Letters to the Editor
-
The weird thing about the Mitchell report
is that it makes allegations, but offers no forum for the players to defend themselves. If the players aren't disciplined (and doesn't the collective bargaining agreement require a positive drug test to discipline a player, not just an allegation of past drug use?), how can a player tell his side of the story? As it stands, there are just a bunch of self-serving statements by people with shady pasts. In Tejada's case, there are checks which corroborate the allegations, but still, shouldn't the accused have a forum in which to defend themselves?
-
The Bills?
Based on current win-loss records, of the next six best teams in the AFC, the Patriots have already played (and beaten) 5 of them. And out of that group, they've beaten the Bill twice. They have also beaten the team with the best record in the NFC, the Cowboys.
As a Bills fan, I'll say that using them as an example of 'good' team the Pats beat is a little silly. They've beat the Jets twice, the Dolphins twice, The Ravens, The Bengals, and the Redskins. Only the 'Skins are even close to a playoff spot.
-
Bud the Slug
I don't want to repeat what I've been saying about Bud Selig the last few days. Suffice it to say that he is a boob, and that to the extent baseball has prospered in the last few years, it is *despite*, not because, of Bud Selig.
But really, Selig's press conference sums up everything about what a buffoon Bud Selig is. Perhaps *this* is why Selig entirely ignored the most important point about Mitchell's report and recommendation (ie. amnesty):
Bud Selig did not read the report.
That's right - even though the report was commissioned by MLB, was the property of MLB, and was obviously subject to release at the convenience of MLB, Bud Selig admitted to not having read the entire report before it was released.
I would say it is hard to believe, except that given Selig's bumbling tenure, it is, in fact, very easy to believe.
-
Unfortunately...
There are so many unfortunate aspects of this:
* That players have been publicly named and excoriated without any legitimate means to defend themselves, and this from testimony that is either hearsay or compromised (to avoid jail time).
* That those of us who follow and care about baseball are, at the same time, unsurprised at both the number of players named and, in many cases, the specific players named.
* That we are so far from the END of the steroid era it's not even funny.
* That Bud Selig continues to operate with the double-standards of that guy who cheats on his girlfriend with impunity, but at the first whiff of her infidelity dumps her ass and tells everyone she was a 'slut.'
* That the onus of responsibility falls equally on the Players Association AND ownership, and that the likelihood of them coming together on this issue is, oh, about nil.
* That whether or not we approve of steroids or think their use is inconsequential, until there is a better system of testing, the only fair assumption in baseball is that EVERYONE is on steroids. (This last point is where I do believe that it is up to CLEAN players to speak up and loudly.)
-
Why is this such a big deal?
I've never understood what the fuss is really about. Can someone explain it to me?
I've heard that it is unfair to the other players. But I don't think sports are supposed to be fair. If Player A is simply a better athlete than Player B, how is that fair? How is it ever fair to go to the World Series and lose?
I've also heard that we have to oppose this sort of behavior, because otherwise we're teaching our children that this is the right way to compete in the world. But if that were the case, why do we lionize other behavior that we would be desperately unhappy to see our kids emulate? Who would want to see a Little League player keep pitching on a bloody ankle, like Curt Schilling did? What kind of parent would be unconflicted on hearing that their child plans to become a professional hockey defenseman or football linebacker, or god forbid, a boxer?
And what exactly is a drug, anyway? Suppose it were discovered that hERG channel blockers could improve athletic performance by improving cardiac efficiency. (Unlikely, but bear with me.) Naringin, which is a hERG channel blocker, would then presumably be classified as a "performance enhancing substance." But naringin is found naturally in grapefruit juice. Would drinking 20 glasses of grapefruit juice before a game then be considered doping? If so, how do we know that Babe Ruth didn't drink a lot of grapefruit juice, which might have gone unremarked-on at the time? If it were later discovered that Babe Ruth did drink a lot of grapefruit juice, which we now consider a performance enhancing substance, would we have to take away his home run record?
Or suppose it was discovered that you could permanently increase your metabolically-produced HGH levels by hanging upside down in a cave in Tibet for two weeks. Would this be OK because it isn't a substance? What if the HGH levels for players on the Tibet plan exceeded the amount found in players taking injections? Is it the act of injecting something, not the chemical itself, that is bad? If so, what about a player who gets an injected flu shot, which prevents him from missing 20 games because of the flu bug he failed to catch - surely a major boost to his performance?
Or is it only synthetic drugs that get us upset? And if we don't like synthetic drugs, what about the protein shakes that bodybuilders use, which are full of synthetic chemicals? How is HGH a drug but myosin is not?
So I just don't get it. If a player wants to use HGH, steroids etc. as part of their training regimen, I just don't see why we should get so upset about it. Here's hoping someone can clue me in, because I seem to be out in left field on this one.