Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould drug use get a professional sports athlete banned for life?
Results so far:
| Yes | 54% | 324 votes | Total: 603 votes | |
| No | 46% | 279 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesI have often been branded a reactionary by my friends and detractors, yet, in this issue I see a very fundamental principle being violated. For better or worse our children look up to professional athletes. Their God given talent coupled with off the field actions have an impact on the hopes and dreams of kids. Because of that impact they should suffer a greater consequence for failure to abide by both league and legal rules concerning drug use.
Just as a lawyer or doctor often faces loss of a license for something like a DUI. Some may argue that such a penalty is unduly harsh, to them I say that life is about choices and consequences. How many kids wearing Michael Vick jerseys will think that being cruel to an animal is okay? How many who look up to baseball stars will decide that steroids are okay if they make you faster and stronger? What about those athletes who commit other crimes while under the influence? Should we reinforce a negative example by them with a light sentence?
Whether professional athletes like it or not they have an obligation to their fans to set a certain example on and off the field. Steroids, cocaine, alcohol, or any other abuse mars not only their image but that of the sport they play. I would say that public figures especially those who profit from ability and marketing should suffer severe consequences when they break both the game's rules and our own legal standards.
Before anyone gets their toga in a knot please understand that I would think a first offense would be a chance to come clean and get their act together. However, a second time around they should get hammered. In addition I think in every case the athlete should be afforded due process under the league's and courts rules. The problem in most cases is the media's decision to try the case public ally with pundits on both sides working to create rather than report an outcome.
The bottom line is simple, if you make millions and have legions of fans you have a responsibility to play by the rules both on and off the field. If you violate the rules of the game you should be punished accordingly. Anything less than a lifetime ban sends a clear message to people that rules are for those too poor to lawyer up and weasel out. Hey, Spiderman's Uncle said it best, "With great power comes great responsibility." If God gave you incredible athletic talent and society rewarded you with money and fame then the least you can do is follow the law and rules of your game. If you can't do that then you do not deserve to play the game.
Learn more about this author, T. M. Beeker.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
In the late 1960's there was a running back for the San Diego Chargers named Chuck Muncie who was arrested for cocaine possession. At the time he was one of the NFL's leading running backs. I was in the Army and remember a buddy of mine from San Diego commenting, "Hell, if he can gain a thousand yards a season for the Chargers, I'll buy him the coke." I use this anecdote to illustrate how much things have changed since then, and not for the better. It is amazing to me that we have come to the point where we are seriously considering Draconian proposals like this.
If we start banning everyone who uses drugs the playing fields will be empty, or worse yet populated by second-rate talent. What would baseball be like without talents like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens? Should someone like Andy Pettitte be banned for taking steroids because he was in fear of not being to be able to perform due to injury? In today's politically correct environment beer in the clubhouse will have to be banned and taking this question literally, all the players who partook after a hard day's work would necessarily be banned for life. It might not be a bad idea if we just step back for a moment and consider where this is headed.
Consider this; in 1970 we had 270,000 people in our jails, now we have over 2,000,000, mainly because we thought it would be a really good idea if we had a war on drugs. We lost. The cost was enormous, the number of people who have been damaged by it may exceed the number damaged by the substances they were ingesting. If we continue down this path of zero tolerance, and this is another giant step in that direction, what kind of society will we end up with? The fact that we now toss more people in jail than China and Russia ought to give us some pause.
I played a lot of amateur sports, and the name of the game was always winning. Second place was and is the first loser. Who lost Super Bowl XL? I don't remember, do you? To win you need an edge. Sometimes that entails bending, if not breaking the rules. As salaries have escalated, so has the motivation to get that elusive "edge." If an All-American player like the Yankees Andy Pettitte can be pressured into using, no matter the reason, then it is hard to understand why you would even consider banning someone for life. Will you have a process that makes exceptions? Whatever you do is bound to be political and so, controversial. Should all guys that smoke pot be banned? And what about cigarettes, nicotine is about the deadliest drug there is because it is so addicting, not to mention carcinogenic. Should smokers be banned? If you take the question literally, that is what you would have to do. Therein lies the rub. How on Earth could this ever be enforced?
The fatal flaw in this proposal is a very human one and should be obvious to anyone who takes a moment to think over the consequences of the finality of banishment. It lacks the opportunity for redemption, so the crime committed does not fit the punishment. Banishment is something that should be seldom used, and only for those beyond hope. I find it impossible to believe someone like Roger Clemens is beyond hope. He is after all, first and foremost, an athlete. He has an out-sized desire to win at all costs. Steroids were available and in common use at the time he is alleged to have taken them. Did he? His trainer and team-mate say he did. If it turns out that he did indeed use performance-enhancin g drugs, should he be banned? In effect, Barry Bonds already is. Where is this heading? Are we going to make a rule like this, then turn a blind eye to it when it happens to a team we like? As Shakespeare famously points out in one of his sonnets:"They that level against my abuses, reckon up their own." If everyone's in jail who will be warden?
Learn more about this author, John Shuck.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Sports News & Opinion (Other)
- Is it time to retire the professional sports asterisk?
- Should disabled athletes with prosthetic limbs be allowed to compete in sports with able-bodied athletes?
- Should tax dollars be spent to build professional sports stadiums?
- Are air guns good or evil?
- Should collegiate athletes receive payment for competing in college athletics?
