Baseball
This week's Sports Illustrated (thanks for the subscription Mom) has an article about how baseball is sooo great. Yay baseball. And the author (whose name doesn't come to mind and unfortunately for this post I am too lazy to walk over and get it) gives ten reasons why 2004 has such great baseball and we should all watch. And the reasons are pretty good - such as Randy Johnson's stellar play at the age of 40 and the sucess of both teams rich in tradition (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Giants, Dodgers, Cards) and relative newcomers (Devil Rays, Marlins).
But the author, even in his Barry Bonds tribute, fails to mention steroids. Even passive baseball followers know that baseball is suffering from the innuedo-plague of drug-enhanced ball players. Perhaps this is not relative to the status of baseball as our national pastime.
Wrong. Why devote time (pass time) to following a sport when the players might not even play by the rules. It's like going to see a basketball game where some of the players get to jump of trampolines or a spelling bee where only half the contestants speak english. It's not fair.
Obviously most fans don't share my opinions and go see the games anyway. And to be honest, I don't think that a large number of players are using performance-enhancing drugs. But I do believe that some players are, and I cannot comprehend why the players' union is sticking its neck out there for those players by refusing to accept random drug testing.
The union needs to wise up and realize that it is damaging the sport as much as the steroid use (that may or may not exist). Remember Michael Jackson's first molestation suit? When he payed the kid's family off. Well that is what this looks like to me. If no one is using drugs then prove it. Until you do, don't expect me to respect the game.
This week's Sports Illustrated (thanks for the subscription Mom) has an article about how baseball is sooo great. Yay baseball. And the author (whose name doesn't come to mind and unfortunately for this post I am too lazy to walk over and get it) gives ten reasons why 2004 has such great baseball and we should all watch. And the reasons are pretty good - such as Randy Johnson's stellar play at the age of 40 and the sucess of both teams rich in tradition (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Giants, Dodgers, Cards) and relative newcomers (Devil Rays, Marlins).
But the author, even in his Barry Bonds tribute, fails to mention steroids. Even passive baseball followers know that baseball is suffering from the innuedo-plague of drug-enhanced ball players. Perhaps this is not relative to the status of baseball as our national pastime.
Wrong. Why devote time (pass time) to following a sport when the players might not even play by the rules. It's like going to see a basketball game where some of the players get to jump of trampolines or a spelling bee where only half the contestants speak english. It's not fair.
Obviously most fans don't share my opinions and go see the games anyway. And to be honest, I don't think that a large number of players are using performance-enhancing drugs. But I do believe that some players are, and I cannot comprehend why the players' union is sticking its neck out there for those players by refusing to accept random drug testing.
The union needs to wise up and realize that it is damaging the sport as much as the steroid use (that may or may not exist). Remember Michael Jackson's first molestation suit? When he payed the kid's family off. Well that is what this looks like to me. If no one is using drugs then prove it. Until you do, don't expect me to respect the game.
posted by jonnyargyle at 10:39 PM
