Drugs in Sports: Understanding and Eliminating Their Presence

Professional sports have a major problem: drug use. From Roy Tarpley to Floyd Landis (seen in the image to the right), many athletes have been accused of using illegal substances. Recently, the media have focused on athletes such as Marion Jones and the issue of performance-enhancing drugs. Despite the fact that drug testing procedures have improved, with the aim of keeping sports clean, testing has been unable to maintain pace with drug creation and usage. To eliminate drug use, the sporting world needs a new generation of athletes with an improved set of morals. The future athletes must have a complete understanding of the power and effects of using performance-enhancing drugs, instead of only knowing what the media says about these substances, both positive and negative. After the future athletes are educated about the consequences of illegal supplements, they must live up to their obligations as heroes to children. This duty is important because role models can have a significant impact on youth, and can instill the desire in a child to live a substance-free life.

Young adults need to know more about substances that are often championed for their performance-enhancement potential, such as steroids and human growth hormone. Steroids are popular because they, “promote muscle growth and the development of male sexual characteristics,” according to the National Drug Intelligence Center. However, steroids are designed specifically for certain medical conditions; their use without a valid prescription is illegal. Human growth hormone (or HGH), the New York Times reports, “can be prescribed only to treat illnesses for which it has been specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration,” the only exception being people who are unable to produce a significant amount of HGH. Many believe that steroids and human growth hormone are useful supplements because of their ability to increase muscle mass and quicken recovery from injury. Despite potential benefits, these substances can cause significant bodily harm. Steroids can engender, among many side effects, “liver tumors and cancer,” while human growth hormone’s side effects include “alter[ing] the body’s ability to metabolize carbohydrates, leading to blood-sugar imbalances and, in some cases, diabetes,” wrote Gretchen Reynolds in the New York Times. Due to their dangerous nature, the drugs must only be taken under doctor’s supervision for medical need, not for athletic success.

Today’s professional athletes have demonstrated a lack of concern for their bodies and for their obligations as role models in the quest for athletic success. Therefore, it appears that the only way for sports to rebuild its disgraced reputation is for a new generation of athletes to have a renewed sense of morality. Though it is absurd to say that an athlete should not be able to utilize medical advances to his or her benefit, for athletes to take medicine without conclusive scientific support is irresponsible and reckless (see examples of problems with steroids in the image to the left). Parents and role models ought to encourage young people not to take steroids and human growth hormone because drugs have not been conclusively proven to be worth the health risks. However, simply stating that using illegal drugs is wrong is unlikely to sway a young athlete facing intense pressure to succeed. Explaining to that child, on the other hand, that he may “experience shrinking of the testicles,” or that she might develop, “male-pattern baldness” provides a more powerful example than the stereotypical: “Because I said so.” Role models would be well advised to initiate discussions about the negatives of illegal drugs because modern-day athletes, whom many children admire, are often setting a poor example, and unwilling to acknowledge their mistakes.

It is possible that the sporting world has not eliminated performance-enhancing drug use by players because of the significant profits being made in sports, due to ticket prices, jersey sales and other amenities. Another possibility is that progress is coming, albeit slowly, because change takes time to develop in large institutions common in the sporting industry. No matter what the reason, in order to create an even playing field, all must abide by the rules. Since a large number of sports figures seem not to care about those rules, it is up to the athletes of tomorrow to transform the sporting world. Competitors in future generations must build upon the mistakes of the past and present, using the knowledge gained to create a drug-free and healthier future.

Cheating in Professional Sports: The Obligation of Athletes as Role Models

Youth sports, at its core, should be plain, simple fun. One would hope that children, unburdened by the responsibilities of adulthood, could enjoy the simplicity of sports without the pressures and the training typically associated with higher-level athletics. This tranquility, however, is not realistic. The issue that often mars youth sports, especially during the often un-officiated period of recess, is cheating. In school, children learn that cheating is bad, and are quick to point out what they perceive as cheating in competitive sports. However, professional athletes, who due to their skill and global visibility serve as role models to many children, have not been setting a good example and playing by the rules. In this week’s post, I traveled the world of internet blogging, and came across two blog posts that address different instances of cheating in professional sports. In my comments (reproduced below) on each post, I discuss the issues presented by the respective authors, as well as address significant topics that the authors did not emphasize: how American thirst for skilled athletes and record-breaking statistics has produced a dishonest sports culture, and how that culture is connected to and affects youth sports. In “Steroid Nation,” Dr. Gary R. Gaffney of the University of Iowa recently posted (see screenshot in first comment section) on the turmoil revolving around pro baseball athlete Rick Ankiel and his alleged HGH use. Jeffrey Standen, professor of law at Willamette University, wrote (see screenshot in second comment section) about New England Patriots’ coach Bill Belichick being mislabeled as a cheater by the public at his blog “The Sports Law Professor” .

Comment:

Dear Dr. Gaffney,

I think you wrote a very interesting and informative post on a controversial subject. Playing devil’s advocate, however, Rick Ankiel presents an intriguing case. In the wake of his arm troubles in the 2000 Major League Baseball playoffs, Ankiel struggled significantly attempting to regain his professional form. Since clips of Ankiel’s wildness have been shown so many times on television, while countless baseball analysts have given his or her opinions on his problems, I feel that America’s craze for statistical success in sports almost forced Ankiel to take HGH. If Ankiel had been unable to return to the majors, he would likely have been labeled a baseball failure, an undeserved tag that would permanently affect any dedicated lifelong athlete. Additionally, the same fans that encouraged this behavior (doing whatever it takes to succeed) in pro sports are likely parents and/or coaches of youth athletes. Therefore, I feel that it is extremely important that all parties (athletes, organizations and fans) hold themselves to a higher moral standard. Each of those groups shares part of the blame for this dilemma, and for the sake of youth sports participants everywhere, something needs to be done to rectify the problem.

I do not mean to negate the significance of the fact that each athlete, technically speaking, makes an individual choice about what to put in his or her body. However, in your post, I feel that your argument focuses solely on each individual player’s decisions, and that the respective leagues are the impartial bystanders negatively affected by the “perpetrators.” I feel strongly that both the players and the leagues to which they belong are equally responsible must do more to educate both themselves and the public to the dangers of illegal substances.

To demonstrate my point, I analyzed your reference of Rodney Harrison being given a, “four-game suspension for receiving HGH.” In my opinion this consequence seems like a minor penalty for such an important rule violation. Is it not the obligation of sports leagues and its athletes to play by the rules? I think most people would agree that athletes are role models to children worldwide; therefore, as role models, athletes should feel compelled to live up to that level of responsibility. Accordingly, I feel that these athletes must be held accountable for breaking the law, and should not be given inconsequential penalties for significant crimes.

Thanks for reading.

mhs – http://lawandsports.blogspot.com

Comment:

Dear Professor Standen,

I think you presented an interesting perspective on this whole debacle. I am intrigued by the arguments you presented in your post, and I feel that they present an important viewpoint on this event. However, I feel that there are some important details that your argument does not take into consideration.

Firstly, I find that your comparison of video-taping signs and mimicking play-calling signals to be inappropriate. While I would agree that the Ravens’ actions were both unsportsmanlike and against NFL policy, I believe that one cannot state that both actions are equal instances of cheating. In the Patriots’ situation, there was tangible evidence of cheating (the actual videotapes, as well as the fact that the cameraman was caught in the act). On the other hand, officials on the field at the Jets vs. Ravens game did not hear the alleged mimicking by the Jets’ players. Therefore, there is no actual proof of “cheating,” beyond the word of the Ravens’ coach (at least that you reference). Additionally, considering the intense curiosity of the public with regards to the Belichick situation, I believe that it blaming “cheating” for a loss is a convenient excuse for these highly-paid athletic figures. Without concrete evidence to the contrary, how can one state that both actions are of equal stature? I think the NFL has to set an example and show that one cannot rush to judge in these situations.

More importantly, while I can agree that the NFL rulebook is not written clearly, I would argue that the league that claims to be a strong supporter of charities such as the United Way has an obligation to the global community (in the wake of football’s growing popularity) to have a strong moral backbone, just as any league does. While one could argue in “lawyer-speak” for hours, I feel that anyone arguing in support of the Patriots has to realize that their arguments are illegitimate and taking advantage of technicalities. Since the NFL is such a popular organization, the league and its players should feel obligated to show that cheating is unacceptable.

And finally, I strongly believe that the NFL has an obligation to provide an example for children interested in sports, and people in general. I would argue that this concept will be a trademark of the Roger Goodell era, as evidenced by his willingness to suspend players/coaches for violating league policies (even though I wholeheartedly believe there is much more that he could do).

Thanks for reading.

mhs – http://lawandsports.blogspot.com

Aluminum vs. Wood Baseball Bats: Social Responsibility Governing Athletics in the Twenty-first Century

Participating in youth sports is an important aspect of development for children in the United States. Engaging in physical activities teaches children important life skills, such as teamwork and responsibility, as well as keeping children physically fit. However, a recent City Council decision in New York dealing with the use of aluminum bats, upheld in United States District Court, has hung an ominous cloud over youth baseball. The choice to ban aluminum bats negatively impacts the youth in the five boroughs of New York City because the ban makes baseball less accessible, costlier, and less enjoyable for its players.

The fact that the 2006 Major League Baseball World Series was the lowest rated since the statistic has been tracked, as well as the decreasing participation in youth baseball, reflects the lack of interest in baseball nationwide. A 2006 news article claimed that about 41 million children were competing in youth sports (such as the children in the image to the right); surprisingly, only one sport mentioned had declined in popularity since 1996: Little League Baseball.

One problem facing youth baseball is that compared to other sports, it is especially difficult to have a spontaneous “pick-up” game. For example, basketball requires only a ball and two circular objects to represent rims to play. Soccer just needs a ball and a few cones. Baseball is strikingly different in its need of multiple pieces of equipment and the necessity of several players, as well as a large playing surface.

Another major disadvantage for baseball as a youth sport is the cost. Beyond gloves, pads and cleats, bats are an additional expense. Youth wood bats can range, on average, from $15 to $70, depending on such factors as the store where it was purchased, professional athlete endorsement, and other reasons. Youth aluminum bats are often more expensive, averaging in price from $30 to $250. Despite the price difference, aluminum bats are in fact more cost-effective because wood bats are more likely to crack during use. Thus, in the long run, more money would be spent replacing wood bats (and replacing them) than on aluminum bats.

However, it would be irresponsible to ignore the benefits of wood bats. It is true that the professional leagues in the United States utilize wood bats; therefore, using wood bats in youth leagues would provide a more appropriate setting in which one could judge an individual athlete’s potential for success in professional baseball. Also, wood bats typically have a smaller “sweet spot,” or the best point of contact for which a player can get a good hit. Accordingly, wood bats enable one to better assess an athlete’s “true” ability, and how much his or her baseball statistics were enhanced by the aluminum bat (an analysis of three different types of bats, including a wood composite bat made of multiple materials, can be seen in the image to the left).

Nonetheless, one must focus on the importance of baseball beyond being a farm system for the professional leagues. If aluminum bats have not been conclusively proven to be more dangerous than wood bats, (and they have not), then there should be no problem for youth leagues to utilize them in competition. If aluminum bats allow less talented individuals to have a little more fun playing baseball because they make it easier to get a hit, then using aluminum bats in certain leagues does not appear to be a bad idea. It should be the decision of the individual league’s governing body to decide what is most appropriate for its players.

New York City Councilman James S. Oddo, chief sponsor of the legislation banning the aluminum bat, was quoted as saying, “‘I understand they want one single piece of overwhelming scholarship to prove my case, but I don't need that….’” The councilman, while having the best of intentions, seems to be jumping to a conclusion that is lacking concrete evidence. Relying on anecdotal evidence to guide legislation is not always an effective method of governing, especially in this situation where the anecdotal evidence is at times contradictory.

The issue is becoming increasingly political; for example, aluminum bat companies are hiring lawyers and lobbying the government. The number one priority needs to be the children. While both sides claim to have the participants’ safety as their number one priority, our government appears to be acting like overprotective parents who do not trust their children to make decisions. The New York City Council made a definite mistake in eliminating the use of aluminum bats in high schools, the aftereffects of which will be felt by baseball players in those schools for years…that is if the programs can survive the financial bind which they have been placed in by the government.