More on the Steroid Controversy

I was thinking of an interesting question regarding the steroid controversy today. As groundwork, let me take the paradigm case of Albert Puhols. Puhols is a guy I have always been willing to assume is not on 'Roids. He is huge, but he just seems to have that body type, and he has always just seemed too clean-cut to be roided up. Maybe I am just naive.
But make the leap with me for a moment and assume he is clean. Now, Albert Puhols' income is based in large part on his image (read: Endorsements). That means that the difference between him being on 'roids or not on 'roids is a swing of millions of dollars. Literally millions. Even the slightest suspicion of 'roids costs him money. Conversely, if Puhols could create certainty in the minds of the public that he was clean, it could be a huge financial boon for him.
Given this, why doesn't Puhols (whom we are assuming for the moment is clean) pay an independent company to test him three times a week? (or every day, whatever) Then he could turn around and issue those results to the media, and people would KNOW he was clean. Any player who did this would instantly become my favorite player in the league, and I imagine other fans feel the same way.
In discussing this issue with people, there are two common objections to this point. The first is that he feels that the need to do this is an invasion of his privacy. The second is that he has too much pride, that he feels he is above the need to do this.
The first objection has some legitimacy if the question is whether MLB should FORCE players to undergo this kind of testing. Everyday tests seem invasive and over-the-top. But, if Puhols is VOLUNTARILY testing himself, then the privacy question should not apply. He is, in this narrow way, selling his privacy at the price of a reputation, a trade which it seems to me a professional athelete should be happy to make.
The second, pride, is really no objection at all. If Puhols feels it is demeaning to submit daily urine tests, fine. How much more of an affront is it if people think he is cheating when he isn't? Shouldn't his pride be in the body he has made for himself without the use of artificial substances?
The argument is even more extreme, but to my mind more clear, for something like Cycling. They already test those atheletes on a daily basis, so it is clear that they are not on 'roids. But, it is impossible to test for things like blood doping and HGH.
However, what if an athelete (call him Lance, whom I know is retired now, but he could have done this during his wins) were to pay an independent testing company to follow him around 24 hours a day for three weeks before the race? He goes to the bathroom, they follow him. He goes to the doctor, they follow him. I mean EVERYWHERE. Then they continue to follow him during the race, to make SURE he isn't putting anything into his body. That way we KNOW he is clean.
I won't rehash the same arguments I just made for Puhols, but they all apply. Are these measures extreme? Of course they are. But these are the highest paid, most scrutinized atheletes on the planet. And although extreme, these methods are one way to ensure the sanctity of their reputations.
I just get so sick of these atheletes bitching about how everyone is so suspicious of them, and how they don't deserve it, and how the media is treating them so horribly. If any of them are reading this, follow my advice for a guaranteed stellar reputation. Provided you are really as clean as you say you are.

The Student-Athlete: Unpaid Labor?

Rhett Bomar, erstwhile Oklahoma Sooners QB, was recently dismissed from the team for accepting full time pay from a car dealership where he worked... well, considerably less than full time. Sounds like Bomar would hop over to the dealership on his way to practice to clock in, then go play some football, come back and clock out.

At the end of the day, very little about this story surprises me, other than the unfortunate fact that Bomar and his roommate (starting guard JD Quinn) got caught. The fact is, NCAA rules violations like this happen all the time and usually nothing comes of them. With so many schools to deal with and so many "student"-athletes to monitor, there's no way the governing body could successfully keep tabs on even just the players in the two majors (basketball and football) much less all college sports participants.

What the story did do is make me retread an argument I've had with myself countless times over the last several years. Specifically, whether college athletes should be compensated for playing - by their schools, not illegally at a car dealership. And it continues to be an interesting and many-faceted issue.

Some facets: (Pro A) The NCAA and its schools make money - boatloads of it - from the exploits of their "student"-athletes, so why should the athletes not reap some of these benefits? (Pro B) Perhaps a yearly stipend for athletic participation would discourage folks like Bomar from accepting money they don't deserve. (Con A) You think Title IX inspires controversy? Just wait until 'Bama pays each football player ten times as much as the entire women's soccer team. (Con B) Paying these kids would rob college athletics of the "purity" that makes it so appealing to many fans - though that purity is sullied more and more with every Rhett Bomar and JD Quinn.

Some would say that scholarships are the greatest form of payment a "student"-athlete can receive, and obviously the scholarship system is firmly in place. It's hard for me to see that as salary, though - simply put, the average football or basketball scholarship student has no interest whatsoever in academics, so the scholarship money is tantamount to a ticket for approximately three study-free years on campus.

Frankly, though I truly believe college athletes deserve some further compensation, it's difficult to conceive of a way to do it properly. I've toyed with some theories - attach earning potential to grades, give every D-1 college athlete an NCAA-designated amount, determine "salary" by the revenue a particular sport generates, etc. - but each has significant and serious problems.

In the end, I guess I'm saying no to compensating college athletes for their services. Too bad more college athletes can't say no to those who offer it illegally.

Let's get the Steroids on the table...

I was thinking about Floyd Landis (Tour de France winner, for anyone who thinks cycling is a sissy sport) and David Ortiz today. I want to start with the assumption, for this post, that they are both on 'Roids. (or HGH, something like that) From my understanding of this blog, discussion of whether they actually are on something falls under practical sports discussion, and thus is verboten. My question is, assuming they are, philosophically, should we care?
First take the paradigm case of cycling. When Eddie Mercks was winning 5 Tours in a row, there was no such thing as HGH. It is safe to say that he was dominant in a totally clean way. Landis, then, is a cheater, right?
My question is, can't an argument be made for looking at HGH, blood doping, and yes, even steroids, as a form of technology that assists in bringing riding times down? Given the advances in bike technology, support technology, training technology, etc. that have come along since Mercks day, riding times are already far advanced from what was possible then. Why should we look at body enhancements as anything but another form of technology benefitting the riders?
I can hear the cries of "But it's artificial, and it's dangerous!" starting already, so let me put that to rest right now. Weight lifting is artificial. Protein shakes are artificial. In baseball, Pine Tar gives you artificial grip. Batting gloves give your hands artificial protection. Artificial is no indictment when it comes to professional sports.
And dangerous? You mean dangerous like 2 300+ pound dudes running into each other at speed? Like standing still while someone throws a hard object inches from your body at 100 mph? Dangerous like an event that pushes your body so hard that 50% of the fittest cyclists in the world can't finish it? Sports are a dangerous pasttime, especially at the highest levels. And all these atheletes know what they're doing when they put that in their body.
We allow, indeed encourage, other forms of technology in cycling and other sports. Why should we balk at allowing technology that effects an athelete's body?
In baseball the case is less clear. First of all, there is less technology involved than in cycling. This makes my previous argument less applicable. However, it still makes a case.
The other argument with regard to baseball is a historical argument. Baseball is such a statistically driven game that it seems unfair that modern players should get the obvious statistical advantage that steroids bring. The purity of the game seems much more important in baseball, even to me.
But that purity is an illusion. We already have distinct eras in baseball, the dead ball and live ball eras. When Jackie Robinson stepped onto the field, another era was born.
Maybe what we need to do is just admit that we already live in the Enhancement Era. MacGuire, Sosa, Canseco, and especially Bonds have ushered that era in irrevocably. Let's embrace it. Let's at least face the fact that enhancement technology has outpaced and will continue to outpace our ability to test it. Then maybe we can stop arguing about it so much.

MLB Beanball Wars

Being a Chicago White Sox fan, the Art of the Hit Batsmen is a topic near and dear to my heart. There are those who will tell you it is a dangerous and outdated practice that Major League Baseball desperately needs to eliminate. Others - Sox manager Ozzie Guillen perhaps foremost among them - would argue that it's an intimate part of the game, allowing players to police themselves and maintain order and respect between teams.

If you're not sure what I'm talking about, this is your opportunity to learn something about the history of baseball. It's an old and simple tradition: you hit our guy, we hit your guy. Certainly there are nuances beyond that - sometimes the situation doesn't allow for immediate retaliation, dependent upon score or inning; when there is a clearly unintentional beanball it's not necessarily beholden upon a team to retaliate; etc. - but the basic rule holds today as it did in 1900: you hit our guy, we hit your guy.

I've heard former players say that after their pitcher hit someone, the first batter in the next inning would go to the plate expecting to take one in the rib cage... or the kidney... or perhaps right on the keister; point being they knew they would be beaned. Earlier in this 2006 season, Guillen took a rookie relief pitcher to task in the dugout for not appropriately retaliating.

But the tradition has been muddled by the man: Major League Baseball, under the guise of "cleaning up the game" has given the umpires the power to warn and/or eject pitchers, managers, and anyone else involved in what is perceived to be a beanball war. Notice my language - given umpires the power - because therein lies the problem: there's no particular rule regarding retaliatory beanings, it's essentially whatever the ump feels should be done.

The results are predictably disastrous. Some umpires throw out pitchers without a warning, as soon as they're perceived to have hit somebody intentionally. Others judiciously warn both benches as soon as any player has been hit. Occasionally you'll see a game where the ump waits too long and a brawl erupts.

Then there are umpires who embrace the beanball tradition: if a player is hit, they will give the other team a chance to retaliate before warning both pitchers and benches to ensure things won't spiral out of control. The upshot of this is there's no telling what will happen when somebody gets beaned.

The good news is, there's an easy solution; and the infrastructure is already in place. The warning/ejection system could work, it just needs to be consistent. Specifically: under no circumstances should a pitcher/team be warned or ejected after only one batter being hit. As soon as there is a retaliatory beanball, warn both teams. After that, deliberate beanings garner an ejection for the pitcher and whoever else the umpire thinks deserves the heave-ho.

Clearly there's still some room for interpretation, as there always will be in any sports scenario where officials are asked to legislate the intentions of athletes. Simply put, there is no way to objectively determine whether a pitcher absolutely intended to hit someone. Still, with this quick fix pitchers would at least know where they stand, and wouldn't have to worry about being ejected without warning.

On the flipside, umpires would retain control over the game without erasing a tradition as old as baseball or robbing the players of their autonomy and ability to stand up for each other.

It's not perfect, but it would be a hell of an upgrade.

NFL Rookie Holdouts

Matt Leinart, Donte Whitner, Jason Allen. Three more names on an annually augmented list of first-round NFL rookies who hold out of training camp for a bigger contract. This is a problem for the league, especially since it is often the poorest, most destitute teams who are handcuffed by the players their marketing departments have already labeled the "Future of the Franchise".

Even if we set aside the obvious lack of perspective [should fans be somewhat insulted that 22-year olds are scoffing at $10 mil. in guaranteed money? a question for another post, methinks] this stinks. The draft is designed to give bad teams the best young players, and that design is undermined when those players come late to camp - or sometimes not at all - and go through their first season with limited knowledge of the system.

This is potential disaster in the case of someone like Matt Leinart, who was slated to be Arizona's number two QB right away. As Josh McCown might tell you, playing behind Kurt Warner is a full-time job. Leinart has also been touted as the "most NFL-ready" prospect, which comes with expectations attached.

Allow me to set the scene: Leinart strolls into camp after the fourth preseason game and hasn't seen enough practice time to get on the field before the regular season starts. So when Warner goes down with a strained pinky finger (or a sore cheekbone, or maybe a hangnail on his thumb) it's not Matt Leinart, QB of the Future who takes the field, it's John Navarre, QB of Michigan Past.

The ghost story awaiting Cardinals fans in that scenario would not be pretty, but after decades of this sort of thing I think they have the strength to handle it. What it ultimately does is hurt the league - Leinart is a gigantic superstar waiting to happen, given his already well-established celebrity and the most exciting young wide receiver tandem in the league.

So what can be done? Frankly, it's easy. The NBA serves as a great example of how to handle rookie contracts - they are determined by draft order. Period. There are rules that limit the amount a player can sign for based on where they were drafted.

It's a mystery to me why the NFL hasn't followed their lead on this one. For a league that is supposed to be the strongest relative to its players' union (they still don't offer fully guaranteed contracts to anybody) it's remarkable that they allow a bunch of guys with literally zero NFL experience to hold teams hostage for an extra couple million.

It shouldn't happen. And at the end of the day, the people who really miss out are the fans. Hey, NFL, get your act together - end rookie holdouts!