Would Steroids at the World Cup Ruin the Beautiful Game?

What would it be like if the World Cup allowed players to take steroids? Would it change the beautiful game? I'm not suggesting anything like "The All-Drug Olympics" (which remains one of my all time favorite SNL skits), but that scenario seems unlikely, given that most franchises wouldn't want their hundred-million dollar investments burning out after one game. We know most major athletes use various legal and not-illegal drugs, steroids, and substances to train, perform, heal, and recover as well and as fast as possible. So why is it alright for Olympic gymnasts to get cortisone injections for inflamed joints but wrong for baseball players to take steroids to increase muscle recovery times? Why is it alright for Tour de France riders to refuel intravenously overnight but wrong for them to inject their own blood back into their bodies? Where do we draw the line? Two world-class minds--Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics, and John William Devine, with the Oxford Center for Bioethics--will be debating the resolution "Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sport." Savulescu is an absolute titan in the bioethics field (check this 2005 Guardian interview) and a huge proponent of human enhancement (he edited a book by the same name) so Devine is a brave man for taking him on. Given that Devine's PhD thesis was on the "Challenges to Virtue in Political Office," a pretty thorny topic, I believe he will rise to the occasion. The debate will consist of three parts, and the opening salvo has already occurred. Savulescu's case for allowing drugs is quite convincing. Using the World Cup and Le Tour de France as his examples, Savulescu contends that heavy "within the rules" modification and enhancement already occurs. After explaining just how easy it is to circumvent to drug tests and still get serious benefits, he concludes: