Originally Posted by TSJ55
"Cheating" is a subjective term.
I disagree. "Cheating" is pretty much a cut-and-dry issue. Circumventing the rules for your own gain is cheating.
What's subjective is how repugnant the act is, because that depends on how important the rule being circumvented is, and how much the person gained by circumventing it. Plotting the act on that X/Y axis (which may be a matter for subjective debate), and you can determine how major/minor the act was. But it's still cheating (which is the objective label that applies).
I would describe players not using in 1997 as "stupid" as well as question their will to win.
Someone better-read than I may have to correct me on this, but: didn't MLB already have rules on the books about drug use in (and before) 1997, but simply didn't have the authority to conduct any serious testing? Basically, "Using drugs is against the rules. You're on the honor system, unless you really screw up like Darryl Strawberry or something."
Assuming I'm right that the rules were there, just unenforceable in any serious way, does that change your statement(s)? Or do you stick to the idea of cheating being "subjective," and players taking drugs in 1997 were operating justifiably within the system available to them?
Personally, I've spent decades rooting for the bad guys in pro wrestling, who spout such ideals as "It ain't cheatin' if you don't get caught" (Jesse Ventura) or "If you're not cheatin', you're not tryin'" (Eddie Guerrero), because, granted, it's funny and a bit of wish-fulfillment of how we wish we could act sometimes. But once I have to apply moral principles to real world scenarios, I stop going for what's funny, and start aiming for what's fair.
Trying to defend PED use on the grounds that "everybody else is doing it and you won't get caught" very much violates that sense of fairness.