I try to refrain from delving into sports-related topics, even though I am obsessed with all things sports, since this blog is primarily for political discussion. I can save my rants about the Cubs for a Chicago Cubs message board, and I can find a Packers board to write about my opinions on the latest NFL draft if need be. However, the obvious issue in sports today that crosses into the political spectrum would be the steroid epidemic, and with the controversial Barry Bonds on the doorstep of tying and surpassing Babe Ruth's career home run total, the topic is certainly timely.
With issues such as illegal immigration, the Iraq war, domestic wiretapping, and so many other hot buttons on their agenda, is it a wise investment of time for Congress to be directing attention toward the steroid controversy? I have heard many sports commentators ask that question, and most would agree that there are more pressing issues to be dealt with. There were already Congressional hearings on the matter, made famous by the emphatic (yet false) denials of Rafael Palmeiro and the bumbling, clumsy testimonies given by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. The hearings served their purpose, leading Major League Baseball to voluntarily clean up their act, with players and owners eventually agreeing to very harsh penalties for positive steroid tests (50 games for 1st offense, 100 games for 2nd offense, lifetime ban for a 3rd). However, if the owners and players union don't come to an agreement on a new labor contract by August 1st, the players union has until August 15th to unilaterally end the new drug policy, causing the rules to revert to the softer penalties of 2005. Based on that provision, the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, Tom Davis, sent a letter to Commissioner Bud Selig and Players Union director Donald Fehr, saying it raises "congressional concern."
Right now, I believe Congress will take a wait-and-see approach, since baseball still has time to lock in a long term agreement. However, if the drug policy reverts to the old rules, Congress will likely get involved, and I am all for that. Major League Baseball has been given every opportunity to govern themselves, but if the steroid policy has the teeth taken out of it, they will have shown an inability to handle the problem on their own. The reason this issue is so important is because it impacts our nation's young people. Baseball players, like it or not, are role models, and if steroid use is tolerated and rewarded, children and teenagers will be influenced to go the same route, putting their bodies in great peril later in their life. Baseball is an American institution, a treasured part of our culture, and Congress is not wasting time when they take measures to protect our youth and our culture.
Meanwhile, Barry Bonds, as stated earlier, is on the doorstep of tying and surpassing Babe Ruth in career home runs. He is one away from tying Ruth's 714 as of games completed on May 12. Bonds has never tested positive for steroids since testing was implemented, but the evidence overwhelmingly shows he used steroids when MLB players weren't tested yet. With 714 home runs being one of the great milestones in American sports, should Bonds' accomplishment be marked with an asterisk in record books due to the controversy hanging over his head? Apologists such as Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt say that they would have done the same thing if the drugs were available in their day, since players will do anything within the rules to gain an edge. What people fail to mention is that using anabolic steroids, outside of a few exceptions when prescribed by a doctor, is ILLEGAL! Does baseball need a rule to be able to punish something that is illegal in the United States to begin with? I highly doubt that baseball's rule book specifically bans murder, robbery, or other crimes; yet they can punish players for taking part in such activities. Why do they need a steroid policy to punish players, when players using steroids are engaging in criminal behavior to begin with? Would Mike Schmidt rob a bank in order to get a better contract, since baseball's rules didn't say he couldn't? Of course not! Illegal steroid use is a much less serious crime, but the same principles should apply! People just don't hit their athletic peak in their mid-to-late 30's, and the fact that only sluggers with substantial steroid suspicion hanging over their heads seem to find this fountain of youth shows that their records are most likely a sham. If Barry Bonds is found guilty of perjury, since he testified to a grand jury that he never knowingly took steroids and is now under investigation for those claims, he should be banned from baseball and have every record to his name wiped off the books. They should erase the Homerun Derby years put up by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa while they're at it! Regardless of what the historians choose to do, Congress should get involved if need be to protect our national pastime and our children. There is more than enough time in the day to address issues large and small. Watching one day of C-Span is proof enough that not all time is used on Iraq and immigration. In fact, some issues that are addressed throughout the day seem downright insignificant, so if they can find time to debate them, they can find time to debate steroids as well. It's not about infringing on private industry's rights, as some baseball people would claim, but rather it's an issue about enforcing law when a company refuses to do so on its own. If baseball wants to maintain its sovereignty on internal matters, and keep Congress out of it, they should hammer out an agreement without delay that makes the current steroid policy permanent. The integrity of the game, and the well being of our young hopefuls, depends on it.
With issues such as illegal immigration, the Iraq war, domestic wiretapping, and so many other hot buttons on their agenda, is it a wise investment of time for Congress to be directing attention toward the steroid controversy? I have heard many sports commentators ask that question, and most would agree that there are more pressing issues to be dealt with. There were already Congressional hearings on the matter, made famous by the emphatic (yet false) denials of Rafael Palmeiro and the bumbling, clumsy testimonies given by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. The hearings served their purpose, leading Major League Baseball to voluntarily clean up their act, with players and owners eventually agreeing to very harsh penalties for positive steroid tests (50 games for 1st offense, 100 games for 2nd offense, lifetime ban for a 3rd). However, if the owners and players union don't come to an agreement on a new labor contract by August 1st, the players union has until August 15th to unilaterally end the new drug policy, causing the rules to revert to the softer penalties of 2005. Based on that provision, the chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, Tom Davis, sent a letter to Commissioner Bud Selig and Players Union director Donald Fehr, saying it raises "congressional concern."
Right now, I believe Congress will take a wait-and-see approach, since baseball still has time to lock in a long term agreement. However, if the drug policy reverts to the old rules, Congress will likely get involved, and I am all for that. Major League Baseball has been given every opportunity to govern themselves, but if the steroid policy has the teeth taken out of it, they will have shown an inability to handle the problem on their own. The reason this issue is so important is because it impacts our nation's young people. Baseball players, like it or not, are role models, and if steroid use is tolerated and rewarded, children and teenagers will be influenced to go the same route, putting their bodies in great peril later in their life. Baseball is an American institution, a treasured part of our culture, and Congress is not wasting time when they take measures to protect our youth and our culture.
Meanwhile, Barry Bonds, as stated earlier, is on the doorstep of tying and surpassing Babe Ruth in career home runs. He is one away from tying Ruth's 714 as of games completed on May 12. Bonds has never tested positive for steroids since testing was implemented, but the evidence overwhelmingly shows he used steroids when MLB players weren't tested yet. With 714 home runs being one of the great milestones in American sports, should Bonds' accomplishment be marked with an asterisk in record books due to the controversy hanging over his head? Apologists such as Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt say that they would have done the same thing if the drugs were available in their day, since players will do anything within the rules to gain an edge. What people fail to mention is that using anabolic steroids, outside of a few exceptions when prescribed by a doctor, is ILLEGAL! Does baseball need a rule to be able to punish something that is illegal in the United States to begin with? I highly doubt that baseball's rule book specifically bans murder, robbery, or other crimes; yet they can punish players for taking part in such activities. Why do they need a steroid policy to punish players, when players using steroids are engaging in criminal behavior to begin with? Would Mike Schmidt rob a bank in order to get a better contract, since baseball's rules didn't say he couldn't? Of course not! Illegal steroid use is a much less serious crime, but the same principles should apply! People just don't hit their athletic peak in their mid-to-late 30's, and the fact that only sluggers with substantial steroid suspicion hanging over their heads seem to find this fountain of youth shows that their records are most likely a sham. If Barry Bonds is found guilty of perjury, since he testified to a grand jury that he never knowingly took steroids and is now under investigation for those claims, he should be banned from baseball and have every record to his name wiped off the books. They should erase the Homerun Derby years put up by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa while they're at it! Regardless of what the historians choose to do, Congress should get involved if need be to protect our national pastime and our children. There is more than enough time in the day to address issues large and small. Watching one day of C-Span is proof enough that not all time is used on Iraq and immigration. In fact, some issues that are addressed throughout the day seem downright insignificant, so if they can find time to debate them, they can find time to debate steroids as well. It's not about infringing on private industry's rights, as some baseball people would claim, but rather it's an issue about enforcing law when a company refuses to do so on its own. If baseball wants to maintain its sovereignty on internal matters, and keep Congress out of it, they should hammer out an agreement without delay that makes the current steroid policy permanent. The integrity of the game, and the well being of our young hopefuls, depends on it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home