I noted earlier this week that after Rafael Nadal beat Roger Federer in an epic match at Wimbledon, Los Angeles Times columnist Kurt Streeter wrote a column in which he mentioned Nadal as an athlete who will have to face scrutiny in this era of constant skepticism about performance-enhancing drugs.

The basic thrust of Streeter's column -- that we live in an era in which doubt about performance-enhancing drugs pervades sport -- is correct. But the way Streeter brought Nadal's name into the story was unfair.

On Sunday, Rafael Nadal gave us one of the greatest performances in tennis history in defeating Roger Federer in a five-set marathon at Wimbledon.

In the three days since then, that match has been hailed as the greatest in the history of the sport, and Nadal has been crowned the new king of tennis. But since this is sports in the year 2008, that great performance is now followed by questions of whether Nadal is using performance-enhancing drugs.

Floyd Landis, who won the 2006 Tour de France only to have his title stripped when he tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, has lost his final appeal of that positive drug test.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed his appeal today and also ruled that he must pay $100,000 to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency to compensate the group for its legal fees related to Landis's appeal, although it's unclear whether the Court of Arbitration for Sport has the authority to enforce such a fine, or whether Landis -- who hasn't been able to earn a living in cycling since 2006 and has spent a fortune in legal fees for himself -- even has $100,000.

Landis's two-year suspension from cycling was upheld as well. Oscar Pereiro is now considered the 2006 Tour de France winner. The 2008 Tour begins this weekend.

Bulgaria has decided to keep its entire Olympic weightlifting team home from the Summer Olympics after 11 members failed drug tests this month.

One of the Bulgarians who tested positive was Ivan Stoitsov (pictured), who won two gold medals at the 2007 world championships and would have been a favorite in Beijing. Eight men and three women came up positive during a surprise test at their training camp.

Bulgaria has a long history of success in weightlifting -- and of getting caught cheating. Two Bulgarians were stripped of weightlifting golds after testing positive in 1988, and Bulgarians were stripped of one gold, one silver and one bronze in 2000.

Some International Olympic Committee members have suggested that the sport of weightlifting is so infested with performance-enhancing drugs that it should be eliminated as an Olympic sport, but the fact that these lifters were caught by their own nation's governing body is a sign that countries are cracking down on steroid cheaters.

Most discussions of steroids begin with the premise that using steroids is always bad. But today on Live with Regis and Kelly, of all places, there was a discussion with a decidedly different twist:

Regis Philbin and Kelly Ripa were discussing their own use of cortisone -- which is a steroid, but not an illegal anabolic steroid. Philbin then said, "But steroids have gotten a bad rap. I mean, boy, oh boy, everybody's condemning them and you're not allowed to have them.

When Ripa tried to draw a distinction between medical use of steroids and illegal use of anabolic steroids to build muscle, Philbin said, "What's wrong with that? What is wrong with that?" He then added, "I like having 'roid rage. I think it's funny."

Our nation has become so fanatical in its war on steroids that I'm sure Philbin is going to be criticized for such comments, but I'd like to see more such questions asked. If people want to use steroids to make their muscles bigger and stronger, why is it the government's job to stop them?

In olden times, sailors were synonymous with all manners of things that would come up in medical testing these days. Hell, their blood and urine were so rife that they'd probably melt the testing equipment before any kind of reading could come through. Entire civilizations were erased from existence just because sailors breathed in their general direction.

Today's sailor is a different type, though. More likely to have 12-year old scotch and zinc oxide than some Tahitian strain of syphilis and unlikely to do anything to raise the ire of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Or so I thought until I read about Israeli Olympian Udi Gal. He tested positive for Finasteride in a test conducted by the Israeli Olympic Committee and now waits for the results of his backup sample. If it is positive as well he faces suspension that will likely keep him from Beijing.

Now, there's a pretty big caveat. Finasteride is not a PED itself. It's actually the dominant ingredient in Propecia, the hair loss drug, and is banned because it is believed to mask steroid use. It's a lot more believable that a sailor would need anti-baldness medication than steroids. Finasteride use is okay if you get a waiver from WADA but Gal didn't get one. He can't claim ignorance, Brazilian soccer star Romario went down this road, so was it embarrassment about losing his hair? If so, he's paying quite a price for pride.

The performance-enhancing drug Dianabol, which became the first widely used anabolic steroid and has built muscle for athletes and bodybuilders and become the subject of criminal prosecutions, was developed in 1958. There's a good piece in the New York Daily News looking at half a century of the steroid's use:

Dianabol turns 50 this year, and while U.S. trademark production has ceased, generic "methandronstenolone" remains in use by athletes worldwide. Now, steroid use by athletes is widely condemned, branded amoral, a cheater's easy fix. But that was not the case in the early 1960s, and particularly not in football, according to witnesses and historians interviewed for this story. America, after all, rolled on mass consumption of pills that purported to fix anything.

I can't help but wonder if the live-and-let-live attitude on display in the 1960s wasn't a healthier attitude than the approach to performance-enhancing drugs today. Can we really say for sure that steroids have done more damage than the war on steroids has?

Big Brown's big flop at the Belmont will go down as one of the most disappointing showings in the history of the sport. But it may also go down as a turning point regarding the use of steroids in horse racing.

Big Brown's trainer gave the horse the steroid Winstrol -- which is illegal for humans but legal in most states for horses -- up until last month, when he said he stopped because he was confident that his horse could be great without it. As it turned out, Big Brown was anything but great Saturday.

Pat Forde of ESPN.com reports that "The steroid era in American thoroughbred racing will be over in 2009," as the Jockey Club Thoroughbred Safety Committee will make a public recommendation next week that steroids be banned for all racehorses in the United States.

That will make Big Brown the last great racehorse to be fueled by steroids -- or at least, the last great racehorse whose trainer admits he's fueled by steroids. Trainer Rick Dutrow (pictured) acknowledges giving Winstrol to Big Brown, although he says he stopped on April 15. It's legal in most states to give steroids to horses.

The safety of race horses has become a hot-button issue since Eight Belles, who finished second to Big Brown at the Kentucky Derby, broke both front legs and was euthanized minutes after crossing the finish line. Eight Belles tested negative for steroids.

With Big Brown an overwhelming favorite to win the Belmont Stakes on Saturday and become the first horse in 30 years to win the Triple Crown, his trainer is attempting to distance himself from his long-held practice of giving the horse steroids.

That trainer, Rick Dutrow, tells Joe Drape of the New York Times that he hasn't given Big Brown the anabolic steroid Winstrol since April 15. It is legal to give horses steroids in most states, including all three of the Triple Crown states. Winstrol is banned for human use; it is the drug that Ben Johnson tested positive for at the 1988 Olympics.

Michael Iavarone, a co-owner of Big Brown, explains the decision to stop giving him steroids:

"But Rick has said, and we have believed all along, that Big Brown is phenomenally talented and has not needed any performance-enhancing drugs."

That doesn't make a lot of sense; the whole point is we don't know how much his "phenomenal talent" has been enhanced by drugs. If Big Brown wins the Triple Crown he will have done so aided by steroids, and his owners and trainer shouldn't pretend otherwise.