No bud.. that's not how it works, I think you're actually the one is more confused here.

Cheating with regards to PEDs is using them for performance enhancements and to gain and athletic or performance boost. "Cheating" is a moral and game-fairness accusation. You can pretend it's otherwise, but it's ALWAYS going to be levied in that manner, and therefore either effect or intent must be TRUE (in a programming boolean sense) for it to be an apt accusation.

​

Let's pretend we agree that he unknowingly and benignly used the substance topically from a spray a few times to help with a skin rash, leaving very low levels of a very mild steroid in his system that were just high enough to pop on the drug test. We'll also add in the factor that he wasn't playing and recovering from an injury that the drug he popped for would actually inhibit the healing of. We may disagree on this, but let's pretend we agree for the sake of seeing my viewpoint.

What Tatis did was foolishly disregard the explicit procedure for acquiring legal medication for a medical condition. The breaking of that procedure, does not entail "cheating" in my mind. Even if we were to consider the punishment for that breaking of procedure just, I view it much more akin to breaking the personal conduct policy. I find it more similar to a player getting a lengthy suspension for something like illegal drug possession (cocaine, heroin, etc..) than I do "cheating."

If we assume truth of excuse, which you are free to disagree with, but I feel pretty comfortable in believing that Tatis wasn't regularly ingesting clostobol while recovering from a broken wrist for performance enhancement reasons, then I think that my viewpoint here is completely supportable, understandable, and fine.

You may levy the accusation of "cheater" if you'd like, but in order to do so in a supportable manner you must dismiss the previous paragraph as untrue and believe that there was either intent, or effect.

Remember, levying the accusation of someone being a "cheater" is specifically referencing a person skirting the rules for some sort of personal gain. Whether that's for performance reasons, or injury recovery, or some other form of benefit... that must hold true for someone to be a "cheater"...

You can "break the rules" without being a "cheater"... the personal conduct clauses are a common example of this. Those players may not be "cheaters" but they broke the rules of the CBA by getting a DUI, hitting their wife, getting in a fight, getting caught with illicit drugs and are therefore eligible for punishment.

I think my viewpoint is utterly reasonable, and I don't think I'm redefining anything here... you can't be a "cheater" while not actually "cheating"