E&P story: Sports whiffed on steroids story

Like one or two of the beat reporters said, you've got to do your job too. Heaven help you getting shut out of a big development on your beat just because you've been sniffing around where you shouldn't be (unless, of course, you had proof).

I'd like to hear what Henry Schulman had to say about this.

 

How many papers out there have run our stories about steroid involvement by the Carolina Panthers, including three of the starting offensive linemen in the 2004 Super Bowl? Names are attached, along with all the specifics you could possibly want. There's a smoking gun, but the NFL's getting a pass from most news outlets. Why is that?

 

Because it's football and the players and coaches are the only people who know anything about football and nobody else should be critical of the NFL. [sarcasm font]

 

Mike, I can't speak specifically about the reception to the Panthers story -- which I thought was terrific, BTW (and your shameless plug was nicely done) -- but the reason the NFL is bashed far less than MLB on the steroid issue is because there is a perception that the NFL has at least tried over the years to do something about it. While baseball had its head in the sand and its players union fought testing tooth and nail, leaders of the NFLPA were calling for tougher steroid testing as far back as the early '90s. While the NFL's program is far from perfect and isn't as tough as it could be, at least the league acknowledged there was a problem and was willing to do something to try to stop it. That earned the NFL sympathy and something of a free pass from, say, Congressional committees. There are plenty of holes in the NFL's testing program (and the steroid/HGH crowd will always find ways around any testing program), but the perception is that the league and the union aren't trying to pull a fast one and pretend none of this exists. Is that perception true? That's another debate entirely.

 

Good answer.

Mike, this is not to detract from your staff's fine work because I know you risked honking off large numbers of readers who just want to see a winning team. That took guts.

But personally, I really don't care which baseball player or football player juices, any more than I care about which NBA player smokes a blunt after a game. If they want to shrivel their nads with steroids, that's pretty stupid, but I wish Congress would worry about something more important than that. I see these stories and as a journalist I have to feign interest, but as a reader my eyes glaze over.

 

Mr Sloan,

Testing isn't good enough, doesn't work often enough, won't catch all the cheats--but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any testing at all. MLB got a pass on this way too long.

Columns arguing for the ban of chewing tobacco > pieces pushing for testing

YHS, etc

 

That was my main thought. That basically, he's saying "all of them," when in fact that's not the case.

 

Always like to toss this in in re: drug testing.



Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.."

 

Mr Bastard,

Test them when the play in Canada then.

Testing should be written into collective agreement--assurances against human forgery. Just as drug testing for air-traffic controllers or servicemen is a reasonable measure, so too is it for sports. If a guy is juicing it's some sort of commercial fraud--your selling a car with the odometer spun.

YHS, etc

 

Double Down nailed it.

I'll start taking the indignation toward baseball writers more seriously the second we start holding the Washington press corps to the same standards.

 

Except this isn't the government testing people for possible criminal prosecution. This is a private company testing its employees and sanctioning them for violating company policy. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I'm not sure that applies in this case. Plenty of companies -- including the past two newspapers I've worked for -- give drug tests and won't hire you if you test positive. I don't think they're all violating the law.

Again, I don't know the legalities and I haven't done research looking for precedents (so please correct me if I'm wrong), but I've got to believe someone has already challenged in court a company's right to test for drugs, and apparently it can still be done.

 

Until there is a reliable HGH test, the testers will always be losing. There also is a rumor know that there's an EPO-related substance that disappears quicker than the old stuff. In both HGH and EPO, the stuff occurs naturally in the body, which makes it difficult to test.
But there is one agency, USADA, that is deadly serious about its job. They really like to catch people and have no vested interest. See Justin Gatlin as an example. IAAF and WADA are of the same ilk.
Look for this to heat up as Olympics and world track championships approach.