Larry Gude
Strung Out
I don't normally do this, advocate for the devil, because I like decision making and passing judgement and I don't like pointless and endless 'what ifs'' that are not based on reality but are simply designed to be annoying but, in this case, it seems there truly is room for a point of view that seems, to me, to be valid and yet is verbotten to even point out.
Background for my argument:
Nobody likes being a slave and, given a choice, people opt for freedom. Happens to this very day.
Nobody likes being an under appreciated or under paid employee and, given a choice, will work for more money and/or appreciation.
Nobody likes being descriminated against based on things that have nothing to do with the job, race and sex being the big ones and, given a choice, we like it that pretty much everyone has an equal opportunity in pretty much every field.
Now, the point, steroids.
The hue and cry for getting steroids out of pro sports is that their use will seep into recreational adult use just to look good, then to college sport use, then high school and, it seems, one day to the crib. It's all about the children and health.
Close second is the idea of cheating. Is Barry Bonds ripping off Hank Aaron? Ruining the sport? Is the Chinese womens dive team beating up Team USA's innocent angels?
Both are good reasons but are they compelling? Are they, the reasons, so important as to demand Congressional intervention? Or are they issues that the Olympics and major sports leagues need to face? I care about cheating on Wall Street and welcome governmental oversight. 80 home runs in a year, however, are not going to affect my portfolio one way or another.
My point is that players are NOT lined up with picket signs demanding an end to unfair labor treatment. They are not demanding an end to unsafe work conditions. They are not claiming that the use of steriods by one or more forces them to follow suit. They are not decrying the threat to their health. They are not demanding emmancipation.
Their bosses cetainly don't give a #### as it is their business and they clearly have allowed it in the past.
Not enough ex jocks, hardly any really, are coming forth and revealing terrifying stories of abuse and suffering to even warrant note, let alone law. There is no underground railroad, no Chicken George, no Love Canal or Erin Brockovitch.
Who knows, more than they and the chemists coming up with cocktails, just what the risks are. Who has greater access to old timers who will tell them the not for prime time truth?
Are we seeking to set free people who are not only not in chains but don't wnat to be helped anyway because they're making relatively benign choices?
Background for my argument:
Nobody likes being a slave and, given a choice, people opt for freedom. Happens to this very day.
Nobody likes being an under appreciated or under paid employee and, given a choice, will work for more money and/or appreciation.
Nobody likes being descriminated against based on things that have nothing to do with the job, race and sex being the big ones and, given a choice, we like it that pretty much everyone has an equal opportunity in pretty much every field.
Now, the point, steroids.
The hue and cry for getting steroids out of pro sports is that their use will seep into recreational adult use just to look good, then to college sport use, then high school and, it seems, one day to the crib. It's all about the children and health.
Close second is the idea of cheating. Is Barry Bonds ripping off Hank Aaron? Ruining the sport? Is the Chinese womens dive team beating up Team USA's innocent angels?
Both are good reasons but are they compelling? Are they, the reasons, so important as to demand Congressional intervention? Or are they issues that the Olympics and major sports leagues need to face? I care about cheating on Wall Street and welcome governmental oversight. 80 home runs in a year, however, are not going to affect my portfolio one way or another.
My point is that players are NOT lined up with picket signs demanding an end to unfair labor treatment. They are not demanding an end to unsafe work conditions. They are not claiming that the use of steriods by one or more forces them to follow suit. They are not decrying the threat to their health. They are not demanding emmancipation.
Their bosses cetainly don't give a #### as it is their business and they clearly have allowed it in the past.
Not enough ex jocks, hardly any really, are coming forth and revealing terrifying stories of abuse and suffering to even warrant note, let alone law. There is no underground railroad, no Chicken George, no Love Canal or Erin Brockovitch.
Who knows, more than they and the chemists coming up with cocktails, just what the risks are. Who has greater access to old timers who will tell them the not for prime time truth?
Are we seeking to set free people who are not only not in chains but don't wnat to be helped anyway because they're making relatively benign choices?