Today’s post is very different from the philosophical topics I usually discuss here, but it is a somewhat pressing cultural issue so I believe it deserves mention.I have always been a follower of European Pro-Tour cycling. Here in America, though, most people criticize cycling for its never-ending stream of doping scandals. The sport is seen as “dirty” and “unfair” because of all this alleged doping, and its popularity here in the US is extremely low. However, I disagree with most of these claims: admittedly there have been a significant number of doping scandals in the sport over the past decade, but overall I believe cycling is far cleaner than most American sports.
The main piece of evidence for this is the simple fact that Pro-Tour cycling does more than any other sport in the world to prevent the use of performance enhancing drugs. The sheer amount of drug testing dwarfs that of most other sports—during the racing season, more than half of the riders are tested every day. Baseball and football rarely test players, and the results of drug tests performed on American athletes are often left unreleased until years later. Also, cycling uses the newest technology to perform drug tests, including the so-called “genetic passport. ”
More importantly, the punishment for using performance-enhancing drugs in cycling is swift and harsh. The first time a cyclist is caught using any sort of performance enhancing drugs, that cyclist is banned for at least 2 years from the sport, and the team that cyclist was on is investigated and sometimes banned as well. Additionally, cyclists have been banned simply because they used doctors known to give out performance-enhancing drugs, even if they never tested positive themselves. American sports, on the other hand, barely punish their athletes if they use steroids. In American football, for example, if a player tests positive their name isn’t even released until the second offence. Additionally, American officials are quick to give pardons to athletes who “cooperate” with authorities—in cycling, someone who tests positive is never given any sort of pardon whatsoever.
Why, then, does cycling seem to be so much dirtier than American sports if there are so many rules that punish dopers? The answer is that doping is much more publicized in cycling. When a scandal erupts, it is not brushed under the rug like steroid scandals are here in America. Also, because of the frequent drug testing in cycling, athletes are caught as soon as they use any performance-enhancing drugs. In American sports, as we know, many athletes are able to hide what they have done for years. In fact, there are probably many American athletes who are using performance-enhancing drugs who have not been caught, which renders most statistics that "prove" that cycling is dirtier based on the number of scandals false.
So, what can sports like baseball learn from cycling? The answer is very, very simple: be harsher. If baseball wants to clean up its act, it has to take a hard line of steroid use. I hope that sooner or later the American public will get fed up with all the performance-enhancing drugs in American sports and demand action. However, based on our current reaction, all we will ever do is wag the finger at these athletes and then let them back into sports.
5 comments:
I completely agree. Unlike many issues previously discussed in your blog (i.e. overpopulation), this seems like quite an easy and obvious solution. Baseball needs to be very strict with their penalties for positive tests for performance-enhancing drugs. In many cases, players will test positive, but then claim that they did not even know that they were breaking the rules. While this may be true due to one small ingredient in a supplement they were using, MLB has a specific list of what substances players can and cannot use, so we need to hold players accountable for what they put into their bodies. They really just need to be more careful. The problem, though, is that stupid MLBPA (The Players' Union). While MLB is pushing for tougher punishment of steroid users, the Players' Union will not budge and allow for it. They've been hindering the MLB's push against steroids for years.
And Billy, I'm pretty sure you're incorrect about the NFL's testing policy. Four players were suspended for 4 games this past season for their first positive test of a banned substance.
Baseball's 'new' approach will not allow stricter testing. In the mid 1990s, the fanbase was steadily declining. Once the homerun race between Sosa and McGuire recaptured the hearts of America, fans were in love with the homerun. By eliminating steroids, they will be eliminating fans. Granted, this effect will not be immediate. But a very exciting factor in the game will slowly decline, taking fans with it. The MLB doesn't care if its players are cheating as long as it attracts fans.
Personally, I would like to see very strict penalties implemented. I would like to see genuine baseball talent, as in the earlier two-thirds of the century. The new fans that enjoy the homeruns would eventually go back to worshipping the harder hitting sports of football and mixed martial arts. Stricter penalties would be better for the integrity of the game, but not from an economic standpoint.
Matt, be careful. Baseball's owners, the commissioner, and MLB as a whole DO care if their players are cheating. It's only the Players' Union that has been holding back any chance at a mutual agreement for steroid testing
The commissioner probably cares because his imagine is tainted when baseball's is. But the owners could care less, it seems, and the owners have more power than most people think, I think.
his image*
Post a Comment