Archive for June, 2009

« Older Entries

Steroid Users, Statistics and the Hall of Fame

June 30th, 2009  |  4 Comments »

Ryne Sandberg, my favorite Cub and one of my favorite sports stars, has some very definite opinions about what is popularly called “The Steroids Era” in baseball and about one player in particular, his one-time teammate, Sammy Sosa.

Sosa had recently been outed as one of the 104 names who tested positive for performance enhancers during Major League Baseball’s (not-so-)anonymous testing of 2003, the same list Alex Rodriguez’s name was leaked from during Spring Training this year.

Sandberg believes that Sosa, and others who test positive for performance-enhancing drugs, should be banned from the Baseball Hall of Fame, as using the substances is “against the law and society” and is “cheating in the sport”.

I personally have a problem with the argument of the use of PEDs being “against the law and society”. This is not the first time baseball players have used drugs to enhance or maintain performance. Amphetamines, or “greenies”, had been in Major League clubhouses since the 1950s. They also are illegal without a prescription, but it is only recently that they, like PEDs, have been officially banned in baseball. While most fans range from distaste to anger to even horror that names attached to PED use like Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez appear alongside legends such as Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver and Hank Aaron in the record books, the latter were in locker rooms where amphetamines were used. I do not want to insinuate any of those names or other greats of the time did use (or regularly use) amphetamines, but the benefit of having a little extra boost of energy in a game of speed and timing, especially as a player gets further and further into a six- or seven-month season, is pretty clear. Much less is made of that particular use by fans, however.

As far as PED usage being “against the sport”: It might have been against the spirit of baseball, but the reality is the test Sosa took was used to determine whether or not a league-wide program would be implemented. In other words, although Sosa did test positive for a performance enhancer, it was not in fact against the rules of baseball at the time. (And again, it should be noted that the results themselves were supposed to be kept secret.)

Keeping “tainted players” out of the Hall of Fame “for the up-and-coming players and the youth” is a stance that grates on me personally, though I must admit it is more for my extreme dislike of the “protect the children” blanket argument rather than anything related to baseball. At any rate, if the young people do care about the integrity of the game, something Sandberg finds important, they will probably stay away from steroids and HGH no matter what. If they are more interested in money or feel the pressure of competing with those skirting the rules, they will likely make the same decision about their use whether or not Bonds or Clemens is in the Hall of Fame. To me, you can keep young people in the dark by not inducting known users, but the teaching experience that will lead to more contemplative people is informing the “youth” about the players who did use and, despite the potential for gaudy numbers and contracts, why they should not. Growing up, I always respected adults more who treated me like I could think; I’m positive many children and teenagers feel the same way.

I understand the dismay of Sandberg and others like him. Sandberg was a clean player who played into an era in which statistics were inflated due to chemically-induced advantages. His numbers will be compared to those who did use steroids or human growth hormones. He also sees induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame as an honor. I am certainly not unsympathetic to his argument.

However, the Baseball Hall of Fame is also a museum of the sport. As disappointing as it is as a baseball fan (especially as one who did get excited during Mark McGwire and Sosa’s chase of Roger Maris’s single-season record in 1998), “the steroid era” is as much as part of the game’s history as “the dead ball era“, “the gentleman’s agreement” or the 1919 Black Sox Scandal. Barry Bonds probably had a little help [insert your cynical mumbling here] hitting 73 home runs in 2001 and 762 during his career, but he was still one of the best players in his era and arguably HOF-caliber before the controversy started. Place an asterisk-shaped plaque next to the busts of those proven to have used PEDs if that makes people happy, but the fact remains that players like Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Clemens, A-Rod and Manny are the best of their time.

Though Sandberg didn’t mention it, the idea of eliminating the statistics of known “cheaters” is popular among others fed up with PEDs in baseball. That might seem just, but it creates an enormous nightmare. (Just a sample: If Bonds’ career did not count, do the pitchers who gave up hits, walks and runs to him get those erased from their stats? If so, wouldn’t the elimination of those stats change the outcome of more than a few games? Now consider how many other players would get the same treatment.) Since it is impossible to erase players and their numbers from history without having to adjust or creating gaps in other players’ statistics, the better option would be to leave the record books intact and allow future fans to decide for themselves. They’ll do it anyway, just like they always have.

Opinion    , ,

International policy suggestions

June 29th, 2009  |  No Comments »

I don’t know how you can prove your elections aren’t rigged when a good deal of the world is skeptical.

However, I know that if you consider a ten percent recount of an election ballots indicative of a complete re-tallying, you might raise some eyebrows.

If you trot out the same, repetitive act of blaming outside governments and enemies of the state for the unhappiness of a sizable amount of your citizenry, it will sound increasingly hollow.

If you try to silence the citizens who disagree with you with violence, you will not elicit much sympathy. In fact, you are extremely likely to do the very opposite.

If you claim interaction with protesters by embassy workers is tantamount to inciting them, you will sound like you’re grasping at straws, if not just outright pathetic.

If you disallow journalists to report on what is taking place, you raise suspicions that otherwise would not exist.

If you hide behind having divine approval to justify your actions, that means little to nothing. Anybody can claim to have God on their side.

If you do all these things and more, you should not be surprised when much of the rest of the world believes almost nothing you have to say.

Commentary   

Michael Jackson

June 26th, 2009  |  2 Comments »

Michael Jackson is dead at the age of 50.

Wow.

With sincere apologies to Farrah Fawcett and Ed McMahon, this was the celebrity death that really gave me some pause. While I never got into much of the pop culture of the ’80s (not of my own choosing; you’ll see what I mean later), Michael Jackson was one of the icons that I was relatively familiar with.

I have to admit that during my childhood I was more of a fan of his sister Janet, partially because I did enjoy her music more (I found her lyrics easier to figure out, for one thing), but also because I was a bit of a contrarian even then. Everyone loved Michael, so I went with Janet.

Now that I’m older, I really appreciate the complexities and craftsmanship in his music, and I find that if I really listen, I can even understand what he’s singing. (Most of the time. It still helps to have the lyrics nearby, though.)

In reading and watching the tributes and reactions to Jackson’s death, I have noticed quite a few patterns. Most people are shocked and more than a few are emotional about his passing. The press articles give a short biography, listing his musical accomplishments with the Jackson 5, his greater fame as a solo artist, and then his downturn with the sexual abuse allegations and — as more than one outlet called it — his “increasingly eccentric behavior”. It is the latter two, and the alleged abuse in particular, that those who aren’t mourning Jackson’s passing indifferent or uncharitable about it. I can’t blame those less than saddened about Jackson’s passing, as I don’t always love those seemingly everyone else does, and there are some things about Jackson’s history that are understandably hard to accept on their face.

I have a bit of empathy for Michael Jackson. He and I grew up in Gary, Indiana and were raised as Jehovah’s Witnesses by our mothers. I’m not saying it was the same for both of us. Jackson’s Gary was different than mine; he lived there during the decline of the city, I lived in the result of the decline. I missed out on many social events and crazes due to being a Jehovah’s Witness, the religion didn’t seem to have that much of an effect on his childhood. A couple of other things, on the other hand, did.

Take a look at this:

View Larger Map

That house on the corner is 2300 Jackson Street. I’ve been by there quite a few times. It’s a one-story house with no basement. You almost certainly grew up in a larger house. You may lived in apartments with more square footage. Michael, his eight siblings, as well as his mother and father all lived in that house.

Jackson had been in music since age six. Performing in a popular musical group means that Jackson would have not had the same chance to play or make friends with children his age he would otherwise. Fame would have kept him from being able to go out to public places like movie theaters or amusement parks without paying to keep the venue private. Given the accounts of his father Joseph’s abuse and incessant rehearsing, however, times like that would have been unlikely at best. (I think it says something that at one point Joseph managed the careers of nine of his children and each one of them left him.)

Michael Jackson didn’t just miss out on a normal childhood thanks to the Jackson 5, he had an abusive one. He may have claimed to not wanted to changed the path his life took, but I would guess from listening to his song “Childhood”, that may not be the case.

In that light, having a pet monkey and purchasing Neverland Ranch (and the name, for that matter) makes more sense. Jackson was simply rich enough to buy an approximation of the times he didn’t have when he was younger.

The fact that he liked to surround himself with children arguably also makes sense; they would be the friends he didn’t have before. According to society, however, once you enter adulthood, you can’t go back. So no matter how innocent the sleepovers at Neverland might or might not have been, Jackson at the very least was either taking a huge risk or sadly naïve.

A sexual abuse victim, an opportunistic jackass, or possibly both named Jordan Chandler changed the rest of Jackson’s life. That much I know. Jackson may have settled with Chandler’s family to keep them quiet, but then again, it’s funny sometimes how such supposedly deep emotional scarring disappears with a greenback bath. Maybe his marriage to Lisa Marie Presley was genuine, or maybe it was to distract people from his legal problems. I didn’t have a clue then, I still don’t, and I won’t pretend like I do.

My opinion on the matter, though, is that whatever happened in 1993, it was nowhere nearly as simple as it was made out to be. Connecting the circumstances Jackson grew up in with his controversial times lead me to believe he was trying to capture some semblance of a childhood. I’ll admit I felt more pity for him than anything else by far.

So, while I am selfishly sorry that Michael Jackson’s gone, I do think he is, as the cliché says, finally at peace. He doesn’t have to hide from prying eyes and or worry about media scrutiny anymore. I don’t know what to make of the idea of an afterlife, but if there is one, maybe he finally can have that childhood he longed for.

Opinion   

Anti-smoking nanny law signed

June 23rd, 2009  |  4 Comments »

“Holy shit! These things are bad for you? I thought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in ‘em and stuff!”

– Denis Leary, paraphrased from “No Cure for Cancer”, in response to the belief that making the Surgeon General’s warnings on cigarette packs bigger would lead to a reduction in smoking.

The First Daddy and his Nanny Patrol have passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, legislation which gives the Food and Drug Administration much greater control over the tobacco industry and regulates advertising allegedly aimed at children.

This announcement was made, of course, with children in the audience. Using children is a cheap political ploy; it puts opponents on the defensive before a confrontation can even start. Oppose the argument, and oppose the children.

Right.

An oft-cited statistic is that 3500 children smoke their first cigarette each day. However, according to the American Cancer Society (an organization not exactly unbiased in this), only 1000 become addicted. If the numbers are to be believed, that means that 2500 children — or 71% — try cigarettes and do not pick up the habit.

Multiplying 1000 over the course of the year gives you 365,000 children. The most recent United States Census population estimates give the under-18 population as 73,941,848. Hence the number of children who become addicted to cigarettes after their first drag is less than 0.5% of the child population. To put that another way, 99.5% of children either never take up smoking or try it and choose not to smoke.

Do you need (more) legislation to stop over 73.5 million children from being addicted to something they won’t become addicted to anyway or to restrict advertisements they aren’t falling for? Yet that is exactly what the President, Congress and all the anti-smoking advocates are telling you.

That brings us to the adults. Consider this quote from Obama:

“Since at least the middle of the last century, we’ve known about the harmful and often deadly effects of tobacco products.”

Yes. We’ve seen the Surgeon General’s warnings on cigarette packs and in advertisements. We’ve heard about the research and read the articles organizations like as the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association publish. We know about the Marlboro Man and his lungs, and if we didn’t, we’ve seen family members, friends and strangers coughing, hacking and wheezing. We’ve seen their teeth and caught whiffs of their breath. We know about lung cancer and emphysema, and those autopsy pictures illustrated the diseases quite well, thank you very much. We’ve caught the truth.org commercials and public service announcements over the years. “Deceptive” practices of the tobacco companies aside, we know about the harmful effects of smoking. This is why most of us don’t.

Yet many people have knowledge of this same information and still smoke. That ought to be a clue for all the busybodies not only in Washington but in state and local governments nationwide. Most people who smoke do so of their own volition and in full knowledge of the risks and dangers; why should government care if they smoke?

Enter two more heavily-used statistics: “Tobacco-related diseases cost an estimated $100 billion a year to treat and kill nearly 400,000 Americans annually”.

Deaths are an iffy statistic to me. While you can say someone might have lived longer if they hadn’t smoked, there is no real means to determine how much longer someone would have lived, or if they would have at all. One can only estimate at best; nonetheless, “400,000 deaths” by tobacco (and note it’s “tobacco”, not smoking or smokers) is used prominently.

How much the diseases cost to treat should really be only of interest to tobacco users (and perhaps their families), their doctors and their health care providers. For the rest of us who don’t smoke, this should be of little to no concern to us.

Except that the federal government insists on taking more and more control over health care.

Hence a decision that should be personal in nature becomes a problem for all of us.

Lest you think something like this won’t effect you, keep in mind the Senate Finance Committee is considering a tax on soft drinks and alcohol to fund their health care reforms. If that becomes law, can you honestly say that other foods determined to have “little or no nutritional value” like desserts, potato chips and fast food would be far behind?

You know what’s good for you, and it’s your choice whether or not to act accordingly. The catch is that it is your responsibility — not the government, not your fellow taxpayers — to deal with whatever consequences come with your decisions. That’s what happens in a country that calls itself “The Land of the Free”.

Otherwise you get legislation like the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, where 537 people style themselves as parents and caregivers of three hundred million-plus children.

You’d much rather be treated like an adult. I’m sure of it.

Commentary    , ,
« Older Entries