The United States Senate is considering a bill that would standardize strict steroids penalties across the major football, baseball, basketball, and hockey leagues. On a player’s first violation, they would be banned from that league for half a season; on a second violation they would be banned for a full season; on the third violation they would be forbidden from participating in any of the covered leagues ever again. Steroid use is dangerous and illegal. That being said, however, I don’t want government passing a bill specifically aimed at steroid use in professional sports, in general, nor do I like the proscribed penalties that this particular bill would enact.
Proponents of the bill usually point to four things: 1) Steroid use sets a bad example for kids; 2) Steroid use is considered cheating; 3) Steroid use by a few causes an uneven playing field for professional athletes, thereby encouraging steroid use by the many; 4) The sports leagues themselves (most notably MLB) are reluctant to regulate steroid usage themselves. So, let’s consider these arguments in order.
Steroid use only sets a bad example for kids as much as we let it set a bad example, which is an argument that I’ve made before. Kids will always look up to sports heroes, but it’s the media who tells them how. When the media tells us that Jordan was Jordan because he wore Nike, then we all go out and buy Nike. When the media tells us that Jordan was great because he studied film and worked out hours upon hours, then those who are really serious about becoming great will study film and work out. So what happens when the media tells us that a player was great because he took steroids? Mark McGuire had young baseball players, really for the first time, lifting weights to bulk up their chest and arms in the hopes of hitting lots of home runs. And that’s because the media told us that McGuire hit lots of home runs because he was big and strong, and he was big and strong because he lifted a lot of weights. But when the media then changes its tune, and says that McGuire got big and strong by taking steroids, then that’s when the kids emulating McGuire will turn to steroids as well. I’m not trying to argue that the media should lie to us. But it means that every time the Senate puts baseball and steroids back on the front page of the newspaper, the more they draw the connection between “success” and “steroids”. And it’s that connection that will drive kids towards steroid use. If the Senate really wants to send a good message to kids, they should stop talking about steroids at all and instead tell us over, and over again that our favorite athletes are great because they eat well, study hard, and work out a lot.
It’s probably best to handle the other three points together. The next two arguments for a Senate ban, that steroid use is cheating and that the use by the few encourages the use by the many, are both competitive balance issues. Certainly competitive balance issues are important, but they are usually handled by the leagues themselves. That, of course, brings us to the final point, that the professional leagues (especially MLB), are not doing enough. It may very well be true that the leagues aren’t doing enough, but someone needs to explain to me why this is a matter for the United States Congress? I believe that government exists to solve problems in the marketplace; its role is to do the things that otherwise wouldn’t get done. Except that all leagues do have steroids abuse policies. And as the fans, who are ultimately the consumers in professional sports leagues, decide that they care about steroid usage, the leagues respond. Which is why baseball has taken several steps over the last couple of years to strengthen their steroid policies. And as the fans, players, and owners decide that more should be done, then more will be done. On the other hand, if the fans, players, and owners are all reasonably happy with the steroid policies of a particular league, then why is it any of Congress’ business?
Also, keep in mind that Congress has already acted appropriately to deal with steroid usage. The use of steroids without a prescription, or the distribution of them without a medical license, is already illegal, and this is perfectly appropriate. The federal government has a strong role to play in regulating the distribution and usage of drugs, and it is perfectly appropriate for Congress to define those regulations. Given that steroids is illegal already, why are we holding professional athletes to a different standard than we hold people in other careers? It does seem that there is more than a little bias here, especially given the draconian nature of the penalties. And I am not talking about racial bias, although I’m not sure we can rule that out completely. I’m talking about a bias against athletics.
Society doesn’t really consider athletics to be legitimate careers. We have no problem with university admissions committees bending academic standards to accept talented pianists, but we look down our noses at the practice of doing the same for talented linebackers. When athletes take easy courses we snicker at their supposed lack of intelligence; when music majors do the same, we feel sorry for the long hours they have to spend each day practicing. And when smart athletes do come along, we treat it as a pleasant surprise and give them awards, instead of treating it as a normal, expected thing. I once had a teacher in high school wonder aloud to my father that I was a really smart guy to be a football player. Because of this bias we don’t think twice about enforcing a lifetime ban on a basketball player for taking an illegal substance. And yet, what would we think about doing the same in other professions? In the 1980s, when cocaine and speed were common drugs on Wall Street, Congress didn’t require random drug testing on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Nor did they propose banning those who tested positive from ever working as a stock broker again. These things would have been absurd. Yet a similar bill applied to people who play sports for a living gets widespread bipartisan support.
Finally, the biggest reason that Congress shouldn’t pass this bill is that it’s simply a waste of time. We’ve got some big problems in America. We have an intractable war that no one knows what to do with. We have substantial allegations of systematic deception or incompetence coming from the White House that ought to be investigated. The Gulf states are still recovering from three different hurricanes. Gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil prices are at historic highs just in time for winter. Joblessness, while slowly improving, is still well above normal. Health care costs are still skyrocketing, which is stifling social mobility and threatening to send the country back into a premature recession. And the deficit is starting to get out of control. Given these problems, why is Congress spending any time at all debating whether the penalties for steroid usage in Major League Baseball are strict enough?
Recent Comments