Point By Point With Pinto

Over the past few weeks, I've read a number of posts around the blogosphere concerning the use of steroids in Major League Baseball and been quite surprised by what I've read. In particular, Dave Pinto at Baseball Musings has come out in favor of letting players use steroids, as long as we know who they are, and are able to use them under the supervision of a doctor. As many of my regular readers already know, I've written very extensively on this topic, combining my own experiences working with a strength coach who won't work with clients who use steroids, along with plenty of independent research on my own.

Earlier today, I shot off a note to David outlining some of my concerns, and asking a few questions. I've reprinted it below:

Been reading a lot of the stuff on steroids with growing alarm. While I can understand the libertarian point of view regarding every adult's right to ingest whatever they like (and generally believe that people can take care of their own business), that changes when it comes to terms of employment. MLB has every right to put steroids on the table with the union membership -- a membership that seems to be deeply divided over this issue (witness Schilling and Wendell's comments for starters).

As for the health issue, I've read a lot of the current stuff -- enough to say that I'm almost ready to concede that the issue is in serious dispute. But health issues aside, aren't you concerned with the effects on competitive balance within the sport? Health issues aside, isn't regulating the use of steroids in baseball a lot like the rule outlawing aluminum bats? It isn't about personal freedom, it's about the terms of competition, and how a number of players are attempting to leverage a clear and unfair advantage over others.

And if an individual player decides not to use steroids for reasons of his own health (after all, it's his decision, isn't it?), why should he be placed at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis his fellow union members?

Shouldn't his choice be supported?

Interesting in hearing what you have to say. If you'd like to take this offline, that's fine too.

Here's David's reply, which you can also read over at Baseball Musings:

I agree with you in principle, but I don't know that your statement that a person who doesn't use steroids is placed at a disadvantage is true. That is another assumption that just hasn't been proven.

If steroids were allowed, I would want full disclosure. I would want to know who is using and who isn't. Then we can tell if steroids really make a difference. It very well could be that the ability to hit a ball squarely is much more important than how much bat speed you are generating. It could very well be that strength training without steroids does just as much as strength training with steroids. Right now, we suspect that steroid training does help. We know from body building that it helps make muscles large, but that's not the same as knowing it helps in baseball.

(As an aside, I am surprised that the people who get the most attention are Bonds, Sheffield and Giambi, who were great players before suspected steroid use began. I think the poster child should be Bret Boone. Boone was someone with a lot of potential whose career was a disappointment. Then he got bigger and became great. I would love to know what he did that off-season before he joined the Mariners. Was it a super physical training regimen, or was it steroids? If it were steroids, I'd be solidly in your camp. If it wasn't, I think my current position would be stronger.)

So we're facing our own version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. To judge how steroids are affecting the game, we need to know who is using them. But knowing that would mean that there would be no more testing, since player privacy would be violated, and the union would stop the testing. We would go back to being in the dark. Not knowing, we have to trust the union and MLB to clean up the game, something I'm not very confident about. And of course, there's always the problem of the biochemists being ahead of the testers, as new and better drugs come on line and are undetectable.

My idea is regulation. It allows the use of steroids in a controlled way, for short periods of time, only in the offseason. I'm worried that players health is being hurt by not using these substances properly. I don't think testing will stop the use. So I would rather see players monitored under a doctors care.

To sum up, we don't have enough information right now to know what speculation is true and what isn't. I think my idea is a way for us to get that information.

To quote Donald Rumsfeld,

"We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know".

There is way too much we don't know here. We don't know who used steroids and who didn't. We don't know which drugs were used. We don't know how much the results of a weight training/steroid regimen are attributable to steroids. We don't know if the doses taken can be severely reduced with the same results. We don't know if there is a level of use where health risks are acceptable.

I want to know these things. Until we do, I believe that monitored, public use is the best way of dealing with the situation.

For those who haven't read it before, Newsday's John Jeansonne has the goods on how steroids affect the body:

Steroids increase the protein production in muscle; when the muscles are stimulated by physical activity such as lifting weights, they grow - and to a noticeably larger size than weight-lifting could produce alone. Specific muscles are targeted not by steroids but by the athletes' workout regimens.

Although most talk of steroid users centers on "bulking up,'' gaining strength is not the only benefit. With steroids, athletes also are seeking more acceleration, improved recovery time and increased aggressiveness. The most widespread benefit, in fact, probably is improved recovery time, allowing athletes to train harder and longer without injury, therefore allowing them to perform at a higher level in competition.

We've known the basic outline here for a couple of decades of Olympic competition. Make no mistake, taking steroids alone won't make you a home run hitter. But to suggest that we don't know whether or not steroids improve performance, and put those who don't use them at a competitive disadvantage, ignores a couple of decades of pretty clear evidence.

What else do we know?

1) While we don't know exactly who used steroids, we know that between 5-7% of all Major League players, the equivalent of more than one full roster, used steroids last season, even though they knew they would be tested. My guess is they wouldn't be have continued to risk using them, and possible exposure, if there wasn't some real benefit.

2) We know that the union membership is deeply divided on the issue. A Summer 2002 survey of Major League players conducted by USA Today revealed that nearly 80 percent of all players favored some sort of random testing. Another 44 percent of players said that they felt pressure to use steroids themselves just in order to keep up. More than a few players, most recently Robin Ventura of the Los Angeles Dodgers, don't want to take steroids because of the health risk -- be it real or just perceived.

Besides, if David is correct, and we don't know whether or not steroids are safe to use, then shouldn't we err on the side of caution, and restrict their use?

(I also reject the contention that because athletes take risks all the time, that taking steroids should simply be considered another one, as if the risks inherent to the game were of a kind with possible liver and kidney damage. When somebody can tell me that steroids are as safe as over the counter or prescription medication, I'll start listening -- and I don't think we're anywhere near that as of yet. And even then, we still haven't addressed the issues of competitive imbalance in the game.)

3) We know that there is a tremendous wellspring of anger and resentment growing against players who use steroids from within Major League Baseball. Last year, during Spring Training, 16 members of the Chicago White Sox were so incensed over the issue, that they were prepared to refuse to be tested, knowing that their refusal would be recorded as a positive test, thereby triggering the expanded testing regimen for steroids in one fell swoop.

I will agree on a number of points with David: we don't know for sure whether or not the athletes named in the BALCO investigation have actually used steroids (though it doesn't look good, and we've seen athletes in other sports plead ignorance when caught red-handed). Further, I think this is an issue that ought to be properly settled between the players association and ownership, without the need for Federal intervention -- though it seems a little late for that now.

Eric 03:36 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ericmcerlain.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3026

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Point By Point With Pinto:

» Steroid Discussion from Baseball Musings
Eric McErlain of Off Wing Opinion writes me on the issue of steroids: Been reading a lot of the stuff on steroids with growing alarm. While I can understand the libertarian point of view regarding every adult's right to ingest... [Read More]

Tracked on March 5, 2004 04:10 PM

Comments

Post a comment