TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 10:10 AM
November 20, 2008 | 9:57 AM
November 20, 2008 | 12:15 AM

November 19, 2008 | 11:20 PM
November 19, 2008 | 9:29 PM
November 19, 2008 | 4:23 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
15.01.2008
Is Baseball Already Losing the Next Steroid Battle?

The big news at today's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the Mitchell Report was that the committee is asking Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate whether Houston Astros shortstop Miguel Tejada committed perjury in telling the committee in August 2005 that he hadn't used performance-enhancing drugs. Two separate sources told Senator Mitchell that they had helped Tejada acquire steroids and human-growth hormone. (The Orioles' decision to unload him looks pretty good right about now.) But the hearing also made clear that baseball is at risk of falling behind in the next front of the battle against cheating in baseball.

Commissioner Bud Selig and players' union chief Don Fehr, who testified at the hearing, deserve credit for accepting responsibility for their past mistakes and for successfully cracking down on the use of anabolic steroids. In three areas, though, representatives exposed baseball's apparent failure to be proactive in combating other types of performance enhancers:

1. The medical-exemption loophole. Rep. John Tierney (D–Mass.) asked Selig about a disturbing statistic that was not included in the Mitchell Report (in fact, according to Tierney, Congress had to pry the information out of the league). Big-leaguers are banned from taking stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall unless it's needed for a medical condition like ADD. In 2006, the league granted 28 exemptions for players to take stimulants. In 2007, the number skyrocketed to 103--implying that the incidence of ADD in baseball is on the order of eight times greater than in the general population. Needless to say, that's not realistic. The use of amphetamines in baseball is not new (Jim Bouton wrote about them in his famous 1970 exposé Ball Four), but it appears the use of stimulants is on the rise as players, now deprived of steroids, look for any edge they can get. Selig seemed bizarrely cavalier about the issue, characerizing it as a matter between players and their doctors (who must approve the medical-exemption application), and only reluctantly agreed that these startling numbers might constitute a problem.

2. HGH. Another substitute for steroids is human-growth hormone (HGH), and even Selig and Fehr acknowledged that the use of HGH is on the rise in baseball. They argued that there's nothing they can do about it, though, since there's no commercially available urine test for HGH. (The league is joining with the NFL to fund research into such a test.) But that's not the end of the story. A blood-based test for HGH is expected to be ready in time for the Beijing Olympics, but baseball doesn't currently allow for blood testing, and the union opposes it.  Rep. Stephen Lynch (D–Mass.) pressed Selig and Fehr to commit to adopting the earliest available HGH test (and, if necessary, take samples now and store them until the test is ready), but they seemed reluctant to embrace his proposal.

3. Gene doping. This is the most speculative, but far-reaching, cheating strategy on the horizon: the possibility of using gene therapy to improve athletic performance. It's certainly unrealistic to expect baseball to have any well-defined strategy yet for dealing with it, but when Rep. Mark Souder (R–Ind.) asked Selig about it, Selig seemed not to understand what Souder was talking about. He asked Souder to repeat the question three times, and then gave a brief, generic answer about baseball having hired the best anti-doping doctors in the country. This doesn't inspire much confidence that baseball will be ahead of the curve. (Fehr, for his part, recognized that "Gene doping will make this discussion we're having today look quaint," but if history is any indication, whenever anyone proposes any actual measures to combat the problem, the players' union will probably oppose it.)

Baseball has made real progress in curbing the use of performance-enhancing drugs. And it's important, as Mitchell implores, not to get hung up on the past. But one can't help but get the feeling that the league is only willing to go as far as public pressure and congressional finger-wagging force it to. Baseball's record on steroids should make clear that the burden of proof is on the league to demonstrate that it's doing everything humanly possible to fight performance-enhancing drugs. That's a standard it's not living up to.

--Josh Patashnik 

(Photo: Getty Images)

Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:56 PM with 18 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

AMVHuck said:

Excuse me, but why does Congress, or anyone else, have to stop ballplayers from playing on steroids, or Scotch, or any other stimulent? Let them play pumped up and drunk. It might be entertaining.

January 15, 2008 4:43 PM

drdannyu said:

Similarly to AMVHuck's comment, I have a question.  (This may seem snarky or ironic, but it's sincerely asked.)  Why on earth should Congress, or the Attorney General, have anything to do with performance-enhancing drugs in professional baseball?  As a sports non-fan, I don't see why this issue is of such import that it requires federal oversight.  Can someone explain to me why, with the myriad other issues facing the nation, federal resources should be dedicated to sussing out issues of who used, who lied, and when?

January 15, 2008 4:51 PM

boneill said:

Scotch is fine.  If it was good enough for Mickey Mantle it is good enough for today's players.  

January 15, 2008 4:55 PM

boneill said:

DrDan- baseball has anti-trust exemption, making them under the sway of Congress.   And it is in a sense a public trust, so Congress has some oversight powers there.   And, really, there are a lot of Congressmen, and they do a lot, so this isn't really taking up a ton of truly valuable time.   I bet there were 17 other meeting that day on a whole lot of other issues- it is just that baseball gets the press, because, well, it is baseball.  

January 15, 2008 4:58 PM

Josh Patashnik said:

AMVHuck/drdannyu: This is a question that came up at the hearing--a number of the members were very defensive about it.  The one point that's pretty obviously true, though, is that it was in no small measure Congress's ability to cause a scene that prompted baseball to take action and appoint Mitchell in the first place.  (There's also the argument that it's fair game for Congress to look into this, since baseball benefits from its antitrust exemption--though I'm not entirely persuaded by that.)  I think I agree that I'd be opposed to Congress actually compelling baseball to do anything through legislation, but holding a hearing that gets massive media attention and makes baseball stay on its best behavior seems like it's probably within the realm of acceptable action.

January 15, 2008 4:58 PM

Bukharin said:

As virtually any mature adult, who has been around the block, surely knows, there are people out there who are more than happy to sully reputations.  Unless George Mitchell has physical evidence - meaning an unreputable blood test - then he ought to do us all a favor by shutting the hell up.

January 15, 2008 4:59 PM

blackton said:

Gene doping? Sounds cool, I want gills so I can swim like Aquaman. My wife is pregnant with our third child, I want to know, just which is the hitting gene?

January 15, 2008 4:59 PM

jhildner said:

Bo:  The antitrust exemption is pretty bogus, and also pretty irrelevant to this issue.  It's not a statutory exemption.  It was a Supreme Court ruling from the 20s that basically held that baseball clubs were not engaged in interstate commerce and thus not subject to the antitrust laws.  (The notion of baseball as a "public trust," sort of like the airwaves, had nothing to do with it.)  This ruling is silly by today's standards (no other pro league is exempt), and the old case should have been overruled, but the Supreme Court decided in the 70s that congressional inaction to end the exemption suggested its tacit approval.

Besides, even if you thought that Congress had more of a role to play in baseball in exchange for not stautorily eliminating the exemption (which is kind of strange given the original justification of the exemption -- that baseball is a local affair!), why would that authorize Congress to look into cheating?  Seems to me, it would only justify looking into what would otherwise be antitrust violations, to make sure that baseball isn't taking too much advantage of its exempt status.  (The main issue, by the way -- I think -- is that baseball under the exemption can get away with restrictions on teams, such as prohibiting relocations, which would otherwise violate antitrust law.)  Cheating, though deplorable and bad for the sport, isn't against the law likely never will be.

January 15, 2008 5:49 PM

jhildner said:

p.s.  I can see many reasons to hold hearings, but not if the end game is just uncovering cheating.  If I were a congressperson, I would be legitimately interested in the issue of performance enhancing drugs generally (many of which are controlled substances) -- trafficking and availability in this area, etc.  Also, a focus on professional sports is legitimate because of the influence of the sport and its atheletes on kids.  While cheating isn't against the law as such, taking drugs to cheat will be in some cases, and regardless sends a bad message.  In other words, the use of performance enhancing drugs by individuals, particularly young people, throughout  the country generally would be a worthy topic and could conceivably lead to some type of congressional action.

January 15, 2008 6:05 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Regarding why Congress might care, how about the fact that this "cheating" is, in most cases, also a felony violation of federal criminal law? Surely Congress is within its just powers to investigate the alleged widespread violation of federal laws within a particular industry.

Regarding the merits of the article here, the HGH thing is a real problem. Gene doping, not so much. Baseball is "losing" the fight against gene doping about like how it's losing the fight against antigravity boots. As to the Ritalin thing, 103 ballplayers with ADD would be 8.6 percent of all players on MLB's 40-man rosters, whereas NIH estimates that ADD affects 3-5 percent of all children. So that 8.6 percent is suspiciously high -- especially when combined with the near tripling of prescriptions the year baseball banned other, previously widely available stimulants -- but it's not the insane, eight-times-reality number claimed.

January 15, 2008 6:26 PM

jsende said:

Josh:

Point #2 re: HGH is simply not a big deal: HGH is not a "substitute" for steroids, and the matter is not worth the resources poured into developing a test for it or the media caterwauling over the use of it. See www.slate.com/.../2182161.

Also, I didn't watch today's hearings, but I understand Don Fehr had a good moment when he showed Congress an ad for HGH he had clipped from an airline magazine.

January 15, 2008 7:05 PM

cspencef said:

And again, baseball is dragged before Congress to sweat in front of the microphones while no one makes a peep about the steroid-addled crazies that are the NFL...*sigh*

January 15, 2008 11:28 PM

tkozal said:

So now it is rumored that certain hip hop artists have used these things, see the investigation in Albany, Congress most definately needs to look at this. As someone who finds baseball a horrible bore, I could care less what happens to the sport, but their hubris is sickening, I wish they would get whacked byCongress..where's Foer...bring in Promotion and Relegation..yea!

January 16, 2008 9:15 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Absolutely, it's all about the impact on the kids, and impact that's huge because of the  arms-race aspect of performance enhancement drugs and the extraordinary pressures our culture places on young athletes.

If Pro Ballplayer X juices, then Pro Ballplayer Y must juice to stay competitive, which creates huge incentives for college and high school ballplayers to juice, especially given the potential money that's at stake.

That said, Congress should look at this issue in relation to all sports, not just baseball. That they're focusing on baseball alone suggests that they may be less than serious about addressing the larger problem here.

January 16, 2008 9:41 AM

williamyard said:

A fellow Giants fan emailed this morning to ask what I wanted to happen during the upcoming season.

I replied that, first, I want Peter Magowan, Larry Baer, Brian Sabean et al. indicted under RICO for aiding and abetting the distribution, sale, and use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs among their employees and, second, I want them to lose a class-action suit brought by Giants investors and season ticket-holders for devaluing the franchise with their above behavior and as a condition of the verdict be forced to cut prices at Mays Field on everything from box seats to hot dogs while paying for the cut from their personal coffers, rather than restructuring the franchise's existing debt.

In addition, I'd like a left-handed first baseman who can reach McCovey Cove not just during BP but during games, a proven closer with serious cheese and balls of steel and no impending ligament tears, and a third baseman who can advance a runner from first to third without thinking he has to go yard.

January 16, 2008 2:26 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Williamyard, your wish to see the Giants field a better team will almost certainly come true this year. Losing Barry Bonds may be the single greatest example of addition-by-subtraction in baseball history. Any team with Bonds the last three years would have become a better team simply by dumping Bonds and replacing him on the roster with an average-for-his-position player, at any position. I think the ultimate symbol of Bonds' net impact on his team was the game last season against my Nats in which Bonds hit number 756. Great celebration for Bonds, but the lowly Nationals still won the game.

As to indictments for Sabean et al, even with the broad terms of federal conspiracy statutes, it would be a stretch. But Jack McCoy would certainly give it a go, so I'm with you.

January 16, 2008 3:39 PM

The Plank said:

For all of you folks worried that Henry Waxman's dogged campaign to make Major League Baseball shape

January 18, 2008 11:49 AM

The Plank said:

Henry Waxman's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today asked the Justice Department

February 27, 2008 3:31 PM