It never ceases to amaze me how often we are willing to sacrifice OTHER PEOPLE'S civil liberties to supposedly solve some “horrible” problem. All of you people clamoring for universal drug testing for ballplayers need to ask yourself this question ... If it could be shown that the performance of YOUR job had no effect on the safety of someone else, would YOU be willing to submit to repeated random drug testing at YOUR workplace, especially if there were no evidence that you were using?
Before answering this question, think about these ramifications...
1. These tests are not foolproof. Failing a drug test due to a false positive is a horrendous thing to have to go through. Reputations are destroyed for life. More on the danger of false positives below.
2. Numerous legal drugs contain trace amounts of substances that have been banned by various sports. For example, the over-the-counter drugs Tylenol Cold, Sudafed, and Actifed all contain ephedrine, which is a banned stimulant. We've all heard of the sad cases of athletes who have been suspended and/or have had records or awards rescinded after testing positive in cases like this.
3. Testing also produces false negatives. This is almost as damaging. Those players that are cheating, now will have gotten undeserved public acceptance.
4. Players that cheat to use steroids, will undoubtedly find ways to cheat on the steroid test. It is not hard to imagine a hidden vial in a player’s undergarments. The solution then is someone must watch the player during the urine test, you say. Sure, no problem. Would YOU submit to someone watching you?? Repeatedly? Month after month despite no evidence that you are guilty?? If you answer yes to that, you are either a liar or you're gay. I don't know about you all, but I don't think I could even open up the stinking valve!
5. Even a small percentage error in drug testing, leads to extremely skewed results. Note the following example: Say that there are 1000 subjects. Out of this group, 50 are truly guilty. If it is known that this particular drug test historically results in 2% false positives (which is a typical percentage in these tests), what percentage of test result positives are actually true positives? The answer may surprise you. In this example, 20 subjects will receive a false positive test result (2% of 1000), and 50 will receive a true positive. Therefore, 20 out of the 70 positive test results are in error!!! That is a 29% error!! And this is not even taking into account false negatives. What's even worse is that this percentage error INCREASES as the true number of "cheaters" decreases (try it yourself with new numbers if you are unconvinced). So as MLB "succeeds" in its zero tolerance policy by getting steroid users to quit, further testing becomes even MORE unreliable.
Even if drug testing could be 100% reliable and accurate, I would be completely against it. Our country is SUPPOSED to be the greatest country on the planet because we value FREEDOM more than any other nation. One of the tenants of freedom is that you are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY. Mandatory universal drug testing turns this tenant completely on its ear. Where does it end? After mandatory drug testing, do we then submit to unannounced searches of our homes and property? Does this scenario remind anyone else of a certain Reich from another era?
In my opinion, the "problem" of steroids in sports is completely overblown. Who is being harmed here? Athletes all make a decision on the sacrifices they are willing to make to succeed in their chosen profession. Some decide that they will spend hours and hours in the gym working out as their sacrifice, while others decide to sacrifice their later years, sterility, and who knows what else by using steroids. But whatever they decide only affects THEMSELVES, not you or me. If the worst thing that happens is that some records get broken, well whooptie damn doo. In the grand scheme of things, does that really matter? People are dying of malaria and famine by the millions all over the earth. Does Roger Maris's home run record really hold that much importance by comparison?
Still not convinced? Think about this – over the years our society has come up with a multitude of ways to improve our health, longevity, strength, etc. We have learned how to exercise smartly and how to use our diets to fine tune our bodies to perfection. Is this an unfair advantage then, for today’s ballplayers over yesteryear’s? Should we revoke the records set by today’s record breakers because of these advantages that they’ve had over the players from the past? Of course not, right? Well then ask yourself this – if steroids were just another food supplement and were considered completely healthy and everyone used them, would we be all upset about these long time records being broken? Would there even be a debate? Let’s stop fooling ourselves, then, that this is about juiced up players undeservedly breaking records, because ALL of today’s players are “juiced” on the advantages I just mentioned. This debate is really about how some players are upset that other players are willing to make bigger sacrifices to succeed than they are. In a truly free country, all players should be allowed to make this choice. I’ve already shown that the only one being hurt by this decision is the player himself.
Last of all, please spare me the tired excuse that accepting steroid use gives our kids a poor example to look up to. There are 10 billion poor examples out there for our kids to learn from, and another 10 billion good examples. We have no control over the multitude of examples out there. Therefore, it's up to YOU, as the parent of your kid, to impart the values on him/her that you deem to be the correct ones. If your kid's idea of the ultimate human being to emulate is Barry Bonds, then maybe it's time to have a little sit down with the lad. If you’re negligent in this very basic task of parenting, don't go blaming society if he turns out a bad seed.
Before answering this question, think about these ramifications...
1. These tests are not foolproof. Failing a drug test due to a false positive is a horrendous thing to have to go through. Reputations are destroyed for life. More on the danger of false positives below.
2. Numerous legal drugs contain trace amounts of substances that have been banned by various sports. For example, the over-the-counter drugs Tylenol Cold, Sudafed, and Actifed all contain ephedrine, which is a banned stimulant. We've all heard of the sad cases of athletes who have been suspended and/or have had records or awards rescinded after testing positive in cases like this.
3. Testing also produces false negatives. This is almost as damaging. Those players that are cheating, now will have gotten undeserved public acceptance.
4. Players that cheat to use steroids, will undoubtedly find ways to cheat on the steroid test. It is not hard to imagine a hidden vial in a player’s undergarments. The solution then is someone must watch the player during the urine test, you say. Sure, no problem. Would YOU submit to someone watching you?? Repeatedly? Month after month despite no evidence that you are guilty?? If you answer yes to that, you are either a liar or you're gay. I don't know about you all, but I don't think I could even open up the stinking valve!
5. Even a small percentage error in drug testing, leads to extremely skewed results. Note the following example: Say that there are 1000 subjects. Out of this group, 50 are truly guilty. If it is known that this particular drug test historically results in 2% false positives (which is a typical percentage in these tests), what percentage of test result positives are actually true positives? The answer may surprise you. In this example, 20 subjects will receive a false positive test result (2% of 1000), and 50 will receive a true positive. Therefore, 20 out of the 70 positive test results are in error!!! That is a 29% error!! And this is not even taking into account false negatives. What's even worse is that this percentage error INCREASES as the true number of "cheaters" decreases (try it yourself with new numbers if you are unconvinced). So as MLB "succeeds" in its zero tolerance policy by getting steroid users to quit, further testing becomes even MORE unreliable.
Even if drug testing could be 100% reliable and accurate, I would be completely against it. Our country is SUPPOSED to be the greatest country on the planet because we value FREEDOM more than any other nation. One of the tenants of freedom is that you are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY. Mandatory universal drug testing turns this tenant completely on its ear. Where does it end? After mandatory drug testing, do we then submit to unannounced searches of our homes and property? Does this scenario remind anyone else of a certain Reich from another era?
In my opinion, the "problem" of steroids in sports is completely overblown. Who is being harmed here? Athletes all make a decision on the sacrifices they are willing to make to succeed in their chosen profession. Some decide that they will spend hours and hours in the gym working out as their sacrifice, while others decide to sacrifice their later years, sterility, and who knows what else by using steroids. But whatever they decide only affects THEMSELVES, not you or me. If the worst thing that happens is that some records get broken, well whooptie damn doo. In the grand scheme of things, does that really matter? People are dying of malaria and famine by the millions all over the earth. Does Roger Maris's home run record really hold that much importance by comparison?
Still not convinced? Think about this – over the years our society has come up with a multitude of ways to improve our health, longevity, strength, etc. We have learned how to exercise smartly and how to use our diets to fine tune our bodies to perfection. Is this an unfair advantage then, for today’s ballplayers over yesteryear’s? Should we revoke the records set by today’s record breakers because of these advantages that they’ve had over the players from the past? Of course not, right? Well then ask yourself this – if steroids were just another food supplement and were considered completely healthy and everyone used them, would we be all upset about these long time records being broken? Would there even be a debate? Let’s stop fooling ourselves, then, that this is about juiced up players undeservedly breaking records, because ALL of today’s players are “juiced” on the advantages I just mentioned. This debate is really about how some players are upset that other players are willing to make bigger sacrifices to succeed than they are. In a truly free country, all players should be allowed to make this choice. I’ve already shown that the only one being hurt by this decision is the player himself.
Last of all, please spare me the tired excuse that accepting steroid use gives our kids a poor example to look up to. There are 10 billion poor examples out there for our kids to learn from, and another 10 billion good examples. We have no control over the multitude of examples out there. Therefore, it's up to YOU, as the parent of your kid, to impart the values on him/her that you deem to be the correct ones. If your kid's idea of the ultimate human being to emulate is Barry Bonds, then maybe it's time to have a little sit down with the lad. If you’re negligent in this very basic task of parenting, don't go blaming society if he turns out a bad seed.
