Let's get the Steroids on the table...

I was thinking about Floyd Landis (Tour de France winner, for anyone who thinks cycling is a sissy sport) and David Ortiz today. I want to start with the assumption, for this post, that they are both on 'Roids. (or HGH, something like that) From my understanding of this blog, discussion of whether they actually are on something falls under practical sports discussion, and thus is verboten. My question is, assuming they are, philosophically, should we care?
First take the paradigm case of cycling. When Eddie Mercks was winning 5 Tours in a row, there was no such thing as HGH. It is safe to say that he was dominant in a totally clean way. Landis, then, is a cheater, right?
My question is, can't an argument be made for looking at HGH, blood doping, and yes, even steroids, as a form of technology that assists in bringing riding times down? Given the advances in bike technology, support technology, training technology, etc. that have come along since Mercks day, riding times are already far advanced from what was possible then. Why should we look at body enhancements as anything but another form of technology benefitting the riders?
I can hear the cries of "But it's artificial, and it's dangerous!" starting already, so let me put that to rest right now. Weight lifting is artificial. Protein shakes are artificial. In baseball, Pine Tar gives you artificial grip. Batting gloves give your hands artificial protection. Artificial is no indictment when it comes to professional sports.
And dangerous? You mean dangerous like 2 300+ pound dudes running into each other at speed? Like standing still while someone throws a hard object inches from your body at 100 mph? Dangerous like an event that pushes your body so hard that 50% of the fittest cyclists in the world can't finish it? Sports are a dangerous pasttime, especially at the highest levels. And all these atheletes know what they're doing when they put that in their body.
We allow, indeed encourage, other forms of technology in cycling and other sports. Why should we balk at allowing technology that effects an athelete's body?
In baseball the case is less clear. First of all, there is less technology involved than in cycling. This makes my previous argument less applicable. However, it still makes a case.
The other argument with regard to baseball is a historical argument. Baseball is such a statistically driven game that it seems unfair that modern players should get the obvious statistical advantage that steroids bring. The purity of the game seems much more important in baseball, even to me.
But that purity is an illusion. We already have distinct eras in baseball, the dead ball and live ball eras. When Jackie Robinson stepped onto the field, another era was born.
Maybe what we need to do is just admit that we already live in the Enhancement Era. MacGuire, Sosa, Canseco, and especially Bonds have ushered that era in irrevocably. Let's embrace it. Let's at least face the fact that enhancement technology has outpaced and will continue to outpace our ability to test it. Then maybe we can stop arguing about it so much.