Sarah Kellogg has an excellent piece in this month's issue of Washington Lawyer magazine, Juiced: Congress, Steroids, and the Law. Here are a few probing questions and comments from people she interviewed:
Washington Times sports columnist Tim Lemke:
NFL Executive V.P., Harold Henderson:“Most people look at sports simply as entertainment, and they don’t really get emotionally tied up in it. As long as sports leagues are doing something about the issue, I think fans are pretty content. Congress is sort of overreaching here with the Roger Clemens situation, which turned out to be over the top and not remotely connected to the original purpose here—protecting kids and public health.”
“Sports leagues can’t simply put in place policies as if it’s a dictatorship. Everything goes through collective bargaining. Most people understand that the steroids testing policies in place are pretty good, especially given the fact everything has to be approved by a union. The job of union leaders is to look out for their players and not to give too much away. They’ve had to walk a fine line there.”
“If baseball and sports are filled with people who are dishonest and cheating, is that affecting the public welfare? I’m not sure, but maybe it’s a question that’s worth asking.”
Author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, John Lott Jr.:“Why let steroid use be rampant down at Gold’s gym but legislate against it in sports leagues? If you want to do something about it, get it off the Internet. Ban the nonmedical use of it. Devote some resources to law enforcement and dry it up.”
“We go and watch sporting events because of the amazing feats these guys are able to perform. If they’re able to do a bit better job with performance-enhancing drugs, then these athletes should be able to make the choice. They take risks all the time. We pay to watch them take those risks. Why are we interested in legislating against these risks but not against others?”
0 comments:
Post a Comment