Comments on: The Media and Porformance-Enhancing Drugs

By: Conrad

Conrad — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:44:23 +0000

What’s being said is that these nationally reputable “journalists” are just throwing their own half-brained theories out there with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to back it up. From Michael Kay to Howard Eskin (Philly) to whomever, these are just self-aggrandizing brain farts about how they are insulted and their feelings are hurt that these players are cheating. BS. No one cares. No journalist can be empathetic, because no journalist knows anyone who has died from steroids, no journalist has lost $10 million from their last contract because of steroids, no journalist has read the science on steroid use. They are just feuling emotion of the brain dead mass public. So what the article is really sayting is just shut the hell up on this agenda…

By: Shaun

Shaun — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:56:46 +0000

Something I wrote about on my blog that the media should be covering much more is PEDs role in injury recovery, and where to draw the line between using PEDs for quick and better recovery versus using PEDs to gain an unnatural advantage.

The media seems to ignore the fact that athletes take cortisone shots when they have an injury and probably use other substances that may be considered drugs that help them recover from injury. The media seems to be overlooking a major advantage of steroids, for the most part, and the fact that there is a gray area.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:42:37 +0000

I briefly tuned in to ESPN on Sunday morning only to find the commentary and reporting utterly unwatchable. I wish that the journalists that they brought on Sports Reporters would actually do a little research before shooting from the hip and espousing baseless claims.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:48:28 +0000

JC, I’m sure you know you’re describing the prisoner’s dilemma except there is a solution to getting the best results (ie testing). A possible explanation for opposition to testing could be that players fear a positive test result in the future as a result of previous use (I do not know how long drugs such as anabolic steroids or HGH stay in your system, but I imagine the players do not know either).

By: Trust but verify

Trust but verify — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:27:00 +0000

The Ankiel debate also seems to miss the point that HGH wasn’t banned at the time. Disucussion suggesting he did something wrong now is retroactive application of changed rules, which is silly.

Let’s say we dont’ like Barry Bonds, and we now say you only get two strikes and you’re out. Do you go back and erase every home run he hit with two strikes, or call him a cheat for hitting with two? No; it’s just a changed set of rules.

Using something that is not prohibited isn’t like robbing a bank; and using something that is prohibited is more like speeding than it is bank robbery.

Sometimes speeding is dangerous, and reckless, and should be stopped, but not always. And we don’t record every instance of speeding in your on-board computer so you can pay a monthly fine for every time you go fast, because most people would find that invasive and unwarranted.

TBV

By: JC

JC — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:02:06 +0000

The issue does not have anything to do with letting anyone off the hook. It’s about journalism. For all I know Michael Kay’s comments might encourage athletes to use HGH, instead of informing them that it is a waste of time.

By: Ron

Ron — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:48:47 +0000

No he’s saying if you rob a bank and there’s only $50 in the vault you should be let off the hook because there wasn’t $100,000.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:35:06 +0000

So you’re saying, if I rob a bank and there happens to be no money in it, then I should be let of the the hook since ‘there was no gain?’