Competitive Advantages

While the word "Steroids" is in the title of the post, that is not the highlight of the topic. Recently, an Olympics Committee has ruled a double amputee can compete in a sprinting event, despite concerns his prosthetic legs give him a competitive advantage. There has been some research on the subject, and the only consensus seems to be that his carbon fiber ankles allow a type of more efficient bending than human ankles are capable of. 

What does this have to do with steroids? No, it did not turn out this South African sprinter took them. But the phrase "competitive advantage" has been mentioned in almost every article pertaining to this subject. The fact of the matter is, steroids, blood doping, and similar cheating tactics have our culture paranoid about "competitive advantages" being obtained. The chaos surrounding Tour De France blood doping, the Mitchell Report in baseball, and other massive cheating operations have the sports world on edge. Unfortunately, this awareness has spread to other, less applicable situations.

Since the consensus among the scientific community is so divergent, it is impossible to say with definitiveness whether a true advantage is gained. Just think about it: a man with no legs can run just as fast as men with legs. This is a feat of human perseverance and determination. This is a story worthy of publicity, instead of the constant scandals that have riddled the last nine pages of this blog. 

Sports is all about stories like this. The reason we watch sports is to see things no one thought possible. Who thought the Giants would actually upset the Patriots in the Super Bowl? Who thought the US Hockey team would actually beat the Soviets in 1980? Who thought Villanova even stood a chance against mighty Georgetown in the NCAA basketball finals in 1985? These games are why we watch sports. They inspire people like Oscar Pistorious to try to qualify for a sporting event no amputee has ever qualified for. And he is clean.

But what has steroids done to our sporting world? It has made us constantly question the integrity and the competitive balance of our events. I don't think Spygate would have been as publicized if it was not during the Steroids Era, or immediately after it. I think people are just incredibly sensitive to the notion that their precious sporting events have been tainted. In instances like Spygate and Steroids, someone cheated. In this case, the only person that was cheated was Oscar Pistorious for being born with fibulus and needing amputations when he was 11 months old. Let him compete, let him inspire others, and let this "competitive balance" debate be put to rest. After all, this is what sports is all about. 

The NCAA: Monopolizing Talent Part II

We will get into the second debate of the NCAA: how long, if at all, should players be mandated to play in the NCAA before they advance to the professional level? Who should decide? 

Obviously there is no right answer to this question. It is simply a matter of opinion. Since blogs are a medium of opinion, here is mine.

Many student athletes, no matter how bright their futures look in the professional sporting world, often fall into financial or social crisis after sports. The careers of football players last, on average, three years. Even if they are successful, they retire by the age of forty at the latest. If you floated in mediocrity through your career, you probably did not make enough to support yourself financially for the rest of your life. A degree would be an excellent fallback option after your athletic career. 

Lets look at a case study: Maryland's own Erin Henderson. To no surprise, he declared for the NFL draft after his junior year after showing outstanding talent in the NCAA world. He was expected to be drafted in the third round, which would have him making mid six figures his first two years, and likely seven figures by his fifth year. To everyone's surprise, he slipped all the way to an undrafted rookie free agent, and was signed by the Minnesota Vikings for very little money (around $10,000). Undrafted free agents rarely stay in the league for a long time and have established careers. That does not mean its impossible (refer to Tony Romo), but it is highly unlikely.

Obviously, Henderson did not get a degree, since he was only in college three years. Only time will tell as to whether he will regret this decision or not. Yet, this is just a case study as to how having a degree to fall back upon is a tremendous asset to an athlete looking to go pro. Also, what if an athlete makes it pro but suffers a catastrophic injury and cannot play anymore? Again, a degree would be a great thing to have in the bank.

All this being said, this is America. It is a free country. Most high schoolers are 18 by the time they graduate, and have parents who have raised them properly. In this wonderful land, it should be up to the player and his family as to whether it is the right decision to go to college, or go straight for the millions. Even in the case of failed pros who came from high school, such as NBA player Kwame Brown, he will make somewhere around $70 million by the time his NBA career ends. Not too bad for a guy without a college education.

While it is highly advisable to go to college in my opinion, people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do. No league should mandate that adults get an education in order to play sports. If you can decide it is your path to skip college and join the military, it should be your prerogative to skip college to play sports as well.

The NCAA: Monopolizing Talent

The NCAA is one of the biggest monopolies America has ever known. If you are one of thousands of athletes that are looking to make it pro, and are not one of the select few that can go straight from high school, you have one choice: go to college and play there. Each year, perhaps five high schoolers go straight to the minor leagues in baseball. Every other athlete needs to go to college for at least one year, depending on the mandate for their particular sport. There is one league to play in: the NCAA.

So, the NCAA gets to demand anything they want from their players. For instance, the NCAA is the only organization that is allowed to profit from this monopoly. The players cannot profit. Contracts are illegal, recruitment briberies are frowned upon on the highest level. It is essentially mandated students must see no profit from their abilities until they are on the professional level. Although college athletes often get as much attention as professionals, their bank accounts must remain empty. 

That brings us to the OJ Mayo issue. He is accused of accepting money and gifts from USC throughout his high school career in order to attend the university (for one year before he inevitably declares for the NBA). While the issue of how long players should stay in school is its own discussion, the issue of gifts and payment is poignant. 

This is not the first time USC athletics is accused of this type of behavior. Their football program fell under similar allegations with Reggie Bush. Do I think USC is guilty of wrongdoing in both of these cases? Yes. Do I think college kids should be allowed to receive benefits for their talents? Of course. And they will when they get to the pros. I think it is unfair for the NCAA to benefit so heavily from their talents, while the athletes themselves receive nothing. An untimely injury can leave them disabled and incapable of ever seeing the benefits of their ability. 

Yet, after all, they are just kids. It would be a dangerous environment to give a college student millions of dollars worth of contracts while still in school. And, after all, college is supposed to be about learning the rules of life and experiencing life for yourself. As the commercial says, "Most student athletes go pro in something other than sports." So let them live their college life, and they will get their pay day in the pros if they are good enough. 

These recruitment rules are in place to protect the integrity of the college system. The reason people are so drawn to college sports is the purity. It is athletes playing for the pride of their school. As a University of Maryland student, we pay thousands of dollars each year, some of which goes to paying for the tuition of our basketball and football players. We do this so we can be proud of the school we go to, and say "Hey, our basketball program was the best in the country and won it all in 2002." This pride in the program and in the integrity of the sport makes it better in some respects than professional sports. That is why these rules exist, and because of this and this alone, they need to be honored and respected.

The Magic Camera Theory

Every time I see Arlen Specter on TV talking about Spygate, it always says "D-PA" next to his name. For a long time I thought the D stood for "Democrat" but apparently it stands for douche bag.

I apologize for the crassness of this post, but it touches on a very sensitive subject for me. As a die hard Patriot fan, I find what Specter is doing to be borderline criminal in its idiocy. If you need an update, here it is. I like to think his logic is flawed regardless of what team you support, but that's up for someone else to decide. 

What I see in this situation is as follows: this is beyond the debate of congressional involvement in professional sports. This is beyond the steroids/Mitchell investigation debate. This is a "who gave this moron the right to make decisions?" debate. What I see here is an elected Senator where two teams from his state have been "victimized" by Spygate. Not only that, I see a Senator who is financially supported by Comcast, that has made many damaging remarks against the NFL and their methods of supporting their standards. For those of you who don't know, Comcast is a rival to the NFL Network, which is owned by the NFL. 

So, before Specter pretends to be such an "objective" source, as he so often claims is needed in this investigation, he needs to remind himself who funds his campaigns. No one is objective in this situation. The Patriots aren't objective, the NFL isn't objective, and Specter isn't objective. They all have agendas. Specter needs to stop pretending he is the voice of reason in this chaotic scenario. Need I remind you that Specter is the guy the Magic Bullet Theory is often attributed to? Come on! Why are we listening to him?! 

Seriously! The Magic Bullet Theory. Let's all listen to the guy that came up with that! Clearly he is able to comprehend complex series of evidence and data to reach a reasonable conclusion. Note to Specter: Bullets don't take right angles mid-flight, and cameras don't win championships. 

Love to hate: Rivalries In Sports

Loving your team is what every good fan does. But, as much as every fan loves his team, he hates another team with equal passion. It sometimes gets to the point where a fan will love to hate his rival as much as he loves his own team. Look no further than the Yankees and the Red Sox. Hating Derek Jeter and A-Rod is just as important as loving Manny and Big Papi. 

At the risk of alienating some of my (two) readers, I will speak to my own hatreds to provide context to my generalizations. I hate the Red Sox. They represent everything I hate. They call themselves "the idiots". I hate people who embrace their idiocy and ignorance. I hate people who think they are better than others, like most Red Sox fans do. They call themselves "The Nation" even though they are fans, nothing more. They think their loyalty extends further than all others, that they are the fans to end all fans, the best fans in the world. Of course, just because they refer to themselves as a nationalistic entity doesn't make them superior to other fan bases. They are loud, obnoxious, protagonists, and have a major superiority complex. I hope they burn.

Now, if we analyze that rant, we can see how I let the Red Sox become Red Sox fans. The rivalry extends not just to teams, but fans of the teams. And with that, stereotypes and generalizations are made to fuel the hate. If Red Sox nation truly was its own race, I have heard many Yankee fans utter genocidal remarks. The team becomes a symbol of the fans, and vice versa.

Now, this aspect of sports extends well beyond sports itself. Rivalries are a part of human nature. It is natural for people to want to belong to a group, and this group needs to unite among a common cause. For this reason, all Yankee fans can go to Yankee Stadium and unite in their hatred of David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez. Because after all, they're just a bunch of idiots.

Guns Don't Kill People, People With Guns Kill People

I can completely understand why professional athletes feel the need to carry firearms. With the murder of Sean Taylor and the mugging of the Chicago Bears’ first draft pick, Rashard Mendenhall, you would have to be stupid to think athletes aren’t at risk. Its hard to imagine, considering they are about twice the size of most people, I don’t know who would want to threaten these physical specimens. Yet, when confronted with a knife, I can understand why these athletes would want to protect themselves.

Considering this, carrying guns is asking for trouble. Recently, Marvin Harrison has been under legal investigation for being involved in a shootout in Philadelphia. While it is not definitive whether Harrison did anything wrong or illegal, he is clearly not in the ideal situation. To state the obvious, any time someone gets into a shootout and does not alert the police, something is wrong.

This is not the first time professional athletes have gotten in trouble with firearms. Tank Johnson, a defensive tackle for the Dallas Cowboys, was suspended by the league for his run ins with the law. He owned a small arsenal before it was confiscated by the police. Sean Taylor also owned and regularly operated a gun. The list is never ending.

Is this a problem? Yes. Is there anything the league or the government can do about it? No. The right to bear arms extends to everyone, professional athletes too. Because many of these athletes come from underprivileged inner city environments, and have connections to unlawful individuals, that doesn’t mean you can prevent them from obtaining firearms legally. The fact of the matter is they can often be in a dangerous situation, and if they feel the need to protect themselves, it is their right to do so.

Had Mendenhall been carrying a gun, he may well have tried to pull it on the mugger, and could have gotten seriously injured. Imagine if the Bear’s first round pick had been killed before he could step onto the field. It would be Len Bias all over again. Yet, it would have been impossible to blame him, since he was merely trying to protect himself from a dangerous situation. Luckily, Mendenhall realized his wallet is not worth his wallet or cell phone, and simply gave them up to the mugger.

This is a tragic side effect of being an athlete, and lets pray there is no Sean Taylor repeat. Because that is all we really can do about this unfortunate problem. Pray. 

Wilbon at the University of Maryland: Reason Among Greed

On Monday, April 28^th, I had the pleasure of seeing Michael Wilbon speak at the University of Maryland. For those who don’t know, Wilbon is the co-host of the show Pardon the Interruption on ESPN, and is a columnist for the Washington Post.

Not knowing what to expect, I sat down and clapped as Wilbon approached the podium. He spoke for approximately 20 minutes about how he got to where he is today, which was fascinating in its own right. But the highlight of the evening was when he fielded almost two hours of questions from the audience, ranging across the sports spectrum. I will only discuss the overlap between previously discussed issues on this blog and Wilbon’s take on the issues, but he spoke about a lot more.

One question asked was about the sponsorship of his show. Wilbon acknowledged the show is geared towards high school and college students, but the show is sponsored almost exclusively by alcohol (Red Stripe, Smirnoff, and Guiness). Wilbon’s response is that he knows the paradox here, but he also knows people will always drink and the sponsorship of the show won’t change that. He also recognizes the capitalist motivation of ESPN, which he mentioned in his responses many times. One of the most astounding parts of his answers was his awareness to the money-driven aspect of sports. Many sports writers, such as Jay Mariotti and Skip Bayless, completely ignore the fact that everything in sports is driven by money, and it often makes their arguments a moot point. Yet, Wilbon is the complete opposite, and it is a refreshing tone in sportswriting.

Another major point Wilbon often made was that of American domination of the sports world, socially and economically. He pointed out how basketball is no longer an American dominated sport, but is still perceived as one, though wrongfully so. The future of basketball is likely going to come from outside the US, mainly China and Eastern Europe. On a similar note, he ranted about the unfair expectations of Central and South American baseball prospects, and why they would be tempted to lie about their age or take illegal substances to get their families out of extreme poverty. It was enlightening and refreshing to hear such logic come from an industry that is often driven by greed, not reason. 

Below is a clip of Wilbon and his co-host, Tony, goofing around about the release of Madden '08. But notice the logo that comes up after the introductions. Also, during each show, after the second commercial break, a voice announces who presents that episode, almost always Guiness or Smirnoff. 

If You Can't Win the War on Drugs, Find A New Drug to Wage War On

Sports and government. I never thought I would have to utter those words in the same sentence. Much to my dismay, it has become a popular debate in the last three years or so, ever since Congress got involved in the steroids investigation in Major League Baseball. WHY congress thought they had the right to intervene in sports, or the responsibility to, is beyond me.

Everyone has commented on all the other issues Congress SHOULD be paying attention to, such as Iraq, health care, or just any other issue ever mentioned in the news in the past three years. Yet, that is not entirely fair, since only one committee has taken issue with sports. That committee does not have jurisdiction over all the other issues.

Yet, what is fair is considering the autocracy of sports. Sports have always solved their issues without the involvement of the government. All leagues have always encountered issues, and have solved them with the players union and gradual rule changes. Steroids would have been more of the same. The MLB had plenty of investigative powers to reveal the widespread steroids use in the 1990’s. George Mitchell, who wrote the Mitchell Report, which named over a hundred current or former MLB players in the use of steroids, was a wild witch hunt which served nothing but to tarnish the name of many players. Most of the evidence was either hearsay or unconfirmed reports. Roger Clemens will never be seen in the same light, even though only one man said he did steroids.

Yes, before you bring it up, I understand it is important to show children and such that cheating is wrong, and I do not deny that. But it is not Congress’s job to do so. The message should not be “if you cheat, and everyone else cheats, eventually the mighty hand of 

the government will fall down upon you and cause everyone to hate you and reject your accomplishments.” The emphasis for the steroid era needs to be less on “look how no one respects these guys” and more on “look how this guy got pancreatic cancer after taking steroids.”

The fact of the matter is, the fact that we know Barry Bond’s name is good enough for some people to take steroids to get famous, even if they are revealed as cheaters. It is important to emphasize the incredibly harmful effects of these drugs to your body, not your public image. After all, once you sign a 100 million dollar contract with the San Francisco Giants, you can always hire a PR rep.  

I'm Not As Think As You Drunk I Am

Anyone who has been to a professional or college sporting event knows intoxication is a major part of the event. Even if you are not intoxicated yourself, you will invariably have a run in with a severely inebriated individual. They can be obnoxious, rude, vulgar, and downright disgusting in many instances. I have been to 29 different sports stadiums across America, and hundreds of sporting events. One thing has been common across the board: drunk fans piss me off.

In Fenway Park during a Yankees vs. Red Sox game, I have had beer thrown at me, pizza thrown in my face, peanut shells stuffed down my back, and if these fans are to be taken at their word, they violated my mother many times. I was twelve at the time. This is not to pick on Boston; similar experiences can be seen everywhere, from New York to Seattle to San Diego and Miami (especially Europe, where the vulgarity is organized into stadium-wide chants).

Often times, this public display of hatred extends beyond words. During this Cowboys-Redskins game, drunk fans came to blows. They literally pummel each other as hard as they can while yelling obscenities at each other. The most interesting part: listen to the Redskins fans cheer them on! They are hard to hear, but if you listen closely you can hear one fan yelling "Kick His Ass!"

How do the fans get so intoxicated before the game? Tailgates. In Washington at a Redskins tailgate, I personally witnessed already drunk fans pour three beers into a road cone and force other Redskin fans to drink the stream of beer. In Buffalo, the fans played a game before the Bills game, where they made anyone who walked by their tailgate chug a beer. Nearly everyone agreed, and soon the entire party was hammered. There was still five hours to game time.

These practices are not uncommon by any means. An HBO show, REAL Sports with Bryant Gumble, did a piece over the summer about this exact topic. I tried to find the footage on youtube but to no avail. In fact, they had a film crew capture the road cone incident mentioned earlier I witnessed with my own two eyes. They interviewed writers who call to a stop of such behavior, and police in charge of keeping drunk fans out of games.

I am not advocating this kind of wide-sweeping change in policy. As a die hard fan of all sports, I recognize alcohol, partying, and inebriation is a part of the experience. To some extent, it is half the entertainment. You never know what you are going to find, or what you're going to hear people yell. Not only that, but leagues cannot have it both ways and sign multi hundred million dollar contracts with beer companies for sponsorships AND tell fans to drink responsibly. If they want to reap the financial benefits of alcohol being paired with sports, they have to deal with the social consequences. The fact of the matter is football games are no longer places to take young children. At the Buffalo game I attended with another family, who has two little girls, one extremely drunk fan even threatened to rape the little girls. I kid you not.

Not ALL drunk fans piss me off, but when you threaten to rape an 8 year old girl or pummel another fan with your clenched fists because you are too drunk to know your first name, then you have gone too far (obviously). It no longer is just your problem, its somebody else’s problem as well. Everyone who has to put up with your obnoxious behavior is being distracted from the game at hand. I do not look forward to the day when I have to tell my son he isn't old enough to come to a sports game with his Dad because he will hear things he is too young to hear. But I don't want my son being the type of fan that tells another to shove an air horn up his ass and blow it real hard. Because one day the fan that thinks he is the baddest on the block will meet one who will show him what its like. 

Above: tailgates are any real fan's tradition before a big game: grill food, get a tv going to watch the other games, chat with family and friends. But sometimes it goes too far.

Oh, Great, Another Beer Ad....Get Back to the Game!

It is simple supply and demand economics. When a product is in excess demand relative to the supply, the price goes up. Its hard to fathom a place where alcohol is viewed as in less supply than its demand, yet such a place arguably exists. Within the confines of a professional sports stadium, alcohol is behind only a win and a crushing hit in demand from fans. What is the evidence? The win and the hard hit is met with the loudest cheers, and the alcohol costs an astronomic 8 dollars a bottle.

 Walk into FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland, home of the Washington Redskins, and you will be greeted by forty foot banners advertising Bud Light. Watch a football game on television, and you will see an average ratio of beer commercials to all other commercials of about 1 to 4. Coors Light is the official beer sponsor of the NFL, but that doesn’t mean it is the ONLY beer sponsor of the NFL. Coors spends $300 million dollars over 5 years (sportsbusiness.com) to be the “official” sponsor of the NFL. Anhauser-Busch and Miller both offered rivaling contracts.

 If you have ever been to a professional football tailgate in your lifetime, you know the demand side of the equation more than makes up for the 300 million dollars spent by Coors for the title of official sponsor of the NFL. By game time, the lot will literally be littered with beer cans and bottles. It would be easy to believe Coors makes this money back nationwide in one month of the season, tops. If you talk to lifelong football tailgaters, and you ask them what to drink with their burgers, hot dogs, or steak sandwiches, they won’t answer “beer”, they will ask you, “Lager or ale? Pale or Brown?” It is a foregone conclusion you will consume alcohol before a football game. Even with the early start times of 1 PM.

 It is a part of the NFL culture. It comes with the territory of the lure of the 16 game season. With every game vital to a team’s success or failure (many teams every year miss the playoffs by one game), each game takes on the mentality of live or die, win or go home. Every game has the atmosphere of a big game, unlike baseball, hockey or basketball, which all have over 80 games in the season and multiple game series as a playoff format instead of single games, like the NFL.

 With the combination of sponsorships and the big game atmosphere of the NFL, it has become a traditional pairing. Does this carry with it negative connotations? Of course. Do fans often go too far? All the time. But, it is tradition. By now, beer goes with football as naturally as Thanksgiving goes with Turkey (and football, which subsequently goes with beer. Man they covered all their bases). Without trying to make too much of a grand statement about society and culture, I simply find it ironic that many phases of society are attempting to promote responsible alcohol use, and the dangers of alcohol are being taken as seriously as ever. Yet, at the same time, from the time a child watches his first football game, or goes to his first baseball game, he is taught to never think of a professional sports outing without considering first, Coors or Bud?