Full Version: Congress debating Steroids
Anyone who follows sports probably knows that Congress is looking into steroid use in professional sports.
It began with baseball linkand has proceeded to most major sports. Today, Commissioner David Stern testified. Stern Proposes Tougher Testing Policies
This issue is actually more complicated than it appears on its surface.
For one thing, the proposed law only targets one profession. Second, the proposed penalty (two year suspension for first offense) seems very harsh, to the point of robbing an athlete of their profession. The third is the general argument against drug use: it only affects the individual using it. The fourth is that steroids are legal, if obtained using a prescription.
The text of the proposed bill can be viewed here.
Questions for debate:
Should the Congress be looking at steroid use and drug testing in professional sports?
Are the penalties proposed (2 year suspension for first offense and lifetime ban for second offense) too harsh or not harsh enough?
It began with baseball linkand has proceeded to most major sports. Today, Commissioner David Stern testified. Stern Proposes Tougher Testing Policies
This issue is actually more complicated than it appears on its surface.
For one thing, the proposed law only targets one profession. Second, the proposed penalty (two year suspension for first offense) seems very harsh, to the point of robbing an athlete of their profession. The third is the general argument against drug use: it only affects the individual using it. The fourth is that steroids are legal, if obtained using a prescription.
The text of the proposed bill can be viewed here.
Questions for debate:
Should the Congress be looking at steroid use and drug testing in professional sports?
Are the penalties proposed (2 year suspension for first offense and lifetime ban for second offense) too harsh or not harsh enough?
QUOTE
Should the Congress be looking at steroid use and drug testing in professional sports?
[sarcasm]What a stupid question Amlord...Honestly, America is perfect right now...Our boarders are tight, we're safe from terrorism, our gov't doesn't trample on the Constitution daily, we aren't fighting a war, our budget deficit is non-existant, so it's not like the gov't has anything more important to do. That and the government clearly has the Constitutional authority to change the BUSINESS practices of Major League Baseball. [/sarcasm]Of course not, our representatives should be ashamed of themselves, this is an unConstitutional and unnecessary act of the government. Plane and simple, the gov't has no authority over the MLB.
QUOTE
Are the penalties proposed (2 year suspension for first offense and lifetime ban for second offense) too harsh or not harsh enough?
Finally, Bud Selig has the stones to make a harsh penalty for CHEATERS. 2 Years and then you're out is fine by me.CP
Should the Congress be looking at steroid use and drug testing in professional sports?
Ahh... I see McCain waved the Holy Subpoena of Antioch once again. And may I add, laying a righteous smack down on the sports world for little Tom and Suzy’s sake endears you to voting citizens as well as lighting a pyre of music CD’s and paraphernalia drenched in potty language can.
Congresses and state legislatures think they have a Constitutionally granted authority to look into any and all aspects of American life whenever pontificate inspiration crawls up their wizened butts.
Are the penalties proposed (2 year suspension for first offense and lifetime ban for second offense) too harsh or not harsh enough?
Too harsh compared to how society already excuses bad behavior directly effecting other people in order to shield human cash cows for investors and cities. One can make the moral argument that Tom and Suzy look up to these guys, but it’s up to parents to steer children away from drugs until they come of age. A child’s let down is negligible damage next to getting drunk, running a red, and killing a woman. Punishing an athlete for homicide by keeping them off the field for half the season can cost a title; a two year suspension for steroid use is unconscionable.
Ahh... I see McCain waved the Holy Subpoena of Antioch once again. And may I add, laying a righteous smack down on the sports world for little Tom and Suzy’s sake endears you to voting citizens as well as lighting a pyre of music CD’s and paraphernalia drenched in potty language can.
Congresses and state legislatures think they have a Constitutionally granted authority to look into any and all aspects of American life whenever pontificate inspiration crawls up their wizened butts.
Are the penalties proposed (2 year suspension for first offense and lifetime ban for second offense) too harsh or not harsh enough?
QUOTE(Amlord @ May 18 2005, 02:46 PM)
For one thing, the proposed law only targets one profession. Second, the proposed penalty (two year suspension for first offense) seems very harsh, to the point of robbing an athlete of their profession. The third is the general argument against drug use: it only affects the individual using it. The fourth is that steroids are legal, if obtained using a prescription. 
Too harsh compared to how society already excuses bad behavior directly effecting other people in order to shield human cash cows for investors and cities. One can make the moral argument that Tom and Suzy look up to these guys, but it’s up to parents to steer children away from drugs until they come of age. A child’s let down is negligible damage next to getting drunk, running a red, and killing a woman. Punishing an athlete for homicide by keeping them off the field for half the season can cost a title; a two year suspension for steroid use is unconscionable.
Should the Congress be looking at steroid use and drug testing in professional sports?
Well the short answer is: absolutely not, that is completely ridiculous and a waste of their time. I would expect that we are problem free as a country if our Congress doesn't have anything better to talk about than steroid abuse.
One could certainly make the argument that steroids are not illegal, that they only effect the athlete and can't result in injury to others or that professional sports should make their own rules and discipline participants as they see fit.
However I think the more important argument is that this would be completely pointless. The reason for that is a new method of performance enhancement comes into play every year or two. Some of them have been allowed by professional sporting organizations and others have not. People very likely might not even be using steroids for performance enhancement in 5 years making this law completely obsolete.
Well the short answer is: absolutely not, that is completely ridiculous and a waste of their time. I would expect that we are problem free as a country if our Congress doesn't have anything better to talk about than steroid abuse.
One could certainly make the argument that steroids are not illegal, that they only effect the athlete and can't result in injury to others or that professional sports should make their own rules and discipline participants as they see fit.
However I think the more important argument is that this would be completely pointless. The reason for that is a new method of performance enhancement comes into play every year or two. Some of them have been allowed by professional sporting organizations and others have not. People very likely might not even be using steroids for performance enhancement in 5 years making this law completely obsolete.
It astounds me that we can drum up an instant debate in Congress concerning steroid use in Major League Baseball but we are hard-pressed to get them to do anything to stem the flow of businesses to the Bahamas or to protect us against being swindled by CEO's.
Apparently it is OK to break the rules to gain an unfair advantage in business (and bankrupt thousands of hard-working Americans) but it is somehow unconscionable to allow athletes to cheat for more home runs. I guess I do feel a little bit cheated tunning in during the Mcgwire/Sosa era to see who would be the new king...but I don't think I was actually done a "harm" in the legal sense.
OF course Congress should stop doing the "justice is blind" two-step...
Justice has second sight!! She not only knows where she wants to look...she knows where NOT to look. And right now she is not looking at corporate criminals, tax dodgers and the black market of lobbyists in D.C.
To McCain's defense, he is actually involved in some of those issues as well and perhaps it is the publics fault for not wanting to hear more about them. We do so love to hear about our cheating athletes.
Apparently it is OK to break the rules to gain an unfair advantage in business (and bankrupt thousands of hard-working Americans) but it is somehow unconscionable to allow athletes to cheat for more home runs. I guess I do feel a little bit cheated tunning in during the Mcgwire/Sosa era to see who would be the new king...but I don't think I was actually done a "harm" in the legal sense.
OF course Congress should stop doing the "justice is blind" two-step...
Justice has second sight!! She not only knows where she wants to look...she knows where NOT to look. And right now she is not looking at corporate criminals, tax dodgers and the black market of lobbyists in D.C.
To McCain's defense, he is actually involved in some of those issues as well and perhaps it is the publics fault for not wanting to hear more about them. We do so love to hear about our cheating athletes.
Should the Congress be looking at steroid use and drug testing in professional sports?
Short answer: no. This is such a complete waste of time, energy and money that I am more ashamed than I've ever been of our legislators. Making a special law against a select group of people is, well, pretty much fascist. Is the state of our Congress so divided that the only thing they can agree on is something like this? Bleh...
If you don't want drugs to be in professional sports, then you must create an economic disincentive. Specifically, you must reduce the amount of money involved. A large reason why there is so much money is advertising dollars. And large reason why there is so much of that is because there are only a "few" teams. The reason there are only a "few" teams is because the federal government permits a monopoly to exist for professional sports, that is, only the sports commissions permit new teams. If this were really a free market system, then every city which could afford a team would have one. This would move the concentration of dollars from a few places to many more places which would decrease the incentive for performance enhancement.
Are the penalties proposed (2 year suspension for first offense and lifetime ban for second offense) too harsh or not harsh enough?
In the interest of fairness, such a law should apply to everyone in the public limelight up to and including our Congress-critters. Yep, that's right. If the reason we're introducing such a law is "for the children" (think of the children), then all folks who are in leadership roles ought to be covered under the same harsh legal scrutiny.
Short answer: no. This is such a complete waste of time, energy and money that I am more ashamed than I've ever been of our legislators. Making a special law against a select group of people is, well, pretty much fascist. Is the state of our Congress so divided that the only thing they can agree on is something like this? Bleh...
If you don't want drugs to be in professional sports, then you must create an economic disincentive. Specifically, you must reduce the amount of money involved. A large reason why there is so much money is advertising dollars. And large reason why there is so much of that is because there are only a "few" teams. The reason there are only a "few" teams is because the federal government permits a monopoly to exist for professional sports, that is, only the sports commissions permit new teams. If this were really a free market system, then every city which could afford a team would have one. This would move the concentration of dollars from a few places to many more places which would decrease the incentive for performance enhancement.
Are the penalties proposed (2 year suspension for first offense and lifetime ban for second offense) too harsh or not harsh enough?
In the interest of fairness, such a law should apply to everyone in the public limelight up to and including our Congress-critters. Yep, that's right. If the reason we're introducing such a law is "for the children" (think of the children), then all folks who are in leadership roles ought to be covered under the same harsh legal scrutiny.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.