Canova--
Whether PED's actually improve performance, and if so, at what dosage, and whether or not there are any adverse health effects and if so at what dosage they appear, is totally irrelevant.
IOC, IAAF, and WADA have chosen to not go down that path for practical reasons--too long, too expensive, too variable, too indeterminate, too subject to argument, etc.
A ban on certain substances is one of only two possible practical solutions, the other being no bans at all.
If there really are not any performance benefits, then the result of a ban is only less sales of that compound or formulation.
On the other hand, if there are performance benefits, then the result of a ban is something like watching a 10-flat 100m instead of a 9.7 100m--a cost that is obviously well worth bearing, in order to err on the side of caution.
After all, what is the general human value of proving that if you ingest substance A, that you will be able to run the 100m 0.3 seconds faster? Maybe there are some strategic military applications, but that is not what we are talking about. The general answer is that there are no benefits at all.
I would point out that the guy who was saying that watching world records go lower and lower has the psychological effect of creating the impression that there are in fact no definite boudaries to human physical performance. It is easily arguable that such an effect is not in fact of any net benefit to society in general, so I will not make that argument.
You want to slice the bologna ever more thinly by creating different classes of compounds based on the duration and nature of their effects, but that is unworkable, as even those of temporary effect could, and do, have significant benefits to training, if used properly.
Your moral considerations are only part of the story, and miss the essential point: it is not about health, nor is it about creating a perfectly level playing field--it is about doing the best we can to get that playing field as level as we can practically get it. In this, the current anti-doping regime is certainly not perfect.
However, imposing sanctions for the behavior of Gay, Powell, and the others is very likely absolutely appropriate, and fair not only to them, but to all of their competitors.
But not to worry, Canova--you know the critical pattern that I'm talking about. You have seen it in action many times, and you understand what it means. And you understand that it is a valuable tool that dopers--sophisticated dopers--can, and do, use to avoid both positive samples, and subsequent sanction.
THAT is the current inequity in the system--that some can, and do, get away with it, while there is absolutely no possibility for others to do the same type of thing. Yes, drugs cost money, and good ones cost a lot of money--and having a system in place that can provide you with not only professional advice and administration, but which can also shield you from investigation, requries both money, referral, and personal contacts--and so penalty-free doping is not an option for many athletes.
Which is totally fair, because it is not the doping playing field that we are trying to level, it is the ANTI-DOPING field that we are trying to level. That is to say, we are not trying to make sure that everybody has equal access to doping--for obvious practical reasons, the only thing that actually has any chance of working is that we try to make sure that all athletes do not engage in certain behaviors, which behaviors are within their control as adults.
Again, the frontier is the doping of juniors and youth before they hit the adult ranks. We see the beginnings of this many decades ago, and it has continued to this day, not only with examples from Chinese swimming, but with the recent Jamaican positive tests.
DOPING IN JUNIORS AND YOUTH IS THE REAL, BIG, AND DIFFICULT PROBLEM.