Google yields 4 hits for "mammalian ladder".

"Up the chain to us" is a very strange way of looking at genetic similarity between species.

Dawkins is rolling over in his grave.

Uh oh, if he dies now I'll have the feds treacking my IP address.

Dawkins is rolling over in his grave.

Who?

Dawkins is rolling over in his grave.

Steroids killed Richard Dawkins?

"Closer to us" would be better.

"Up the chain to us" is a very strange way of looking at genetic similarity between species.

not so much strange as
outdated
obsolete
19th Centuryish...

"Up the chain to us" is a very strange way of looking at genetic similarity between species.


not so much strange as
outdated
obsolete
19th Centuryish...

You're so enlightened and sophisticated!

Glad to see your sense of superiority isn't limited to steroid use.

salfino:

Kevin could speak to this much more than I, but mice are enormously useful for these studies. Despite their obvious differences in appearance, their similarity to humans in other regards, as well as their short maturation period, make them reliable instruments of scientific study. No one in science waives off studies b/c they're done on mice. In fact, no one in science - not employed by some interested industry [tobacco, eg] waives off studies the way you and DMN did before.

And I've never heard the phrase mammalian ladder used in these contexts, either.

The real phrase is "evolutionary ladder" and it is equally bogus, and as JPWF correctly pointed out: outdated, obsolete, 19th Centuryish.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolutionary_ladder

But people who do this for a living know that side-effects of testosterone decrease greatly as you move up the mammalian ladder. You'll have to look that up yourself.

I'm not sure what you mean by the term either. Something to do with size? Would it follow that the side effects are less for bears than for humans? But if there's anything to this claim, you'll have to provide a link if you want us to take it seriously.

If anyone who does this for a living knows that, surely one of them would have documented it.

It's a snark hunt, anyway. The point is that there are lots of scientific and medical studies linking PEDs/Steroids and adverse side effects. Even short-term studies showing the harmful effects of them on humans. They're very easy to locate, I found a bunch through my university's library page.

It's a snark hunt, anyway.

I don't know... some steroid users believe they are the next rung up on the ladder.

In fact, no one in science - not employed by some interested industry [tobacco, eg] waives off studies the way you and DMN did before.


True, but Dayn Rand did waive off those same studies, misinterpret the works of Yesalis (who is against steroids qua PEDS), and provide a bible of talking points to anyone wanting to take 0.00018 seconds to find some way to spout a batshit looney polity.

To Dayn's credit, he came out here on this forum and admitted error, but that old article is still going to exist in cyberspace, and probably poison many exchanges on this topic for years to come.

And I've never heard the phrase mammalian ladder used in these contexts, either

Who gives a crap?! What are you representing the mice lobby? I think you've read Hitchhiker's one too many times.

I'm reminded of the time I wasted arguing with college girlfriends who could never stick to the point of contention.

And obviously mice are relevant to the purposes research. But just not so much for the purposes of testosterone. In fact, estrogen (which we all have) is found to mediate aggression much more than testosterone. Many of you here think you're brilliant in taking points to ridiculous extremes. But you're just boring.

Now, I'm a layperson when it comes to science. But based on my reading there are no studies on steroids on large groups of humans with control groups over the length of time and at the types of doses people speculate that atheletes use. There's no getting that fact no matter how harsh are your estrogen-fueled, ad hominem attacks. As I said earlier, of course there are risks. But there are risks with every single thing we do or ingest. Are they signficant enough to warrant the type of public policy you seem to advocate? We don't know. We're not even close to knowing, not with testosterone and especially not with HGH, which doesn't even enhance strength (or at least there's no evidence yet of that while there is some evidence to the contrary).

Despite their obvious differences in appearance, their similarity to humans in other regards, as well as their short maturation period, make them reliable instruments of scientific study.

the mice would say that they are performing scientific tests on us!

Those damn girlfriends, always wanting people to provide citations for their claims. Women! Am I right, fellas?

Very funny!

the mice would say that they are performing scientific tests on us!


They do in Soviet Russia.

But based on my reading there are no studies on steroids on large groups of humans with control groups over the length of time and at the types of doses people speculate that atheletes use.

Then I would suggest you read some more. As I previously indicated one great place to start is the old threads on this topic. The Dayn Rand Reason piece is specifically discussed, contemporaneous with its release, and regurigated ad nauseum for every lib that decides they want to repeat someone else's talking points for years thereafter.

Also if you are unaware of the decision criteria and reasoning behind the Food And Drug Act, the scheduling of pharmaceuticals, the OTC status of certain supplements and drugs, steroid legislation, or any of the other points you are now repeating, you will also find the threads illustrative.

While we may not address "peanut butter"; I think you will find similar reductions such as Lasik Surgery and aspirin will receive more than adequate coverage.

Glad to see your sense of superiority isn't limited to steroid use.

??????????

But the idea that what happens to mice is not necessarily what happens to mammals up the chain to us (from our perspective)

Nice to add the : "from our perspective"
early evolutionists (for lack of a better term) referred to an evolutionary ladder -with us at the top- in a rather bland effort to appease creationists (not successful) and the religious (but not fundamentalist)

McMahon participated in the wrong doing; McMahon had actual knowledge of the wrongdoings; McMahon certainly appears to intentionally select persons that 'roid over persons that non-roid to put on his show; McMahon has absolute control over his workplace environment; and McMahon may have even encouraged the use of the illict drugs.

Remember Nailz? Had an ex-con gimmick? He testified in court that Vince told him to start using roids. I'm sure there are MANY others, but speaking out against Vince gets you de facto blacklisted in NA wrestling.

Tangentially, there is no American of the 20th century who deserves a a full-length, rigorously researched bio more than Vince. I would love to read, or write, that book.

But based on my reading there are no studies on steroids on large groups of humans with control groups over the length of time and at the types of doses people speculate that atheletes use.

I believe we've heard this one before.

I believe we've heard this one before.


Nothings changed
I still love libs, oh, I still love libs...only slightly, only slightly less than I used to

Tangentially, there is no American of the 20th century who deserves a a full-length, rigorously researched bio more than Vince. I would love to read, or write, that book.

I would love to read that. When can you start?

Is Hulk Hogan or Andre the Giant more aptly comparable as the Babe Ruth of the wrestling industry?

It works every time and it'll save you a lot of legwork. If you are on the opposite side of an argument from Nieporent, you can rest assured you're on secure ground.

Nah, it;s like this:

Nieporent on politics, current events, etc= DEAD WRONG, 97.5% of the time

Nieporent on baseball, baseball games and players- sometimes right and has interesting things to say

Nieporent on baseball economics and politics= usually wrong

early evolutionists (for lack of a better term) referred to an evolutionary ladder -with us at the top- in a rather bland effort to appease creationists (not successful) and the religious (but not fundamentalist)

Stan Lee made use of the concept of the evolutionary ladder with his portrayal of Homo Superior. In a misguided belief that achieving this superiority was possible, some athletes have "literally" become "cartoon characters".

Vince McMahon has always been in love with the big bodied guys. It never used to be this way, but hindsight being what it is, I actually wish WCW would have won the ratings war. For one thing, the product in it's prime was much better, and that was right around the time that I was really heavy into the stuff... from like 10 to 14 years old. I also think that a lot of what you're seeing today would go away. WWF was killed with the steroid scandal in the mid-90's, but they were family programming then, and McMahon was the equivalent of a carnie, and they survived.

McMahon sold that image off to salvage his company in the ratings wars, and in doing so turned wrestling into even more of a "trailer-trash" spectacle than it was before. The thing that saved wrestling from these sorts of barrages in the 80's and 90's was the message that roided up supermen like Hogan and Warrior were communicating on their television programs: Say your prayers, take your vitamins, etc. Nobody had a problem with that.

But now that this era of roided up supermen are essentially saying abuse your spouse, demean women, experiment in drugs and illicit sex, prostitute yourself for money, they don't have that to fall back on.

Bret Hart admitted to using steroids on television last night, a guy I am surprised to hear that from.

What people like BL are defending is the way wrestling was, before I was born and just about until right after. But I think, if you look at this thing, wrestlers are much more likely to die today under the age of 45 then they were twenty-five years ago. That's crazy.

The Babe Ruth of wrestling is either Gorgeous George or Bruno Sammartino, depending on your POV.

No way.

George and Sammartino are more comparable to Wagner and Cobb -- they were the best players before the news truck arrived.

Is Hulk Hogan or Andre the Giant more aptly comparable as the Babe Ruth of the wrestling industry?

Flair.

You're relatively new to the site and seem like an OK guy. A little out-there but nevertheless OK. Try to monitor the pulse of a thread by observing what Nieporent says. If Nieporent jumps in, just figure out what position he is adopting and assume the opposite view. It works every time and it'll save you a lot of legwork. If you are on the opposite side of an argument from Nieporent, you can rest assured you're on secure ground.

Well, there's one person who has a nice lead in the "Ignore Poster" standings, and it ain't DMN...

Well, there's one person who has a nice lead in the "Ignore Poster" standings, and it ain't DMN...

#1 with a bullet!

Where can we find those standings?

Flair, in that he was/indisputably the greatest of all time, but Hogan is Ruthian in how national he took wrestling.

Tough call.

A guy used to call in regularly on talk radio in Boston and did the most hysterical Bruno imitation you ever heard.

I remember him. On the Sports Huddle. After dinner, I'll post about how the Sports Huddle really began the movement that changed the "face" of Pro Wrestling from where every fan clearly rooted for the faces and booed the heels, to what has evolved today where faces and heels are interchangeable.

After dinner, I'll tell you that I don't know what the Sports Huddle is, but that I'm pretty sure that you're wrong.
Well actually, it's only 3 PM here.

That's because performing a clinical trial(s) for the purpose of treating people who are not sick and for which there is abundant data in animal studies and empirical observation that clearly indicate supra-physiological levels of androgens can cause significant health side effects, including, psychosis, cancer and cardiovascular disease is unethical. Thus, it violates the first law of the Hippocratic oath: do no harm.

I guess someone should have told these guys: The effects of supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on muscle size and strength in normal men

Or these guys:
The effects of supraphysiological doses of testosterone on angry behavior in healthy eugonadal men--a clinical research center study

Or these guys:
Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Mood and Aggression in Normal Men

... among others.

It's actually the patient's decision -- another obvious point that escapes your grasp. It joins a long list.

Actually, it isn't the patient's decision. The patient can choose whether or not to get a boob job, but cannot choose between whether to perform a boob job or cleft palate surgery. All of which misses the point, which is that it's not <u>your</u> decision.

I also enjoy your comically self-confident and self-important assertions of what is and what isn't other people's "business." You're the phoniest of "libertarians," supporting as you do federal intrusions on state decisions whether or not to venerate confederate soldiers

First, you're delusional, since I never said anything even close to anything like that. I've never even discussed the issue of "federal intrusions" into venerating confederate soldiers. Second, you don't understand libertarianism if you think this is a "state decision."

and government interference with the right to contract.

Again with the hallucinating. I categorically oppose all government interference with the right to contract.

Practically every single thing you've written about the MLBPA, the draft, free agency, Marvin Miller, and steroid testing is about the furthest thing from libertarianism imaginable.

Amazingly, you're completely wrong. You don't seem to have any grasp on (a) anything I've written, or (b) what libertarianism is. The most charitable interpretation of your comments is that you're confused about the difference between statements about what the law should be and what the law is; the more obvious interpretation is that you're pulling these comments out of your Kevin.



Just to reiterate:

That has nothing to do with the matter; Nieporent and other "libertarians" on the board take the side of the federal government over the states with respect to the confederate flag and memorials. Anyone who would cede the power of decision over such matters to government bodies more removed from local is hardly a "libertarian."

It's a flat out lie. I have never "taken the side of the federal government over the states with respect to the confederate flag and memorials." (In fact, there is no "side of the federal government over the states" in this area; the federal government is not seeking to ban confederate flags.) And you're wrong about libertarianism, which supports individual rights, not local governments' rights. There are certain areas which the federal government should leave to the states as a matter of constitutional law, of course. And there are pragmatic reasons why many government programs are better handled at the local level -- but it's not a question of the states having rights.

...and not directing it to anyone in particular, I'm curious - has there ever been a 'states rights' that HASN'T involved discriminating against or otherwise hassling some group?

Well, yes. Putting aside the second amendment example you mentioned, there was slavery. Slave states wanted the federal government to, e.g., enforce fugitive slave laws in the free states against the wishes of those free states. And there's the issue of medical marijuana today. And there's the issue of capital punishment. Some states do not support it, as we know. And the federal government has been taking over some criminal cases that belong at the state level just so it can impose the death penalty on criminals in those non-c.p. states.


Oh, and I <u>will</u> use the word "traitorous" to describe the confederacy.


EDIT: I see, reading ahead, that JPWF13 made the same points I did.

I also treat firemen the same way. Their bodies are just tools of the trade. And coal miners too. It's their choice to go down into the shaft, not mine, so their working conditions are not my business. The same goes for any other poor suckers who make a living through manual labor. As Aristotle said, some are born to be slaves and some are not. Lucky for us writers/lawyers/professors that's not us.

Given that this is supposed to be sarcastic, it's rather oddly backwards. If Aristotle were right, then your position on these issues would make sense. If people were "born to be slaves," then it would make sense to intervene on their behalf for their protection. But you presumably aren't endorsing the Aristotlean view here, and the very fact that people <u>aren't</u> born to be slaves is what undermines your position. That's precisely why it's not your business to interfere. They get to choose the risks they want to take, and it's not your place -- just because you're a "writer/lawyer/professor" and thus think yourself smarter and superior to those manual laborers -- to tell them that they can't.

In fact, no one in science - not employed by some interested industry [tobacco, eg] waives off studies the way you and DMN did before.

I don't wa(i)ve off studies, JC. There is a difference between "studies" and "handful of observations turned into a paper," though. There's nothing wrong with the latter, as long as you take them for what they're worth. Put it this way: if you submitted an application for a new drug to the FDA and said, "I examined 12 people who I think took some unknown quantity of the drug and seven of them seemed to show a small improvement in LDL levels, so I should be allowed to market this drug as cholesterol medicine," you'd be laughed out of the room. That may be interesting, it may make a good paper, but it's not a study.

As BL has noted in the past, it's deemed unethical to conduct actual studies with athletic use of steroids. Tobacco studies only work because so many millions of people have smoked that you can get large quantities of data to play around with, even without being allowed to conduct large scale controlled experiments. And without being able to do those kinds of experiments, the information you get is of limited use. Remember, it was relatively recently that trans fats were considered the healthy alternative. Now a bunch of politicians are rushing to ban them because similar studies lead them to conclude that they're evil. (To forestall the inevitable Kevin strawman, I am not claiming any biological equivalence between trans fats and steroids; my comment is about methodology only.)

just because you're a "writer/lawyer/professor" and thus think yourself smarter and superior to those manual laborers

money.

Flair.

Flair I would compare to Ted Williams?

Deserving of the credit but never the first brought up in discussion of greatest ever, though he probably should be.

But that's not true, he did have a partner that went by the name "Sexual Chocolate"
Ah yes, I remember them writing Mark Henry into a sex hound. God I love the WWE.

Lest we forget, the 450-pound Mark Henry eventually had a torrid affair with the 78-year-old nympho Mae Young (which, naturally, was shown on camera). Apparently they did not take sensible precautions, as she became pregnant. Mae went into labor on Monday Night Raw, another camera followed her to the birthing room, and she produced... a rubber hand. You won't get that on "Everybody Loves Raymond."

The demarcation point in the tenor and DNA of modern-era wrestling, I think, was when the WWF abandoned the notion that their matches were legitimate athletic competitions... but replaced that dynamic with "what happens BEHIND the scenes, though, now THAT'S the real thing."

estrogen (which we all have) is found to mediate aggression much more than testosterone.

I thought about estrogen as a solution to mediate the aggression in these discussions, but then we'd be discussing American Idol instead of Wrasslin'.

I'm usually able to find amusement in almost everything that is written here, but sometimes I wonder how funny it is to watch grown men in a mammalian descent to the petty bickering of boys.

But then, that'd be to take these arguments too seriously. In one argument or another, we all play the roles of Kevin, Dave, Dial, BL, etc., all play the foil to another's hero, all certainly play the fool at one time or another.

All of us are DEAD WRONG 97.5 percent of the time. There is a reasonable position to take on steroids -- they can be harmful when abused, they have negative side effects and contraindications, combined with other unknown factors they can lead to some serious mayhem and death.

I don't need any google research to know that government intrusion regarding drugs has done more harm than good in this society. Damn straight potent pharmaceuticals do damage to humans, but the damage is not only not limited to illegal varieties but is dwarfed by the damage done by legal prescription. And almost every attempt to stamp out what is considered to be a harmful substance leads to the invention and use of much worse concoctions. Any damage done by powder cocaine is insignificant to the ravages of crack and crystal meth, neither which would likely exist without the prohibition of the former. And worse is the way prohibition has lead to prisons chock full of non-violent offenders and the criminalization of what is basically poverty, ignorance and self-medication.

I'm no libertarian, but these threads are good examples of what happens when some people decide they know what's best for other people based upon incomplete understanding of an issue and the desire for what is "good". You go from some basics we can all probably agree on to complex bureaucratic nightmares that have results none of us would really want (I don't care for artificial human enhancement through drugs and surgery that turn a few of us into freaks and the rest into zombies, but I don't want to be a dictator, either -- I have enough on my hands running my own life).

Finally and most importantly, I don't want to scold any of you for what you want to talk about and how you want to do it. I'm a little saddened sometimes when folks I know are smart start sounding more and more like folks who aren't.

But then, been there, done that, will do so again.

Pax.

Women in general have been treated like krap in wrestling. When is THAT going to change?

Clutch that is the wrong comparision imho. Ruth is the proper Flair comparision, as Flair was a legendary performer in every aspect of the prowrestling. Look, charisma, speach, ring work. Much like Ruth.

Williams is the proper Hogan comparison - as really Hogan only had half of the skills/traits. He had off the charts charisma and a great look. His speach was OK, and his ring work terriable. He was amazing at what he did well, but limited.

Flair like Ruth could do it all.

I don't wa(i)ve off studies, JC. There is a difference between "studies" and "handful of observations turned into a paper," though. There's nothing wrong with the latter, as long as you take them for what they're worth. Put it this way: if you submitted an application for a new drug to the FDA and said, "I examined 12 people who I think took some unknown quantity of the drug and seven of them seemed to show a small improvement in LDL levels, so I should be allowed to market this drug as cholesterol medicine," you'd be laughed out of the room. That may be interesting, it may make a good paper, but it's not a study.

Of course. I agree with that. I didn't offer that study of London gays as determinative of anything except that such studies (that look into AAS among bodybuilders and their connection to psychic illness) have and are being conducted, which was denied by salfino.

If people were "born to be slaves," then it would make sense to intervene on their behalf for their protection. But you presumably aren't endorsing the Aristotlean view here, and the very fact that people aren't born to be slaves is what undermines your position. That's precisely why it's not your business to interfere. They get to choose the risks they want to take, and it's not your place -- just because you're a "writer/lawyer/professor" and thus think yourself smarter and superior to those manual laborers -- to tell them that they can't.

Do you honestly believe this stuff? Do you honestly believe the reason guys go into mine shafts or pour asphalt or do the numerous other jobs you and I don't do b/c they assessed the risks ("Hmm... mine worker or lawyer?") and chose them? It's funny and clever how you turned the Aristotelian thing on its head.

The point, as it was taken by say American slaveowners, was that b/c some folks are naturally slaves we don't have to "interfere" on their behalf except to the extent that they're talking tools. So, sure, no farmer tries to break his hoe and a good farmer doesn't try to break his slave, either. But you don't have to treat him like a man; why would a farmer treat his hoe like a man? It's precisely once you debunk the notion that some people are simply destined to be nothing more than manual laborers that you work for such things as (1) a "just wage"; (2) periods of rest, or "sabbath rest" as they called it; (3) the possibility of ownership, among other things.

In this case, that's all some of us are talking about. I'm not interested in telling a Hart boy he can't be a wrestler. I'm interested in telling Vince McMahon that a Hart boy is not a hoe, and should have working conditions more conducive to a man than to a slave.

why would a farmer treat his hoe like a man?

Was that an angle between Hillbilly Jim and The Godfather?

I'm interested in telling Vince McMahon that a Hart boy is not a hoe

And keep your harnesses off him, you damn, dirty ape.

... there is a reasonable position to take ...

I am certainly glad you came along to tell us a reasonable position. After four years of threads and tens of thousands of post, I grew tired of people that made their initial post with "My extreme position on this issue is ..."

But you got us, most of us just want to implement a beuacracy. If people die after we implemented the beauacracy, we except that as collateral damage. We just wake up in the morning all refreshed and giddy knowing there is a beaucracy that is in the place.

We just like intefering with the return to those halycon dies were people could make choices about taking an unquantifyable risk about getting poisoned to death or just spitting on whatever pain or ailment for which they were suffering. Besides if someone does get poisoned to death, they could not buy that product the next time. That economic boycott would really bring down that company. Just no damages for your death--you can get the price of the product plus the cost of your casket.

You might not like googling, but do this named poster a little favor. Before you play protaganist to your own paraphrasing of The Main Ingredient Song; how about throwing a few facts in your rhetoric that illustrate how worse we are with food and drug regulation.

They get to choose the risks they want to take

They sure do, and we'd like that invisible hand of yours to give them more choices than death at 35 for poverty wages versus death at 45 for one half poverty wages.

Forget choice of the laborer for a second -- Do you think an environment that requires:

(a) 300 travel days per year;
(b) high incidence of injury and death;
(c) and employers that tell you that you must take deleterious drugs to continue your term of employment

to be a desirable outcome; a natural order of things (given real equity between management and labor); or a safe work environment. Do you not think the billionaires that make multi-millions from this labor have any responsibility at all to maintain a safe environment; even after they have obtained a monopoly in the relevant market.

Because at the end of the day, Eddy Guerrero's life is worth far more to me, and society than Vince McMahons ability to get matching yachts for his Boca Raton, NY, and Stamford estates. At what point does exploitive enter into the relevant vocabulary. Is there any line that can be crossed to make this so.

You have seen the death rates of the employees. You have seen an owner that suborns and actually breaks the law. At what point do you demand the public become involved in some fashion.

I've already discussed the efficacy of economic boycott, but even if that was an option, he is marketing primarily to 14-25. Hell, most of you think we non-children are dumb as rocks for even having knowledge about the industry. Are these 14-25 year olds suppose to be able to get the relevant education to participate in the only solution to society evil that is allowed pursuant to this political system?

Hmm. it appears the DEA has done a few more raids, including a second raid on Benoit's doctor's office (complete with battering ram!) and one of the house of the MOTHER of Benoit's doctor.

Apparently, from what I can gather from the Atlanta TV station reports online, it seems the good Doctor has gone missing, much to the dismay of the authorities.

If the DEA is taking control, that's sort of interesting, isn't it?

Because at the end of the day, Eddy Guerrero's life is worth far more to me, and society than Vince McMahons ability to get matching yachts for his Boca Raton, NY, and Stamford estates. At what point does exploitive enter into the relevant vocabulary. Is there any line that can be crossed to make this so.


They're not going to do anything until a geniune, real, Red-blooded AMERICAN WHITE MAN with a cleancut image dies in wrestling. Eddie is just some dirty Hispanic, Benoit a dirty Canadian, Owen a dirty Canadian, and everybody else can be written off as inconsequential.

Basically, Shane McMahon has to die before they change anything. And I LIKE Shane McMahon.

I actually think Chris Benoit fits enough criteria for their to be changes. I don't think you necessarily have to be American so long as you can pass for one. Most Canadians can do that.

Because at the end of the day, Eddy Guerrero's life is worth far more to me, and society than Vince McMahons ability to get matching yachts for his Boca Raton, NY, and Stamford estates. At what point does exploitive enter into the relevant vocabulary. Is there any line that can be crossed to make this so.

Not from the point of view of outlawing it... but to me, the relevant question is what Eddy Guerrero's (*) life is worth to Eddy Guerrero. My view on PEDs in baseball has always been that if the players didn't care, there was no reason I should.

In particular, I think it odd to worry about this more in the sports context than the mine worker/firefighter/etc. context. I mean, we sort of need someone to be a firefighter, so at least the "Do we want people to have to take extra risks" argument has some force. But nobody needs to play sports, so anybody who does it is definitely choosing the risks.

Incidentally, I wonder how people who worry about exploitation feel about professional boxing.



(*) Whoever the hell that is.

Because at the end of the day, Eddy Guerrero's life is worth far more to me, and society than Vince McMahons ability to get matching yachts for his Boca Raton, NY, and Stamford estates. At what point does exploitive enter into the relevant vocabulary.

I agree with much of what Backlasher has said on this topic. However, the fact that Vince McMahon is himself a longterm steroid abuser suggests that wrestling's problem is not a simple worker/employee construct. The mindset is, in many ways, more damaging than the drugs.

You don't know who Eddie Guerrero is? WTF? He's Latino Heat!

They're not going to do anything until a geniune, real, Red-blooded AMERICAN WHITE MAN with a cleancut image dies in wrestling. Eddie is just some dirty Hispanic, Benoit a dirty Canadian, Owen a dirty Canadian, and everybody else can be written off as inconsequential.

Please - shut up.

Do you honestly believe this stuff? Do you honestly believe the reason guys go into mine shafts or pour asphalt or do the numerous other jobs you and I don't do b/c they assessed the risks ("Hmm... mine worker or lawyer?") and chose them?

Yes, he believes that- libertarians, objectivists, laissez-faire capitalists really BELIEVE that-
and if in power (legislature/courts) they will not think twice to act on those beliefs

psychologically they are identical to unreconstructed western socialists or even creationists- just with a different belief system that is completely impervious to rational persuasion-
don't even try to reason with him when it runs into this area, it's not possible-

it's their world view, it's the prism by which they see everything and make sense of the world for themselves- even trying to see things from a different POV creates such cognitive dissonance for them that it's disorienting and they'll run back to their slogans

You know what, I retract my statement. I bet you Vince McMahon woudln't change wrestling even if his son died in it. He probably doesn't give a rats ass, all he cares about is his money.

In particular, I think it odd to worry about this more in the sports context than the mine worker/firefighter/etc. context. I mean, we sort of need someone to be a firefighter, so at least the "Do we want people to have to take extra risks" argument has some force. But nobody needs to play sports, so anybody who does it is definitely choosing the risks.

Well, I noticed you didn't reply directly to me, that this is as close as you get. I'd like to think that's b/c you couldn't reply, or fear it would expose your ideology as ludicrously insensitive, but I know better. Anyway, I get the point of what you write above, but let me ask a question: from a libertarian point of view what, if anything, compels you or moves you to scrutinize the conditions of any workplace?

They're not going to do anything until a geniune, real, Red-blooded AMERICAN WHITE MAN with a cleancut image dies in wrestling. Eddie is just some dirty Hispanic, Benoit a dirty Canadian, Owen a dirty Canadian, and everybody else can be written off as inconsequential.


Please - shut up.

As they say in the Lounge, CONCUR

I am certainly glad you came along to tell us a reasonable position. After four years of threads and tens of thousands of post, I grew tired of people that made their initial post with "My extreme position on this issue is...

Extreme positions are the given. Without them, there would be no internet "discussion".

Again, been there, done that, am in fact doing it now, playing the "reasonable voice", which is often the refuge of the 'batshit insane'. Almost everyone who takes a moniker representing some high-falutin' Platonic ideal is usually blind as a bat.

So I do understand why Nieporent takes such abuse on these threads. But in this thread, I find his position to be the most reasonable.

Why? They are not going to abolish government anytime soon, esp. not regulatory agencies like the FDA. More worrisome is the erosion of organized labor and the concerted efforts of 'independent' government agencies like the NLRB to drive a stake through its heart. An agency set up with the best of intentions to protect labor is now an instrument of its destruction.

What is going to happen is more drug regulation that is likely to have adverse consequences. Has anyone tried to deny that the results of the War on Drugs have done far more harm than good?

It's not going to be you in charge of this regulating, nor likely someone with even good intentions, but some freakin' a-hole with a blatant agenda to rob from the poor and give to the rich.

Like I said, like I said, there's no avoiding the extreme position on the web.

Back to your regularly scheduled circular firing squad.

So who is it who's busting down doors the last couple of days?

Not from the point of view of outlawing it

Outlawing what? No one is suggesting an outlawing of wrestling. What we are talking about is public involvement in a dangerous work environment that includes many things that are against the law, both civilly and criminally.

And while I have some grasp on where your lines or drawn, I'm not 100% sure. We are talking about civil or administrative violations for the work environment, and probably some codifications of reckless endengarment as it may exist in applicable assault or homicide laws. We are definately talking about violation of drug laws, but I know where you stand on that point. No one is talking about outlawing wrestling, and when they do, I think you will find that many of your advesaries here will also draw a line.

but to me, the relevant question is what Eddy Guerrero's (*) life is worth to Eddy Guerrero.

I can't say that we can know that with any certainty. The relevant question we are asking is what is Eddy Guerrero's life worth to Vince McMahon and does that allow him to endanger it.

But Eddy is a 2.5 generation wrestler. His father was a wrestler, and his three much older brothers were/are professional wrestlers. Moreover, his nephew is a professional wrestler. I don't know what Gori, Hector, Mondo, or Chavo Sr. had to do, but its very likely they did not have to:

(a) Travel as extensively as 300 days per year;
(b) Face the same risks of injury and death;

and looking at them, there is no reason to believe they had to, or did, roid to keep employment. I'm not sure its about choice when a billionaire by virtue of their economic power changes the game on the family business---particularly after you are entrenched so far the only other career option might be mine worker.

You can say the same things about Owen Hart, and you are pretty close to being able to say it about Curt Hennig.

My view on PEDs in baseball has always been that if the players didn't care, there was no reason I should.


Which isn't my view, but now we now that players do care. In fact, they care enough that they are willing to allow drug penalties and testing in a bargained for agreement. They are willing to start their own informational campaigns about the dangers of PEDS.

What I definately can't subscribe to is a view that if any one player, or individual with a desire to be a player, doesn't care, their individual right of liberty to cheat trumps all other concerns. What I also can't subscribe to is that if a cartel of people decides its ok to create an environment where deleterious drugs becomes an aspect of job security, than all other people can't examine their choices when presenting information or handing out honors. What makes no sense is that such an individual choice by a minority of people, should halt any lawful investigation by public agencies or employers. And I certainly don't think a small number of people can monopolize an entire industry, make it dangerous, and then pretend the public can't demand at least a safe work environment.

In particular, I think it odd to worry about this more in the sports context than the mine worker/firefighter/etc. context. I mean, we sort of need someone to be a firefighter, so at least the "Do we want people to have to take extra risks" argument has some force. But nobody needs to play sports, so anybody who does it is definitely choosing the risks.

Who is worrying about it more. It is being talked about because its topical to this environment. I know very little about modern day mine workers, but the firefighters had a nice bruhaha carried through the NLRB and many state courts on workplace safety two years ago.

The question was mainly about workplace safety, mood, etc. based on schedule shifts of firefighters. I supported the firefighters measures as it was a limited intrusion and did promote safety. They won. If firefighters aren't being provided reasonable safety measures, then I have the same concerns. I don't know of any hot button issue to currently highlight in that arena. The same is true for most other arenas. I do support getting body armor to our troops though.

Incidentally, I wonder how people who worry about exploitation feel about professional boxing.

I think many of us are concerned, but I'll let people speak for themselves. I think protective headgear sounds like an easy minimum safeguard. I wouldn't object to criminal investigation on some of the promoters and there known actions. I wonder how the libs feel about the investigations on Don King. Is that overly intrusive?

I also have all the same PED concerns, particularly when we hear about Sugar Shane getting mixed up in the situation.

Nevertheless, I can't paint a whole canvas on mine workers, firefighters, boxers or even Pro Wrestling. Its taken thousands of posts just to frame MLB. Also, if I start talking too much about boxing, it could risk thread closure. I assume the Pro Wrestling is allowed because the article itself is about Benoit. With that being said, nothing would surprise me regarding closure enforcement.

I am happy to continue, but for the well being of all the others, perhaps we should take that discussion to the Lounge Area of the Primate Soapbox that resides in the Forum Section off the main site page (others can correct or provide a more expedient courses and ways as needed).

I can sum-up on point by saying, we have come a he11 of a long way since the halycon days when free choice meant those with many could do about whatever they please against those without. In almost every profession, U45 deaths have decreased. The exceptions by huge margins are Professional Football and Professional Wrestling, were mortality and quality of life have ugly curves.

Risk, violence, and PEDS always have and probably always will exist in sport. The key thing on PEDS is that about 50 years ago, PEDS started becoming systemized in some amateur athletics. In about 20 years time, this systemization became pervasive and began having negative repurcussions on the the legitimacy of the sport, the nature of the sport, and the mortality and quality of life of the athletic participants. It also started spilling into other amateur athletics. Those stains will never wash out, and public confidence will forever be somewhat diminished. But in the next twenty years, their has been significant remediation on most of those problems as well as an infrastructure to provide further corrections in the future.

Now those same crisis are presenting themselves in Professional Sports. In some, the mortality and workplace conditions are looking barbaric. The difference is that these sports have the benefit of history; they have existing infrastructures that they can adapt and improve for their environments; they have not completely lost public confidence. The captains of these industries face a historic choice--they can swiftly move to eliminate these problems, or they can do just enough so that their profit margin is not disturbed. If they choose the latter, I don't favor unwarranted public intrusion, but I do favor using the existing mechanisms of public protection to give the labor in these industries the opportunity to fully enjoy all their human rights. Not just the right of "choice" and "property", but the rights of life and liberty.

Nevertheless, I can't paint a whole canvas on mine workers, firefighters, boxers or even Pro Wrestling. Its taken thousands of posts just to frame MLB. Also, if I start talking too much about boxing, it could risk thread closure. I assume the Pro Wrestling is allowed because the article itself is about Benoit. With that being said, nothing would surprise me regarding closure enforcement.

I would want this thread kept open because, while not directly about baseball, it has themes that are relevant to baseball.

My view on PEDs in baseball has always been that if the players didn't care, there was no reason I should.

I can see that, but at the same time, I have never been convinced that, in general, they "don't care." Glavine was quoted the other day as saying that even though he has always been a strong, vocal MLBPA guy, that steroids are "unique" and so making some concessions, reopening parts of the CBA etc, was to an extent OK with him--in this particular case at this particular time.

That said, I would be more convinced about the players feeling strongly about steroids being so wrong, so immoral, so dangerous, etc if more high-profile guys made a point of popping off about it in public. A few have, but I would like to see some youngish, well-heeled, active players who are not under any suspicion, who don't call attention to themselves or talk much, make a point of really getting out front on it, supporting Selig, volunteering to talk to Mitchell, etc. To me, that would be more convincing evidence of deep player revulsion to/fear of/contempt for steroids than what we have seen so far. The rejoinder here would be the CBA adjustments and the testing program, and it is a reasonable one. But the "outrage" about it that we are so often told is there seems to me to be rather hard to identify, verbally or behaviorally, unless media/fans are talking about Barry Bonds.

As to the political subtext here--Libertarianism etc, what it comes down to for me is this: You take two guys, both about 25-27, borderline guys, both in that gray area--the 20th to 40th spots on the MLB roster, where you might get five years in the pension plan and make a couple of million dollars, or you might get three cups of coffee and make 15-20% of that. One guy maybe has two kids, and he works his ass off, and he is leery of PEDs and doesn't use, thinking he is protecting his long-term health. The other guy may have no kids, be single, and is a little more of a cowboy, so he goes for it and uses. The first guy knows, but what can he do? He accuses him and he looks like a bad team player and like he's making alibis. Guy #1 uses and he has to take, for him, an unacceptable health risk. He keeps quiet maybe he misses his chance to get that $2m and to live the dream. I don't think I would use the term "coercive" as there is still a choice, but it is not one he should, IMO, have to make.

Now, one difference between me and some people is that I don't come down on the user in this scenario as some kind of moral leper. He made a choice, and he is responsible for it, and he pays the price, but given the massive financial and other rewards of playing MLB, who am I to say I wouldn't be using if I were in the same position?

And, given that, in spite of the negatives associated with regulation, this is the type of situation where regulation--not govt regulation per se, but industry regulation--is needed. And this is also why I am kind of a pain in the ass about wanting people to focus a little more on MLB organizationally, as well as on the players, when this issue is discussed. It is the job of the game's caretakers to deal with these situations. Given what is at stake, players and field personnel are often going to go to extremes to get an edge. It is the job of authority to look at the bigger picture and protect the macrointerests of the game.

Back to your regularly scheduled circular firing squad.


Nah, ain't going down like that Hoss. You want to claim that you are the moderate and then throw out non-specific accusations against the NLRB and the FDA.

That is what is bad about the internet, not anything that Nieporent, or any of your other named parties are doing. That ain't role playing, and that ain't interceding, and it ain't advancing nothing. It also appears to be steeped in ignorance about who does what and why in reference to drug regulation AND CRIMINILIZATION. Kevin may be feeling magnimous enough to do the Summer '07 semester course in "PEDS and Anatomy". I'm not feeling like doing a new round of "Drugs and the Law"

Come to the table with something specific, or else I'll give you the same advice I gave salfino. There are plenty of places to find out about drug regulation. The past steroid threads will not only help you with that, it will also let you know where just about 80% of the people around here stand.

Cross-posted with 419.

O Backlasher, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent One --

Perhaps you missed me pointing out that my moderate stance was just a pose.

But it beats your sanctimonious sage one, #### sucker.

Well, I noticed you didn't reply directly to me, that this is as close as you get. I'd like to think that's b/c you couldn't reply, or fear it would expose your ideology as ludicrously insensitive, but I know better.

Sheesh, I'm sorry if I don't respond to every single post in a 400 post thread.

You want a response? The difference between the slave and the employee was not that slaves were unpaid; the difference was/is that the employee can quit if he's unhappy with working conditions. Yes, of course people choose their jobs based on working conditions; people are not helpless victims of fate.

Anyway, I get the point of what you write above, but let me ask a question: from a libertarian point of view what, if anything, compels you or moves you to scrutinize the conditions of any workplace?

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're asking. I trust that any person (any adult, at least), is capable of scrutinizing his or her own working conditions. There are working conditions that _I_ wouldn't accept, but that doesn't mean I think government should tell other people they can't do so. Maybe someone would rather make double his salary by taking additional risks or billing 2400 hours. Who am I to decide that this tradeoff is unreasonable? Of course, if I decide that I don't approve of the working conditions provided by a particular employer, I'm free not to buy from that employer.

I should note, since we've raised the topic of firefighters, that they don't present quite the same issue, because they're (generally) government employees and (almost always) government monopolies. You typically aren't allowed to start up a competing fire company with different working conditions if you're unhappy with existing ones, the way you can with a professional sports league or mining company.

The difference between the slave and the employee was not that slaves were unpaid; the difference was/is that the employee can quit if he's unhappy with working conditions.

The slave could quit too.

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're asking.

Pardon. I meant, what compels a libertarian to criticize another workplace, to say, "Wait: Those conditions are inhuman and should be improved"? Does anything, or nothing?

Not really relevant, but I'm interested, DMN. Do you (as a libertarian) object to self-sale into slavery? IOW, would you have a kind of Lockean objection to slavery, or none at all if an adult consents to perpetual bondage?

Yes, of course people choose their jobs based on working conditions; people are not helpless victims of fate.

This is sheer ideological nonsense. Both ends of the equation can be inverted: people clearly often do NOT choose their jobs based on a risk assessment or choice as you and I experience it, and yet saying that in no way commits me to thinking they're helpless victims of fate.

Now, one difference between me and some people is that I don't come down on the user in this scenario as some kind of moral leper.

I honestly don't see anyone coming down on anyone b/c of PEDS as a "Moral Leper." Some may come down on Barry Bonds as a moral leper, but if that is done, its because of other questions of morality.

What is really disturbing, despite all this prose, is the unnecessary semanticism involved. (and by unnecessary I don't mean intentional, so I don't want this post to fall into the same trap).

I've seen scores of people say, "I think xyz, but I'm not like those loonies that think abc." And then it turns out that xyz > abc in any or all of:

(1) Government intrusion;
(2) Culpability;
(3) Punishment; or
(4) Adverse Judgment.

As near as I can tell, the problem is the term "moral". The decision criteria you describe, and as you articulate it, involves morality and ethics. Its not just plugging into the spreadsheet the dollar value of x quality of life. Yet if someone correctly uses the terms "morality" or "ethics" to describe the decision, and another writes multiple paragraphs that define morality, the first speaker is viewed much "tougher" and the second speaker honestly believes they have distinguished themselves from the first.

Independent of my personal frustration with this phenomena, what should be universally disturbing is the political and linguistic ramifications. The word "moral" has now become prejorative to anyone who seeks individual liberty and has become associated with deep conservative viewpoints. How did the libs and neocons steal from the progressives the words "liberty" and "morality", and how can we talk about and advance such virtues.

How does giving someone a choice of "steroids or unemployment" get the blessing of liberty, and it become extremist to consider putting one in such an extortionistic position an immoral action. Progressives have not only given the keys to the new world over to new Lords, they have given away their very language that desribes the virtues and values that they hold dear. Moreover, they will fight to the death for the language. How many posts here are wasted on correct usages of "coercive", "causation", etc. Most often, its not even to distinguish, its just a bland google of a dictionary and a fight about what the word means.

And its not disguised socialism that feels the pain, its those that feel that Life > wealth, and liberty means more than enjoying a third yacht. There will become a point when you realize that the other side has won, because you lack means to express yourself.

These threads can be great reads when they don't turn into p!ssing contests. I'm what many of you might call a "steroids apologist", but there is plenty of food for thought to chew on when I have the time to wade through the "you're batshit insane"-"no, you are" garbage.

BL, can you explain what you mean by your repeated use of the descriptor "lib(s)"? I assume that stands for liberal, but I notice you draw a distinction between that and "progressives". Often times those words are used interchangeably. I'm wondering what your personal distinction between the two is.

BL, can you explain what you mean by your repeated use of the descriptor "lib(s)"?

I'm using lib for the libeterians, particualarly the form of that ideology which presents itself in these threads---namely viewing most any investigative or regulatory action as "invasive" and any consequence of action as "choice".

Progressive is probably being used synonmously as you would use "liberal." I haven't used "liberal" because that has also grown to have a negative connotation. I guess I've ceded the word "liberal"

I've seen scores of people say, "I think xyz, but I'm not like those loonies that think abc." And then it turns out that xyz > abc in any or all of:

Well, when I use the term "moral" in any implied or direct sense with perjorative implications, I am usually referring to:

Stridence of tone, reductionism of content, i.e. "moralizing"
The implied or stated suggestion of ethical superiority on the part of the speaker, i.e "How could someone do that? I never would."

Now, taking strident positions or asking "how someone could do something" is not always, and maybe not even often, a bad thing. Indeed, asking such questions, and taking strong positions often catalyzes or provides the basis for the implementation of societal, institutional or public change.

In the case of post 421, the phrase "some people" was not used with anyone at BTF in mind (in other words, it was not intended to be a backhanded swipe at kevin or at other people here who are very intense about Bonds or other high-profile users. I know their position on that, and so be it). Rather, it was meant to suggest that while I am all for making people take repsonsibility for choices they make, I am also all for giving equal time to the socioeconomic/historical context in which those choices were made and how it may have affected said choices. Doing so has gotten me labeled here a couple of times--(more in race than in PED discussions)--"excuse-monger" "apologist". I'll live with it, because I think it needs to be done more WRT steroids in MLB. One reason your workplace/health argument works for me WRT steroids in baseball is that it focuses on the environment as much/more than on the failings/wekanesses of the actors in that environment.

How did the libs and neocons steal from the progressives the words "liberty" and "morality", and how can we talk about and advance such virtues?

Charles Manson stole this song from The Beatles. We're stealin' it back.

I've seen scores of people say, "I think xyz, but I'm not like those loonies that think abc." And then it turns out that xyz > abc in any or all of

This is BL up above.

but there is plenty of food for thought to chew on when I have the time to wade through the "you're batshit insane"-"no, you are" garbage

I still generally find it entertaining, but that is just me. To me, this is sort of like saying "Red Sox-Yankees games are great to watch, when I have time to wade through the Rivalry garbage." I like the meat, and I like the spices, too.

Stridence of tone, reductionism of content, i.e. "moralizing"
The implied or stated suggestion of ethical superiority on the part of the speaker, i.e "How could someone do that? I never would."

On the first point, I am going to cede to JC if he is willing. I think he articulates this better than I. But tone is so environmentally dependent, often lost in prose, and heavily dependent on the expectations of the reader.

Personally, I think its virtuous to state your point and have the balls to defend it. (and here is where JC will do a much better job).

But on the expectation part, just look how this is progressing. We are getting tons of "I'm sick in tired of the news media and Albert Belle blaming steroids for Chris Benoit's actions" posts, and I haven't seen anyone point to any incident of that happening. I've seen it reported that its being investigated. I've seen it reported that steroids were found in his home, and in every one of those reports they also now report the beer cans, the past domestic violence, etc.

I don't know what they are doing on MSNBC or Fox News right now, but I understand those talking heads make their living on politicizing and sensalization---that's their jobs, its fukking entertainment, don't expect anymore than that. If you tire of Hannity, turn on Olbermann, and if you tire of the whole thing, flip down and get a Boo Yah from Stu Scott. You can get your balance or escape with one remote control click. If you want real incite, spend more than 0.00018 seconds and pick up a book or look around the internets. Its not like God in his grace endowed everyone here with any knowledge they bring to the table at birth.

As to the second point, let me make this abundantly clear, in just about any endevor I'm writing about, I approach it with a "There but for the grace of god, go I." I've faced moral and ethical decisions, but I haven't faced 15 Million dollars for one shot in the ass. I've faced emotion, but I haven't had to deal with drug-induced psychosis. I speak only of the sin, not the sinner, in any relevant conclusion I make. But I can make conclusions about how I wish to conduct my life. Using imagery is not proclaiming superiority, and calls for sanctions is not implying my candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize or for Sainthood canonization.

As to the political subtext here--Libertarianism etc, what it comes down to for me is this: You take two guys, both about 25-27, borderline guys, both in that gray area--the 20th to 40th spots on the MLB roster, where you might get five years in the pension plan and make a couple of million dollars, or you might get three cups of coffee and make 15-20% of that. One guy maybe has two kids, and he works his ass off, and he is leery of PEDs and doesn't use, thinking he is protecting his long-term health. The other guy may have no kids, be single, and is a little more of a cowboy, so he goes for it and uses. The first guy knows, but what can he do? He accuses him and he looks like a bad team player and like he's making alibis. Guy #1 uses and he has to take, for him, an unacceptable health risk. He keeps quiet maybe he misses his chance to get that $2m and to live the dream. I don't think I would use the term "coercive" as there is still a choice, but it is not one he should, IMO, have to make.

Now, one difference between me and some people is that I don't come down on the user in this scenario as some kind of moral leper. He made a choice, and he is responsible for it, and he pays the price, but given the massive financial and other rewards of playing MLB, who am I to say I wouldn't be using if I were in the same position?

Very well stated, RR.

I've known murderers (plural) who were spared the death penalty only by the accident of chronology (they were re-sentenced during the brief window after 1972 when the death penalty was universally outlawed). Their crimes were unspeakable, but while I fully supported their original death sentences, I only regarded one of them as a true moral leper. The other committed his crime in a depressive fit of financial desperation, and while the act itself was beyond moral leprosy, it was a one time thing.

So to me the question isn't one of whether or not a juicer is a moral leper, but how we deal with his act. And how we choose to deal with that act reflects not only our view of its generic moral culpability, but also our view of how much it (in this case, juicing) has damaged the concept of a level playing field of competition, and of how we see the punishment in terms of not only deterrence but how we wish to record our present judgment for future generations to ponder, for better or worse. IOW many factors inform our judgment.

So in my morally confused world, I've interacted (i.e. gambled) with one of those murderers, who was paroled after abut 25 years from a "life sentence", and avoid the other one completely. But if I had been on the jury considering their cases, I'd have voted to fry them both, and would do so again. Just like I'd never let a juicer into the Hall of Fame, even with a character reference from his minister, and even if I myself were that minister.

And no, I'm not equating the moral gravity of juicing to murder, so please don't even think about that silly retort. (Not you, RR, that's just a general comment directed towards the "gotcha" crowd.)

I am not really referring to the Benoit case, or to anybody here per se. With a tragedy of the magnitude of what Benoit did, most people tend to focus on the victims, etc and not worry as much about labeling the perpetrator, particularly in a case like this where the guy was, apparently, "popular" beforehand. The tone has been "sobered" and "shocked" more than "strident." Again, pointing no fingers, I think people, and particularly media people--tend to identify "obnoxiousness" with "evil" and "public personability" with "good." Pete Rose and Steve Garvey are good object lessons in the limitations of that thought pattern, particularly WRT jocks and celebs.

Using imagery is not proclaiming superiority, and calls for sanctions is not implying my candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize or for Sainthood canonization.

So to me the question isn't one of whether or not a juicer is a moral leper, but how we deal with his act.

Right, and I think to the degree that my point has relevance, that relevance resides in the
the idea that the nature/structure of the sanctions will on some level ultimnately be connected to the stridence/focus of the rhetoric. This is why Selig's recent twitchiness after Giambi's comments and the way that has played out is to me a red flag and also why I am sympathetic with BB chick's point about how people (in general--not pointing fingers) don't rant about JC Romero the way they do about Bonds (note: "sympathetic" doesn't mean GOTCHA! or "I have no idea why that is the case"--it has been discussed many times).

So, to sum up, I think strident, one-sided moralistic rhetoric and media coverage, may, ultimately retard the process of "getting to the bottom" of the PED situation in baseball, and Selig will deploy the machinery that produces that rhetoric to suit his own agenda.

Personally, I think its virtuous to state your point and have the balls to defend it. (and here is where JC will do a much better job).

Sure. I think I addressed this in 431:

Now, taking strident positions or asking "how someone could do something" is not always, and maybe not even often, a bad thing. Indeed, asking such questions, and taking strong positions often catalyzes or provides the basis for the implementation of societal, institutional or public change.

I would also suggest that it takes balls to say "Wait, there may be a gray area here" when everybody else is pounding their chests. And again, "Everybody else" does not really mean "The Union, Joey B and SugarBear" with me and whoever else in the other role. This is a macro point and people's tones here are fluid, not static.

rr:

I appreciate this series of posts, but to be honest, I don't quite understand why "moralizing" is being raised as an issue. To argue, as some of us have, that we oppose steroids use in sports, that we want to see them removed, that removing them effectively will require testing and punishment of users doesn't strike me as "moralistic." In fact, often I've felt like we were subjected to "moralizing" interpretations of our views: i.e., how dare you trample their freedoms! who appointed you moral arbiter?, etc.

If I understand you, the substance of the debate can continue without any moralizing. I agree with that. That I or any one opposes cigarettes, or steroids, or cheating on a spouse doesn't mean that we wouldn't smoke, cheat, or cheat in certain circumstances. We don't, however, usually pass laws or commend cultural rules based on what we would do in extremely tempting situations. Usually prudence requires that we make such regulations in more "sober" situations, so when we're drunk with passions we have something to lean on. So, what's the force of my conceding: "Yeah, I have no idea what I'd inject if I knew I could make millions?" Hopefully, none, except perhaps to engender a bit of mercy towards those who may have failed.

So, what's the force of my conceding: "Yeah, I have no idea what I'd inject if I knew I could make millions?" Hopefully, none, except perhaps to engender a bit of mercy towards those who may have failed.

Sure. I attempted to address the relevance here:

Right, and I think to the degree that my point has relevance, that relevance resides in the idea that the nature/structure of the sanctions will on some level ultimately be connected to the stridence/focus of the rhetoric.

So, if the Mitchell Committee/Selig--which is mostly way I raised this, not to be a BTF moderator--says, "OK, let's focus on getting information here. Let's not threaten suspensions if someone wants to talk. Let's not focus on being judgmental; we have the testing program and the agreed-upon sanctions. Let's acknowledge that there may be organizational issues here in addition to players acting unethically", I think we would be better able to get the info people supposedly want.

I don't think they are going to do that, though, in the wake of the Giambi thing.

What I don't understand is, given his rampant steroid use, why Barry Bonds didn't suplex that hippie who came out of the stands the other night.

Or at least pull a foreign object out of his pants and gouge him in the eye with it.