Baseball Widow on PEDs (A Work in Progress)
Thought I would consolidate and re-post some of my previous ruminations on PEDs, since Baseball Widow was pondering the issue as far back as March. I still think pretty much the same things I've said before--which is to say that I just don't know where I fall on this, but I do think that most people are approaching the issue from the wrong direction.

Baseball Widow isn't arguing that there isn't a problem (pardon the awkward phrasing), but I am saying the exact nature of the problem needs to be defined clearly before solutions are implemented.

Is the problem illegal activity in baseball? Surely not. Rafael Furcal was allowed to play immediately after being arrested for his second DUI, and many other players have had legal woes that haven't interrupted their jobs.

Is the problem a concern for player health? Absolutely not. These athletes can destroy their bodies through extreme dieting, overuse of cortisone, alcohol, and tobacco. If we were really concerned about their health, we'd focus on these issues, as (statistically speaking, at least)they're much more likely to cause dramatic and permanent health effects.

Is the problem illegal drug usage? That doesn't make much sense, really, since no one is advocating that the system be purged of those players who might occasionally use ecstasy at a party. Besides, as Baseball Widow points out below, drug policy in the U.S. is one of the most egregiously ill-defined concepts. "Illegal" vs. "legal" is not the same as "good" or "bad" or even "life-threatening" vs. "non-life threatening." To say that only illegal drug use is a problem because it's illegal is really just a form of begging the question, and this argument is complicated enough without engaging in false dichotomies or circularr reasoning.

If we don't take time to define the problem, then we can't find a solution that will work. Certainly any solution to any problem that involves stripping anyone of any civil liberty is not a solution at all. Still, the honor system has clearly failed, so what next? Again, Baseball Widow doesn't have answers; she has questions--questions that deserve to be addressed before a knee-jerk Band-Aid solution is slapped down.

So, here's what I said in the past. Some of my ideas have evolved, so these aren't necessarily my current views, but they're still views worth re-examining.

Performance Enhancing Drugs. . . I could sure use 'em for this post.

It's difficult to write with conviction about the subject of performance enhancing drugs because Baseball Widow is ultimately ambivalent about them. It probably does do some good, however, to lay out the reasons for my ambivalence. . .

As I see it, there are basically three ways to examine the consequences of Performance Enhancing Drugs ("PEDs") in baseball.

1. If Barry Bonds is the only person using PEDs, then it cheapens his accomplishments because his domination of the field stems, quite simply, from cheating. If that's true, then I'm sure history will appropriately asterisk his records and move on. This would hold true for any small number of individuals using PEDs in the game.

2. If everyone is happily using some sort of PED, then it's hard to feel indignant about any one person using them. We may fret over their health or over the ethics of introducing such a variable into the game, but if everyone does it, then it can't be cheating. At least, it doesn't threaten the competitive balance among players.

3. If most people are using PEDs and the people who don't are negatively affected, then baseball has a problem. A player who won't use PEDs when everyone else is will probably lose his job. . . either because his actual performance will suffer or because a club won't keep a player who isn't willing to do absolutely anything for the roster spot.

The obvious response to number three is trifold: no one's entitled to be a Major League Baseball player, no one's being physically forced to take PEDs, and no one cares if a player would rather quit than take drugs. Truthfully, I think that's a fair argument. I also think, however, that in a culture full of pressure to take the drugs, it's hard to tell which actions are voluntary and which ones aren't. Also, scenario three paints a picture where most people are cheating and the others are getting penalized for playing by the rules. That just doesn't seem right. That just flies in the face of promoting competitive balance among players.

I can't overstate the importance of competitive balance in baseball. It is the (Nerd Alert) sine qua non of pro sports. Certainly, performance enhancing drugs have the potential to destroy competitive balance, but can't you say that about anything? In fact, you can think of the Yankees payroll as the ultimate steroid: it's an artificial advantage. Every team has the same number of roster spots, and every team gets 27 outs. But Steinbrenner's thick wallet creates a capability that simply doesn't exist for other teams in the normal course of business.

So, Baseball Widow's official position is that she has none. I think PEDs are probably bad for the game, but I'm not sure exactly how bad they are. I'm also unsure as to the best method to regulate their use. Basically, I'm ambivalent, but I think I already told you that. But, Baseball Widow is rarely content to lack a definitive opinion on anything, so I'm sure we'll come back to this.


PEDs Part II

Baseball Widow said we'd come back to this topic.

Two strands of thought seem to be floating around out there: one questioning the true effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs, the other identifying additional circumstances and factors that could be considered performance-enhancing.

Baseball Widow will speak only briefly to the former. Baseball Widow hopes that everyone understands the now oft-stated assertion that steroids, hgh, and the like aren't magic pills. The drugs alone won't do much but send your hormones into overdrive. (Take it from Baseball Widow, who had a nasty lung infection last winter and was as pumped full of various steroids as, well, as Barry Bonds would be if he weren't innocent until proven guilty.) Of course any effectiveness must be accompanied by an exercise and diet regimen. And, of course PEDs wouldn't work the same for everyone.

I don't think that speculating as to their effects is really useful for this discussion. I think PEDs probably are effective, or they wouldn't be used. Even if they're not, there's a whole school of thought out there that says because a placebo effect can be incredibly powerful, the thing that induces the effect can and should be considered a drug (which raises a tangential but nonetheless interesting question about the desirability--and feasibility--of regulating placebos).

As to the latter thought strand, Baseball Widow is intrigued by the idea that almost anything can be considered performance-enhancing. I made the point that the Yankees payroll is an artificial/innate/organic advantage. Others have said that because Babe Ruth played in the segregated era, his records were enhanced by the fact that he didn't compete with Negro league players. Although I'm not willing to equate PEDs in absolute terms with sociological conditions, I do think that Performance Enhancers (PEs)--drugs or not--are interesting fodder for thought. Therefore, Baseball Widow would like to shift the discussion toward the very idea of Performance Enhancement.

I submit to you that none of us would even watch Major League Baseball if PEs weren't involved. Don't believe me? What separates professional baseball from backyard baseball? The level of play--the enhanced performance.

Ladies and gentlemen, we want PEs. We demand them of the athletes. We've set up a system whereby men who can throw balls really fast and hit them really hard are elevated in society. We make them millionaires, we pay through the nose to see them do their special tricks, we ask them to write their name on paper so that we can prove they touched something we touched.

It's not just baseball. Think of your average celebrity. You think Britney Spears keeps her bod gorgeous by working out a lot? Sure she does. But she's also taking PEDs--in the form of a diet pill. Guess what Beyonce Knowles gave herself for her birthday? Waffles. Yes, waffles. . .because she can't sit down at brunch on Sunday and snarf them the way you and I do. Self-denial is her PE.

It's inadequate to blame the culture of fame that encourages extreme behaviors. It's not being famous that makes athletes and celebrities go to extremes--it's that they wouldn't be superstar athletes or celebrities without the extremes. They're not just idolized; they're idealized. We expect celebrity athletes to embody the super-human athleticism that we have dreamed up in our heads to envy.

I don't mean to offer an excuse for PEDs; I believe in personal responsibility for one's actions. I do think, however, that the very nature of the professional game offers an explanation for their use. I'm not saying it's good or bad; I'm just saying that if we're going to let the steroids debate simmer, we'd better be prepared when it boils up to expose other things that force us to be less naive about the game we love.

PEDs, part IV (I think)

In the past, Baseball Widow has been quick to point out that the Performance Enhancing Drug ("PED") moniker is inadequate, especially to the extent that "performance enhancing" relates to competitive balance. I don't want to re-tread water under the bridge, but I've pointed out that the Yankees' payroll is an artificial advantage that smaller-market teams can never rival. We've talked about performance enhancing. Now let's talk about drugs.

Two recent events have caused Baseball Widow to think about drugs. No, neither of them involved law school finals.

1. Baseball Hubby's paternal grandmother recently had a terrible respiratory infection with some dangerous complications. She spent over a month in the hospital. At one point she was injected with steroids to keep her lungs open. The woman has incredible pluck--when visitors walked in, she asked, "Wonder if they'll finally let me in the big game?" She was, of course, referring to baseball. (Baseball Hubby's grandmother is a huge baseball fan, but that's another post.)

2. Baseball Widow recently spent an evening on a police ride-along. No, she wasn't arrested. Baseball Widow rode in the patrol car with a police officer for a ten hour shift, going on every call. The most eye-opening part of the experience was touring the slums and seeing how drugs permeate the community. Baseball Widow isn't saying anything new when she says that crack has devastating effects.

This is perhaps the most simplistic idea I've ever posted, but sometimes simple ideas need spelling out: drugs are neither inherently good nor inherently bad--they're just drugs. Sometimes drugs are essential to save lives. Sometimes drugs are instrumental in ruining lives. And, although people don't really like to think about it, sometimes drugs are just for the kick. We see all three instances in baseball.

Just for the kick: Maybe they work, maybe they don't. Sometimes they're legal, sometimes they're not. Creatine, Ephedra, Hgh, Steroids, Slim-Fast, Viagra, whatever.

Ruining lives: Steve Howe, Darryl Strawberry, Otis Nixon, Dwight Gooden.

Saving lives: Detroit Tigers pitcher Jason Johnson, wearing an insulin pump during games to keep his life-threatening diabetes in check.

It is inadequate to draw the illegal/legal distinction. First, there is a fundamental difference between Jose Canseco trying to hit a few more homers and Greasy Eddie the neighborhood crack dealer ripping off car stereos to support his habit. Second, the illegal/legal distinction is simply an arbitrary standard set by government officials who are susceptible to lobbying influence. Pop quiz: which is more dangerous, marijuana or tobacco? Well, if you grow it and roll it, you're gonna live a longer, healthier life smoking dope than buying Lucky Strikes. What's the difference between crack and powder cocaine? Chemically, pretty much nothing, but if you get busted for crack, you're gonna do at least twice the time as if you peddled cocaine. Look, I'm not making the case that anyone should be doing any of these, but I am saying that an intelligent conversation about drug policy--both nationally and in baseball--requires making finer distinctions than illegal/legal.

So, what is the standard that baseball should use? "Artificial Advantage" is about as slippery as "Performance Enhancing." What if I told you that some baseball players were abusing a prescription-only steroid injection in order to deaden themselves to pain so that they can play longer and harder? Outraged? Why should you be? It's just cortisone. Sure, excessive use can kill white blood cells, cause cataracts, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and cause tendons to explode, but, hey, if everybody uses it, it can't be a big deal, right?

Is it possible that the uproar over illegal steroids is just because they haven't gained widespread use or acceptance yet? And if this is the case, haven't we really worked ourselves back around to the issue of competitive balance?

Baseball Widow doesn't have an answer or a conclusion. This is a topic in progress. . .

Baseball Widow Takes it Back

"If Baseball Widow has to, she will post on why this is a stupid, stupid question."

Baseball Widow shouldn't have said that. Debates are good, and closed-minded avoidance of the debate simply because I've made up my mind already makes me no better than if I hadn't considered the issue in the first place.

Food for Thought

Okay, Baseball Widow figured that this Rose/Bonds thing wouldn't go away. She's not quite to the boiling point, though, so rather than rant, she thought she'd point you to a developing discussion surrounding the issue. David Pinto at Baseball Musings wrote a thoughtful post, and the resulting comments are also quite interesting. (Not just because Baseball Widow weighed in.)

Requisite Post about the Big News

Let's skip the flowers and candy and get straight to business, shall we?

Giambi admits steroid use. (I'm not putting a link here 'cause the news is everywhere.) Here's what Baseball Widow is thinking. . .


--Why'd he 'fess up? Don't get me wrong, doing the right thing under oath is admirable, but I'm certain he must have reasons deeper than that--deeper, perhaps than just criminal immunity. Maybe he knows something about his career that we don't.

--Speaking of career implications, what happens next? Well, assuming Giambi is planning on coming back to finish his contract, the legal issues are interesting. Although Baseball Widow doesn't normally recommend Jayson Stark articles, this one offers an attorney's perspective on the possibilities. Baseball Widow wonders to what extent clubs will want to cite steroid use as a reason for dumping bad contracts. It seems to Baseball Widow that the exact people who are likely to be underperforming on their long-term, big-money contracts are the most likely to be using Performance Enhancing Drugs. Hmmm. . .puts the call for stricter testing in a new light, doesn't it?

--Who, besides the media, really thinks this is a big deal? PTI is already framing the issue as, "Who did more harm to baseball, Giambi or Rose?" Give Baseball Widow a break. If Baseball Widow has to, she will post on why this is a stupid, stupid question. For now, she's going to wait and see if anyone says anything manifestly idiotic. Suffice it to say that PEDs might do lots of bad things, but they don't compromise the essential nature of a professional sports league in the same way. Furthermore, you can't pretend that Giambi's actions as an individual are tantamount to Rose's. Giambi is one of many who used, and the game has seen eras in which coach-provided "go pills" were tossed to players as easily as aspirin. PEDs just don't affect professional sports in the same way player/manager gambling can.

--Why do they use? Oh, come on. Baseball Widow has written about this a lot. Who wants to see a 400 foot homer if someone could hit a 500 footer? As a fan of baseball, don't underestimate the extent to which your contribution to the cult of celebrity affects what the players are willing to do to perform. Since we've seen what the juice can do, who wants to watch the juice-free league? Did you watch the college baseball world series?

--What qualifies as "Performance Enhancing"? In sports, there's no way to place every athlete's performance on an even playing field. If we asterisk Maris and Ichiro because they had more games, we really should asterisk Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth because they played segregated ball. If steroids enhance performance, then Giambi's accomplishments are "tainted," right? But, wait, Curt Schilling was a walking medical ward when he pitched in the Division Series! Don't think for a second that he wasn't on Performance Enhancing Drugs--he just didn't happen to take the ones that aren't allowed. In professional sports, where, for better or worse, the rules really do differ from those that apply to you and me, it's just too hard to draw a line between "okay" and "illegal" performance enhancers.

End of an Era
Sigh. Ken Jennings's Jeopardy reign is over. A moment of silence, shall we?

Braves' Five Man Rotation Finalized

Okay, well, not that five man rotation. . .
Baseball Widow is happy to report that Braves announcer Don Sutton will be returning to the broadcast booth next season in a lineup that will include new addition Chip Caray, who's being phased in as his father Skip's replacement. Exact rotation among the five has not been finalized.

As regular readers no doubt have noticed, Baseball Widow has little patience for most baseball commentators. Nothing personal, it's just that they're almost all idiots. (Hey, Baseball Widow calls 'em like she sees 'em.) Baseball Widow is probably blinded by loyalty to the Bravos, but she really appreciates the game-friendly style adopted by Pete, Joe, Skip, and Don. They don't feel the need to spin--they'll let you watch the game, and they'll entertain and inform you along the way. If only Baseball Hubby could do the same. . .

Something to Live For

Baseball Widow is saddened to report the death of Fred Hale, Sr., who was believed to have been the world's oldest man. Just shy of his 114 birthday, Mr. Hale was thrilled last month to see his favorite baseball team win their first World Series in 86 years.

He lived long enough to see the Red Sox win (again)--kinda puts a silver lining on the length of the losing streak, right? Who knew that the curse was prolonging life?

Ladies and Gentlemen, Poet Laureate Jayson Stark

He might not be the greatest sports writer out there, but the man has flow. . .
Baseball Widow learns through Jayson Stark's Rumblings and Grumblings that there is a solution to collusion, even though most of us wouldn't recognize a collusion from a contusion.

Oh boy, does Baseball Widow really have to write about this?

Here it is, in short form. In baseball, collusion is the coming together of owners to ensure that prices for players don't exceed predetermined ceilings. Collusion is bad because it seeks to circumvent the free market system. . .not that MLB is a paradigm of free market goodness.

To combat rumors of collusion, MLB has revamped the policy whereby it gives to interested owners a cheat sheet of sorts--a listing of the appraisal value of a free agent player. What's wrong with this? Don't ask Baseball Widow.

Collusion may or may not exist, but the existence of an appraisal sheet is not collusion, it's not evidence of collusion, and it's not even a red flag to indicate that owners might be thinking of colluding. Appraisals exist everywhere--from real estate comps to Beanie Baby trading values. Just because a potential owner researches the value of his purchase doesn't have anything to do with conspiring to cheat the market. Besides, free agency is much more like an auction. The "winner" loses by definition, because he chooses to pay more than the market value (the market being what everyone else was willing to pay). Think about that as you finish your Christmas shopping on Ebay.

Shouldn't they all be contenders?

Randy Johnson doesn't ask a lot. . .he just wants to be on a winning team. Or, as he puts it, "I'm not going to leave to go somewhere else to theoretically have a chance to win." Now, despite the abusive use of prepositions and (gasp!) a split infinitive, Mr. Pitches-with-Beelzebub makes the state of baseball pretty clear: there are winners, and there are losers. Incredibly, those winners and losers can be accurately determined five months before the start of a baseball season. Furthermore, the presence or absence of the game's most dominating pitcher isn't enough (nerd alert) ipso facto to make a loser a winner.

To restate the obvious in the simplest possible language, we know who the contenders are. To beat Baseball Widow's favorite drum again, isn't there something wrong with that? Look, Baseball Widow knows that the MLB isn't Little League, and certainly enough teams remain competitive to result in fabulous postseasons like we had this year. Still, you gotta question the viability and the appropriateness of a professional gaming system that can guarantee losers.

In other news, Baseball Hubby still owes you a wrap-up re: his experience teaching the weekend seminar on baseball. Not that Baseball Widow has any control over it, but she'll prod him to get that up and posted.

Also, Baseball Widow is working on the season wrap-up and reflections upon her blogging experience thus far. With luck, it will be up before spring training.

Cheating Death

Back from a pleasant weekend in Durham, NC where Baseball Widow was appalled at temperatures approaching 80 degrees on Halloween. It just ain't fittin'. . .

Hubby had a blast teaching the baseball class and promises to write about it soon.

Since the season is over, Baseball Widow hopes to find time to post a wrap-up, including some (probably self-indulgent) analysis of this blog's first season. Although Baseball Widow waxed and waned in her attention to the blog, she still feels that she should be considered a semi-regular read. (As Len Cleavlin says, Real Life (TM) gets in the way.)

Considering the occasional absences of Baseball Widow from her blog, she was saddened to run across this post, in which blog 6-4-2 considers Baysball a dead blog because Mark went 11 days without posting. Baseball Widow understands that the quick turnaround time between thought and published work as well as the fast-moving nature of Internet media makes bloggers sometimes seem like machines, but, come on! Even Glenn Reynolds takes vacations!

Baseball Widow appreciates those baseball bloggers who keep the rest of us abreast on breaking news. Where would we be without Pinto and friends? Another beauty of the blogging network, however, is that multiple niches exist. Baseball Widow likes to think of herself as a commentator/columnist; when she runs across an interesting tidbit, she posts. When she has some serious thoughts on a vexing issue, she posts. In the interest of conserving her readers' time and acknowledging the contributions of others, she tries to avoid posting just to see herself think (if you'll pardon the awkward phrasing).

If 11 days is enough time to die, Baseball Widow must have been resurrected three or four times this season.

Cool but weird
Has anyone done a google image search for "baseball widow"?

Weekend Plans

Baseball Widow and Hubby will be headed to Durham, NC, this weekend to teach a Scholar Weekend for Duke University's Talent Identification Program. While Baseball Widow tackles "The Butler Did It? An Exploration of the Mystery Genre" (Warning: Grammatical errors in the course description are not the fault of Baseball Widow), Hubby will be teaching a baseball course--the very one, in fact, that Widow proposed a few months ago: a look at baseball as a lens for examining American history and culture. I'll have Hubby re-post the description and syllabus along with a wrap-up of the course when we return. . .

Mythbusters

Baseball Widow doesn't buy the whole "Curse is lifted--we forgive Bill Buckner" line of reasoning.

First of all, if it really was a curse, there was never any need to forgive Buckner 'cause he couldn't have helped it anyway. Second, winning the series doesn't bust the curse--it just proves that it never existed in the first place.

Tim's tidbits of wisdom

"One thing about ground balls, they don't go out of the ballpark."
True, Tim. True.

Not suitable for anyone's eyes. . .

I can't even find the words to make a joke about Tim McCarver's suit.
It's as if for each stupid comment he's made during the series, he received a polka dot on his tie and a stripe on his jacket.

Baseball Orphan?

Baseball Widow and Hubby are pleased to announce that they are expecting their first child on March 15, just in time to catch spring training.

Prenatal tests show conclusively that little Jamie's arm has the genetic potential to exceed that of Roger Clemens's, and the doctors are pretty sure he'll demonstrate Barry Bonds's power and plate discipline. The ultrasound also revealed a cutie to rival Javy Lopez. Agents may field requests to the Baseball Widow email address.

Please no jokes about the pregnant widow.

Have you heard the one about the lawyer who managed a baseball team?

Baseball Hubby and Widow, being bizarrely OCD, have certain sayings that we repeat to each other. For example, every time Tony La Russa is on TV, Hubby says, "You know, he's a lawyer." The implication is that since Baseball Widow is a law student, she is, therefore, a viable candidate to replace Bobby Cox when he retires.

Baseball Widow has a different take on Tony. Every time I look at him during a game, I say, "He wears his sunglasses at night." It's just one of those things that keeps getting funnier to me. . .

Hey, no one promised this post was going to be educational or entertaining.

Widow's Peak?

1995--Braves last win the World Series.
1996--Baseball Widow and Hubby start dating.

October is the cruelest month for Braves fans, and let me tell you, folks: Baseball Widow has suffered through many Octobers. Baseball Widow particularly relishes the point in the season where Hubby accuses himself (via his relationship with Baseball Widow, of course) of jinxing the Braves.

There's nothing as pitiful or as inconsolable as Baseball Hubby when the Braves get eliminated. So, Baseball Widow has shipped Hubby off to Atlanta for the day. If the Braves must lose tonight, Baseball Widow would rather that Hubby be 250 miles away.

Baseball Widow has never been one for real-time blogging. Personally, I think that if you have nothing better to do during a game than to read my blog, well, you probably should find something better to do during the game. Still, since I'll be periodically in touch with Hubby during the game, I'll try to post any news I learn that Fox won't show you.

Wish the Braves (and Baseball Widow) luck!

Housekeeping

Added a new link, to the Online Sports Report. Baseball Widow just can't say no to guys named Jay. . . sorry it took me so long to link to you.

Homerun=Homefree (For now. . .)

First, check this out. Seems like Mac at Braves Beat was getting on to Furkie (or, possibly, Furky? Baseball Widow simply can't join Rafael's teammates in calling him "Foogie".) a little prematurely, considering his 11th inning rescue with a walk-off homer. Baseball Widow, for one, understands the mentality. Furcal's playing for his freedom; homeboy's headed to jail when the season's over. Be sure to read the article for Furkie's quote: "I've never been in jail that long."

Baseball Widow is stoked about the Braves win, although she was really rooting for Smoltz to have been the winning run. Smoltz wanted to bat today--did you see him in the eighth in the dugout with his helmet on? Baseball Widow is all for the John Smoltz show. . . I say start him on Saturday in Houston and have him bat clean-up.