|
 |
|
|
December 07, 2004
An Inapt Comparison
In response to some e-mail I've received, I'm actually putting together a collection of links that support the use of steroids in professional sports in a regulated fashion. But in the meantime, I wanted to share a letter Andrew Sullivan published this morning that makes a comparison that doesn't quite hold water: Steroids have their predecessors in athletics. One of the first elements to alter track and field records was the Fiberglass pole used in pole-vaulting. It had a natural spring in it that its predecessors lacked, lifting its user over substantially higher barriers than before. It got accepted at last. In speed skating, there was a time when the clap skate was looked upon in the same way. It was eventually adopted as well, and the reason why is because they were readily available to everyone who wanted to compete. However, because we know that individuals all react differently when they ingest controlled substances, steroids may not be available on an equal basis to everyone. Further, while I don't much care what my readers might do in the privacy of their own homes, and really don't want to know, there is more than a subtle difference involved once we begin to consider the relationship between employer and employee. So while I might not care much if my neighbor ingests some sort of hallucinogen on his own time, he might have a tougher time if he worked for Amtrak, American Airlines or major league baseball, all of which have substance abuse policies that were the subject of collective bargaining. And finally, not every technical innovation gets adopted -- and some for pure reasons of safety. Everyone knows that to this day Major League Baseball outlaws the use of aluminum bats* despite the fact that the bats are used from tee ball all the way through Division I college baseball. And in fact, a number of high school leagues in Massachusetts have banned the bats outright. I'm not going to pretend I have some sort of magic solution to the questions facing professional sports. Whether we like it or not, use and distribution of steroids are illegal, and probably will be for some time to come. But while there are many arguments in favor of steroid use that deserve an answer, the example that Sullivan quotes is far from the best one to make.
Eric
06:43 AM
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsThis has nothing to do with Sully's argument, but... you need to remember that at least some of these substances were not explicitly illegal -- either under the law or under the MLB CBA -- at the time the players took them. Federal drug law has an "analogue substances" rule. So does WADA. Courts and WADA have always (and sometimes to their discredit, I'd say) interpreted those rules incredibly loosely. I don't know whether the MLB has one, or how loosely it's been interpreted in the past. Whether THC fits within that rule is a question for chemists to argue about, one that I'm in no way prepared to answer. But the point is -- the situation is pretty complicated. It's not enough to say: steroids are illegal, so Bonds et al. cheated. Posted by: at December 7, 2004 10:21 AM Post a commentThanks for signing in, . (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) |