I started thinking, if I was to come up with a baseball variant to try and take on MLB, what would it look like? Well, it would be baseball, but, I’d market it as a faster, more exciting version. I’d make the following rules changes to try and re-enforce the brand [...]

No steroid testing. Leave that for the cops. This is baseball – let’s the conversation revolve around the action on the field, not off of it.

In a previous post, Markson expands on his feelings about steroids in sports with some insightful comments on the issue. Sports has had to deal with advances in technology in every aspect of the game including performance enhancing drugs. More often than not, sports have embraced advances in technology and incorporated them into the game. Sports have recently had a conflicted position with regarding to technological advances in pharmacological ergogens. But it’s difficult to counteract technology (progress).

The thing about technology is that it always evolves at a rate much faster than efforts designed to stop it. Don’t believe me, ask the recording industry. In the case of performance enhancing drugs, the drugs will always outpace the tests designed to detect their presence/ use. To try to combat this, testing has to become more frequent, more intrusive. Like anything the more frequent and more intrusive you make it, the more likely their will be false results. Which means there need to be procedures around appealing tests, results, etc. All of a sudden, testing requires an infrastructure, and then you’re in trouble.

Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s basically how the Tour de France and track and field operate. Bet you have no clue who won last year’ tour de france, but know Floyd Landis cheated. Likewise, bet you have absolutely no clue who holds what records for any track and field events, but are very familiar with the Marion Jones scandal.

The problem with false positives is very disturbing. The problem is compounded by the flimsy standards of evidence required for guilt by anti-doping agencies. I can’t imagine the degree of uproar if our own imperfect criminal justice system in the United States abandoned “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of the evidence” and adopted the “comfortable satisfaction” standard advocated by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

Markson continues by discussing how the ultimate outcome is the destruction of the sport.

This is what happen when you try to use policing measures to keep up with technology. The drug tests, their results, the appeals, etc. actually become the only interesting/ memorable thing about the sport. The become the brand of the sport. And, since this isn’t nearly as fun/interesting as remember the actual games or plays themselves, the fans eventually abandon.

Baseball should stick to the business of balls, strikes, beer and caps and leave police work to the pros [...]

At the end of the day, juice or no juice, talent and skill are still the ultimate arbiter of performance.

Most elite athletes strive to be the best at their sport without qualification. And most fans want to see the best without qualification. After all, who really cares who is the best cyclist riding on a bike that costs no more than $200 or the best baseball player who doesn’t lift weights? Let’s see the best.

Does Roger Clemens’ personal and/or sexual relationships have any bearing on his alleged use of performance enhancing drugs (or vice versa)? Already, the blogosphere is suggesting that steroids may have caused Clemens’ infidelity. But as far as the legal proceedings are concerned, Yahoo Sports’ Tim Brown doesn’t think his philandering has relevance to his alleged steroid use (“We’re no closer to the truth about Clemens,” April 29)

Clemens had an affair with a country singer, according to the New York Daily News. Therefore, the thinking goes, the defamation case against his accuser and former trainer is weak. Didn’t we already have a pretty good notion of that? As for claims in the petition regarding marital purity, well, it doesn’t address that, exactly. It does claim that McNamee has sullied “Clemens’ good reputation,” and has caused him to suffer “mental anguish, shame, public humiliation and embarrassment.” Presumably, the Daily News report has piled onto that, but what does a private relationship have to do with Clemens’ public reputation, whatever it may be? I’m sure the lawyers will enlighten us.

Now the attorneys chime in…

Richard Emery, McNamee’s attorney, believes the news of an extramarital affair by Roger Clemens clearly hurts Clemens’ defamation lawsuit claiming McNamee lied about Clemens use of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone (“Roger Clemens had 10-year fling with country star Mindy McCready,” April 28).

“The issue in Roger’s suit against McNamee is Roger’s reputation and how it has been damaged,” said Richard Emery, one of McNamee’s lawyers who is handling the defamation suit. “If it’s proved that he’s a philanderer, his reputation is already damaged. When you sue for defamation, you put your whole reputation in the community at issue. Anything is fair game, including his claim of sanctimonious purity. We would cross-examine him and other witnesses who might impact on his alleged behavior. We would probably subpoena her and witnesses who knew [of the relationship]. He’s a ‘family man’ – he implies that. It’s about what his damages are. All is fair game.”

Richard Emery believes the lawsuit will be dismissed.

“If the case heads to trial and is not dismissed, as we feel it should be, we will be calling [McCready] as a witness,” Emery said.

“The point is whether he was damaged by the allegations that he used steroids – he claims he was hurt. But if there are other women – and there’s not just one case, but many – and he holds himself out as a family man and an American paradigm, it’s relevant.

“None of this would have been revealed but for his lawsuit and sanctimonious testimony before Congress.”

But Rusty Hardin, Clemens’ attorney, tells the press that Roger Clemens’ (alleged) infidelity is irrelevant to the veracity of Brian McNamee’s statements regarding Clemens’ steroid and growth hormone use.

“I think it’s totally irrelevant to the issue of whether Brian McNamee is telling the truth about Roger using human growth hormone and steroids,” said Hardin. “The character trait that you put in issue should be the character trait that the defamatory statement was made about.”

I guess the specter of anabolic steroid use is so bad that Clemens would rather publicly embarrass his wife Debbie Clemens with revelations of an extramarital affair and her illegal use of human growth hormone a Sports Illustrated swimsuit photo shoot than admit steroid use. At least, Roger Clemens will have officially gone on record as officially denying steroid use.

The hotline, recommended by Sen. George Mitchell in his report on baseball and steroids and implemented by commissioner Bud Selig in January, is one of the tools the investigative unit is using to catch drug cheats, along with information from outside investigators.

Everybody is baseball is said to have access to the anonymous hotline which hopes to break the so-called “code of silence” of steroid use in baseball.

The first casualty of the hotline is said to be Jordan Schafer, a top minor league player, according to an anonymous MLB source contacted by the New York Daily News. Schafer was suspended for growth hormone use due to evidence of a “non-analytical positive.” This was obviously not the result of a drug test nor evidence in a governmental steroid-related investigation (“Braves prospect unable to clarify HGH charge,” April 9).

Jordan Schafer, 21, already has a Nike contract and a projected center-field spot with the Braves in 2009.

However, this is a bad incident at the beginning of his career. Schafer was playing for Class AA Mississippi after a breakthrough 2007 season in Class A that lifted him to the organization’s No. 1 prospect.

There are questions, but even team officials have not been able to get complete answers. Schafer was advised not to discuss matters with anyone..

The anonymous hotline is being used to investigate suspected steroid use (and other performance enhancing drugs) in both the minor and major leagues.

Roorda, a Democrat from Jefferson County, filed a bill today that would bar state tax credits from going to professional sports teams in a league that does not place at least a one-year ban on athletes caught using steroids.

That would mean: No state breaks for the Cardinals, as well as the Royals, the Chiefs, the Rams, the Blues, the state’s minor league baseball teams, or pro soccer outfits…

“Since when in baseball is it four strikes and you’re out?” Roorda said in a statement today.

Never mind that in baseball, it is not one strike and you’re out either. Roorda obviously intends to highlight what he believes to be a weak steroid and doping policy in Major League Baseball.

But it also highlights the government’s “investment” in professional sports via corporate welfare (e.g. sales tax revenue and tax subsidies). Major League Baseball is not the only entity to benefit from the bigger, faster, stronger steroid-fueled performances.

The sales tax will raise $425 million over 25 years for the overhaul of the stadiums. The Royals will contribute another $25 million, the Chiefs $75 million and the state of Missouri $50 million in tax credits.

The State of Missouri has a long-term investment in the success of Major League Baseball. Is there a conflict of interest when the issue of steroid use threatens the sports?

“This bill attempts to send a message to Major League Baseball and to all other professional sports leagues that if they want to continue to ignore the problem that they have with steroids, that we’re not going to continue to underwrite their activities with tax dollars,” Roorda said.  

How involved (taxpayer funds) should the government be in building stadiums for private sports teams? I’ve previously written about my distaste for government regulation of the rules in private sports leagues; I also question whether the government should provide corporate welfare to professional sports leagues especially if the government has a problem with the widespread steroid use.  Thoughts?

“As I have previously suggested, perhaps the Congress should examine whether the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act–DSHEA, as it is commonly known–is being adequately enforced,” Fehr said [...]

I have got some news for Donald Fehr: They don’t sell steroids in the supplement aisle. They don’t sell the “cream” or the “clear,” either. That’s because this industry does a better job of policing itself than Major League Baseball ever could.

Clearly, Fehr was disingeniously trying to blame DSHEA for the problem baseball was having with anabolic steroids. He tried to use the supplement industry as a scapegoat for MLB’s problems and it deservedly failed.

But the supplement industry needs to pull their heads out of the stand, stop patting themselves on the back for a job well-done, and respond honestly to criticisms of their industry.

First, they have failed miserably at self-regulating the supplement industry. Steroids are currently sold in the supplement aisle. And they have been for over a decade. They were sold legally under DSHEA up until the loophole was closed by the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. They were even sold using pharmaceutical delivery methods most likely not permitted by DSHEA. And since 2004, supplement companies have continued to sell designer steroids. Supplement industry expert, William Llewellyn, clarified this for me in his comments to a previous post:

Designer steroids are still sold, as has been discussed above. SOmetimes they are not labeled as ingredients, but most often they are clearly listed. The fact remains, however, that synthetic designer steroids are considered unapproved new drugs, and are NOT covered by DSHEA as legal dietary supplements. Patrick Arnold was charged, and served time, for such a crime – no new law needs to be passed to address this.

Andro, norandro etc were covered by DSHEA because you could find them in most animals, and hence in the food supply. No animals, plants, etc naturally produce DMT, Epistane, methyl, 1-4ADD, etc etc.

I am sure there are only a few companies flaunting DSHEA and this doesn’t reflect the practices of the entire industry. But my point is that the industry is NOT doing a good job self-policing itself because the practice continues unabated.

Furthermore, significant percentages of dietary supplements have been reported to be contaminated with anabolic steroids and stimulants that are not disclosed in the ingredients. It would be nice to share my protein shake with my 6-year old daughter without worrying about the possibility of contamination due to poor quality control.

If the supplement industry is content to ignore the problem of poor self-regulation, then they share in the blame should a backlash against DSHEA occur as a result of the present-day steroid hysteria.

The next time you hear an “industry expert” say something like this (“Major League pain for supplements,” February 11)…

They don’t sell steroids in the supplement aisle.

Or this…

Anabolic steroids are not dietary supplements and dietary supplements are not anabolic steroids,” said Council of Responsible Nutrition president Steve Mister.

…please ask them to be honest for the sake of the future of DSHEA. Steroids and designer steroids are and have been sold, legally and illegally, as dietary supplements.

But I have to give credit to Rob Eder. In his closing comments, he sarcastically suggested that Fehr donate $20 million to help the FDA enforce DSHEA.

So where exactly did Fehr think the government would get the money to conduct that kind of an investigation? Rather than spend $20 million to pay for former Sen. Mitchell’s investigation, why not just donate the $20 million to the Food and Drug Administration whose job it is to police the dietary supplement industry? Contrary to popular belief, DSHEA absolutely grants FDA regulatory authority over the dietary supplement industry.

If MLB was really concerned about what products the FDA allows to come to market, they’d spend the $20 million to lobby Congress for a greater annual budget allocation for FDA.

Bravo. Illegal or undisclosed steroids in our dietary supplements is more important than the voluntary use of steroids by professional baseball players. It is time that Congress reevaluate their priorities. I like DSHEA. It just needs to be enforced. It is clear that the supplement industry can’t regulate itself as they are not even aware of any problems. Rather than waste money on steroids in baseball, federal money would be better spent enforcing a good law like DSHEA and making our dietary supplements safe.

“While Congress focuses on the need to eliminate drug use from baseball, law enforcement is struggling to get action on Byrne . . . which fights drugs not just in baseball, but on our streets and in our neighborhoods,” Bouchard said. “Literally thousands of children have been saved from drug scenes by this program.”

“With budgets tightening across the board, we need federal funding for critical law enforcement programs to stay intact. Law enforcement officers need the support and communities need the protection,” Bouchard said.

Federal funding for programs that have allegedly saved “thousands of children from drug scenes” has been cut approximately 60% in the past year.

Last week, Bouchard said he met with federal officials in Washington D.C. about not cutting the money that law enforcement agencies use to target drug dealers and violent criminals. The funding, administrated by the U.S. Department of Justice, was cut from $520 million in 2007 to $170 in the 2008 fiscal year. The money is being shifted to other federal programs.

The grandstanding in Congress on the issue of steroids (purportedly to save the children) increasingly appears to have unintended consequences that ironically may have the opposite effect. This is starting to become apparent with the reallocation of limited federal resources away from more critical issues that are ignored while money is liberally spent to support trivial perjury investigations of professional athletes who lie about their steroid use.

We may be seeing the beginnings of a backlash against the federal governments overzealous pursuit of steroids in baseball. Sheriff Mike Brouchard is politically influential in the State of Michigan; he manages one of the largest Sheriff’s Offices in the country and was the Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006. Brouchard is considered a frontrunner for the office of Governor of Michigan in 2010.

Perjury cases are rarely prosecuted by the Justice Department according to Jenkins:

It charged just 99 people with the crime in 2006, out of more than 88,000 federal defendants. Between 2001 and 2006, 566 perjury cases were filed — about 1 percent of all criminal charges. Cases brought before the federal criminal justice system are supposed to be top-notch in quality, and of overriding size and importance.

Unless, of course, the defendant is famous.

Prosecuting trivial lies by the likes of Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Marion Jones in federal court is highly unusual. This is especially true when serious lies have been told to Congress with no perjury charges:

The fact is, any number of public figures, starting with Big Tobacco executives, have told much bigger lies to Congress than Clemens did, and none faced perjury charges. You want a brazen, damaging public lie? How about, “Tobacco isn’t addictive”?

Professional athletes are treated differently than non-famous steroid users too. Usually, the government targets steroid distributors and not steroid users. But things change when the steroid user is a professional athlete.

Normally the government doesn’t go after the drug users; it wants the sellers and distributors. But in this situation it’s the inverse. It flies in the face of any sensible anti-drug effort. Something is fundamentally wrong. Everything is backward. What are we doing?

There are several explanations why steroid-using pro athletes are treated differently than everyone else.

Jenkins writes that it is a lame attempt by the government to make an example out of sports heroes who set a bad example for the children. But how can letting the sellers and distributors of performance-enhancing drugs go free send the right message to the children? 

Law professor Frank Bowman justifies this approach from a prosecutorial perspective:

The hierarchy of the performance-enhancing drug market for professional athletes is exactly the reverse. The balance of power, money, and culpability lies with the players in their relationships with guys like Roger Clemens’ trainer Brian McNamee or former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski… If relative culpability is to determine who is prosecuted and who is allowed to go free, it’s the players who should be indicted.

But I think Lou Schuler offers the best explanation as to why professional athletes are treated differently in steroid cases in his critique today of the cult of celebrity.

Fame, in Western civilization, has a narrative structure. You’re born to be a god or hero, you perform spectacular feats of strength or bravery or intellect, and then when you get to the top, you screw up. The gods get to remain gods despite their blunders — the monotony of their immortality has a lot to do with their need to beat the hornet’s nest from time to time — but the mortals or semi-mortals who achieve fame pay a terrible price. The demons that drive them to greatness inevitably get the better of them… 

The trinity of celebrityhood that I mentioned — athletes, entertainers, politicians — provide ready-made fodder for the narrative. The talent, magnetism, energy, and narcissism that drive people into the spotlight are the same qualities that make them likely to screw up at some point. It’s just a matter of time.

We love our sports heroes. But we love to see them fall from grace even more!

The customary practice for federal prosecutors is to prosecute dealers rather than users. In a reversal of this practice, Radomski was given leniency in exchange for his testimony against his clients (individual steroid users who happened to be professional athletes).

Frank Bowman, a former prosecutor and current law professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia, justifies this approach:

Federal prosecutors customarily prosecute dealers rather than users primarily because dealers are considered more culpable. Dealers are the rich, bad-guy beneficiaries of others’ weaknesses, while users are destitute victims or inconsequential saps. Dealers affect many people. Users affect only themselves.

The hierarchy of the performance-enhancing drug market for professional athletes is exactly the reverse. The balance of power, money, and culpability lies with the players in their relationships with guys like Roger Clemens’ trainer Brian McNamee or former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski. McNamee’s and Radomski’s continued employment in and around the major leagues depended on the favor of players, particularly stars. The nobody suppliers made a few thousand in pin money for supplying the juice. But the real financial gainers were the players: Drugs allowed them to cheat their way into the majors or to enhance and prolong careers worth millions of dollars. If relative culpability is to determine who is prosecuted and who is allowed to go free, it’s the players who should be indicted.

The other reason federal prosecutors ordinarily go after dealers, not users, is to have a greater effect on drug markets. But if one really wanted to stop the use of steroids in baseball, which is likely to be more effective—cooperation deals with a few locker room enablers, or the spectacle of big leaguers in prison stripes rather than pinstripes?

The end result is the same for the government snitch as the Drug Law Blog points out:

[T]he person who flips on their colleagues and friends is richly rewarded in our criminal justice system.

Now, Kirk Radomski is free to exploit his steroid infamy and sign the million dollar book that he bragged would overshadow Jose Canseco’s Juiced.

In other news, a teenager is facing 20 years in prison for selling steroids.

Senator McCain has expressed his disappointment with Roger Clemens’ alleged use of anabolic steroids and growth hormone, but that is probably only because Clemens has not endorsed him.

It is unlikely that Sylvester Stallone is endorsing John McCain based on his record as an anti-steroid crusader. Sly is apparently not a single issue voter. There has been some serious discussion in the blogosphere about Stallone’s endorsement of McCain and his political leanings based on his Rambo franchise.

Matt Zoller Seitz believes the Rambo franchise is the most “unabashedly right wing in its world view” than any blockbuster action series.

Cowritten and directed by Stallone, the fourth Rambo movie is a bracingly political picture — as much an argument in movie form as No End In Sight; a pro-interventionist rebuttal to all the 2007 documentaries and dramas about America losing bits of its soul in Iraq. The I-word is never spoken in Rambo, yet in its coded way, the film makes a case for why we are in Iraq and should stay there until the job is done, whenever that may be.

Seitz offers an insightful review of Rambo and the Rambo franchise:

[Rambo has] a sharp pro-interventionist flavor. Arriving five years into America’s occupation of Iraq, on the cusp of a presidential election that could determine whether the U.S. stays indefinitely or leaves as soon as possible, its timing is impeccable. It’s a Stay the Course movie, an inspirational blood-and-guts action flick whose message seems aimed equally at the portion of the American left that wants to see democracy spread, but not in this way, and that supposedly has no stomach for war; and that growing sector of the American right that views Iraq as noble crusade led by incompetents.