Steroids vs. Surgery

[Sooga]

Sorry if this subject has come up before, but I couldn't find it in the search, and I couldn't find a thread concerning this specific topic.

That said, in the latest 'Sporting News' Dave Kindred wrote an article discussing how if a player pumps drug XYZ into his arm to make himself bigger, that is seen as bad by the public, yet if a pitcher who throws 88mph decides to have Tommy John surgery (even though he may not even NEED the surgery), then starts throwing 95mph after a year of rehab, the public doesn't bat an eye over it.

When it comes down to it, both players are using the fruits of high-tech science to help themselves improve as ballplayers. I'm not saying both are good or both are bad, but I don't see how one can decry one and not the other.

[New001]

Some of these steroids and drugs are illegal without prescriptions, or illegal alltogether, aren't they? Also, they can have some bad health effects as far as I know. That's not to say surgery is without risks, but as I understand it, the steroids in question can be far nastier. I could probably come up with a few more reasons, but these alone are good enough for steroids to be disallowed when TJ surgery isn't.

[Sooga]

It's not so much the designation of 'illegal' or 'legal' that I'm questioning, but rather the negative stigma associated to steroids that are not given to surgery. A batter uses steroids to hit the ball harder, gets found out, and he's labeled a 'cheater'. A pitcher gets Tommy John surgery to add another 5mph to his fastball, and it's not even news. I don't really see what the difference is between the two on a fundamental level.