Competitive Intelligence

Athletes & Steroids: Pro Sports at the Crossroads

As we bring 2004 to a close, one of the most notable, and disgraceful, stories of the year was the steriod scandal in professional athletics. In the space of less than a year, nothing less than the future of professional sports as a part of American culture is at stake - especially in an era when our children strive to emulate men and women for whom their passion has become so professionalized a job that they'll do anything to win, including cheat. Those aren't the kinds of heroes America's parents will respect or accept for their children. We need to either say steroids aren't cheating anymore by legalizing or even endorsing their use or else pro sports must clean up its act once and for all.

There are many roots to this problem; but if it can't be solved, pro sports as a phenomenon will cease to exist as an acceptable part of American culture. A couple of weeks ago, Slate.com did an article on what it means that athletes regularly cheat and competition in pro sports certainly cannot be considered fair any longer - here are a couple of choice excerpts:

So, why do athletes cheat? In most cases, surprisingly, it's not for fame and money. Some cheat to win, but most do it just to survive in their sport. Bonds and Jason Giambi are regular All-Stars, but if the late Ken Caminiti, the 1996 National League MVP, is to be believed, and nearly half of baseball players are using steroids, well, many of them are just doing it to pay the bills, not break records. They are turning themselves from triple-A .240 hitters into major-league .260 hitters. For these athletes, doping is almost a rite of passage, marking the moment when a childhood passion became a clock-punching routine. "The moment you dope you become 10 times more professional," said the busted British cyclist David Millar. "You say, 'This is no longer sport, this is my job.' "

And, later in the same article:

Who are the victims of cheating? Not the fans—they love it! Bigger hits, faster races, new records. Until an athlete gets caught, that is, which is why Bonds was booed at the World Series this year, when he was collecting an award. Unlike most sports cheaters, who tend to be needy approval-seekers, he seemed not to mind. But the cloud over his achievements could well turn into an asterisk beside his name in the record books—and he'll have nobody to blame but himself.

Don't cry for him, though, but for the unheralded, probably underpaid, but clean .280 hitters out there. If there are any. Better yet, cry for the likes of 25-year-old Australian cyclist Michael Rogers, who finished second in the world championships to David Millar, and fourth in the Olympic time trial won by Tyler Hamilton. In both races, Rogers got what's known as the "dick spot," the highest meaningless placing.

And finally, will drug testing save baseball? Short answer: only if baseball wants to be saved, and all parties agree to a rigorous program of random testing, with consequences for cheaters. One could argue that the cheaters will always be ahead of the testers, but in cycling, that gap has been closing fast, as Tyler Hamilton learned. There are inaccurate tests and false positives, too—and Hamilton might possibly be innocent. The police in France and Italy can be pretty heavy-handed, as well, breaking down skinny cyclists' doors, with guns drawn. But there is now a reliable test for EPO, which there wasn't five years ago. In another five years, there may be a test for human growth hormone, which remains undetectable.

For all its imperfections, drug testing has created and enforced something like the rule of law in cycling. Cheating hasn't gone away, and probably never will, but it's clear what the rules are, and there is at least a possibility of getting caught—unlike in baseball, which tests a handful of players only once a year and threatens no serious sanctions. If a cyclist tests positive even once, he's almost certain to be suspended and "Whatever, dude" is not a defense. Baseball players get sent to treatment for a first offense. Baseball's current approach, in fact, amounts to de facto legalization, which hurts both the users and the clean athletes alike.

There is a downside to testing, of course. Cycling has been in a state of constant scandal since 1998, and it's not clear that it will survive. In its year-end wrap-up, the magazine VeloNews dubbed 2004 the "Year of the Cheat." But that's only half right: It was the year that the cheats got caught, in stunning numbers. And some of them, refreshingly, had the good grace to come clean, à la Nina Kraft, the good German triathlete. Even David Millar, who was stripped of his world title and suspended for two years, seemed relieved to have been caught.

Most damning of all, a recent story in the Christian Science Monitor about kids and steroid use mentions nearly half-a-million middle- and high-school age kids answered in a survey that they've used steroids to enhance their athletic performance.

Inevitably, all professional sports - not just baseball - will have to either make steroid use (and other drugs) legal - a frightening prospect at best considering the effect it's having on kids today - or else enforce a true ban that disappoints its fans with somewhat more modest performance, but could restore the heroic integrity essential for sports brands to succeed.

In my opinion, this is biggest challenge - not just to baseball or the Olympics - but to all pro sports in the modern era. From a cultural perspective, this could mean professional sports has peaked and is in a state of inevitable decline - because of just such ethical questions this means more than our athletic heroes no longer being worthy of our children's admiration. It could mean their very lives, if they decide to emulate the win-at-any-cost heroes that make steroid use acceptable.

- Arik

Posted by Arik Johnson at December 19, 2004 11:56 AM | TrackBack