TheAgitator.com
Sports and Election ’08
Sunday, May 11th, 2008USA Today asked the three remaining major-party candidates how they feel about Title IX and about performance enhancing drugs.
Refreshingly, all three said neither steroids nor gender participation are any of the government’s business, and that, being private entities, sports organizations should be free to set their own rules free of meddling from the federal government or grandstanding congressmen.
Just kidding. All three favor using the federal government to bend pro and amateur sports to their liking.
Interesting, you believe players should be allowed steroids but somehow have a problem with them observing other teams play calling signals.
Z, I get that you are saying they are both “cheating” and therefore similar, but…
doesn’t the “playing calling” take away from the skill of the entire team essentially making the game just one big orchestrated event, while….
steroids still allow for player skill?
just spit ballin
Z — Well, no. If MLB wants to take a hard line on steroids and kick people out for using them, I have no problem with that.
But I don’t think it’s any of Congress’ business. And no, I don’t think the Patriots’ cheating is any of Arlen Specter’s business, either.
But let’s be real, here. The only reason MLB is cracking down on performance enhancing drugs is because blowhards like Tom Davis and Henry Waxman have threatened them with federal sanctions if they didn’t.
Ron Paul is still running for President, so that makes 4 major party candidates.
“Refreshingly, all three said neither steroids nor gender participation are any of the government’s business, and that, being private entities, sports organizations should be free to set their own rules free of meddling from the federal government or grandstanding congressmen.”
In all fairness to Lee and Dr. NO, that does sound exactly like something Ron Paul would say, if asked.
But he will not be asked that question in this election cycle.
Nor will Radley Balko and other even headed people be asked similar questions on similar issues in future election cycles. To do so would not benefit the two party duopoly and the parasites that depend on perpetuating its existence.
It sucks, but that’s the way it is.
I agree that congress should not be running baseball. That said, I’d like to see Bud Selig do something to keep steroids out of the sport anyway.
I’d actually just like to see Bud Selig not crap up the place for once, to be honest.
It’s a little disingenuous to say that sports orgs are “private entities” when they thrive on the monopoly exemption. That exemption is what has given Congress the power and, frankly, the right to meddle in their business. The exemption has come up in some of the hearings. So if the league wants to forgo the exemption and do what the hell it wants in the free market, more power to them. But really, the leagues and owners are all very willing rent seekers; they are about making money, not making a principled stand. And so long as Congress has privileged them with the exemption, they are going to keep their noses in that business.
If you’re going to say that rent seeking or getting favors from government means Congress gets to micromanage everything you do, then just about every corporation in the country may as well be subject to congressional meddling.
Also, anyone who has ever gotten a federally subsidized student loan. Or a federally subsidized mortgage. I could go on….
Radley: Well, I think what you’re saying certainly explains the status quo, as we all have suckled from the government teat wilfully or unwilfully. With favors come obligations. We can’t take our bread from the king and then deny allegiance.
However, is it really so crazy to suggest that the fact that these organizations function under a legal monopoly makes their condition substantively different from other occasions where government doles out a little here and there? I tend to think about pro sports like I do regulated utilities: on the one hand, being regulated guarantees a certain level of income, but on the other, you WILL be micromanaged. I think that’s different than saying, I accept welfare therefore I accept mando drug tests. Why? Because corporations do not possess individual rights, “guaranteed” by the Bill of Rights.
Truer words have never been said!