Statistics, steroids & What exactly is Cheating - Part four

Statistics, steroids & What exactly is Cheating - Part four
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (9-27-13)

[Part one - Steroids, PEDs & Sports. Oh my]
[Part two - PEDs & the Children]
[Part three - Destroying legacies & the Steroid witch hunt]



TODD:
Players cannot pick and choose which rules they want to obey. That's not how sports work. Perhaps certain players think they should be able to wear barbed wire on their boxing gloves and the rule against it is stupid. Or, less severely, what if a baseball player thinks batters should get four strikes before they strike out. Does that allow them to play by different rules? Rules are rules, whether they are good or not. Bad rules get changed eventually but the athletes must follow them until they are changed.

As for baseball gaining credibility back...are they? This whole situation seems to be souring people's opinions of the sport. We are on the precipice of the playoffs and have more great, young players in the league than at any point in my lifetime and yet, all people talk about are the guys getting suspended or the guys cheating. How is that improving public respect?

Whether this is Selig's fault or not, baseball is now, officially all-in on the steroid chase. You really think once he retires, the sport can move on and become like the other sports, because I don't. For whatever reason, MLB will have to fight this forever...until the rules are changed somehow. Baseball has numbers to protect, its history is vast and more important than that of the other sports, and its fans are more concerned with the past than the present. Tainted numbers will continue to be an issue whether Bud is around or not.

It just strikes me as funny that baseball fans are so passionate about their statistics (and I include myself in that group) but fans of the other leagues just don't care. I guess they have already accepted that different eras will supply different numbers. Passing/receiving totals in the NFL are ludicrous these days because of rule changes over the years. Everybody knows this and accepts that Tony Romo is not better than Troy Aikman even though all his numbers are. I am curious if we will ever get to that point with baseball. If, say, HGH is found to be safe and it is legalized, will fans eventually just adjust their frame of reference for what the numbers mean? That seems like a simpler solution than testing, finding and banning all the "cheaters." And once we get there, however many years it takes, we will know that Derek Jeter Junior is not better than Derek Jeter even though all his numbers are.


DAN:
First of all, I agree that you need to follow the rules of your sport, no matter how moronic. But I'm going to caveat this by saying that this generally is limited to the game on the field and that the majority of athletes learn from the very beginning that if the referee does not see it, then it did not happen. You can't have it both ways, expecting players to follow the rules and then teaching them to break them without getting caught. Two easy examples are grabbing a guys shorts in soccer, or holding in football. Its not a penalty unless its called, so most players do it and find their own grey area. I'd also like to throw in sucker punches to a man's genitalia in football. This was all too common by at least some lineman when it was obvious the opponent was not wearing his cup.

Now we move off the field of play and you expect the players to have a higher sense of altruism, when they were already taught to try and get away with things during the game? It can't possibly work that way. Hence the steroids problem.

I'll jump right back into the Major League Baseball discussion now. You proclaimed yourself as a MLB fan who's passionate about his statistics. I do see the fun in comparing the 1920's greats to today's greats, but its a baseless comparison. No one in their right mind thinks players back then were as strong or gifted athletes as today's players. This has nothing to do with drugs and everything to do with medicine, science and simple evolution. So what do you do with your statistics? What do you gain from them?

My favorite baseball stats include the Yankees 27 World Championships and the fact that up until this season they had made the playoffs in 17 of 18 years, all but one season of the wild card era. Those are awesome stats. They hold weight, validity and substance no matter what decade they took place in. The fact that the Yankees have more money is an advantage, but its been proven season after season that having strong management is what ultimately matters, not just money. Hell, the Royals have a better record than the Yankees right now.

The reason I pegged Selig's retirement as the day baseball moves on and lets go of the steroids witch hunt is because they MUST move on at some point. That day seems like the perfect opportunity to let go, move forward and decide that just like the NFL and NBA, Major League Baseball will also live in the present and honor its statistics but not be led blindly by them. The unwritten rules are some of the most fun and stupid things about baseball, but stats are just numbers. They will always change, always fluctuate and never mean the same thing generation to generation. One dollar today is not the same as one dollar in 1950, so why should 30 home runs be the same? Its not. Get over it.


TODD:
True sentiments; let's just move on. But before we go, I have to burst your bubble on one more thing. You realize the Yankees making the playoffs 17 of 18 years in this era is also not comparable to the past, right? There used to be just one team from each league who made the "playoffs" and the playoffs consisted of just the World Series matchup. You had to win the pennant to get in. Your stats don't hold up either. Sucker!


DAN:
Damn it! But I think this proves my own point regardless. Stats are valuable to the individual who values them, but don't necessarily hold up in general conversation, let alone analysis. So why loft them on a pedestal? I think the stats are just fine, regardless of how well they hold up over time. You can't take anything away from Barry Bonds for annihilating the baseball over 70 times in a single season. That was pretty awesome. And so was Roger Maris hitting 61. If Bonds cheated to get his record, then an asterisk is appropriate. The Olympics strips medals, but you can't actually change history. Let's just all admit we loved it and move on.

[If you missed Part one - PEDs, Steroids & Sports. Oh my]

[Part two - PEDs & the Children]

[Part three - Destroying legacies & the Steroids witch hunt]

Destroying legacies & the Steroid witch hunt - Part three

Destroying legacies & the Steroid witch hunt - Part three
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (9-23-13)

[Part one - Steroids, PEDs & Sports. Oh my]
[Part two - PEDs & the Children]



DAN:
I'd like to think you asked a fun follow on question, but you're asking me to tarnish the memory of one of my favorite athletes of all time. If either of my two favorite athletes growing up were big time steroid users I'd be very sad. Those two players are Marshall Faulk and Charles Barkley.

I LOVED Faulk on the Colts and his time with the Rams was icing on the cake. Barkley was and still is amazing. I'm not sure how I'd feel if I found out they took steroids, but their greatness would be tarnished. My memories of awe and delight would not be as sweet. I'm past the age of glorifying athletes, so I don't have a current player I'd be bothered by. I REALLY hope Mike Trout is clean, mainly because he is an unbelievable talent and has trashed users, but if he was a user I'd still be okay.

I'm classifying users as steroid users. I'm not bothered by HGH or supplements nearly as much. Steroids and the needle in the butt crosses a line for me. But you're correct on my apathy towards how Manning and Peterson successfully rehabbed injury. As for Derrick Rose, I'm equally as apathetic mainly because he still go paid. Manning had to rehab as quick as possible to ensure he had a job. So did Peterson really, since roster turnover in the NFL is week to week and no one trusts a guy who's been out for over a year. Things are different in the NBA and Rose was guaranteed to come back to cheers and a starting spot no matter when it happened. Plus he got paid to rehab, knowing full well his team was probably not going to beat Miami. Rehabbing naturally was fine for him, mainly because he's in the top ten talent of the NBA. But if he isn't at 100% today and HGH will get him there, he should take it. Its medicine. Take it.


TODD:
I agree that becoming a role model is a responsibility these guys have to deal with, whether they like it or not. But I have a hard time believing they are any more suited for it than those worrisome musicians or politicians you mentioned. After all, you just painted Derrick Rose as some sort of egotistical monster. You say he would cheat at the drop of a hat, but the only reason he's not is because he is selfish and greedy beyond belief. If he didn't have millions of dollars and a starting job waiting (if he had to play his way back to them), he would have cheated in a second. That's the impression you just laid on one of the NBA "good guys." Yeesh.

I'm also having a hard time with your distinction between steroids and HGH and supplements. If something is against the league rules, it is cheating. Why is one form of cheating worse than the other? It sounds like you're only concerned with the cheating that is harmful to the users in the long term; is that fair?

And if that is the case, would you be equally as sad if you found out Faulk or Barkley were some of the first HGH users? They would have cheated before it was cool! But apart from the time frame, just assuming growth hormone was around and in use in the early 90's (it might have been; I don't really know), you would be fine with finding out those guys cheated with HGH but crushed if they were using harmful steroids? I'm going to be honest here. It sounds like you are still stuck on those petty children. You don't have any problem with players actually cheating/breaking the rules. You just have a problem if they take something that would harm teens who also took it.

I don't exactly know what to make of this so I am going to move on.

Why does it seem like Major League Baseball is so much more concerned with this epidemic than the other sports? It has to be equally as prevalent in football and basketball; there's no doubt in my mind. So why does the MLB care and the others don't? Should they care less...should the NFL and NBA do more? Supposedly, during the Biogenesis scandal, there was information to be passed on about players in those other sports, as well as the NCAA. When investigators went to these leagues and told them, the leagues decided to pass; they didn't care and didn't want the info. This is both hilarious and disturbing at the same time. But it also makes Bud Selig and baseball look like kooky nuts who are on a witch hunt...even if those witches exist in droves.


DAN:
I didn't say that Derrick Rose would cheat at the drop of a hat. I was simply saying that it didn't matter to me if he 'cheated' to get healthy or did it naturally and that it DEFINITELY didn't matter to Derrick which way he rehabbed. The only scenario in which Rose benefits from rehabbing by 'cheating' is if he couldn't get completely healthy the natural way. Otherwise, let it take its time and do it naturally because unlike Manning and Peterson, he did not have incentive to speed things up.

I'm bothered by the 'cheating' that hurts the player's health, yes. But its practically impossible for me to say protein powder or a muscle builder from GNC is acceptable (not cheating because its not against league rules), while a low level steroid is unacceptable (cheating because its against league rules). Both are supplementing the bodies natural levels of whatever and both are helping build muscle faster and stronger. The only reason one is cheating and the other is not is because of the all so holy league rules. We don't arbitrarily agree with the NCAA rules about how student athletes are suppose to act, so why arbitrarily agree to this one about which drugs are 'good' and which are 'bad.'

For me it comes down to what hurts your body and what is unnatural. I don't see HGH as unnatural, but shooting up juice into your veins is definitely not natural. So yeah, I wouldn't care if Barkley or Faulk took HGH. Its not in the 'cheating' category for me. I don't hold it against Andy Pettitte either. But if they took the roids I'd be a little sad. They were GREAT without it, as far as I know. They didn't need it, as far as I know. I want to keep it that way!

I wish I had a mind-blowing answer for you on MLB and its steroids witch hunt, but I'm going to have to disappoint you and our audience with simply a best guess. Major League Baseball is WAY more concerned than the NFL and NBA and NHL about steroids and PEDs. I'd harken to bet that it has a significantly smaller problem with it than either of those other sports, yet its blown it so far out of proportion that you would never know it. Its unsurprising that the other sports passed on the Biogenesis information. Why ruin careers with second hand information? If a player fails a league test, he gets punished. Otherwise its don't ask, don't tell for the NFL and NBA. They have nothing to gain from chasing witches like the MLB.

Here goes; I'll make a guess at why MLB has gone on a steroids witch hunt. They actually do have something to gain from all this. They can reclaim public respect and credibility. Don't forget how much MLB was completely embarrassed by Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds. Like pie in the face, pull your pants down and spank your naked behind in front of a 1000 people embarrassed. This did not happen to the other leagues. And more importantly, this happened to Bud Selig himself. So before he retires, I think he would like to close the door on this mess, pin it all on a few bad apples and show the public he's cleaned things up. Once he retires the witch hunt ends. Or once Alex Rodriguez retires, whichever comes first.

[Part four - Statistics, steroids & What exactly is cheating]

[If you missed Part one - Steroids, PEDs & Sports. Oh my]

[If you missed Part two - PEDs & the Children]

PEDs & the Children - Part two

PEDs & the Children - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (9-20-13)

[Part one - Steroids, PEDs & Sports. Oh my]



TODD:
Professional sports leagues should allow players to take anything they want, but everyone will know about it. That's the notion Malcolm Gladwell presents and its a fascinating idea that I am all for. Obviously there are numerous pitfalls, as with anything. But now the court of public opinion can be set rather effortlessly. It will be up to us if we put more stock in an aided 60 home run season or a clean 42 home run season. And owners/general managers can make the same determination. The same thing is happening now but the public isn't aware of it.

What do you think of his idea? This may have severe consequences, such as every player deciding to take drugs since they are legalized or clean players who perform less than their peers getting pushed out of the league but it is an interesting take nonetheless.


DAN:
I'm against cheating, let me make that clear, but I'd hold the same opinion on PEDs if I competed at a higher level of sports. Like all jobs, you can come to your position and success honestly or not. You are ultimately accountable to yourself and have to live with the choices you make. I'm sure I've lost jobs over the last five years to people who "cheated" their way ahead of me. But it wasn't really cheating, they used whatever advantage they had to beat me out for a job. The same goes for those competing for college and professional sports jobs as athletes. You can pursue a less honest means to the job, taking steroids to boost your performance in the short term while sacrificing your long term health, or you can simply kick your workout into higher gear and be a little less strong in a more natural manor. The best player and person will win out. No hard feelings. Its up to you how bad you want something.

Most professional athletes want to compete at the highest level more than anything in the world. I don't agree with sacrificing the later years of my life to be stronger in my 20s, but I never wanted to be a professional athlete either. I can relate to the passion, however, but the idea that testing for everything but banning nothing will solve some problem is ignoring the bigger picture.

The main issue here is high school athletes taking muscle builders, growth hormones and PEDs during the years of their life when the body is still developing, the mind is impressionable and the child doesn't know any better. Adults can and will make their own decisions, but the kids will emulate their elders. Consequently, we have to punish the adults for actions otherwise okay. We as adults try to shield the youth from the reality of life for as long as possible. We don't want them to know that the CEO gets paid the most for doing the least work. We also don't want them to know how hard that CEO had to work, and who he had to step on, to earn his cushy job in the first place. And we DEFINITELY don't want them to know what the CEO did to step on people. That action in sports is the PED.

PEDs are banned for the sake of the kids. PED usage is punished for the sake of the kids. So testing for them, but then doing nothing is the worst possible solution. Its like telling a kid that we are going to put cameras in the class room so we know if you cheat on an exam. We are watching your eyes from every angle. But if we catch you cheating on the test, that's okay. I realize I brought in the word "cheating", but its still a good analogy. The only way to set a proper example and keep kids off drugs they should not be using until they turn 25 (I picked 25 because you should be finished growing by then) is to ban them for the adults. They are illegal outside of the doctor's office because its the doctor's job to understand the drug and administer it. Not your coach.


TODD:
This is you; this is what you sound like:

[Direct Link to Mrs. Lovejoy of The Simpsons fame]

Now I'm no monster. I understand the well-being of children is important. But remind me why it is the job of essentially random, young adults who can jump high to be the role models for kids. If you agree that professional athletes are going to do all they can to succeed at their job, depending on "how bad you want something" as you put it, why is it on them to also be examples for young people and do the right thing? Aren't those two mutually exclusive?

I actually agree with the school exam analogy to a point. That is a fair assessment...if the point of the testing was to find the kid who was best at taking tests and then have him or her be that school's test taker in order to show the optimum results on nationwide standards. But that isn't the point of school, at least not in good neighborhoods. Sports are a business run for entertainment and to find the humans who are best at it. Where does being a good role model fit into other lines of work? And why is Alex Rodriguez more important to a child's maturation than parents or guardians, teachers or coaches?

This isn't where I expected this conversation to go, which is not a bad thing, but I do want to steer it back towards the professional ranks if I may. Keeping the children out of it for the time being, since you made it clear that you can understand and are relatively okay with adults trying to get an edge, is there any player, active or retired, that you would be disappointed if you found out took PEDs? Framed another way, if you found out ____ took steroids, your opinion of him would change.

I already gather you would be fine with finding out Peyton Manning or Adrian Peterson did. You already said, and I wholeheartedly agree, that taking something to help you recover from injury sounds rather logical. So then, to piggyback myself, would it change your opinion somehow negatively to find out someone like Derrick Rose 'didn't bother' to take PEDs? In essence, Rose took so long to recover because he 'didn't want it bad enough' to cheat.


DAN:
One final point on your killer jab at me via The Simpsons and the iconic Mrs. Lovejoy. Being a professional athlete is a special kind of job. There is only one other job that is akin to being a professional athlete and that's being an A-list Actor. I excluded politicians because we all know better than to look up them. Same goes for Musicians, who sing about such racy material that most people know better. All other jobs are not in the spotlight, more or less. Only Professional Athletes and A-list Actors and Actresses are both in the spotlight and presented to the world as something other than themselves. Kids and Adults alike look up them. They are role models. You don't get to choose this or not. If you choose to be on that level, then you are by default a role model. And there is one simple reason; you get paid in the multi millions of dollars. The money comes with responsibility. So wanting something so badly that you'd do anything is one thing, but getting it and dealing with the consequences of how it changes your life is another.

[Part three - Destroying legacies & the Steroids witch hunt]

[Part four - Statistics, steroids & What exactly is cheating]

[If you missed Part one - Steroids, PEDs & Sports. Oh my]

Steroids, PEDs & Sports. Oh My - Part one

Steroids, PEDs & Sports. Oh My - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (9-16-13)



TODD:
Has any phrase had a bigger decline in emotional response than "HGH?" Saying those three letters now, in the company of a common sports fan, will elicit disgust and dismay almost immediately. But didn't human growth hormone used to be pretty benign? In fact, wasn't it kind of innocuous? It used to be something doctors gave the elderly to help sooth their many ailments. If you weren't a doctor or old, I don't think you were even aware of what HGH was. And now...?

HGH implies conniving, cheating and lying. It makes us angry. I guess these responses are warranted. Professional athletes who take performance enhancers are blatantly trying to increase their talents beyond what is natural. If you consider human growth hormone not natural. You know, unlike tendon replacement and cortisone shots. Those are cool.

With this very leading preamble, my question to you is as follows: do you have a problem with professional athletes taking PEDs? If those enhancers have no known downside or physical side effects, does that change your answer? Or if the athlete is taking said substance to simply recover from an injury and not to increase his day-to-day performance, does it change your answer? And seriously, what phrase has taken a bigger dip in popularity than HGH? That has to top the list.


DAN:
First of all, I don't have a negative connotation associated with HGH. I guess I'm in the minority here, but HGH is something found naturally in the body and has been used for years by doctors to help cure the sick, elderly, you name it. It is exactly what it sounds like. Human Growth Hormone aids the body in a multitude of ways and I think its foolish to ignore its applications in medicine. Its not illegal for doctors to utilize HGH, but doctors get to utilize traditional steroids as well. I understand there's a difference here when it comes to sports.

My perspective on this issue is one of a former high school athlete, a former varsity football player. I played some rugby in college, but my football career ended with high school. Let me tell you, more than half my high school football team was taking some kind of supplement. Only a few people took actual steroids, but Creatine was super popular and everyone loved protein powder etc. I'm proud to say I took none of it and was by far the biggest and strongest player on the team. But taking stuff was a part of football in high school, so its only a larger part in college and an even bigger part in the pros. What does any of this have to do with PEDs? I'm not going to single out HGH here. Performance enhancing substances is a huge umbrella term, but for me it includes protein powder and that ilk as well. It all helps to beef up your body.

It comes down to this. Athletes at all levels of all sports are going to take things. Attempting to label some fair and others illegal is a fools errand and will never, ever result in anything less than confusion. I could care less if the guy next to me, or the player on the other team, was taking steroids. I never once felt inferior and took pride in being "clean." I have two main feelings on the whole PED issue.

When it comes to injury and recovery from injury, players should be able to get whatever treatment they can get. I don't care if Adrian Peterson took HGH to heel his knee. I'd rather him come back at 100% in six months than at 90% in twelve months. Let's not ignore modern medicine for the sake of old statistics and records.

As for players taking drugs to make them stronger, this is a tricky subject. I don't see it as cheating. They are not breaking the rules of the game itself, just the rules of the governing league. Cheating is doctoring your bat or baseball, or putting metal plating on your shoulder pads. Cheating is what every running back does when he tosses the football five yards up field after getting tackled. He's hoping the referee is unclear where he landed and gives him a more favorable spot. He's trying to steal a yard. Cheating is not making yourself stronger. You have the option of doing that regardless of whether you are taking drugs, protein, or raw eggs to help things out (Disclaimer - I don't think raw eggs do a damn thing). My assumption is that many players in the NFL and NBA are taking things you'd rather not hear about. We get to find out when it comes to MLB, which kind of stinks. If you allow players to take a regulated dosage of a drug, or PED, then at least it would be safe. Some players would get extra on the side, but it would level the playing field. And its still the individuals choice to make, to take it or not.


TODD:
It is actually quite refreshing to hear your take on this. However, your point of view may have changed had you played a sport at the division one, college level or professionally. What if some guy taking a PED was also trying to take your job? Would that change your opinion, or is it all in the game?

Letting players take a regulated dosage of things is interesting but would obviously be corrupted rather quickly. It does bring up an out-of-the-box point though, kind of piggy backing on your point of taking stuff to recover from injuries. Acclaimed author Malcolm Gladwell is a pretty big sports fan with some great theories. Everyone knows his famous 10,000 hours theory about practicing. He also has a radical take on steroids in sports. I'm paraphrasing but Gladwell thinks we should test for everything and ban nothing.

[Part two - PEDs & the Children]
[Part three - Destroying legacies & the Steroids witch hunt] 

[Part four - Statistics, steroids & What exactly is cheating]