New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | December 8, 2004

In a chilling chronology of the anti-steroid crusade, Matt Welch sets an example for startup companies, impolite athletes, and others who are eligible to have their reputations destroyed by grand jury leaks, vaporware criminal investigations, and malicious federal agencies.

Comments

|12.8.04 @ 6:23PM|#

Word has it that Martha Stewart will be getting a new TV show when she gets out of prison. I hope that that stupid woman has learned her lesson, just like Bonds needs to learn his lesson:

When you're successful, you damn well better give to both major parties generously if you want to avoid the witch-hunt.

|12.8.04 @ 6:28PM|#

Talk about things that get my blood boiling. I cannot believe the ignorance and hysteria coming out of this whole thing. I've posted it before, if they're worried about integrity in sports, they need to look at their past, for one (Ty Cobb wasn't exactly a stand-up citizen, in baseball's case), and the whole nature of enhancing performance. Not even 20 years ago, players did not work out like they do now, they didn't have personal trainers showing them exactly how and when to exercise, what to eat, when to eat, computers to show players exactly how to improve skating stride in ice hockey or bat swinging in baseball, etc, etc, etc. So the 'playing field' has not been level for a long time.

Another thing Matt mentions - if these drugs can be beneficial to us mortals who aren't pro athletes, why shouldn't athletes be allowed to use them?

Someone on this message board said that teams have an interest in the health of their players. That is a dubious statement - they often force their players to return from injuries too soon or to undergo surgeries that will not be good for the athletes long-term health. So I wouldn't be surprised if teams haven't surreptitiously pushed performance enhancing drugs on athletes, either. But let's assume that steroids do somehow threaten the health of athletes (another dubious statement). Shouldn't the use of them then be out in the open so that the theory can be tested? I think one area where athletes may risk their health is through growing muscle mass too quickly and not allowing tendons and bones to catch up. So allow steroids, but have full disclosure. That way, you could more easily track the effects steroids have, adversely or no. (Yes, I realise plenty of players would still try to game the system, but it would still be better than this banning bullshit.)

Anyway, enough ranting for now. Any other thoughts? :)

|12.8.04 @ 6:37PM|#

This reminds me of the need for "Separation of People and State." Baseball is supposed to be a private entity (though they soak the public for taxes to build their offices).

I used to actually like Senator McCain, before I actually saw some of the things he supports at work. The media has built him up to demi-god status. reason should do an article to de-throne him before he can run for president!

|12.8.04 @ 7:03PM|#

The part that really gets me is this:

"'The tragedy of so-called performance-enhancing drugs is that they foster the lie that excellence can be bought rather than earned'"

I thought that was the whole point of money as a store of value. If I want Prada sandals, I work hard, save some money and buy them, it's not shamefull. Their logic would have me capture a wild cow, feed it with grain I grow myself, kill the cow, process the leather... You get the point. People creat stuff, if people like said stuff or stuff's effects they buy it. What's so horrible about that?

|12.8.04 @ 7:24PM|#

Oh yeah, another point I wanted to make:

Ok, Giambi admits to using steroids. I was watching some national news channel the other night, and they seemed to be implying that you either work hard to become a professional athlete, or you "cheat" and take steroids. I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt that Mr Giambi did not also work his ass off to become a major league baseball player. It's not like taking steroids pumps you up without hard exercise and let's you hit a baseball without practising at it over and over and over...

|12.8.04 @ 7:30PM|#

'The tragedy of so-called performance-enhancing drugs is that they foster the lie that excellence can be bought rather than earned'

I suppose we should ban private weight training, workout videos, tennis lessons, little league baseball, batting cages, golf ranges, and all the other things that people pay for to help them play sports better. Also, all athletes should be forced to subsist on a diet consisting solely of bread and water.

It's the only way to show kids that excellence can't be bought. It might seem harsh, but I refuse to allow our children to be corrupted by money in sports.

PS, I'm not an athlete, so none of this applies to me.

|12.8.04 @ 8:34PM|#

She's a witch, burn her!

They dressed me up like this.

continue Monty Python joke....

I personally think Bonds did knowingly use steroids (no human head grows that much at age 36), but I detest the witch hunt.

There was a funny article on ESPN determining the new home run champ by eliminating all the unfair advantages players had in different season. They eliminated anyone in the live ball era (post-93), anyone that played before integration (or sufficient integration), steroid suspects and expansion year home run bursts. The new home run king had 49, I believe.

I like the idea of allowing a certain amount of juicing. Players would then be tested to see that they are within a safe level and are monitored by a doctor. It also levels the playing field a bit and everyone knows where they stand. There will, of course, be gaming of the system, but at least it will be safely monitored.

|12.8.04 @ 8:39PM|#

Yeah Mo, I saw that, too. I thought it was a perfect article against all the hysteria.

My local paper (the AZ Republic[an]) had a rant saying we should use the players as steroid guinea pigs (which I sorta mentioned above and could definitely agree with), but then degenerated into an "integrity of the game" and how if the players didn't care about it, why should 'we' arguement.

|12.8.04 @ 11:07PM|#

"SHe's a witch...."

My history book *says* the Middle Ages ended long, long ago. It says "religion was displaced by science" too.

[sniff, sniff] Somebody lied to me....

If there's any republican worse than Bush, it's got to be McCain.

|12.9.04 @ 2:12AM|#

Anabolic Steroids Control Act in 1990, classifying steroids as "Schedule III" drugs, same as amphetamines and morphine.

Amphetamines and morphine are schedule II not III. Otherwise very good article.

Highway|12.9.04 @ 9:01AM|#

I also think a lot of the drive to vilify Bonds is because he's fast approaching Hank Aaron's career home-run record, and will probably break it. From what I've seen in baseball, there's a love-hate relationship with record breakers, especially major ones like that that show amazing amounts of skill and talent. Therefore you see all the attempts to 'asterisk' new records: the 'live ball' arguments, smaller parks, diluted pitching. Now it's juiced players. Baseball is incredibly focused on the past. Heck, every situation is compared to past performances: "Well, the last 4 times he was at bat with 2 outs in the top of the 8th inning with runners on the corners and down 1 and 2 in the count he struck out." So there's quite a few people who don't want to see the old records broken, don't want to see the heroes they've worshipped for years taken off the top of the pedestal.

|12.9.04 @ 10:24AM|#

pint of stout is correct about McCain, he has some alarming Ross Perot tendencies that could become fully evident in the months/years to come as the media treats him like a frontrunner.

Highway, statistical analysis of hitting (by Bill James) of 1000s of players across all eras demonstrates that the vast majority peak in their late 20's. It immediately raises eyebrows that Bonds, a solid, productive hitter for 10+ years, suddenly explodes into the greatest 5 year stretch of power hitting EVER starting at age 35...this combined with a 40-50 lbs. of lean weight gain (in his 30's) makes Bonds fair play for speculation.

Plus from the PR side he's an asshole of Cobb-esque proportions, he is making his own bed in this regard.

Bonds is the best hitter ever, sorry Teddy Ballgame. Ruth, by virtue of the fact that he was a dominant pitcher before being one of the 4 best hitters in history, is the best player ever.

James Anderson Merritt|12.9.04 @ 10:49AM|#

What I don't understand is how McCain gets away with threatening baseball with "action" unless they get the steroids situation under control, apparently to his satisfaction. I suppose prior legislation, exempting baseball from antitrust, may be the stick used this time: do things our way or lose your cushy situation.

Other than that, does Congress have any authority to regulate steroid use in baseball? Will McCain make an "interstate commerce" argument to justify his threatened intervention?

How does anyone take McCain seriously, when he seems so willing to fixate on trivial concerns and pursue what are very probably unconstitutional remedies?

|12.9.04 @ 11:10AM|#

I can�t believe it, but I find myself sorely disappointed in a Reason product.

These comments are directed at points made in the article and on the message board, and some other thoughts, in no particular order.

1) The problem with a �witch hunt� derives from the fact that there is no such thing as a witch. It is an impossible pursuit. Applying simple mosaic theory to items of plain observation and other public knowledge (not superstition w/r/t the unknown) can lead the most casual observer to the obvious conclusion of guilt with respect to certain players. This is not a witch hunt.
2) Whether intended or not, the article projects an air of high-toned innocence that is entirely inappropriate. Also, to my knowledge, there have been no illegal wiretaps, sneak-and-peek searches, or other abusive practices of that sort in this case.
3) ��That's it. No charge of illegal possession or use or conspiracy, no hint (so far) of perjury, no indication that he ever broke any Major League Baseball rules. Still, it was enough for the nation's editorial boards to wag their disapproving fingers��

Look there�s nothing wrong with initially presuming innocence, but if you hear a tree fall in the forest, just because you didn�t see it doesn�t mean it didn�t happen.
4) I agree that Congress has no place in this. They are too cowardly to address issues appropriate to their domain and so they put their face on TV to talk about what the public is talking about. It�s like the total loser in high school awkwardly and randomly interjecting himself into a conversation that the cool kids were already having without him. Nothing new here. It�s OK to comment as a baseball fan, but not as a lawmaker.
5) I don�t believe any drug should be illegal, so I can�t agree with initiation of the investigation on legal grounds. As a baseball fan (and an asshole purist to boot) I couldn�t be more thrilled at the results of the investigation thus far. I am feeling irreconcilably conflicted.
6) Selig, Fehr, and Orza are all moral deformities of the human race, along with many owners and players. This makes it impossible to take a side. Why would the MLBPA fight so hard against measures to preserve the integrity of the game? It�s because they feel the need to protect the rich and privileged at the expense of the common masses trying to make it big by honest efforts (this is truth, not Marx). The owners are in the lucky position to claim ignorance, which I think works out OK because I doubt owners had an active hand in anything. Also, this is a union that very much needs to be beaten into submission.
7) Crimethink, you fail to acknowledge the distinction between the natural and the manufactured. We use weights because they are functionally better than paint cans tied to a tree branch. The comparison between a protein shake and a steroid used for non-medical purpose is vastly different.
8) Health of the player is a bogus argument, otherwise there should be league sanction against alcohol abuse.
9) A league where roids are allowed is a fine idea, but that it not an excuse for breaking the rules of a league where it is not allowed. This is no different than deliberately setting up a testing policy designed to catch the few who are dumb enough not to figure a way around it. (which apparently makes up 7% of players.) It�s the same as political gerrymandering and it is an abomination of principle. Start your own fucking league or change the rules by democratic process.

|12.9.04 @ 11:42AM|#

I kind of wish that McCain would have stayed in vietnam. anyways maybe bonds will turn libertarian. power corrupts - lord acton

|12.9.04 @ 12:01PM|#

...you fail to acknowledge the distinction between the natural and the manufactured. We use weights because they are functionally better than paint cans tied to a tree branch. The comparison between a protein shake and a steroid used for non-medical purpose is vastly different.

Not really. The level of advancement made in protein manufacture has been huge. It would be highly questionable to argue that the level of gains in athletics possible today aren't due at least as much to nutrition science as "non-food" chemicals.

Interesting fact for the day: In Thailand, where steroids are available over the counter, protein powder is completely illegal.

|12.9.04 @ 12:09PM|#

As Great Ape implied it looks like Bonds broke the rules. Stupid rules perhaps, but he agreed to abide by the rules of the league he plays in. As all libertarians know that is altogether different than breaking certain stupid laws enacted by the government you live under.

On a purely subjective basis I don't feel sorry for Bonds like I did when McGwyer was hit with the accusations of steroid use, thus proving that it's tough to gather honey if you kick over the frikkin' bee hive Mr. Bonds.

|12.9.04 @ 12:29PM|#

I don't know HTML, so please excuse the lack of italics. From Pavel:

"The level of advancement made in protein manufacture has been huge. It would be highly questionable to argue that the level of gains in athletics possible today aren't due at least as much to nutrition science as "non-food" chemicals"

Not the case. Nutrition science is really nothing more than designing highly refined and efficient delivery systems for synthetic replicants of what already exists in regular food products. For example, creatine is abundant in raw meat (red in particular). It diasappears once cooked.

Steriods cause supernormal growth nobody could hope to achieve by conventional means. For two convescutive summers I was able to add 15lbs of lean, athletic muscle over a 3-month period through a self-designed and eating and training program that was extremely rigorous and detailed. If I wasn't also working a regular job, I would say 18-23 would be absolute most I could accomplish. Someone or roids could accomplish the same in 4 weeks.

Matt|12.9.04 @ 12:32PM|#

So George Bush is after Barry Bonds, now. My goodness, the abuse of government power never ends.

The grand jury leaks are troubling. No more than troubling, because as "smears" go, the ones that are true are hardest to get all riled up about. Giambi publicly denied steroid use several times; under oath, he admitted the truth. The sacrosanctity of grand jury proceedings notwithstanding, it's hard to muster outrage over Giambi getting caught in several very public lies.

McCain ought to have a lot more important things to worry about, yes, but to answer the question of what Congress has to do with it, Congress has affirmatively exempted baseball from antitrust laws, and can revoke that exemption if it wants. Maybe that sucks, but that's the answer as to what Congress has to do with anything here, not Moe Berg.

Neither Giambi nor Bonds has so much as broken a Major League Baseball rule; they may not (for all we know) have even tested positive for steroids, because under the CBA those who test positive are supposed to get a warning, counselling and remain anonymous. They've broken no laws; they were granted immunity from prosecution for anything but perjury in exchange for their grand jury testimony.

But they ought not to be using steroids. Many Major Legue Baseball players agree. So long as a substantial number (whatever number that is, I don't know) of MLB players choose NOT to dope up, they are fully entitled to insist on a level playing field. Diet, exercise, weight training, batting practice, none of these things have possible untoward health consequences. There ought to be equal access to advantages, and no one should be disadvantaged by a *choice* not to use steroids, fearing for their health.

The commentor who said that it's not either/or, either you work hard, have talent and hone you skills or "cheat" and us steroids, is right on. Without exception, every person playing Major League Baseball has worked extraordinarily hard and honed their skills significantly. They're entitled to play against others who have done the same thing, and no more.

George Bush's vendetta against Barry Bonds notwithstanding. (I can't stop shaking my head over that piece of work)

|12.9.04 @ 3:03PM|#

I agree with Great Ape (never thought I'd type those words) when he says:

As a baseball fan (and an asshole purist to boot) I couldn?t be more thrilled at the results of the investigation thus far. I am feeling irreconcilably conflicted.

That about sums it up for me also, for better or for worse. I despise gubment's involvement here, but certainly don't like where the sport is headed. It just cheapens the whole thing.

While I'm all for presumed innocence Welch, I hope you're not suggesting Bonds isn't juiced. The dude's noggin doubled in size in a couple of hears. To quote from a movie, it's like Sputnik. It reminds me of Griffey's head in that classic Simpson's baseball episode.

|12.9.04 @ 6:05PM|#

Bravo Matt!