“Steroids and other performance enhancing drugs were used for one reason: Money. The better the numbers the players could post, the more money they could demand. The longer a career could be extended, the more cash went into the bank account.
Money, and only money, created the steroid era.
That means the decision to use or not is entirely a decision made by players, nobody else. MLB and owners may have buried their collective heads in the sand for as long as possible because they were making money off the steroid home run bombs, but only the players could decide to use or not use ... The players have taken to acting more like the Mafia then responsible citizens. They worry more about being called a "rat" by the miscreants who took the drugs then they worry about doing the right thing and caring about the game.”
Where do I start?
On the one hand, he says that MLB looked the other way because of profits, lavished large contracts on juicing players but says that players are entirely at fault for this? Has he considered that if owners refused to offer large contracts to steroid users it would have created a massive disincentive to use?
What he (I won’t name the writer to spare him the embarrassment) appears to be saying that when owners pay roiders ungodly amounts of money that it’s up to the players to say no. In any business, it’s management’s responsibility to set the parameters of employment. Even before drug testing came about, there was a ‘probable cause’ provision in the collective bargaining agreement where a team could--if it chose--make a case that an employee appeared to be abusing drugs and have him tested.
None did so.
If they took that step, they could offer contracts that reflected their disdain for performance-enhancing drug users.
None did so.
The New York Yankees agreed to strike every reference to steroids in Jason Giambi’s $120 million contract when it was being offered. They could have said to his agent Arn Tellem, “That request makes me suspicious that your client uses PED … the deal is off.”
They didn’t.
“The players have taken to acting more like the Mafia then responsible citizens. They worry more about being called a ‘rat’ by the miscreants who took the drugs then they worry about doing the right thing and caring about the game.”
Riiight, through all this ownership did nothing, the media said nothing, agents likewise and young men with little life experience are expected to be the ones responsible for ‘caring about the game.’ Ownership was taking a course of self-interest to protect profits. Agents took a course of self-interest to protect their level of commissions. The union executive took a course of self-interest to protect the salary bar. The media took a course of self-interest to protect access (so they could continue to earn money covering baseball) but when the players follow their example--they’re acting like the mafia?
Pathetic.
The truly sad thing about this piece is the fact that, of the five groups mentioned, it’s the players that are the youngest (hence, least experienced and least savvy) of the lot but this guy thinks they’re the ones responsible for this mess.
To give you an idea of who is truly purulent in all this…
The public funding of stadiums in MLB has cost taxpayers probably close to $10 billion since 1990 when you factor in maintenance, amortization, interest on bond issues etc. That translates into a lot less money for schools, healthcare, infrastructure and essential services (police, fire dept., various services for women and children). Often teams, while threatening their regions claim that the area has to demonstrate that it wants MLB to be part of their community. Further, they receive tangible economic benefits for shelling out the money.
Item 1: During the contraction fiasco in the early part of the decade, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the Twins' lease required that the team play there in 2002 (therefore no contraction). It was here that Selig presented his brief, in which he said: “The Minnesota Twins are a private business; they are not owned by the people of Minnesota ... they are not a 'community asset' but a business …”
Yet…
On March 18, 2004 Governor Tim Pawlenty floated a proposal to have state and local governments pay for two-thirds of a new stadium for the Twins. Multi-billionaire Carl Pohlad said it wasn't enough: "[Public money] is where it should come from." (Read: from folks that aren't multi-billionaires like me) …
Item 2: From the Seattle Times: "The financial issue is simple, and the city's analysts agree, there will be no net economic loss if the Sonics leave Seattle. Entertainment dollars not spent on the Sonics will be spent on Seattle's many other sports and entertainment options. Seattleites will not reduce their entertainment budget simply because the Sonics leave…"
Any idea who said that? An economist? An anti-stadium lobby? Nope, the Sonics themselves. The team wants to leave Seattle, the city wishes to retain the club. The Sonics stated that a publicly financed new arena would be an economic plus for the region. Due to that, it should be the public that ponied up the cost of their current arena. Now that the Supersuckers want to graze in greener corporate welfare pastures they’re all but admitting that public financed sports venues are just one big boondoggle for the region building them.
There you have it. Bud Selig and his billionaire cartel have picked your pockets of untold billions of tax dollars and you get diddly-squat--no economic benefit, and the region has absolutely NO claim on your beloved team. It has always been about making the rich richer at the expense of those not rich.
These people are SLIME and the writer for USA Today wants to blame player avarice for the steroid era? I think he should be a proctopsychiatrist because he has one of the worst cases of inverse rectal-cranial syndrome that I have seen in a long, long time.
We have a very special guest star for today’s closing ceremonies…
In tribute to the good people of Drunk Jays Fans, I have enlisted the aid of the world renowned children’s author Dr. Suess to help with today’s sign-off. He has asked me to assist and I am honoured to do so. Here we go…
Dr. Suess: “I am Sam, John you are, will you give your best regards?”
I will not do it, Sam-you-are. I will not give my best regards.
Dr. Suess: “Would you do it here or there?”
I will not do it here or there. I will not do it anywhere. I will not give my best regards. I will not do it Sam-you-are.
Dr. Suess: “Would you do it in your house? Would you do it with your mouse?”
I will not do it in my house I will not do it with my mouse. I will not do it here or there, I will not do it anywhere. I will not give my best regards. I will not do it Sam-you-are.
Dr. Suess: “Would you do it for Danny Cox would you do it for Jimmie Foxx?”
Not for D. Cox. Not for J. Foxx. Not in my house. Not with my mouse. I will not do it here or there. I will not do it anywhere. I will not give my best regards. I will not do it Sam-you-are.
Dr. Suess: “Would you? Could you? For Chuck Carr? Do it do it here they are!
I would not, could not, for Chuck Carr.
Dr. Suess: "You do it. You will see. You may do it for Bill Lee.”
I would not, could not for Bill Lee. Nor for Chuck Carr, you let me be. Not for D. Cox. Not for J. Foxx. Not in my house. Not with my mouse. I will not do it here or there. I will not do it anywhere. I will not give my best regards. I will not do it Sam-you-are.
Dr. Suess: “John Sain! John Sain! John Sain! John Sain! Could you, would you, for Johnny Sain?”
Not for John Sain! Not for Bill Lee! Not for Chuck Carr! Sam! Let me be! I would not could not for Danny Cox. I could not would not for Jimmie Foxx. Not in my house. Not with my mouse. I will not do it here or there. I will not do it anywhere. I will not give my best regards. I will not do it Sam-you-are.
Dr. Suess: “Say! Alvin Dark. Alvin Dark. For Alvin Dark. Would you, could you, for Alvin Dark?”
I would not, could not, for Al Dark.
Dr. Suess: “Would you, could you, for Ferris Fain?”
I would not, could not, for Ferris Fain! Not for Al Dark or Johnny Sain. Not for Chuck Carr. Not for Bill Lee. I will not do it, Sam, you see. Not in my house. Not for Dan Cox. Not with my mouse. Not with J. Foxx. I will not do it here or there. I will not do it anywhere!
Dr. Suess: “You do not give best regards?”
I will not do it Sam-You-Are.
Dr. Suess: “Could you, would you, for Dick Groat?”
I would not, could not, for Dick Groat!
Dr. Suess: “Would you, could you, for Jim Coates?”
I could not, would not, for Jim Coates. I will not, will not, for Dick Groat. I will not do it for John Sain. I will not do it for Ferris Fain. Not for Al Dark! Not for Bill Lee! Not Chuck Carr! You let me be! I will not do it for Danny Cox, I will not do it for Jimmie Foxx. I will not do it in my house. I will not do it with my mouse. I will not do it here or there. I will not do it anywhere! I will not give my best regards, I will not do it Sam-You-Are.
Dr. Suess: “You will not do it, so you say. Do it! Do it! And you may. Do it and you may, I say! Try them and you may, I say.”
Sam! If you will let me be, I will do it. You will see.
Say! I will give my best regards. I will, I will Sam-You-Are. I will do it for Dick Groat, I will do it for Jim Coates, and I will do it for Johnny Sain, and I will do it for Ferris Fain, for Alvin Dark, and for Bill Lee, I will do it, type it you see!
I will do it for Danny Cox, I will do it for Jimmie Foxx, I will do it in my house, I will do it with my mouse, I will do it here and there, I will do it ANYWHERE! I will give my best regards, I will, I will Sam-You-Are!
Therefore...
Best Regards
John
No comments:
Post a Comment