More on the Steroid Controversy

I was thinking of an interesting question regarding the steroid controversy today. As groundwork, let me take the paradigm case of Albert Puhols. Puhols is a guy I have always been willing to assume is not on 'Roids. He is huge, but he just seems to have that body type, and he has always just seemed too clean-cut to be roided up. Maybe I am just naive.
But make the leap with me for a moment and assume he is clean. Now, Albert Puhols' income is based in large part on his image (read: Endorsements). That means that the difference between him being on 'roids or not on 'roids is a swing of millions of dollars. Literally millions. Even the slightest suspicion of 'roids costs him money. Conversely, if Puhols could create certainty in the minds of the public that he was clean, it could be a huge financial boon for him.
Given this, why doesn't Puhols (whom we are assuming for the moment is clean) pay an independent company to test him three times a week? (or every day, whatever) Then he could turn around and issue those results to the media, and people would KNOW he was clean. Any player who did this would instantly become my favorite player in the league, and I imagine other fans feel the same way.
In discussing this issue with people, there are two common objections to this point. The first is that he feels that the need to do this is an invasion of his privacy. The second is that he has too much pride, that he feels he is above the need to do this.
The first objection has some legitimacy if the question is whether MLB should FORCE players to undergo this kind of testing. Everyday tests seem invasive and over-the-top. But, if Puhols is VOLUNTARILY testing himself, then the privacy question should not apply. He is, in this narrow way, selling his privacy at the price of a reputation, a trade which it seems to me a professional athelete should be happy to make.
The second, pride, is really no objection at all. If Puhols feels it is demeaning to submit daily urine tests, fine. How much more of an affront is it if people think he is cheating when he isn't? Shouldn't his pride be in the body he has made for himself without the use of artificial substances?
The argument is even more extreme, but to my mind more clear, for something like Cycling. They already test those atheletes on a daily basis, so it is clear that they are not on 'roids. But, it is impossible to test for things like blood doping and HGH.
However, what if an athelete (call him Lance, whom I know is retired now, but he could have done this during his wins) were to pay an independent testing company to follow him around 24 hours a day for three weeks before the race? He goes to the bathroom, they follow him. He goes to the doctor, they follow him. I mean EVERYWHERE. Then they continue to follow him during the race, to make SURE he isn't putting anything into his body. That way we KNOW he is clean.
I won't rehash the same arguments I just made for Puhols, but they all apply. Are these measures extreme? Of course they are. But these are the highest paid, most scrutinized atheletes on the planet. And although extreme, these methods are one way to ensure the sanctity of their reputations.
I just get so sick of these atheletes bitching about how everyone is so suspicious of them, and how they don't deserve it, and how the media is treating them so horribly. If any of them are reading this, follow my advice for a guaranteed stellar reputation. Provided you are really as clean as you say you are.