Simmons on PEDs in Sports

Achilles

Athletes would complain.  I know they tried doing blood samples for boxing.  This was one of the speculations between the "Mayweather Pacquiao Super fight".  One wanted a blood sample, the other didn't.  They said no because taking a blood sample makes you weaker and drains your energy. But they do blood samples for the olympics so I don't see why they can't do it here.

Someone didn't read the article

He also says that there's enough circumstantial evidence surrounding Peterson that you can reasonably believe he didn't dope (early in career; doc stated, post-surgery, that his knee appeared to have no prior injuries, rapid but not completely unreasonable recovery time; was athletic freak before injury) vs. Lewis where every piece of circumstantial evidence made his "shit detector start vibrating like a chainsaw" (2 month recovery vs. 6 month norm; 37 years old; unreasonably high performance level on return).

I agree that it's a wonderful piece, both about PEDs and the self-editing that journalists engage in.

Simmons admits to subjectivity in the article. But the problem of not believing someone doped because you "like them" is real. Which is why I argue that we go about things the wrong way when we ask, "Is this athlete doping?" Because our answer is colored by our feeling about the person.

The correct question to ask is, "Is there a benefit to doping in this sport?" If there is, people are doing it, unless it is really well policed--and no sport is well policed. 

Asking the question that way allows us to be reasonable. In '98, we asked ourselves, "Is Mark McGwire doping?" And for many of us, the answer was, "McGwire's a nice guy. He loves his family. He has been up front about supplements and denied steroid use. He is respectful of the legacy of Roger Maris. I like him. I think he's clean."

But what we should have asked was, "Is there a benefit to steroid use in Baseball? Would it be caught? Would players using steroids be able to perform incredible feats?" The answer would be, yes, no, yes. And we could then logically conclude that people in steroids likely doped, and that they would be successful and powerful--and therefore conclude that most of the leading power hitters were likely doping.

I think you missed his point.

Yeah, that's the problem - the fallout would be enormous.  The only way to avoid a huge number of positive tests would be to announce loud and clear that it's coming for next season (there'd still be some idiots who test positive, but not as many).  There would likely be a shocking downturn in a lot of players' performances the next season.  

In the long run, though, tough drug testing could save football.  Taking PEDs out of the game would make it slower, and the collisions wouldn't be nearly as violent.   That could cut down on some long-term health issues.  (Reducing PED use likely would also cut down on them, too, of course.) 

Also, I think the questions of "what's legal" are interesting too. The example that using a dead guy's ligaments is ok; Using more of your own blood isn't. I think it's interesting, with what's legal and what's not.

And for all the damning that McGwire and  Sosa have gotten... they didn't actually break any rules. It wasn't illegal to use steroids in baseball when they did. IIRC, HGH is still legal in the NFL.

Could this be a reason Alabama football teams are bigger, faster & stronger than everyone else, year after year? 

Are PED's what make the SEC dominant?

There is a lot of money and pride involved...

This is one of the reasons this is a difficult issue. "ESPN Bill Simmons" isn't just someone who is trying to butter up athletes and gain access by being favorable, although that can be a problem; he is a person who is trying to exercise responsible journalism.

Remember how upset everyone was about Rosenberg throwing around unfair accusations of practice time? Multiply that by a million and you have an idea of how a fanbase would feel if someone like Peter King speculated that their favorite athlete was on steroids. With no real evidence. Suppose Bob Costas said, on NBC television, that he felt that Miguel Cabrera's triple crown was empty because he figured (without evidence) that Cabrera was probably juicing. Imagine the justifiable outrage in Michigan. 

I have people in mind who I believe probably dope in several different sports. Even in a diary I wrote on the topic, I decided I couldn't bring myself to actually name them (though I did leave some rather large hints). It is a big, big thing to speculate in official, public forums that a certain person is breaking the law and competing unethically.

What if he killed two people? Oh never mind......

but I'm upvoting anyway because it's the first-ever reference to "racoons scrotum" on MGoBlog of which I'm aware, and I enjoy new things.

"We all want to see" um, no. I enjoy fundamental station to station baseball and a crisp form tackle. You don't speak for everyone. Many of us want to see fair competition. There is no point in playing monopoly if you're going to skim from the bank, and there is no point to sports if they aren't played fair. I like highlight plays but I love competition. Fair competition.