100% healthy as in not needing any drugs to perform.
<<But why is using drugs to enhance muscle growth or stamina questionable?>>
By "questionable" I meant it's hard to determine when the drug is meant to alleviate a temporary disability due to injury or illness and when it's meant to enhance performance, as for example, by enhancing muscle growth or stamina. The point I was trying to make was that if you let some drugs in for some purposes, it's inevitably going to lead to arguments over whether or not they're necessary for the alleviation of temporary disability or not.
If you accept that the purpose of using the drugs was to enhance muscle growth or stamina, that's not questionable, it's objectionable. If I watch a sporting event (which I admit is a very rare occurrence for me, probably less than once in two or three years will I watch any match from start to finish, usually the most I can take is about ten minutes three or four times a year) I really appreciate the natural skill and strength of the athletes; I just wouldn't feel the same admiration for a performance if I felt it was due to chemicals. That's because I feel with the right kind of chemical cocktail in his blood, a really mediocre athlete could achieve levels of performance that would appear impressive to a spectator - - maybe the guy I'm watching wouldn't be so impressive if I knew I was watching the steroids performing, and not him.
Maybe at some level the thrill of watching a sporting event is vicarious achievement - - I get to be, or 10% of my conscious being gets to be, that left fielder leaping up to make the catch before the ball sails over the wall, and some of the thrill of the accomplishment gets appropriated by me. If I knew the guy was on coke or steroids, I'd probably be thinking, BFD, give me what he's on, and I'd jump up and catch it with my teeth. So all the enjoyment of vicarious achievement is gone.