Might be because is never more than an equalizer. Theoretically most baseball players, like most human being's eyesight is 20/20, which is generally the target for Lasik if I'm not mistaken. It's not significantly different from a player getting a torn ligament repaired, or bone spurs removed, or having knee surgery or any other kind of procedure to repair something that players can probably play through. It is used to get them back to normal. Unlike PEDs or steroids that can give an already gifted player further advantage in physical strength or recovery times, Lasik cannot be used to give a person that already has 20/20 vision 20/10 or 20/5, or if it can, then that is the case in which it should be disallowed.

Johnson just had his eyes corrected to 20/10 with LASIK...they do as much good as they can possibly do...they don't stop at 20/20

The results of Lasik are kind of random, they do what they can, but websites I'm reading say to expect 20/40 vision, as good as 20/25 or 20/20. I think the 20/10 thing is a lucky fluke

That doesn't mean they aren't TRYING to get you more than 20/20 if they can. Players and their medical advisers will do anything...ANYTHING to get an edge and maximize their potential earnings. PEDs are just the latest in a long line of such treatments as amphetamines (taken by most of the players currently in the HOF), nutritional supplements, luxuries like personal masseurs and trainers (and you can't call THAT an equalizer...only the richest athletes can afford such things)...the list is much longer than this...just naming the things that come to mind.

"It is important that anyone considering LASIK have realistic expectations. LASIK allows people to perform most of their everyday tasks without corrective lenses. However, people looking for perfect vision without glasses or contacts run the risk of being disappointed. More than 90 percent of people who have LASIK achieve somewhere between 20/20 and 20/40 vision without glasses or contact lenses. If sharp, detailed 20/20 vision is essential for your job or leisure activities, consider whether 20/40 vision would be good enough for you.
You should be comfortable with the possibility that you may need a second surgery called a retreatment or that you might need to wear glasses for certain activities, such as reading or driving at night."

To say no to Lasik for Rob Johnson (assuming his vision prior was something worse than 20/40) would be the same as saying Adrian Beltre can't have his bone spurs removed, and Ken Griffey Jr. can't have his knees arthroscopically repaired. It's not the same as PEDs because a player that already has 20/20 vision cannot expect to benefit from it. And I would disagree about most players being able to afford personal masseurs and trainers, certainly those that are under team control would have trouble affording them, though masseurs and trainers would not be out of their reach as league minimum salary is $350,000, I can't imagine that a personal trainer, unless you were adhering firmly to them training only you, would not cost more than 20 or 30,000 dollars a year. So out of reach for most minor leaguers certainly, but not for major league athletes. And just so that no one continues to make the mistake, PEDs are not A drug, it is a catch all term for Performance Enhancing Drugs that include amphetamines and steroids, this includes legal baseball drugs such as cortisone. I'm not trying to shove that in your face, as obviously I made the same mistake, that's just for the sake of neither of us continuing to make the error.

The point I was making re: amphetamines was not that they were different re: PED labeling than steroids...I know they're included...the point was that we all love Hank Aaron and Mickey Mantle and Johnny Bench and Mike Schmidt unconditionally even though you had BETTER BELIEVE they were taking PEDs (greenies) to enhance their game. Sosa and McGwire were no different. Their drugs just worked a little better.

I think it has to revolve around the idea of a return to normal by general human standards. For the most part, a professional athlete devotes his or her life to being more physically capable than normal human beings, certainly there's natural talent to compliment that, but for most there still has to be a dedication to pushing that talent as far as it will go. A person can train to improve their muscles and reflexes, but eyesight is almost entirely out of their hands. Really, all you can do is try not to damage it and some people will still have it fade rapidly or never have it to begin with. Lasik is a surgery to repair damage, and I suppose that's what it comes down to, surgery is completely legal in baseball, I cannot think of a surgery that would be against the rules. What is illegal is the use of certain drugs, I think the better argument would be against the use of painkillers and anti-inflammatory drugs like cortisone. I agree, that eventually baseball has to bend one way or the other, outlawing all drugs, and then potentially all surgeries in an effort to keep hundred year old records pure, or we can accept that humanity, and the game of baseball itself, is evolving and allow at least the drugs that are considered legal by federal standards. Of course that kind of attitude should extend to other things such as instant replay, robot umpires, a DH in the National League and a restructuring of the divisions to allow for greater competition.

Great thread.
In response to the "dangers of steroids" note --- steroids are ROUTINELY used in various medical treatments. In some cases, they are prescribed long-term. The point here is that "when used properly" many of the worst dangers of steroids cited are either removed or severely limited.
One of the problems with the steroid issue of today is that it is too often takes on a nearly religious zealotry. Yes - ABUSING steroids is extremely dangerous. Same with alcohol. Same with aspirin. (dozens die of aspirin overdoses per year -- nobody has EVER died of a marijuana OD).
But, obviously, the worst-case scenario of aspirin use isn't the final arbiter of whether it is a legal drug or not.
A HUGE problem in America is that many of these drug laws are NOT being created as a response to medical experts - but are being written in response to any number of lobbies. (go back in history, and you'll see that the anti-pot laws were largely a result of a major push by ROPE manufacturers - whose goal was to destroy the Hemp competition on the market -- and they were successful by creating a drastically overstated fear of the substance. Prohibition can have legitimate concerns - but we've seen the cure can often be worse than the disease).
My view? I think any substance that "can be" used safely -- but which is dangerous when abused -- is ideal for being a perscription substance. And, I'd have no problem with every MLB player lining up to get their perscriptions as long as the substances were tightly monitored and regulated by the league.
Oh, you'll still have a few who might decide if a little is good, more is better, and cheat anyway. You do what you can to police that. But, you completely do away with the dangers of unknown suppliers. You remove the self-medicating problems. The question of "who is on, who is not" could be completely public. (No requirement to use them - so players could CHOOSE to pass).
In that scenario, I think you'd see steroids become a staple of injury recovery - but likely be less widely used (and mis-used) than they were in the 90's and 2000s.