|
 |
|
|
December 09, 2004
And For The Defense . . .
Some of the best crtiques of the BALCO investigation, and the current state of steroids testing in international sports have come from the pages of Reason. For starters, read this well researched piece from Dayn Perry, followed by another by Jacob Sullum. More recently, for a look at the moral ambiguities surrounding a lot of these issues, check out Sally Jenkins from last Saturday's Washington Post, as well as Jim Henley's guest post over at The Agitator from over the weekend. And fresh from my e-mail box, here's Matt Welch: The United States government has sent the impressionable Youth of America an unmistakable signal: Do not, under any circumstances, break any sporting records after adding 18 pounds of muscle at age 36. More later. UPDATE: Bill James himself goes over the edge over at the Hardball Times: All right, men, you all know why we’re here, don’t you? Did you all bring your torches? Pitchforks? Short length of metal pipe? For a proper retort, go see Chris Lynch.
Eric
07:11 AM
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference And For The Defense . . .:
» To Shoot or Not to Shoot from The Net Files Tracked on December 10, 2004 02:58 PM CommentsNice roundup work, Eric, but these are generally weak arguments. The Reason pieces fall into the "frat-boy libertarian" mode of argument: Find one example of a stupid argument, extrapolate from the specific (a book) to the general (the media), and pronounce the general (media) stupid. Perry also reaches contradictory conclusions. The first is that we don't know all that much about steroids. The second is that they're safe. Huh? Also, the issue isn't whether steroids have legitimate uses. The inhaled stuff my son takes for reactive airways is a steroid. But I do exactly as my doctor says in giving it to him, and he isn't taking it so he can smash pre-toddler records in the 50-yard walk. He's taking it so his airways don't fill with phlegm. Welch stars with the presumption that the goverment is behind the leaks. That's actually a little less plausible than the idea that some of the accused folks are behind it. If the government leaks this info, they can blow the case before the evidence is ever entered into public record. It the defense leaks it, they can get a mistrial. Jenkins, as is often the case, raises the best arguments. Implicit in her column is the notion that athletes do a lot of things that endanger their bodies. Legal supplements are poorly regulated and can be dangerous (ask Tom Gugliotta). NFL linemen are shaving years off their lives by bulking up to weights their bodies can't really support. Where do you draw the line? Good question. But I'd start with Jenkins' thoughtful questions, not Reason's snarky conclusions. Posted by: at December 9, 2004 12:01 PM 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.) |