Since we never talk about baseball, here's more dumb **** to argue about.
Is juicing worth the risk? I think for some types of players, it is.
Consider a generic everyday, average ballplayer who makes $2M/year. He makes market value for his services, and there's no reason to believe that will increase. So, in the last year of his contract, he decides to juice. Furthermore, suppose his production does increase (a la Cabrera). Obviously, peds do not always mean increased performance, though it does seem to in many cases.
Anyway, he juices, plays better, and then signs a 3-yr $18M contract in the winter ($6M/yr). The next March, he fails a test, and is suspended the first 50 games for his new team.
So what's changed for the guy?
a) he has to serve a suspension
b) his name is 'smeared' (whatever that means) in the media
c) He turned a prospective 3-yr $6M deal into a 3-yr $18M deal, minus the paycut for the 50 game suspension.
Plausible? For most players, no. For some, hell yes. Given the *large* amounts of money involved, I see it as a pretty serious issue.
For that reason, I think teams signing free-agent contracts with a clause voiding the contract for a drug suspension will do more to discourage ped use than the current rules do. I think this will eventually become the norm. What do you think?