Here is a New York Times op-ed column about performance-enhancing substances. Two comments:

1. The study is fatally flawed in its assumption (which the authors come close to noticing) that the only benefit of drugs is to increase performance. No. It’s to prevent fall-off in performance. Suppose that, without drugs, my home-run totals would be 40, 38, 42, 34, 29, and 24. Suppose I begin taking drugs during the fourth year, giving me totals of 40, 38, 42, 37, 40, and 37. No increase, right? My totals stayed between 37 and 42. Wrong! I hit 27 more home runs as a result of the drugs. You don’t compare the drug home runs with the home runs hit previously (without drugs); you compare the drug home runs with the home runs that would have been hit without drugs. See the difference?

2. When the authors tell kids, at the end of the column, that drugs don’t work, they’re implying that if drugs did work, it would be acceptable to use them. The message should be categorical rather than hypothetical: “Don’t use drugs, even if they work.” Imagine telling your child not to cheat, because he or she might get caught, or not to lie, because it might get him or her a bad reputation. Sometimes what’s important is not what you prohibit but why you prohibit it.

What do you think?