Sure, integrity is subjective - up until the point that the person being accused of a lack of integrity has done something that affects us personally. If a person steals, lies, or hurts us or someone that is close to us, I'll bet most of us would say that what they did was wrong.
My point is this - if integrity is following a code of morals and ethics, then we're talking about right and wrong, good and evil. If those things are subjective, heaven help us all.
"Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways."
Right and wrong is subjective. Otherwise, we would throw people in the gas chamber for killing another person in self-defense. If a starving boy steals a loaf of bread so his family can eat, is that wrong? Do the means justify the end or does the end justify the means?
If you wanted to ensure there were no starving people in the world by killing 90% of the world's population or reduce pollution by blowing up a chemical plant, would you be right?
I am of the thinking that MLB, the media and myself are all in the wrong. MLB should have worked harder to identify and resolve the problem earlier which the media could have had such righteous indignation about it in the 90's. I should have been more demanding that players who go from hitting 40 to 60 homers each year should have received additional scrutinization.
I find nearly 0 fault with the players. Their teams and their league turned a blind eye but would have had no problem kicking them to the curb had they not been able to keep up with their counterparts. It would be similar to being upset at a fat kid after their parents ignored them going into the cookie jar for years.
What if, this generation of players had not used PED's and the sport was of the same relevance as hockey? Would this decline (and the associated loss of players to other sports) been worth it so a few athelets didn't take steroids?