It seems as though Alex Rodriguez has long been the coveted "smoking gun" on the steroids issue. Sure, we know that Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds used steroids. But if we found out that A-Rod was on the juice, then we'd know the game was dirty. Right? Well, at long last, it appears that the magic bullet has been fired.
On its website today, Sports Illustrated is reporting that four separate sources have verified that Rodriguez used testosterone and the steroid, Primobolan, in 2003. This pre-dates Major League Baseball's drug policy, so A-Rod does not face the prospect of a suspension. The United States Controlled Substances Act, however, categorizes anabolic steroids as a "Schedule III" drug, meaning that its distribution and use is illegal (even in 2003).
The sports media are already in a frenzy over this story (see here, here, or here). The blogosphere is similarly excited (see here, here, or here). Mostly, everyone is focused on Rodriguez's presumed guilt and what this might mean for baseball. There already are plenty of calls to "clean up" the national pastime and to punish everyone remotely associated with the "steroids era." Meanwhile, the Buster Olneys of the world are declaring that "A-Rod is tarnished forever."
It isn't that I don't care about these things. I'm a baseball fan and I do like the idea that there is some semblance of a level playing field. But I'm not overly concerned about whether or not A-Rod can now be called A-Fraud. Instead, I am interested in the obsessive need to cleanse baseball of performance enhancing drugs. Moreover, it is striking that the way we talk about steroids is consistently through the lens of guilt. Everyone who has played within the past 20 years, it seems, is now presumed guilty of cheating.
Here is a particularly important passage from the SI report:
"The list of the 104 players whose urine samples tested positive is under seal in California. However, two sources familiar with the evidence that the government has gathered in its investigation of steroid use in baseball and two other sources with knowledge of the testing results have told Sports Illustrated that Rodriguez is one of the 104 players identified as having tested positive, in his case for testosterone and an anabolic steroid known by the brand name Primobolan. All four sources spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the evidence."
In other words, this is information that is not supposed to be public. However, it has become the standard of investigative sports journalism to discard the nuances of legal disclosure all in the quest to get the big scoop on baseball's next fallen idol. Do I think that reporters should thoroughly investigate all angles available to them under the law? Yes, I think that's responsible journalism. However, if all four sources recognize that the evidence is "sensitive"--indeed it is sealed--then we might want to consider whether they should be volunteering such information in the first place.
Alex Rodriguez may well have used steroids. But it isn't his potential guilt that should capture our attention. It is ours. This is about our persistent need to punish others so that we may feel better about ourselves. We will never discover every single player who has taken performance enhancing drugs (or cheated by other means, for that matter). And while it is important to have standards and rules, and to punish those who can fairly be judged to have violated those standards and rules, it does us little good to recycle the tired old ritual of scapegoating.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think a corollary to your argument here is developing right now. I'm watching the second half of the Missouri/Kansas game on ESPN, and the promos are promising a full confession from A-Rod in an exclusive interview with the "beleaguered slugger."
You're right that we're always looking for guilt, and you're right that this goes way past sport. The routine here is so predictable, that I actually find this whole A-Rod business boring: golden boy's a cheater, looks like everybody was a cheater, but to repair the damage, he fesses up by calling himself immature.
We have our ritual of confession so mapped out, that if I found out that Babe Ruth was once on the juice, I'd be waiting to hear from his estate's PR reps.
We love our confessions, do we not? I think that the rush to assume guilt creates a bizarre dystopian spectacle. "Oh NO! A-Rod is on the juice too! This will rock the foundations!!" On the one hand, if there's nothing there, we either call it a case of "no harm, no foul," or we extract confessions from the malicious zealots (see: the Duke fiasco). If there is something there, we get our typical confession ritual (see: every DUI in the NFL over the past 3 years).
For goodness sake, the HOLY GRAIL of sports journalism, until a couple of years ago, was the Pete Rose confession. Now: Bonds. Wait - that was yesterday...
Who can resist the cruel pleasure of assuming guilt when it produces such salacious theater? Yes, it's getting old, but with a great headliner like A-Rod? This show could really have quite a run!
I think sport does this all really well - its efficiently produced, it is slick, and the drama is SO easy to link to questions of integrity, the history of the game, and what we want to see of ourselves in our games. But, it's everywhere else, too. Confess, repent... Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, and the entire Catholic Church.
There's no question that this confession ritual is necessary sometimes, after all, Clinton may have abused his power and trivialized the presidency, Larry Craig and Ted Haggard revealed themselves as craven hypocrites (though, Craig's case is mystifying and Haggard's is downright sad), and the Church certainly has a lot to answer for.
I know I probably sound like a cynical (and dim) post-modernist when I say this, but all this steroid business seems a little hyperreal to me. I mean, really, am I SUPPOSED to lose my confidence in the pharmaceutical purity of baseball? Well, that's not gonna get any worse any time soon - A-Rod or not. Will A-Rod stop being my hero? He never was to begin with. (I'm still going with Walter Payton, who was even made to confess once that he did not have AIDS - many had assumed his "guilt" as well).
I know, I know. The KIDS, right? Well, I'm a grown up, and I think it's all tired and dull. Bread and circuses! Poor A-Rod, guy's gonna fall. But, he'll find his redemption one way or another. After all, this will always be a good story. And, if he doesn't, its just a sad story, and we'll find someone else to examine in the confessional.
Enough. Missouri's making a run...
To build off what Abe has said, in a piece on Monday Rob Neyer, building off statements by others (like Curt Schilling and Craig Calcaterra), mentioned that the best thing to do would be to release all 103 of the names from the 2003 list. Yet, I couldn't help but think it just won't happen, but not because MLB will be the obstacle, but because the press doesn't want it to happen. Why get this story over in one fell swoop when we've got up to a hundred potential days' worth of stories and editorials awaiting us if the names leak out one by one? Wait, make that 200 days, since we'll have the day each name is reported, followed by the next day's news when the figure "confesses." And, then, of course, there's the next day of post-"confession" analysis. I mean, we've got a year's worth of of product built right into this thing. But, no, wait, the press isn't culpable at all in this [sarcasm dripping as I write]. Blame the players, blame the commissioner, and give the press credit for admitting they should have looked into and exposed this sooner ... while all the while, in the name of the game of production, they continue to do the very same thing today.
Great comments, guys. Abe, you're on fire here! I do think it will be interesting to see how/when the other names come out.
Post a Comment