Search Helium

Home > Politics, News & Issues > Sports News & Opinion > Sports News & Opinion (Other)

Should drug use get a professional sports athlete banned for life?

Results so far:

Yes
57% 596 votes Total: 1050 votes
No
43% 454 votes

Yes

by Chris Messner

Created on: January 22, 2008   Last Updated: October 31, 2008

Yes, and for more than one reason.

Sadly, as with most things in America, it comes down to money. My knowledge is of baseball more than of other sports, but I'm sure that the chase for big bucks has athletes in all sports willing to chemically enhance their natural abilities.

In baseball, "America's Pastime", until the mid-1970's, major-leaguers were basically just working stiffs, albeit fairly well paid, but only the biggest stars earned enough by playing baseball to avoid having to work at another job in the off-season.

Thanks to Andy Messersmith, Marvin Miller and George Steinbrenner, that all changed, for the worse, in my opinion. Messersmith challenged the system, Miller organized the players' union, and Steinbrenner started throwing money around to buy the best available talent.

We all know that money does strange things to people. They start to believe they are invincible, that the rules don't apply to them, that the "ordinary" people that generate their obscene incomes aren't important. What superstars earn is, apparently, never enough.

They're enticed by the shady hangers-on that, for reasons I don't understand, are allowed to enter clubhouses and put all kinds of ridiculous notions into players' minds. Next thing you know, guys like Ken Caminiti are doing coke AND 'roids to excel, chasing money and glory, and, in his case, to what avail? He gave his body and soul to illegal drugs, and he died at 41 years of age. That's a lifetime ban for you, eh?

Many have argued that, in baseball, statistics from one era are really not comparable to statistics from other eras. There is some truth to that. For example, during Babe Ruth's day, a fly ball that bounced over the fence was a home run. Before the so-called "modern era" of baseball, it took 9 balls to draw a walk. In the early days of major league baseball, many fields had no fences. Equipment was different, strength conditioning was different, the rules were different, parks were much larger in the old days.

Nevertheless, records have been established since the start of the modern era, and they stand regardless of changes in rules, field dimensions, the addition of many more teams, and changes in physical conditioning.

So when Roger Maris managed to hit his 61st homer in 1961, surpassing Ruth's 1927 record of 60, well, records are made to be broken, right? Maris suffered greatly that season. He allowed the press to put great pressure on him by hounding him about breaking the Bambino's most hallowed record. It is well documented that he had trouble eating and sleeping, and his hair fell out in clumps.

Still, he persevered, and on the last day of the season he poked one into the short porch in right for #61, and what did he get for his trouble? He got a lot of crap from fans who didn't want Ruth's record to fall, and he got an asterisk from Ford Frick, the commissioner, who said his total was not really better than Ruth's because, in 1927, the season was only 154 games, while Maris needed 162 games to break Ruth's mark.

That's how a record is supposed to be broken. Maris benefited from a watered-down pitching talent pool because 1961 was an expansion year and there were 2 more teams in the American League, with 2 more pitching staffs that were minor-leaguers just the year before. In other words, Maris broke a record performing under the conditions that existed during his time, and he should not have been penalized for it. But, even though Maris never hit more than 39 homers in any other season, there was never even a wisp of a thought that his achievement was chemically aided.

McGwire's 1998 season was also an expansion year. Sosa benefited from that, as well. But anyone with 2 eyes and half a brain could see that McGwire and Sosa were not the same people they were when they broke into the majors in the late '80s. Although McGwire set a record in his rookie year by hitting 49 homers, by 1998 both he and Sosa had added a lot of weight and muscle.

McGwire explained it by saying he used androstenedione, an over-the-counter supplement. I don't recall Sosa ever explaining how he added about 60 pounds of muscle in less than 10 years, but I'm pretty sure you don't get that way from lifting weights and eating a lot of chicken.

And what a grand spectacle those guys were for baseball. The fans loved it! It was basically a reply of the 1961 home run battle between Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris, and coming just 4 short years after the ugly 1994 player's strike which canceled the World Series, it was just the shot in the arm the sport needed. I have to admit, I enjoyed it because it never occurred to me they might be chemically enhanced.

Looking back on it now, though, I feel that fans who cared about the game, as I did, were played, not only by the cheaters, but by those who make the rules, such as Bud Selig and Don Fehr, and for what? Money, that's what.

Bud Selig? He couldn't care less. I don't know the guy, but I have to believe that if he were truly dedicated to a clean game, he would have implemented a lifetime-ban policy as soon as one guy was proven to have used illegal performance-enhancing drugs, and to hell with the players' union.

Mr. Selig is a hypocrite. He keeps Pete Rose freezing outside baseball's hallowed gates because of gambling (which, to be sure, is a valid threat to the game's integrity), but allows dopers and liars to play because record-breaking performances put butts in the seats. I see the money connection there, don't you?

Drug use should get athletes banned for life because, well, first of all, it's ILLEGAL, secondly, it sets a bad example by showing that it's perfectly OK to ignore the rules, break the law, and violate the trust of clean players and fans to get what you want, and, finally, it destroys the significance of the meticulously compiled and tracked statistics of the game.

And Bud Selig should be banned also. He knew what was going on, but he decided in favor of money over integrity. Baseball ain't what it used to be. Thanks a lot, Bud.

Learn more about this author, Chris Messner.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

No

by Ronnie Ambrad

Created on: January 22, 2008   Last Updated: October 31, 2008

If an athlete were to be banned for life because of drug use during his career in professional sports, does it help him see the right perspective in life? Yes it would probably show him the consequences of his action but do we see any benefit from it? Does the athlete benefit from it?

It will only scare athletes from using drugs but does not prevent them from doing it. Sometimes scared people do stupid things and using drugs is one of them.

For the athlete slapped with life banishment in sports, it would probably push him to use more drugs because he looses his job and most probably sport is his only means of earning. And because he is banned for life, he had no chance of competing again. No reason for him to train, to get fit. What will he do? Use more drugs. Why? With no career and no job which means no income, it will send him back to his parents' basement and living there like a scared teenager again. Reflecting on his past it will drive him mad which will cause him to revert back to drugs.

Because I belive in second chance, and I believe one to two years suspension and taking back his earnings from wins he had during his/her drugs use would be enough to teach him/her a lesson. But not just suspend him/her, a support also for rehab would make him/her heal against drugs.

I also believe that it is better to focus on the positive sides of things. It would encourage other athletes to be "clean" if they see more benefits such as more sponsors, higher salary and more.

Give more focus also on the coach or manager of an athlete because they have the most influence in an athlete's life/career. A good coach/manager would prevent his/her athlete from using drugs as they "probably" know that it can ruin their athlete's career.

I haven't heard any coach or manager being suspended for drug use of his athlete. His athlete is his responsibility. It is his duty to make sure that his athlete is clean. Wouldn't professional sport be much better if it is the coach or manager that is suspended if an athlete is caught using drugs? We can then look for a better coach/manager to look after our athlete. The coaches/managers who can or will prevent the athletes from doing drugs, the ones who can make sports clean.

Learn more about this author, Ronnie Ambrad.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.


CONNECT WITH US

Read
our blog
Helum for writers

Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills

Join our active writing community
Helium Content Source for Publishers

Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all

Get custom content today!

INFORMATION


Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA