So now I am ignorant and shortsighted.
Here is what I know. Sure, there are steroids that don't make you blow up like Jose Canseco. Windstrol? Something like that? However, you tell me what the first indication that ANYONE gets to make them believe that someone is taking steroids? They get bigger, more muscular/ripped, etc. A-Rod was a moose to begin with. It is a whole lot easier to mask those types of gains if you are already built like 17ing Secretariat. Look at all the other guys that have been linked to roids. McGwire, huge. Sosa, huge. Clemens, huge. Bonds, huge. Giambi, huge. Raffy, huge - comparatively speaking. Forgive me for having a skewed perception, but I just don't see guys like Roy Oswalt and Tim Lincecum who are 180 pounds soaking wet of nothing but bone and tightly-wound ligament as steroid users. If you are going to lump me and the other 97% of the public in that category as "ignorant" so be it.
Moreover, if moral fiber has nothing to do a player's decision to refrain from taking PEDs, what does? Health concerns? Please, these guys don't give a **** about that. People have been juicing for decades now and you aren't seeing many stories on Outside the Lines about the health of those players. Sure, there are serious health implications, but they don't give a damn about that because they are not seeing any hard evidence of the toll it has taken on retired players. So I am ignorant for saying someone with high moral fiber probably didn't juice. Explain that please. Other than saying morals are relative, I don't know how you could. It is widely known that Berkman and Biggio are salt of the earth type guys. For an athlete, the decision about whether or not to take PED's is purely a moral/ethical decision. Am I going to play fair or am I going to go for the edge? That is it.
That is my take. You (and others) might disagree, but it is hardly shortsighted or ignorant.