Pro Sports, Drugs, Testing, and more Lip-Service

Posted on December 20, 2009 by Josh

I’m really grateful for excellent bloggers like JR Atwood at Playthink. JR has again prompted me to write an entry that is essentially a response/reflection on one of his recent posts. JR’s post has a highlight section of the discussion between Bill Simmons and Malcolm Gladwell about sport celebrity…that, to me, goes nowhere. The topic of the part of the discussion posted in JR’s blog is about the public reaction to sports-celebrities’ behaviors, and how “random” those reactions appear to be.

While a fascinating topic in itself, that conversation really goes nowhere. There are no answers in the end. Why?

That’s the reason for this post.

I’m confused by the Gladwell/Simmons conversation. They only talk around their subject-matter, describing it, but not uncovering anything.

What’s strange to me is that neither of them points out that expectations of (or reactions-to) professional athletes and their behavior are entirely fabricated. They’re created by the media, the consensus-view of the commentators, and the consensus-view of the viewers. Granted, that’s a vague statement, but stick with me for a second.

What I’m saying is that there is no “strict moral ground” by which to judge the behavior of celebrity athletes (or any celebrity, for that matter). Instead, the reaction is more a conflagration of the “public image” of that athlete, the media’s reaction/billing of the behavior, and the public’s buy-in to that billing.

I don’t think the reaction has anything to do with the “volatility of statistics.” Stats are meaningless if a game is “infinite” (played for its own sake, to continue playing, as opposed to played to win). Therefore, the value of stats is agreed-upon before the sport is begun. The rules are laid out. “This is a finite game. It is played to win. Therefore, we keep track of everything.”

This is also a cultural creation. What are the meaning of statistics? The meaning, like the meaning of celebrity athletes’ behavior, is culturally created. What is the meaning of one or several players taking performance-enhancing drugs (PED’s) and thereby skewing those stats? How can one really know?

At this point, I’d like to turn to the PED discussion. Because it does highlight what’s happening underneath this discussion of celebrity-athlete behavior and public reaction.

Here’s the deal, and here’s what fascinates me the most – This “debate” itself is a game.

It’s similar to the “healthcare debate” entry I posted. Till cultural change occurs that supports all of the talk about healthcare change/promotion, any talk about healthcare is mere lip-service. No true change can occur until the culture will support that change.

Similarly, until a systematized, reliable, regular, and transparent method of testing athletes for PED’s is put into place, there’s no real telling what the “true” stats are.

Along with any other specifics about the subject matter they propound on, Gladwell and Simmons don’t discuss the testing policies/procedures in place now, or the history behind those policies.

While they were “banned” in 1991, “random” drug testing was only started in MLB in 2001. Steroids were only banned in the NBA in 1999. And, though steroids were “banned” in the NFL in 1990, loopholes were found in 2005 that allowed Carolina Panthers players to be prescribed banned substances two weeks prior to the 2004 Superbowl. (go here for the USA Today article outlining the last two references).

I put “random,” and “banned’ in quotes above, because, to the best of my knowledge, testing is far from random, and (as in the case of the Panthers), performance-enhancing substances are far from truly banned. Instead, players are tested who will test positive. Occasionally, a scapegoat may be needed, or someone out of which to make an example, and they’ll be tested. Or, someone from outside the organization will report unfavorable news and the whole thing will blow up.

My point about testing, above, is to say that the stats are already skewed. It’s impossible to know what the true stats are for sports until everyone is tested. If that’s your goal.

But I don’t think that it is.

This site has a nice “news-based” overview of drugs in sports, that shows clearly that athletes have always used “performance-enhancing drugs” of some sort or other. So the question I come to is not whether or not PED’s should be banned, or whether or not they’re skewing sporting outcomes, but what the game is behind this discussion.

What is the purpose of organized sports? “Bread and circus?” – that is, a distraction for the masses?

For those who believe that organized sports are simply there because so many people enjoy watching them, I strongly disagree. At the point at which a thing becomes a multi-billion dollar industry, people’s enjoyment, as being free from coercion, diminishes exponentially.

So if it doesn’t really matter…that is, if there’s no way to know what the “real” stats are, and there’s no “real” ground by which to judge a (any) celebrity’s behavior, what are we talking about here?

I don’t think we’re really talking about anything. Certainly nothing of importance. Just surface characteristics of a much larger dynamic.

It’s like talking about the weather. How is it? The city-slicker hates the rain, the farmer loves it. Same rain.

But hate it or love it, there it is.

Why do we talk about the weather? It’s easier than doing something. It’s easier than admitting that we have no control over it. Comfort? I don’t know…you tell me.

Guiding Principles

Posted on March 16, 2009 by Josh

I worked for a grocery store called “Fresh Fields” back when I was in college (and for a while after). By the time I left, Fresh Fields had been purchased and I was working for Whole Foods. But Fresh Fields had something interesting that Whole Foods does not.

On the wall of most Whole Foods stores you can find their “core values.” They are:

While I appreciate Whole Foods’ honesty, I miss the values that led Fresh Fields. Fresh Fields’ version of “core values” were called the “guiding principles.” Those were (to the best of my memory):

No refined sugar
No artificial preservatives, colors, or flavors
No bleached or brominated flours
No irradiated vegetables
No hydrogenated or tropical oils
No steroids/antibiotics in the meat
No animal testing in the beauty products

I think Fresh Fields also required meats sold there to be organic and free range.

There’s something about the focus of these two enterprises that speaks to me. Fresh Fields tells you what they won’t tolerate, under any circumstances (they ended up playing with those rules a little by the end). But what’s most important about Fresh Fields’ values is that they tell you explicitly what you’re going to get.

Most importantly, Fresh Fields’ guiding principles lead someone who reads them to a question – Why?

WHY won’t you let any of those things into your stores? And then, the rest of the questions begin – What the hell are those things?! What’s so bad about those things? What’s wrong with refined sugar? What’s wrong with artificial colors and flavors? What is “brominated?” What is irradiation? What’s wrong with hydrogenated and tropical oils? What’s wrong with steroids/antibiotics in meat? Maybe the last one didn’t get as many why’s…most people know what’s wrong with animal testing.

What we get with Whole Foods is a list of “action goals” for the corporate organization. Nothing about definitions. Nothing thought-provoking there. Nothing entirely comforting, either.

Just wanted to share those old principles with you. Good luck on your journeys!

What cost – “youth”

Posted on December 9, 2008 by Josh

A friend forwarded this article to me. Unfortunately, nothing in it surprises me.

It chronicles a litany of methods being used to obtain “youthfulness” and “vigor” in the aging US population.

Three quotes that stand out for me are:

1. “My friends say, ‘Oh, Ed’s on steroids,’”…”I’m not. I’m on hormone therapy,” he says of a regimen that costs him more than $1,000 a month. [among the drugs he takes are human growth hormone, testosterone, and an adrenal hormone known as DHEA].

2. For a group known as the Calorie Restriction Society, youthfulness isn’t found in hormones. It’s reducing food intake to, in some cases, near-starvation levels.

3. This search for eternal youthfulness certainly isn’t new. “In 1,500 B.C. people were ingesting tiger gonads to rejuvenate them,” says Dr. Gene Cohen, a George Washington University expert on aging.

Before I go further, let’s talk about a few specifics…

What’s the difference, you might ask, between a steroid and a hormone? As far as I know, a steroid is a specific class of compound, with a specific chemical structure. Hormones are chemical messengers in the body, that typically serve as signals to communicate between cells. All of the human sex hormones (estrogen, progesterone, testosterone (and cortisol)) happen to be steroidal in structure. So our friend above is only partly correct. He is taking steroids.

Human Growth Hormone (HGH) is not steroidal in structure, and has similar effects to steroids, but with low to no (currently known) negative effects if taken in proper doses.

I don’t want to be misleading. Taking the course of “hormone therapy” that’s reviewed here, while you’re under the close monitoring of a physician, may not be harmful at all. If the dosages are closely correlated to your age, body weight, and other physical signifiers, and a doctor is checking you out every few months, you’ll probably experience drastic changes in your body (to the tune of $1000/mo., at least).

Not only that, but hormone therapy has saved the lives of many people. Steroids and HGH can be similarly life-saving in people with HIV/AIDS to help prevent the muscle-wasting associated with that disease.

This post isn’t about the legality issues surrounding steroids (for a great film about that issue, go rent Bigger Faster Stronger). Nor is it about the moral or ethical issues surrounding steroid use in sports.

This post is about a question, which brings me to my final quotes from the article. The interviewees cite the same things as their reasons for taking these drugs. Namely: to “feel better, more energetic, clear-minded” from one, and to have ‘”lots of energy” and feel[sic] “sharp,” from another.

But what else is involved with these therapies? It’s funny, but you can take as much HGH, testosterone, or whatever, but if you don’t exercise, nothing very good will happen to you.

Movement rules above all else. And, in fact, movement can provide all of the benefits sought by the youth-seekers, though maybe not with the extreme muscle-growth.

There’s something you can do that’s a lot cheaper than $1000/mo., that will keep you feeling better, energetic, clear-minded, and sharp. In fact, it can be totally free.

It’s called exercise.

If you want to know where to start and you don’t know how, drop me a line. I’ll be happy to help. If you want something with some structure, and feel compelled to spend some money, go take some Tai Chi (or Taiji) classes.

Is it scientific proof you need? Master Lu Zijian is 93 in this video. He is practicing an art called Baguazhang, similar to Tai Chi.

Jack Lalanne pulled a string of 70 boats behind him with 70 people in them as he swam 1.5 miles. Roland Fortin wanted to fight Jack when he was 91, and Jack was 92!

The law is called inertia – a body at rest tends to stay at rest. Rest more, keep resting…

The fountain of youth is within you, dear hearts. It’s movement. Start moving. Move as much as you can and in as many ways as you can, till you get a little tired (but not a lot), every day, and a funny thing will happen – you’ll be full of energy – able to move more and more, for longer and longer, your mind will become clear and sharp, and life will be better.