Friday, November 16, 2007

A Sad Day for Baseball

I am not going to waste time heaping vituperation on Barry Bonds. The lesser lights on the right will do that for me. However, I will say this: What a sad day for baseball.

Here are two links to articles at ESPN, one by Gene Wojciechowski, who manages to express his disdain for Bonds without the use of vulgar language or coded racial epitaphs. The other is an investigative report that goes far in illuminating the evidence that Bonds did perjure himself.

16 comments:

  1. It's a sad day for us because it's a culmination of the sad fact that our government wastes time dealing with baseball and regulating what substances we can put into our bodies. Barry probably committed perjury, and that's wrong. He may have violated MLB policy. If that's the case, he's wrong. But the MLB policy is wrong too. Barry, and every other player, should be able to put whatever substance he wants to in his body.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But there comes a point where the injecting, inserting, swallowing, inhaling of substances into ones body may play a role, to the detriment, of others.

    So then what to do?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, we could figure that out when we reach that point. (example?) Or we could punish the bad effects regardless of the cause. Like if it's bad that I beat my wife when I'm drunk, we should criminalize wife-beating, not drinking.

    But in Baseball, who gets hurt besides the player that chooses the drug? And that's even arguable. There are lots of studies out now that suggest that modren PED's have almost no negative effects on men. But suppose there are negative side-effects. Aren't there negative side effects to cheesecake too? That doesn't give you the right to tell me not to eat it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your arguments are well thought out, but ... you are wrong. Society has a right to determine what it considers reasonably responsible behavior. Government is an expression of society. When government is functioning in its true form, it's a useful tool.

    In this instance, government acting as the agent of society made a decision. If you don't like it, take it up with the rest of us ... don't blame government just because it's convenient.

    I and millions of others do not want illegal substances interfering with our national pasttime.

    As for cheesecake, society has decided it has its purpose. And I like strawberry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When society thought it was reasonable and responsible to have seperate schools and drinking fountains for black people and white people, some judges told society it was wrong. And the judges were right.

    I think your premise, that "society" has a right to infringe on the personal liberties of others, is BS. I often argue against majority tyranny and wil continue to do so. For example, I often advocate for equal rights for gay people even though society has spoken and is opposed to such things.

    Our form of government isn't a pure democracy. It's limited by the constitution for the purpose of preventing the majority tyranny you're advocating.

    How many of your posts do you think I'd have to read before I found one that I could respond to with, "but society says so"?

    "If you don't like it, take it up with the rest of us ... don't blame government just because it's convenient."

    I wasn't aware that you were the government and this blog as the official complaint form. I thought I was taking it up with a member of society.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would argue it was a small percentage of society that argued in favor of separate accomodations ... they happened to hold the purse strings, though, and that made a difference.

    I have a younger brother who is gay, so we would be on the same side here. But again, I think the majority of Americans favor equal rights, however, the other side has done a better job at misrepresenting gay people. A little more education couldn't hurt.

    My mother, whom I think very wise, believes that society is in the final throes of adolescence. Eventually, it will grow up and mature. In the meanwhile, it does the best it can. It's not always right, but it's a lot farther along the road.

    I understand the Constituion just fine and the protections built in to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. But we're talking illegal substances ... stuff the government and society have determined harmful (btw: the war on drug is bogus).

    If you want to fill out a complaint form here, go ahead. I can't guarantee how soon it will get acted on, though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "But again, I think the majority of Americans favor equal rights, however, the other side has done a better job at misrepresenting gay people."

    And they've done a better job of misrepresenting steroids too.

    "A little more education couldn't hurt."

    Exactly. You're welcome.

    "btw: the war on drug is bogus"

    Yes it is. So why are you in favor of it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh cut it out, you know what I mean re: the war on drugs.

    I don't agree regarding steroids. There are legal uses of steroids.

    Really, it comes down to what you want ... and that's your right.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Oh cut it out, you know what I mean re: the war on drugs."

    I guess I don't. I think the war on drugs is stupid because we spend lots of money to try to stop people from doing something that only has the potential to hurt themselves, which drives the market for that something underground where it becomes dangerous. I see no reason why you would be against the war on drugs when we're talking about pot, but for it when we're talking about steroids.

    "Really, it comes down to what you want ... and that's your right."

    Well, according to the government, that's not my right if what I want is big muscles (arguably at the cost of moods swings and small balls).

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is silly.

    I guess I don't have an answer for you. I have no problem with illegal use of steroids being controlled by law.

    Conversely, I think the marijuana laws are antiquated and should be changed.

    The two are not identical.

    Now back to baby-sitting. If you wish to comment further, go ahead. I'm moving on.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "This is silly."

    Yes, having opinions that are inconsistent and unsupported by reason or logic or anything else is silly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, stop providing silly opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  13. However, I did a little scanning to learn more about the issue, at least in the realm of baseball. I found this debate in the LA Times.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup16mar16,0,5029121.story

    I still have a tough time agreeing that the use of steroids is a privacy issue. I continue to believe there is the potential for harm by users of steroids on others.

    We tell you it's okay to drink, but don't drive while drinking. I Why is it not okay for us to say it's okay to use steriods for medicinal reasons, but you may not use them when competing against others who don't.

    Hey, that's an idea ... how about the all-steroid league. That would be almost too grotesque to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I continue to believe there is the potential for harm by users of steroids on others."

    How? How could my using steroids possibly hurt another person that didn't consent to being hurt?

    "We tell you it's okay to drink, but don't drive while drinking."

    If it were up to me, I'd probably tweak the drunk driving laws a bit. I'd ticket dangerous driving regardless of the cause. Afterall, me driving at .10 is way less dangerous than my grandpa driving sober or my sister driving while on the phone.

    "Why is it not okay for us to say it's okay to use steriods for medicinal reasons, but you may not use them when competing against others who don't."

    Same reason it's not okay to say, "it's okay for people of your skin color to eat at this lunch counter, but not at that one" or "It's okay to say this sentence, but not that one." We should be as free as possible. The way I see it, the only reason for limiting my freedom to do anything is the harm principle. And that doesn't apply hear since my use of steroids doesn't hurt anyone else.

    "Hey, that's an idea ... how about the all-steroid league. That would be almost too grotesque to watch."

    I'd bet you a lot of money that if there were two football leagues, one that allowed PEDs and one that didn't, the one that allowed them would, after an adjustment period, dominate the other one. We watch pro sports because we want to see the best. We watch major league baseball more than minor league baseball because the big-leaguers are better. We watch NBA more than WNBA because the players in the former are bigger, stronger and better than the players in the latter. How sweet was the Sosa/McGuire homer run record chase before we quit pretending we didn't know they were on roids? How sweet was Kirk Gibson's cortizone-fueled walk-off homer? Great athletes make great sports. And PED's make great athletes.

    ReplyDelete
  15. How? How could my using steroids possibly hurt another person that didn't consent to being hurt?

    There have been instances where abusers of steroids have lost control of their emotions and physically harmed others.

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jan-10-Tue-2006/living/4148979.html

    If it were up to me, I'd probably tweak the drunk driving laws a bit. I'd ticket dangerous driving regardless of the cause. Afterall, me driving at .10 is way less dangerous than my grandpa driving sober or my sister driving while on the phone.

    Our sisters may be related. Still, dangerous driving is ticketed regardless of the cause. It's just that the correlation of drunk driving and fatal car accidents is pretty high.

    And that doesn't apply hear since my use of steroids doesn't hurt anyone else.

    Ah, I've no doubt you're a responsible steroid user, though I would still caution you, just as a fellow human. But, what about others who are not so responsible?

    We watch pro sports because we want to see the best.

    Yes. But, I watch sports because I like to see the competition. Steroids defeat the purpose. Where is the personal thrill of winning if you know it wasn't your hard work that was the reason for victory, but drugs?

    We watch NBA more than WNBA because the players in the former are bigger, stronger and better than the players in the latter.

    No offense, but what does this have to do with steroids? Their males vs. females. Men are bigger and stronger, without the need for steroids. Sure, i like to see the high-flying dunks. I don't like them fueled by steroids.

    Ultimately, it comes down to selfishness. You want the freedom to experiment and use steroids for yourself. I think they are dangerous and should be regulated.
    caught?


    Oh, I guess I was pretty naive. I really did not for one moment think that McGwire and Sosa were using. Griffey Jr. banged out 50 plus homers during the same time and there has never been any accusation of steroid use for him.

    I like discussing with you. Sorry if I was a little petulant before. My ten-month old is a handful.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "There have been instances where abusers of steroids have lost control of their emotions and physically harmed others."

    They should be punished for harming others regardless of the cause.

    "Ah, I've no doubt you're a responsible steroid user, though I would still caution you, just as a fellow human. But, what about others who are not so responsible?"

    I have never used steroids. I guess I never even considered it. Those who are not so responsible should be free to be irresponsible, so long as the only person they're hurting is themselves.

    "Yes. But, I watch sports because I like to see the competition. Steroids defeat the purpose. Where is the personal thrill of winning if you know it wasn't your hard work that was the reason for victory, but drugs?"

    Most steroid users, certainly those in the pros, still work very very hard. In fact, if steroids were allowed, the playing field would be more level. If everyone was taking good PEDs, talent and work would be the only thing that seperates them. Now, the best players are the one's with the least detectable drugs. That's not fair.

    "No offense, but what does this have to do with steroids? Their males vs. females. Men are bigger and stronger, without the need for steroids."

    I don't see how the reason that one group is bigger and stronger then the otehr is relevant. The point is that better palyers make better games.

    "Sure, i like to see the high-flying dunks. I don't like them fueled by steroids."

    Are you suggesting that you could spot a steroid user by how he dunks? You can tell the difference? The NBA should hire you.

    " I really did not for one moment think that McGwire and Sosa were using. Griffey Jr. banged out 50 plus homers during the same time and there has never been any accusation of steroid use for him."

    This brings out another interesting point. Mark McGuire is not as good at baseball as Ken Griffey Jr. This is because Jr. is a more talented athlete than McGuire. The reason for this is that Jr.'s dad is Ken Griffey Sr., who was a fantastic athlete too. I don't know who McGuire's dad is. But I do know that neither Jr. or McGuire had any say in how athletic his parents were, which means they had no say in how much natural athleticism they had. I find this to be totally unfair. What's so special about natural talent? I mean, why does Jr. deserve to be a great player and McGuire no deserve to be a great player? (note: obviously McGuire was pretty awesome w/out roids too, but not as good as Jr. and the roids got him closer).

    Think about it like this: as the two of them why they deserve to be able to clout 50+ dingers in a season and here's the answers you'd get (if they were honest).

    K.G. Jr.: Idunno, just cause I'm good. My dad was like a pro baseball player or something.

    McGuire: Because I risked shrunken balls and a huge head in order to get better.

    I almost think McGuire deserves it more from that point of view.

    ReplyDelete