out he's on some form of PED. But it isn't just Cung Le. If you think Michael Bisping wasn't on gear then you're simply being naive.
In fact, it's kinda funny that Bisping accused Cung Le of "looking" like he was on HGH prior to their fight. Very funny. Funny in a "pot calling the kettle black" kinda way.
Now, of course Le is denying HGH use. Just like Bisping would be denying it if he got caught. Just like every other pro athlete denies PED use.
But, really, why do people care that these athletes are on steroids? It seems very silly to me and, quite frankly, I'm getting pretty fed up with hearing about how awful PEDs are.
Some will claim, while sitting atop their high horse, that preventing athletes from taking PEDs "levels the playing field". Others will say their concern regarding steroid use is directly related their to concern for the safety of the athletes.
Upon closer examination, however, both of these arguments fall flat on their face. Let's take a look at why these two arguments fail support the need to ban PED in professional, full contact athletics.