You miss the point I'm making. I don't necessarily condone rock starts using drugs nor do I condemn it. It is not analogous to the point being made. Performance enhancing drugs become a REQUIREMENT in order to participate in athletics at a certain level. Look at the Tour. Drug use is not required to be in a rock band at any level nor to be a painter or any other professional.
If you want to consider movie stars using drugs or having affairs or whatever moral argument you seem to be making as being analogous to performance enhancing drugs then you do not understand the real critique of such actions. The only moral component is that by making steroid use mandatory for all intents and purposes you guarantee a large segment of the adolescent population will follow that lead. It is different from drug use among movie stars or rock stars or any other celebrity.
Racism exists everywhere so while I firmly believe it needs to be addressed this also misses the point I made. If you want to discuss racist standards being applied that is a different, although inter-related, subject than I was discussing.
As far as athletes go holding them to the same standards as everyone else or even slightly higher standards is not holding them to fairy-tale standards. They are in high profile positions and need to be aware that if they transgress against the law they run a higher risk of exposure than a non-celebrity.
Athletes are looked upon differently than movie stars or rock stars in our culture. Schools spend huge sums on athletic programs sending kids the message that this is really important shit. Much more important than acting or singing or even being a great scientist. If athletics is going to be such an important part of our culture then we can set standards of behaviour for athletes that are different from the standards of non-athletes. Do we as a society have the same set of behaviourial standards for members of the clergy as we do for rock stars? What about school teachers and movie stars? Are these differences "fair" and if not why?
John Thornton