11/23/24
May 19, 2005
They're actually doing it. : Representatives Tom Davis, R-VA, Tom Waxman, D-CA, and John McCain, R-AZ are drafting legislation to "create a uniform testing standard for the four major U.S. professional sports leagues." The purpose, according to Waxman, is to bring the Big Four in line with the sort of standards used by the IOC.
posted by lil_brown_bat to other at 10:06 AM - 40 comments
create a uniform testing standard for the four major U.S. professional sports leagues For a moment I thought this was a measure designed to prevent ugly third jerseys from popping up. I've been reading too much Uni Watch.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:11 AM on May 19, 2005
Bettman insisted yesterday at the hearings that hockey players wouldn't benefit from PEDs. what a tard! It was on ESPN yesterday, but I can't find a link.
posted by garfield at 11:19 AM on May 19, 2005
"Both Bettman and NBA commissioner David Stern said steroids aren't a major problem in their sports." In the article I read yesterday, both Stern and Bettman argued along the lines of 'our sport is unique in that PED wouldn't help performance'. Still no luck locating it, though.
posted by garfield at 11:35 AM on May 19, 2005
Can someone explain why steroids or other drugs in professional sports are such a federal issue? After all, professional sports are really part of the entertainment industry. You pay to watch; they perform; it's a reality series. I don't see the feds trying to regulate drug abuse (or medical enhancements) on movies or TV, etc. What's the difference?
posted by graymatters at 11:36 AM on May 19, 2005
because in sports we don't want to suspend disbelief. we want to believe its real. This is what separates pro sports from other forms of entertainment, imo. Federali involvement is a bit murkier, but I think its mainly the govt wanting to protect a major industry from destroying itself. If the government can restore a sense of integrity to sport, it will have done a service to the leagues and to the fans. I've got nothing re: jurisdiction.
posted by garfield at 11:45 AM on May 19, 2005
graymatters, the fundamental argument behind the drug regs in sports in general is that the banned substances are a)harmful and b)performance-enhancing or perceived to be so. It's the combination of those two things that creates problems: if there is a drug that gives athletes an edge, and others are using, an athlete has to take them in order to be competitive, or so the reasoning goes. Obviously it's not so easily quantifiable, but I think there's no doubt that the perception of an advantage is the incentive for athletes to use the drugs. The entertainment industry is different, somewhat, in that I don't think there's a widespread belief that shooting smack makes you a better actor, and that if you don't, you'll never make it in the big time. Now, why it's got to be a federal issue is another matter, and my personal answer is, it doesn't and it shouldn't, and don't get me started on listing the reasons why.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:56 AM on May 19, 2005
It's communism. Federal Gov't has their hands in everything. Federal Government wasn't even intended to govern public education. No Roider Left Behind.
posted by mayerkyl at 11:56 AM on May 19, 2005
I'm glad that our patriotic congresscritters, with all that is going on in the country and the world, have ample time to address the serious issues facing us.
posted by kokaku at 12:16 PM on May 19, 2005
Does this mean we can pull our troops out of South America ? You know the one fighting the drug war........
posted by volfire at 12:26 PM on May 19, 2005
One bill was introduced on April 26 -- H.R. 1862. It calls for a two-year suspension for the first violation, a ban for any subsequent violation, and applies to all professional sports associations. The logic for Federal involvement is that it is an issue that affects interstate commerce. Pretty much everything these days affects interstate commerce. But, I think it is pretty obvious that they are tackling the issue to get all the publicity.
posted by bperk at 12:33 PM on May 19, 2005
Why does Bettman care? Hockey isn't one of the major four anymore is it? :)
posted by emoeby at 12:44 PM on May 19, 2005
I knew this would happen sooner or later. I think as people learn about steroids and othr PED its not just about being big and strong. I'd say much of it used to improve recover time from performaces... Banning anphetamines should be a no brainer. Can somebody tell me what the NBA drug policy is? Do they have one? Pot smoking seems to everywhere in the NBA.
posted by daddisamm at 12:55 PM on May 19, 2005
The NBA policy is in the collective bargaining agreement. It isn't very stiff. According to Hunter's testimony, since they started testing in 1999, they have had only three confirmed postive tests. Veteran's get tested once annually in the preseasons. Rookies get tested four times a year.
posted by bperk at 01:29 PM on May 19, 2005
I would say this is the biggest waste of federal government resources ever, but there are so many other candidates for that title (the Department of Education, many contracts with Halliburton, and NASA's space shuttle program come to mind) that I think I'll just say that this is ridiculous. It's a sad day in America when the only thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on (other than making it harder for people to file for bankruptcy) is expanding the reach of the federal government to create the ultimate nanny state.
posted by holden at 01:46 PM on May 19, 2005
It would appear that the NBA is pretty laid back as far as the Drug testing goes...
posted by daddisamm at 01:50 PM on May 19, 2005
The reason the feds are involved is because the gov't granted unto baseball an exemption from anti-trust regulation even though they are a monopoly. Since baseball exists in its current form because of this congressional act they feel as if they have some measure of jurisdiction over it. I'm glad they're doing it. I want to know the games are clean. This is one of the things we elect officials for, to be our voices.
posted by vito90 at 02:15 PM on May 19, 2005
I think most voices say something along the lines of who cares, my health insurance sucks, please do something useful about that instead.
posted by kokaku at 02:18 PM on May 19, 2005
speaking of elected officials and acting as the will of the people, Bob Hebert over at the NYTimes has a good piece about the proposed Westcyeeed! stadium and Bloomberg's good buddy, Robert Wood Johnson(huh huh) IV, the billionaire owner of the New York Jets.
posted by garfield at 02:40 PM on May 19, 2005
If there's any law regarding this stuff, has to be federal not just because of the interstate commerce clause (though that's good enough on its own) but also because the leagues play across too many states for anything else to be effective and reasonable. The other reason for this type of law, and I'm not saying I think there should be one, is because of the pro athlete as role model factor. An All Pro does steroids, lots of still-growing kids damage their bodies by imitating him.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:02 PM on May 19, 2005
Or how about the fact tht it sponsors a huge black-market industry in international drug traffiking? However, I'm siding with the 'my kid is sick and there are no cheap doctors' arguement.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:01 PM on May 19, 2005
With celebrity endorsors!
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:01 PM on May 19, 2005
BIG Four???1.NFL,2.NBA,3.MLB,4.MLS or NHL.Its gotta be MLS at #4.The NHL is a bad mullet joke,with no punch line.
posted by HOE.O.K. at 04:05 PM on May 19, 2005
vito -- With all due respect, Congress does not have a right to be involved because of baseball's antitrust exemption, which is based on a Supreme Court case, not on anything that Congress proactively did. Whenever Congress acts to regulate, it almost always results in high compliance costs and unintended consequences. Ask any corporate compliance officer, accountant or corporate lawyer about the mess that is Sarbanes-Oxley, Congress' regulatory response to Enron and other corporate scandals. I would much rather have people who actually know something about sports (i.e., the leagues themselves) figure out what kind of drug policies work best. With respect to your position that elected officials are your voice, in this case your voice should be your wallet. If enough people believe sports are tainted, they should speak with their wallets, and the market will help set the right drug policy or league action. Our elected officials at the federal level should spend their time focusing on things that are really of importance to our country, like homeland security.
posted by holden at 04:34 PM on May 19, 2005
"Ewwww!!!! (grimaces) Jim, that was a vicious hit in the corner!" "You're right, Bob. Just vicious. Would you say HOE crumpled or slumped to the ice? That's a rhetorical question, Bob. But it serves him right for trying to run on the ice in soccer cleats. You're just asking for one of the skaters to board you when you interupt a tilt with such innanity. The zebra crew has given Garfield a double minor for spilling blood, but he seems to have escaped the major penalty for restoring the order of things." "As it should be, Jim; the players police the game best."
posted by garfield at 04:35 PM on May 19, 2005
Does this mean they can do other drugs like coke and herion now? When is the Senate going to control those players?
posted by volfire at 05:59 PM on May 19, 2005
Next thing ya know It'll be seat belts or cell phone useage. OH wait , I just got pulled over.............
posted by volfire at 06:28 PM on May 19, 2005
what the fuck, your all idiots, it is not congresses business. steroids do not even ruin the integrity of the game or ruin the sincerity of the records. After all, they're available to everybody kind of like a weight room. i agree that they should be banned, but only because they are a health risk and banning will discourage players from juicing. Steroids do not ruin the integrity of sports at all. Mcgwire can enjoy his peanut sized testicles and death at 55, but hes not a cheater, just a moron. This is none of congresses, mccain is a deuschbag who should be our president now but instead is finding other ways to get attention. what a moron, hes gone from good politician to an asscrack who is talking about sports instead of all the goddamn illegal mexicans ruining his state. what an ass- backwards crackbaby
posted by you'reallwrong at 06:55 PM on May 19, 2005
^who let you in? gotta say though 'ass backwards crackbaby' is sort of funny. Steroids do not ruin the integrity of sports at all. you know what...i kind of agree with this. for every bonds or sosa...there's some idiot testing positive who has 10 career homers and a .210 average. though they may be bad for your health, i've yet to see real live evidence that says PED's actually live up to their name, specifically in the game of baseball. and what's this i'm reading about minor league pitchers testing postive for steroids...wtf? that said, the people have been speaking with their wallet. baseball attendance has been on a steady rise for quite some time. if it's the home run or not is up to debate. but for sure, congress isn't seeing that smoke signal. in the end congress is probably going to be the one that wind up looking like big mac getting grilled, if they haven't already.
posted by oliver_crunk at 07:38 PM on May 19, 2005
and what's this i'm reading about minor league pitchers testing postive for steroids...wtf? Makes perfect sense to me -- they think it's what they need to do to "get to the next level", i.e., the majors.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:50 PM on May 19, 2005
I do not agree with the gov't getting involved. However this is more about high schoolers and college players damaging their lives to try to attain a professional goal. This stuff kills, mutilates and maims people. Pitchers take the stuff to recover faster, high school players can pitch almost unlimited innings, same with minor leaguers that arent bonus babies that the organization has tons of money sunk in to. Football player want to be stronger faster, better - but going to college is teh only way to the pros- so if major college players are doing them to get to the next level, wouldnt they do them as well to get to college, and a major program and get playing time? Basketball and hcokey will see an increase - so why not stop it right now - Selig is an idiot and has played the whole issue wrong. NFL does its best - The other two are just wishing that their league had the TV revenues and contracts to compete. The NBA will be the next league to shut down shop - the players make too much, and the tv dollars are going to dwindle. Nobody wants to see tatooed pot heads and gang bangers displaying lack of decency on tv. If they did they'd be at the movies or renting a dvd.
posted by springdawg6 at 12:34 AM on May 20, 2005
graymatters, the fundamental argument behind the drug regs in sports in general is that the banned substances are a)harmful and b)performance-enhancing or perceived to be so. It's the combination of those two things that creates problems: if there is a drug that gives athletes an edge, and others are using, an athlete has to take them in order to be competitive, or so the reasoning goes. So the reasoning should also apply to alcohol and junk food too. They both can enhance a performance and can be harmful. This is just another case of people wanting to control actions of other people! I personally could care less if an athelete take peds, he or she isn't impacting me with their actions. It is their body, let them do what they want! I could go on and on, but i leave at this. Whatever happened to limited government intervention?
posted by panteeze at 07:42 AM on May 20, 2005
I personally could care less if an athelete take peds, he or she isn't impacting me with their actions. Of course they aren't; you're not an elite-level athlete, are you? The regs aren't there to protect you or me or anyone else who's sitting in a chair watching.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:24 AM on May 20, 2005
Does'nt anyone find the fact that this year after all the controversey over steriods, there have been fewer home runs than at this time last year? HMMM? Inquiring minds want to know!
posted by volfire at 08:32 AM on May 20, 2005
Its an interesting sitaution!Power outage-Hr's down nine percent">
posted by daddisamm at 11:30 AM on May 20, 2005
The other reason for this type of law, and I'm not saying I think there should be one, is because of the pro athlete as role model factor. An All Pro does steroids, lots of still-growing kids damage their bodies by imitating him. this is more about high schoolers and college players damaging their lives to try to attain a professional goal OK, then why doesn't congress pass a law requiring testing of any athlete (school, college, little league, pro, etc.). Why just the pros? If the purpose is to protect the kids, then test the kids.
posted by graymatters at 01:04 PM on May 20, 2005
The other reason for this type of law, and I'm not saying I think there should be one, is because of the pro athlete as role model factor. If you mean that an athelete who bilks the public out of millions of dollars, uses drugs, commits adultery and demands special treatment is a role model for children.......... What ever happened to parents being the only role model children need?
posted by panteeze at 01:15 PM on May 20, 2005
Whoa a sec. I need to clarify. I've said some things about what "the reason" for drug test regs is, and others have said other things about it, and I think it's important to note that, in the wide world of sports drug testing, we're now talking about many different organizations with overlapping and non-identical sets of reasons -- and some of them seem to have only a vague idea of what their reasons are. I think I'm correct about the original reasons behind the IOC drug policies, i.e., to prevent athletes from taking a harmful substance because of a belief that the harmful substance will help their performance. But there are a lot of organizations in the game beside the IOC now -- most recently the US Congress; hence this thread -- and there are a lot of other reasons and motivations getting thrown into the mix, such as the "role model" argument. That seems to be a besetting flaw of workplace drug testing programs of all sorts, i.e., becoming its own raison d'etre and forgetting the original justification or purpose. I happen to agree with what I believe to be the original rationale, which I believe to be simple, if certainly not easy or perfect in its execution. I don't like the heaping-on of other justifications, because for every new justification, that's a new ill of society that this program is supposed to be curing. And the more elaborate these justifications become, the easier they are to poke holes in, as people have been doing in this thread. panteeze is wrong that fast food and alcohol are targets for banning under the original rationale, but correct that if you lose sight of that and simply apply the "Think of the children!" justification, it makes perfect sense to ban them.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:47 PM on May 20, 2005
In Illinois they have already pulled soft drink, and other vending machines from schools because the STATE deemed these products unhealthy for our children. Are Ho-Ho's and candy bars really that bad? Watch out fast food industry you are next!
posted by volfire at 02:56 PM on May 20, 2005
Boy volfire, I guess you haven't read many books on diet and health written in the last few decades. Of course you could just be getting some kicks from trolling, given some of the other comments you posted, and if so, gee, enjoy yourself.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:43 PM on May 20, 2005
"Selig also wants to ban amphetamines". Is it just me, or is this kind of like......Well, Duh?