Perhaps the biggest scandal in professional sports today is the use of performance-enhancing drugs, such as steroids. It is assumed by fans and players alike that the playing field will be even and that nobody will have an unfair advantage but some players are secretly using performance -enhancing drugs to artificially improve their athletic performance . When these players use banned substances and win games -and even break records-their accomplishments are tainted. A win earned by someone using steroids is not as meaningful as one that has been earned honestly and fairly, through hard work and natural talent. I certainly don't endorse the use of performance -enhancing drugs in sports.But we must be careful when singling out these drugs for criticism; the issue of performance enhancement is not that simple. Consider supposedly natural ways of improving performance-for example laser eye surgery. Vision correction surgery is not a natural occurrence, but it undoubtedly helps those who get it. Yet, no one would equate getting laser eye surgery with using steroids. Nor would I, but the relationship between the two is closer than you might think Where do we draw the line between artificial and natural, in sports or in any other walk of life? Question The author of Passage 2 would probably respond to the third sentence of Passage 1 ("When __ tainted") by thrown out acknowledging that the majority of records set by players using performance-enhancing drugs have been asserting that performance -enhancing drugs should not be banned because they do improve athletes' abilities arguing that fans only care about winning and noting that most players do not use performance -enhancing drugs agreeing that athletes' use of performance-enhancing drugs is a problem and adding that there are additional concerns