<-The Dark Knight Looks Awesome (Updated!) |Main|Don't Call Me Ishmael->

Kill 'Em All

December 16, 2007 7:40 PM

probably know as little about baseball as it is possible to know while still being able to correctly identify a baseball game in progress. There are bats involved, I think. And something about grand slams, although baseball grand slams apparently have nothing to do with breakfast items at Denny's. In any event, I don't know anything about baseball and I think it's a boring fucking sport and I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a baseball glove than watch baseball.

While watching the Packers game today, the issue of the Mitchell Report came up. But I've read about the Mitchell Report and I've heard about how tons of players were on it. I've also read this story about how no one seems to care about the contents of the report. And, frankly, I'm appalled. I said it this afternoon, and I'll repeat it here: anyone and everyone who can be proven to have taken performance-enhancing drugs in a manner that is inconsistent with strict physician-appointed therapy should be fired from baseball and the game should proceed as if that person never played.

The sense I get from being someone who hates baseball but nonetheless occasionally hears baseball-related stories is that lots of people take steroids but very few are punished. Why then, I wonder, does major-league baseball even attempt to regulate steroids? There doesn't seem to be much of a purpose to saying that you shouldn't take steroids if those that are caught doing so receive, at most, some nominal fine. The most egregious example I can think of is Barry Bonds. The fact that he's still being paid to play the sport is ridiculous. If the league is serious about wanting to outlaw steroids, then they should make the penalties meaningful.

But more than that, I don't think that the point of professional baseball--or, hopefully, any pro sport--is to see what roided-out athletes can do. I thought--I hope--that the point is to see what dedicated and talented human beings can do when pushed to the limit. As far as I'm concerned, using steroids isn't merely a betrayal of self or of one's team or even of the game as a whole. Rather, it's a betrayal of the fans. It's awesome to see, for example, Michael Jordan jump and hang in the air for what seems like minutes or Brett Favre throw a touchdown pass while there are six giant defenders breathing down his neck. And I'm not even a casual sports fan. There are people who have invested their entire lives in following a single player or team. Cheating cheats all fans of the honest, human competition their investment entitles them to.

Moreover, even though I think it's too bad that this is the case, professional athletes are role models for millions of children. Allowing scores of players to go unpunished for something that both violates the league's rules and--more importantly--is fundamentally dishonest sends the message that it's ok to cheat as long as everyone else is cheating, too.

Therefore, I firmly believe that everyone on the Mitchell Report that cannot provide some legitimate medical explanation for their use of banned substances--or substances that they knew were likely to be banned soon--should be kicked out of professional baseball forever and have all of their records and honors revoked. They don't deserve to be recognized for being excellent when their excellence comes from a pill or a syringe. So there.



9 Comments


Anonymouse said:

I understand your displeasure with the steroid business, but I think you have some facts mixed up. Baseball now has a testing program, albeit one with some problems (players tested infrequently, and allegedly sometimes with advanced notice). If a player tests positive, or the Commissioner learns that the player has used performance enhancing drugs, that player faces a minimum of a 50-game suspension. The Mitchell report deals more with the use of performance enhancing drugs before the players union and league agreed to the testing and ban procedure. That said, I think Mitchell correctly pointed out that the drugs were illegal in that the collective bargaining agreement forbid the use of illegal drugs. Anyway, I doubt that you really care about the nitty gritty details.

Having said that, I think the emphasis on baseball is a little silly. Look at football players. Do you think it's natural to weigh 285 pounds and have 5% body fat? Hell no, it's as chemically enhanced as can be. But there are D-linemen like that. My point is that baseball has rightly or wrongly been singled out publicly while the NBA, NFL, and NHL have gotten off with just as many cheaters. I don't say that to justify the baseball cheaters, but instead to say that the animosity and focus on baseball is a little misplaced. Baseball doesn't have a culture of drugs or cheating. Sports have a culture of drugs and cheating. Even the Olympics, which has the most strict drug policy, has tons of cheaters. Look at Marion Jones (ironically, one of her medals might end up going to a Greek woman who missed a drug test, probably because she was doping too). She wouldn't have been caught if not for the Balco controversy tied to Barry Bonds.

December 16, 2007 10:17 PM



Ismael Tapia II said:

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I actually do care about the details, since I'm coming at this mosty from a broad-strokes sort of perspective.

Your point about the culture of cheating being pro-sports wide is well taken, and I have to say that I'd support extreme sanctions for any player in any sport that got caught using performance-enhancing drugs. My post is just a reaction to the fact that, as you concede, baseball gets the most attention in this respect. Whether it deserves that attention and reputation is a different discussion, but there's been a lot of talk about the Mitchell Report lately and that's what I chose to focus on.

As for Marion Jones, it's really too bad that all of her accomplishments were the result of some external substance rather than personal drive and determination, and I think stripping her of her medals is perfectly appropriate.

December 17, 2007 12:12 AM



tRJ said:

I agree. Anyone who takes a performance-enhancing drug that is prohibited by their sport's regulatory body, or by law, should be ejected from the sport.

People get all touchy about people making mistakes, and how a stiff penalty would ruin their livelihood. Then don't cheat. It's that simple.

These people are paid a pile of money to play a game. They are living a life that many want, but few will ever know. It is a privilege and it should be treated as such.

Of course the real problem is that athletes make too much money. The lure of a multi-year, multi-million-dollar contract (or a world record, or a medal, whatever) is obviously enough to drive these people to cheat.

The solution: pay the athletes less. You pay them a low enough wage, you'd start to see more people play it for the love of the game than for the paycheck.

December 17, 2007 11:27 AM



Ismael Tapia II said:

See, I agree with everything you say except the stuff about athletes getting paid too much. The pro-sports industry generates billions of dollars in revenue. While there are countless marketing gimmicks contribute to that figure that aren't directly related to the actual playing of whatever game, none of them would exist without the game itself. Not very many people would buy a jersey for a nonexistent team, for example. Regardless of how easy it might be to lose sight of this fact, professional sports are mostly about the games being played. And those games need players.

It is the players that put their bodies on the line every day. They're the ones that work hardest to make sure that the team succeeds. They're the ones who risk ridiculous injuries on an almost daily basis. And they're the ones that bring people to the stadiums and sell jerseys. They're the ones making the plays, taking the shots, and signing the autographs.

Lots of people see movies just because they star Will Smith or George Clooney; no one goes to a movie just because the Weinsteins produced it. By the same token, people tune in to see Brett Favre or LeBron James; no one follows a team just because some internet millionaire owns it. It is the players that produce the content the fans want. The whole thing is based on their contribution. Therefore, I think, they deserve the lion's share of the spoils. To argue otherwise is to say that it's acceptable and correct for managers to make more than bands, publishers to make more than authors, and producers to make more than writers.

December 17, 2007 9:20 PM



Anonymouse said:

Wow, I agree with both of you. Well, sort of. Before I get to that, I have to ask, what happened to Cap'n Capitalism? Mr. Free Market Economy, where have you gone? Of course the players are over paid. However the sports are generating obscene revenues. Personally, I think it's messed up that both the owners and players are so greedy that no one looks out for the interests of the fans. I wish tickets to these events were cheaper. But people will pay the prices, so I guess the tickets are worth it. I can't really imagine paying to go to a NFL or NHL game at this point, it's not worth it. I certainly won't go to an NBA game, since I detest that league and can't comprehend it's popularity. If the money's out there though, I think the players deserve more than the owners.

As for serious repercussions for cheaters. Sure, I guess. Except that most of the most beloved people from sports were cheaters. This is particularly true in baseball. Sure, the cheating was different, but the effects might not have been that different. The spitball? Cheating. Corked bats? Cheating (and dumb, unless you just need to get back into the swing of things and make contact--corked bats cost the player power). Scuffed balls? Sure. So that leaves me asking: are steroids different? I think they are, but only because they are illegal, and unlike many drugs they aren't addictive. I believe in second chances. Brett Favre was addicted to pain killers. He obtained them illegally. He dealt with his addiction, and as far as we know he's clean. How did he get hooked, he got hurt and got a prescription. I'm even willing to give the Daryl Strawberry's of the world second chances. Steve Howe, on the other hand, not so much. I guess where I come out on all of this is that I'm not comfortable with the idea of banning someone for life. Particularly not when so many players from one era were left with the hobsons choice of taking steroids or losing out to players who did. I like the olympics approach. Two year bans, and if you still have what it takes, you can apply for reinstatement.

December 17, 2007 10:35 PM



Ismael Tapia II said:

See, Anonymouse, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that some of the most famous players in a sport were notorious cheaters means that there is something severely wrong with the system. The point of pro sports, as least as I understand it, is to get together the people that are best at some sport and have them compete. It's not about cheating, it's about seeing who's honestly the best, and the drama that comes along with that determination. If professional sports leagues want to allow their players to enhance their performance through chemicals, that's cool, but they should just be up front about it. By tacitly allowing cheating, the whole thing is not only an insult to fans and noncheaters, but it's also just a lie. So these organizations should decide whether to allow doping or not and, if they decide not to, then they need to enforce the shit out of those rules so that they actually mean something and so that, in turn, the competitions aren't just battles to see who can take the most steroids.

I don't think players should get a second chance because--c'mon--you know you're breaking the rules when you take steroids. Addiction to what was once a legitimately required medical substance might be one thing, but Barry Bonds was never prescribed steroids. There might be gray areas, but I think a general no-tolerance policy would be the most effective way of sending the message to both the players and the fans that look up to them.

December 18, 2007 6:36 PM



Anonymouse said:

By the way, this makes me think of that old SNL skit: the All Drugs Olympics. "He actually pulled his arms off." Simply classic.

December 18, 2007 8:32 PM



Ismael Tapia II said:

Oh man. It's almost impossible for me to remember that SNL was ever that good. I wonder if they'll ever be good again or if they'll get canceled during this suck-fest. If they're going to turn it around, they're going to need to kill that guy from Nickelodeon.

December 19, 2007 12:03 AM



estefanita said:

here here! I agree with the initial blog. cheaters suck and the whole sports industry not only the players get paid way too much. When did the national past time become the wealthy's past time? Thats why I like NCAA sports...the players play more from the heart.

December 19, 2007 10:09 AM



Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.