March 18, 2005
Steroids in Baseball a Growing Problem?
So yesterday, Congress took time to invite baseball players up to Washington to chat. Sure we're a busy country with a war on terror, reforming social security, etc... but why not spend a day listening to baseball players lie about not taking steroids.
Steroid use without a prescription is illegal. Baseball has policies against steroid use, however steroid use is increasing every year. Does this mean that Congress needs to come in and interview players and come up with new rules for baseball?
Baseball clearly knows it has a problem with steroid use. Even before all this Congressional crap, they had players getting caught and then being embarassed by the media. It made the players look bad, and it makes baseball look bad. As a business, baseball understands if people think baseball is just a bunch of juiced up monkeys out there, people are going to say "professional baseball" the way they say "professional wrestling". No offense to Bernie or the WWE.
However, this doesn't mean that Congress has any right to go in and change what baseball is and does. Maybe the MLB does want to go in the direction of the WWE. Maybe they institute a policy that you can take a folding chair to home plate, but it is not the place of Congress to try and change their rules. However, if Congress brought up all the players to bring them up and charge them with illegal drug use and use them to bring down illegal drug rings, that would be a different story, but I don't think that's what happened yesterday.
Now I'm a strong believer in the power of the market, and I can see baseball enacting much tougher rules and launching new campaigns to earn the trust and viewership of fans. This would have happened with our without Congress. I think yesterday was just a way for Congress to get some face time on TV and make it look like they're actually doing something for the children. But I think it's absurd because quite frankly when I vote for a politician, I vote for his stance on political issues, not on baseball.
Posted by Bryant at March 18, 2005 09:33 AM
Comments
Wow, Bryant. I'm not sure I agree with you at all on this one, aside from the outrage at the attitude by which some politicians grandstanded. But as to the seriousness of the situation and the need for government to step in, it looks like we disagree.
Posted by: Taemin at March 18, 2005 02:50 PM
So Taemin, you're ok with Congress telling all business owners how they should run their business? I think I've heard of this before, and it failed in places like the Soviet Union and China.
Posted by: Bryant at March 18, 2005 04:31 PM
I'm saying it's okay for Congress to say that if MLB players break the law, a law for which all other normal citizens go to prison, but MLB players get 4 strikes before they're really out, that's a good thing.
Posted by: Taemin at March 18, 2005 05:47 PM
i agree with Taemin. i work out a lot and i know a lot of guys who have or do, do steriods.
At low doses it doesnt seem to bad but there is always a temptation to up the levels and more often than not that happens. i think kids need to be sent a message on this and if MLB isnt doing its job sending that message i am happy pollititions are.
second it sends the message that if you wanna compete you have to permenately damade your body. an athelete should not be forced to make such a chioce.....
bryant this is not socialism... and dissapointed you arent with it on this one...
Posted by: Jesse at March 19, 2005 11:56 PM
I can't believe you're going to let Congress buy you on this one.
If this was really about steroid use in kids, then Congress would have been focused on steroid use in kids. Instead they were focused on steroid use in Baseball. If they were worried about steroid use in role models for kids, why not do it for all sports? Why pick on Baseball?
What is Congress doing that is so new and so great? Don't you think baseball is on its way to cleaning itself up on its own anyways?
Also if you think it's ok for Congress to make rules for Baseball, What's your stance on government telling restaurants and bars that they have to be smoke free.
Posted by: Bryant at March 20, 2005 12:32 AM
Bryant, if you actually did any research on what MLB has, or more specifically HAS NOT done about steroids, you wouldn't be as adamant. MLB's drug policy is a joke. And the way they've conducted themselves to protect their superstars is an absolute sham.
You got served!
Posted by: Taemin at March 20, 2005 01:57 AM
Again, If you see my point, I don't care about MLB's drug policy, MLB's policy is not the business of Congress. Just because Congress wants to "Save the children" doesn't mean that they should start going in and changing the rules of private business.
What's preventing Congress from stopping here. Why not say that all baseball players must get drug tested every day, they must commit to at least 14 hours of volunteer service at schools every month. Team owners must donate at least 1% of earnings to drug enforcement programs.
I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with drugs in Baseball. I'm not defending what MLB has done or will do in the future. I'm saying that Congress shouldn't be in there deciding for them.
Posted by: Bryant at March 20, 2005 02:07 AM
Well, I'm glad we had that talk. Actual dialogue is always better than argument in the form of paragraphs.
Posted by: Taemin at March 20, 2005 02:30 AM
If you all would like to weigh in on this subject, I'm conducting an online survey on steroids in baseball.
You can take the survey at:
Steroids in Baseball Online Survey
And results are posted in real time at:
Steroids in Baseball Online Survey Results
Posted by: Janet at April 7, 2005 04:52 PM
Edmonton dominated the Carolina Hurricanes on Saturday night and the 4-0 margin in Game 6 makes it hard to imagine the Oilers not hoisting hockey's Holy Grail above their heads in less than 48 hours. And it would not come as any shock to see defenseman Chris Pronger, who had another 31-minute night, take the honors for the Conn Smythe Trophy as the playoff MVP.
Posted by: aloisaloia at June 21, 2006 02:27 PM
a prescription adipex without a without adipex prescription
Posted by: prescription a adipex without at May 31, 2007 09:19 AM