Gladwell's piece is a very provocative read:
You really need to read the whole thing but several times in the piece, Gladwell wonders why is doping viewed differently than say surgery:
He also questions why Lance Armstrong is viewed negatively. Afterall, he didn't have a naturally high red blood cell count so he had to try to over-come that by doping.
Maybe Alex Rodriguez looks at Tommy John—and at the fact that at least a third of current major-league pitchers have had the same surgery—and is genuinely baffled about why baseball has drawn a bright moral line between the performance-enhancing products of modern endocrinology and those offered by orthopedics.
Update: We' ve just realized there is a pod-cast where he argues for legalizing PEDs http://www.newyorker.com/onlin...oping.html
The other great doping pariah is Lance Armstrong. He apparently removed large quantities of his own blood and then re-infused himself before competition, in order to boost the number of oxygen-carrying red blood cells in his system. Armstrong wanted to be like (cross country skiing great) Eero Mäntyranta. He wanted to match, through his own efforts, what some very lucky people already do naturally and legally. Before we condemn him, though, shouldn’t we have to come up with a good reason that one man is allowed to have lots of red blood cells and another man is not?