Bring It On!

Just wondering what you all think…

March 2nd, 2007 | by Craig R. Harmon |

about federal, state and local law enforcement agencies taking a(n increasing) role in sports doping investigation?

For myself, my first reaction is, what the hell…if professional athletes want to put junk in their bodies that can, ultimately, really mess them up, so what? That’s the Libertarian in me. Then there’s the consequentialist in me that asks, what are the consequences of letting professional athletes dope? Particularly, what are the consequences for kids who hope some day to be professional athletes? Will high schoolers decide that, if they have any chance at all of making it as professionals, they will have to dope?

Anyway, what do you think?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 12 Responses to “Just wondering what you all think…”

  2. By ken grandlund on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply

    I think they have more important issues to handle. When the streets are free of real crime, when the corporations are abiding by the regulations and laws, when the politicians are no longer corrupt, then take on the athlete dopers if you must. until then, let parents teach their children about the stupidities of steroid usage.

    That’s my take.

  3. By tos on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply

    I agree with Ken. I don’t think the government should be involved in that after all corporations should be responsible for their own drug testing. As far as this statement:

    ‘when the politicians are no longer corrupt”

    Good luck with that one.

  4. By Dusty on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply

    Look, they spend millions on the “war on drugs”. Unless you have known someone used steroids, I guess you wouldn’t have a vested interest in stopping the use of this drug. The high school and college kids are using performance-enhancing drugs, and some are being pushed to use them by coaches without a conscience. 

    Kids that abuse steroids aren’t as obvious as kids using recreational drugs.  I think more information needs to get out there about these types of drugs and the permanent damage they do to young minds and bodies.In my own redneck city, the kids are now using these drugs for recreational use. I had no idea until someone told me about their childs experience with them.

    Whether the state and local police should spend resources on it is, again, something of a personal view. I would rather have them spend tax dollars on this than prosecuting cannabis smokers and sellers. Cannabis will give you the munchies..steroids will do far worse with lasting effects. I remember a case of a female body builder than killed her mate while in a roid induced rage in San Diego in the 80’s.   

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply

    Ken, wrote, “let parents teach their children about the stupidities of steroid usage.”

    1. As in most “let parents do” arguments, most parents don’t. It’s not a matter of letting them or not letting them. It’s a matter of do we let those kids whose parents won’t tell their children about the stupidities of steroid use throw their lives down the drain for libertarian principles?

    2. There will be those idiotic parents who will not only not tell their children about the idiocies of steroid use but will encourage it for the same reason some parents engage in sports rage: they want their children to excel at sports because they once did (or wanted to but didn’t) and they want the vicarious thrill of their child’s greatness. Do we allow those children to throw their lives away because of the stupidity of their parents and libertarian principles?

    3. Even if every parent on the earth did tell their children of the stupidities of steroid use — and we all know that they won’t — it is the norm for children to ignore, rebel against, their parents, to do the very thing that their parents tell them not to do. Perhaps, Ken, you were the exception to this rather universal rule but, if so, you were the exception, not the rule. Do we…well, you know.

    Therefore, it is my contention that to “let the parents…” is to doom future generations of kids to steroidal use.

    Now, perhaps one could counter-argue that the “war against drugs” model will be no more successful than the “let the parents tell” model. Perhaps a certain percentage of kids are simply doomed to throw their lives and potential sports-stardom away on steroid use and there is nothing that can be done about it and, so, to preserve personal liberties, we should just allow this to occur, lament it but do nothing about it until more significant crimes have been dealt with but why only such problems as drug-use? Why not prioritize all crime in this way? Why investigate swindlers, thieves, child-molesters and such until murder has been taken care of and eliminated? To ask the question is to answer it…because leaving it to parents to tell their kids about the stupidities of swindling, theft and child-molesting would be both futile and leave a lot of victimized people around while we engage in the equally futile effort to eliminate murders.

    And there’s the point. Those crimes identified as greater than the promulgation of steroid use and other outlawed drugs will never be eliminated and so the problem of steroid use will forever be left to parents who will not tell their kids not to use steroids and to rebels who will not listen to those parents who do.

    For these reasons, I reject the “let the parents” argument. These are not victimless crimes. The victims may be inflicting these things on themselves but the victims could not so inflict themselves if the steroids weren’t available, therefore the only way to stop kids from inflicting themselves with steroid use is to do what can be done to eliminate them from availability.

    The question comes down to this, for me: which model of dealing with the problem will do a better job of limiting the supply of steroids to kids: criminal investigation and prosecution or letting the parents tell their kids about the stupidities of drug use? In my opinion, the latter, no longer investigating providing steroids for people’s use and leaving it to parental guidance will simply throw the flood-gates open to near universal availability of steroids since there will be no downside to pushing them.

    Are Libertarian principles worth that? I say no.

  6. By Jersey McJones on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply

    Law enforcement should absotlutely crack down on sports doping.  It creates a self-fueling cycle of abuse as kids aspiring to be come professional athletes (something millions of kids aspire to, even though only thousands ever make it) realize that they have to dope in order to compete with the professional dopers.  That said, I don’t not think draconian law is necessary.  The NFL and NBA are pretty good at dealing with the problem.  MLB, and some universities and colleges are, on the other hand, bad jokes.  And since the MLB is monopoly exempt, and since most all accreditted schools recieve taxpayor money directly or indirectly, these instutitions should be forced to ban from playing any athlete caught doping - for life.  Period.  Otherwise, distributing dope, just as with distributing cocaine or heroine, should be a crime punishable by improsonment - not ridiculous, knee-jerk, reactionary, third-world-style, rightwingnut imprisonment - but just enough to make them think twice.


  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply

    Jeez, Jersey, you mean we agree on something? Great!

  8. By Paul Watson on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply


    Who do you think has their reputation most damaged by that agreement, do you think? ;-)
    The UK situation is that the police are rarely involved, but that every professional athlete is tested in competition and out of competition. Anyone who fails or misses three tests is banned immediately. The time period varies by sport. That works for me. But univesity and college sports isn’t as big a deal here as it is in the US, so not sure how to translate that.

  9. By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply


    I don’t think that’s the way to think of it. I prefer, um, ‘bipartisan agreement’ in which everyone’s a winner.  :^)

  10. By Jersey McJones on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply

    I love agreeing with you Craig. I also think the point you made about the “let the parents do it” escape clause was fantastic.


  11. By steve on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply

    Major League Baseball does not fall into anti-trust laws like the rest of the nation’s businesses. I think it is away for the government to try and control it.

  12. By Dusty on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply

    MLB was given an anti-trust exemption..which can be revoked at any time by congress steve. It does give the gov’t a certain amount of power, in that they can keep yapping to repeal the exemption as they did when they held the hearings about steroids in baseball, in order to coerce MLB to come to the hearing and discuss the problem and offer up their solutions.

  13. By Craig R. Harmon on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply

    Thanks, Jersey.

    Of course, parents SHOULD talk to their kids about the dangers of steroid use and “parental guidance” or “law enforcement” are by no means the only things that should be happening. I would love to see professional, college and high school sports self-policing, drug testing, enforcing fines, suspensions, etc. I’d love to see public service announcements serving up the facts about sports doping. I’d love to see sports-doping equivalents of the “Scared Straight” program (where they had prisoners sharing the horror stories of life inside). There’s lots of things that can and should be done in this country. I just think policing is one component in the mix.

Post a Comment