if baseball had done ANYTHING to control the steroid problem, i'd agree. but to let Maguire and Sosa pass, then to let Bonds continue while even the dullest third grader could plainly see the cheating...
a spanking was in order.
they got spanked.
bad baseball. bad!
I understand that Hollywood and the music industry have a bit of a drug problem as well. Shall we table the nation's business to address that situation?
The question isn't whether or not baseball addressed the issue. They didn't and they should have. The question is why are my tax dollars being spent to address it? This issue simply has zero national relevance. It is merely an opportunity for politicians to shamelessly grandstand, while ignoring problems that desperately require their attention.
And by the way, that was no spanking. Every single congressperson looked like an ignorant ass. They didn't understand the issues. They didn't understand the law. And, when he gets right down to it, they don't understand the game or its history. That simply isn't a group that I want involved in trying to solve this problem.
hollywood does address drugs frequently, although not too effectively. the situation is different in sports, though, when you're keeping records and pushing boundaries. if johnny depp wins an oscar and then goes into rehab, does it mean an oscar is worthless? (well, they are worthless, but that's besides the point). no. because his drug use didn't HELP HIM BEAT HIS COMPETITION. it was something that hurt him or something he did his best to keep off the set.
in sports Barry Bonds used steroids to win. he cheated to win and got away with it. he broke records by cheating and was applauded. that means that ballplayers who didn't use drugs were handicapped. baseball's reluctance to stop the abuse -- as i see it -- so that records would be broken and fans would come back is frankly disgusting.
as for the way congress spends it's time, it spends it's time on vacation. it was a spanking because every paper in the country showed a picture of the commissioner looking like he'd just swallowed his tongue and we're talking about it now. the issue has left the sportsbars and entered the mainstream. Bonds is taking the next season off because of a knee injury. right. i believe that.
baseball now has to act in way it didn't before the hearings -- even if the congresspeople were uneducated idiots about the game.
while i agree this isn't the best use of tax dollars, i think wasting tax dollars building stadiums for sports teams that encourage athletes to take steriods or lose is much worse.
i'm happy to pay to have cheaters pantsed in public. if my kid we're playing little league, i'd be making sure he was reading these stories. wouldn't you?
hollywood does address drugs frequently, although not too effectively.
But, I assume that you would not endorse congressional hearings to deal with their failings. In this sense, baseball is no different.
the situation is different in sports, though, when you're keeping records and pushing boundaries.
Records are meaningless abstractions. Those who see them as something else are deluded. A given statistic tells you only how well you measure up against the current competition. It tells you nothing about how you measure up against those of a different era. As many have said, every generation has its asterisk. Whether it's a live ball versus the dead ball, night games versus day games, the existence of the slider or spitball, the amount of foul territory, or performance enhancing technology, they all affect the achievement of the era. How can meaningful comparisons be made?
in sports Barry Bonds used steroids to win. he cheated to win and got away with it.
Except that, when the records were broken, steroids weren't against the rules of baseball. It was unlawful to use them in this manner, but it wasn't cheating.
it was a spanking because every paper in the country showed a picture of the commissioner looking like he'd just swallowed his tongue and we're talking about it now. the issue has left the sportsbars and entered the mainstream.
So -- despite the facts of the matter, the media portrayal controls? That's sad. Personally, I'll follow what actually occurred. And with respect to the wider awareness -- frankly, I could live without it. I don't take comfort in the fact that people who don't care about baseball or have any investment in it are going to be involved in crafting a solution. The issue has no relevance to anyone but those directly involved again and the fans. Therefore, everyone else should just butt out.
Bonds is taking the next season off because of a knee injury. right. i believe that.
He's had two knee surgeries in the last six months, including one only a few days ago. Moreover, he's made no secret about the effect the controversy has had on him.
baseball now has to act in way it didn't before the hearings
Actually, this is completely untrue. No changes have resulted or will result. The BALCO scandal is what brought this issue to a head and forced the changes that are now in place. Once this scandal materialized the reality of steroid use in the game, the fans demanded change and got it. Congress's involvement was completely unnecessary and utterly self-serving.
i think wasting tax dollars building stadiums for sports teams that encourage athletes to take steriods or lose is much worse.
I agree that tax dollars spent on stadiums is a waste. But your conclusion that it encourages steroid use is quite a leap. The players play wherever they are paid to play. Stadium subsidies are handed to management. The relationship between labor and management is always complex, and professional sports are no exception. But, steroid use predates the recent phenomenon of public stadium financing and is driven by a completely different set of forces. The use of tax revenue in this manner does not justify governmental intervention in the steroid scandal.
i'm happy to pay to have cheaters pantsed in public. if my kid we're playing little league, i'd be making sure he was reading these stories. wouldn't you?
Clearly -- I think my tax dollars should be spent differently. And, for the record, I would have my child read the stories -- but not for the reason you suggest. I would use it to demonstrate how politicians have a tendency to flagrantly ignore their true responsibilities to get face time in front of the camera. Or perhaps I could use it as an example of media hysteria. Or as an exercise to show how issues are far more complex than they appear on the surface. Or as an opportunity to demonstrate that athletes are human beings with failings, just like you and I. But, this wouldn't be a seminar on cheating. Not for my child, anyway.
i guess i don't disagree with anything you write here, i just have a different priority: cheating should be called out.
you say: The issue has no relevance to anyone but those directly involved again and the fans. Therefore, everyone else should just butt out.
uh. the police? the courts? the law? the tv viewer? the tax payer?
does government have a right to moderate society? yes. should we moderate government? yes.
just like you say congress has better things to do than scold baseball, i say you have better things to do than scold congress for scolding baseball.
in this case, i think a few congressmen took a day to make sure baseball heard that they had lost control. baseball had lost control. was it grandstanding for the congressmen? maybe. who cares? i can't tell you which congressmen were on the panel. i can tell you that barry bonds and mark maguire and sammy sosa and jose conseco were all there acting like anything but heroes. i like that. cheating is cheating. it's ugly.
that's what i get out of this. there are plenty of other opportunities to teach my imaginary children that government is flawed and people are human.
It was unlawful to use them in this manner, but it wasn't cheating.
Moreover, he's made no secret about the effect the controversy has had on him.
the controversy = his use of steroids. unlawful = cheating.
cheating had an effect on barry bonds?!? shit. better send him some flowers.
he knew EXACTLY what he was doing.
you're saying congress grandstanding is worse than ballplayers using steroids. that's what i disagree with.
you're saying congress grandstanding is worse than ballplayers using steroids. that's what i disagree with.
I don't think that's what's being said here (but for me to say that may be presumptuous).
If I understand correctly, the point is that Congress should spend their time (and our tax dollars) doing real work. It's not about grandstanding. It's about the monumental waste of time and money involved.
Looking only at the money for the moment: Congressional salaries in 2004 were $158,100 per year. (More for leaders and the speaker of the house, but we'll keep it simple for the moment.)
Ref: http://www.congresslink.org/
prin..._basics_pay.htm
There are 535 members of Congress (435 reps and 100 senators), so the annual salary for Congress itself is $84,530,000. Assuming that they work 364 days a year (365 minus Christmas) -- which they don't -- that's $232,225.27 per day. How many days did they spend on these hearings? 3? 5?
If it's 3 days, then they wasted nearly $700,000 of our money. The company I work for could use some investment capital -- how 'bout quitting early on Friday and sending us $100K?
More importantly: What else could have been accomplished during that time, aside from cramming a feeding tube down a poor brain-dead woman's throat?
BTW, in case it wasn't obvious, I was exaggerating in my last comment -- just a bit -- to make a point.
Of course, I know that all of congress didn't spend 100% of three days on the doping thing. But I also know that they don't work 364 days a year.
Certainly Bush returning from vacation to sign the Schiavo bill was without precedent, so Congress apparently does work the occasional weekend, but only if it makes them look good, and only if the President gets to look important too. (Not exaggerating this time.)
uh. the police? the courts? the law? the tv viewer? the tax payer?
The police, courts, and law have a right to intervene on matters specifically prescribed by law -- and they are (see the BALCO investigation). I don't have a problem with that. TV viewers? Well, if they have an actual stake (i.e. they're fans and care about baseball), sure they might opine. Taxpayers? Absolutely not. Paying taxes doesn't justify involvement in every issue. Only on those where the government has jurisdiction.
does government have a right to moderate society?
As I am sure you are aware, this right is severely limited. And appropriately so. The question is, does the government have a right to moderate this particular situation? Due to a historical quirk that should be remedied, they do. But it is an inappropriate intrusion.
just like you say congress has better things to do than scold baseball, i say you have better things to do than scold congress for scolding baseball.
Really? There are better things for me to do than criticize the government for wasting taxpayer money and for wildly abusing its authority? Actually, I consider doing that to be a noble calling.
in this case, i think a few congressmen took a day to make sure baseball heard that they had lost control.
Fine. But is this their job? No. Is it necessary for them to become involved for change to occur? No. Does this grandstanding divert attention from far more pressing matters? Yes.
baseball had lost control.
OK. It's statements like this that frankly demonstrate that you really aren't up to speed on this issue. Baseball had never tried to exert control on this issue because nobody, not the union, not the owners, and not the fans, wanted them to. And steroid use isn't inherently a problem. It's only a problem if an involved party feels that it is -- and that had not happened. They could have collectively decided that steroid use was okay and this wouldn't be an issue at all.
unlawful = cheating.
No. It is only cheating if it is explicitly against the rules of the game which, until very recently, it was not. There are many things that are illegal that players engage in that do not bar them from play. There are many things that are legal that are prohibited from the game. There is no equivalence between legality and the rules of play.
you're saying congress grandstanding is worse than ballplayers using steroids.
You're damn straight and I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise. Congress is in charge of matters that affect the lives of millions of people. They decide issues of life or death on a daily basis. Baseball is a game. It's entertainment. How can it be justified that Congress table these critical issues to address something that is completely irrelevant to the nation at large?
And let's be honest here. No one in Congress actually gives two shits about steroids in baseball. They just want face time. They just want to look like they're doing something. Well, I've got an idea. Why not achieve that appearance by actually DOING SOMETHING? There are a lot of very difficult issues that desperately need to be resolved TODAY. But, that would be hard. This, on the other hand, is easy. There's no controversy, no constituency battling FOR steroids in baseball. It's a ridiculous distraction from real work. That's my problem with this whole affair. We can argue back and forth about the controversy within the game and, in terms of what should be done from this point forward, I doubt we would disagree. But the question, ultimately, is the role of government in this affair. I argue that it has none and that its motivations for intervening are completely self-serving, unnecessary, and, in the end, detrimental to the game and to the principal of limited government upon which this nation was founded. And that justifies my outrage.
Congress apparently does work the occasional weekend, but only if it makes them look good
And that, my friend, is what this is all about. A way to look good without the sweat. What a ridiculous waste. Frankly, I want my tax dollars spent accomplishing something real and not on meaningless publicity.
i don't think that's what's being said here explicitly. i think that's what's being said here implicitly.
ttn does not in any way condemn steroid use in pro sports. by ommission he says the opposite. the lesson in this is not "don't cheat" but "people are human" and "politicians ignore responsibility."
the crime occuring, he says, is congress wasting tax dollars. i just disagree. i believe the crime is corruption of athletic standards. i believe congress may also be wasting my tax dollars -- but that's nothing new. addressing this inquiry at the same time that congress is meddling in the life of terri schiavo compares the two and i feel dilutes the importance of the real issues.
i believe these subjects shouldn't be compared. i believe that the issues comes before the use of my tax dollars. steroid use is cheating. terri's husband understood terri's wishes and is being harrassed. at the same time, congress is wasteful. of those three things, the third is least important to me.
looks like our comments crossed paths.
we just disagree. you say that because there is no internal outrage from players or owners about steroids that it isn't a problem. i would posit that there is no internal outrage in congress about holding hearings about baseball. so ergo, using your logic, no problem. only the intimates get to call foul? then who are you to call foul? a taxpayer? that makes you as intimate to congress as i am to baseball. so we both have a right or neither of us do.
most of what you write about on TTN seems worth being upset about. write a post about government waste? i bet i'd agree with you. write a post about government waste and choose THIS as your example while quite clearly saying that there is no problem with steroid use? i think on the first point you've picked a horribly unconvincing example and on the second you're wrong.
i'm not a big baseball fan. i don't follow the sport. i do take offense at what's been going on in re: steroids. why? because it's insulting.
i'm as insulted by barry bonds as i was by ashlee simpson. did ashlee's manager think there was a problem? was there internal outrage? did the music industry swear they'd moderate lip synching? hell no. it was the people who were affected by it casually. the people who are told they're getting one thing while sold another. you're outraged at congress for tricking you like that but not at barry bonds? i think both are worth my scorn.
you say that because there is no internal outrage from players or owners about steroids that it isn't a problem.
No. This isn't what I'm saying. My point is that steroids are only a problem if they are explicitly against the rules. Until recently, they weren't. There are good reasons for them to be against the rules. Or rather, there is one and only one reason: they're unhealthy in the long-term. But, if it weren't for that, I would endorse their use just like I endorse every other training technique.
i'm as insulted by barry bonds as i was by ashlee simpson.
Well, you're free to be insulted by whatever tickles your fancy. I would contend that you don't really understand the steroid issue very well. But that point aside, let's suppose Bonds and Simpson are birds of a feather. Am I to understand that you are prepared to hold congressional hearings on lip syncing? If not, why not? If they are really the same issue, isn't it the government's responsibility to cleanup the recording industry too?
Ultimately, whether or not steroids are a problem for the game is unimportant to me in deciding how I feel about these hearings. In fact, let's insert something that is explicitly against the rules of baseball, say bat corking. That's cheating, no question. It happens all the time and baseball does very little to regulate it, even though it would be a simple matter to do so. Is it time for a congressional hearing on the matter? If not, why not? It brings up exactly the same issues that steroid use does. What about all the other issues of the game that challenge fair play (there are many)? Should we have hearings on them all?
And, let me make one final point. I do think that steroids are a problem. The associated health risks put athletes into the difficult position of having to decide between gaining a competitive edge and long-term health consequences. I don't think that they should have to make decisions like that. If the government wants to be involved, they should do so through OSHA, not Congress. I wouldn't oppose that -- in fact, I would support it.
But, of course, that would deprive Congress of the spotlight, which is really what this is all about for them. I could go on and on about how government at large could handle this problem if that was what they were really after. Even if hearings were the right answer, they would have been conducted in a dramatically different fashion (for example -- if they were after the truth, why not grant immunity to José Canseco, an act that would have vastly improved the opportunity for fact-finding). But, they didn't want that -- they wanted an opportunity to self righteously scold a bunch of people on national TV. And that, they got. Good for them. Our tax dollars at work.
in light of our debate here, i thought everyone would find this amusing.
Commenting by HaloScan
