Friday, July 31, 2009

'Roid Raging

Apparently there was more to steroids than we thought.

We know they increase you muscle mass, and shrink your testicles. I didn't know they also inflated egos and shrunk brains.

Well, now that I look at the last three -- I'm not surprised Congress is in the middle of this mess.

Really, there is a simple end to all this Major League Baseball steroid talk.

Inject truth.

Yesterday we found out that two members of the 2003 Boston Red Sox -- David Ortiz and the previously-suspended Manny Ramirez -- tested positive during what was supposed to be anonymous drug testing during that season. Today, pitcher Bronson Arroyo, also a member of that Boston team, admitted he used Adrostinedione -- the same supplement taken by former Oakland and St. Louis slugger Mark McGwire.

There is so much wrong about this situation, that you almost use up all your rage on the situation before you even get a chance to be pissed about perceived cheating... if in fact you feel that is what it is.

Now, Ramirez failed a drug test this year and was suspended -- so there is zero shock factor that he is one of the 104 players who tested positive. Meanwhile, Arroyo's name has not been connected with that test, but he is coming clean. You have to respect Arroyo for that -- the same respect you should give marginal MLB pitcher Jim Parque (yeah, I know... most of you are asking 'who?'), who admitted his use recently.

Arroyo and Parque are doing it right. They are admitting their mistakes, talking about the effects, but not promoting it.

Ortiz is taking a very similar approach. At this point in time, we have to take the man at his word -- that until yesterday he did not know he had tested positive.

Yes, Ortiz was a marginal player with the Minnesota Twins before signing with Boston. And, yes, he seems to be fading into the twilight of his career. But, does that mean he was using steroids in between?

No.

As I mentioned before, there is so much wrong with the circumstances under which we are learning more about this 2003 drug test.

Let's start with the fact that the results were not properly disposed of following the test itself. The test was supposed to be a baseline for MLB to gauge what the level of use was. The fact that someone still has the list is a MAJOR problem.

Even Stevie Wonder could have seen where this was going to end up. Someone was going to blackmail someone else. Congress has the list, and is pressuring MLB executives. The MLB Players Association has the list, and they might be the only people who rightfully should still have access to the list. But somehow the New York media has the list -- at least parts of it -- and are doing the most dispicable of things... releasing the names on the list, one or two names as a time at steady intervals.

It is no shock to me that of the names that have come off the list, one is a high-profile Yankees player (Alex Rodriguez), one is dead (Ken Caminiti), one was in a chase to break Yankee right-fielder Roger Maris' single-season home run record (Sammy Sosa), and now two played for the Boston Red Sox. Four have threatened to take the spotlight off of New York, and the other (A-Roid) could be seen as protecting New York and its image.

This is no different than the Democrats jumping all over Rush Limbaugh -- who I recently referred to as the 'Oxycodone Blimp' (just for you, Tom) -- for his pain killer addiction and shooting his mouth off like the racist moron he is. And no different than the Republicans becoming the vehicle by which the 'Birther' movement is being permitted to persist.

I have two solutions.

One solution is for Congress to release the names on the list. Right now, that is being blocked by the MLBPA, in the courts, on the basis that there isn't supposed to be a list. However, Congress holds the trump card -- three magic words: "Anti-Trust Exemption."

The other solution is far easier, and much more founded on ethical ground. The MLBPA needs to release the names on the list. There will certainly be fallout from this action, but by releasing the names you can end the speculation.

It's called a clean break. Gets the names out there, and what they tested positive for. No questions.

What many people don't know about the 2003 drug test is that MLB tested for drugs and supplements that were not banned at the time, in addition to steroids and human-growth hormones.

So, is it possible that Ortiz, like Arroyo and McGwire was taking something that was not banned at the time, but was tested for? Or, is this something where we didn't know the ingredients of a supplement, or simply didn't think to look for.

A positive test from 2003 is not nearly as bad as a positive test today. We know so much more about steroids (and we will simple classify all of these items as such for now) now than we did back then. McGwire took 'Andro' as a supplement to prevent injuries -- he stopped taking it under intense media scrutiny, and his career ended shortly after. We still don't know if 'Andro' is actually dangerous to the body, but someone was offended by its use.

On a personal note, I would like to see all these supplements and steroids out of sports. As a former athlete, myself, I will stand up and say there is no place for their use. I have also gone on record as saying the use of free weights, and weight training is vastly abused. I never took weight lifting seriously, and have spoken out about the inherent danger of 'maxing out'.

Perhaps it is why I washed out as a college athlete. But I am proud of what I accomplished, and doing so cleanly, ethically, and humbly. So what if, as former Bears quarterback Jim Miller once said: "nobody is waiving dollar bills in my direction when I take my shirt off." That's not what being an athlete is about.

Being an athlete is about having the God-given ability to do something, and the fortune to be able to make a living doing so.

We need to put the focus back on that ability -- it is the positive side of sports.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

'Birthers': Giving Birth to Idiocy

Dear Birthers,
What kind of radical white-supremacist bull**** are you attempting to promote here?
The questions over the legitimacy of President Barack Obama's birth certificate are simply ludicrous and gross.

Just nine months ago, we as a nation made history. We were able to see beyond the color of a man's skin. We, for the first time, elected a man of color to lead this great nation.

Apparently, my optimism that racism was slowly becoming less and less is false. I have come to understand that most of this issue concerning the citizenship of the President of the United States is nothing more than blind rage driven by two of the greatest of all evils to exist -- partisanship and racism.

I would like to say, that not all Republicans are guilty in this. But, when town hall meetings for Republican legislators are the sounding board for this -- the issue may not rest with the representatives themselves, but run much deeper within the party.

Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware handled the issue very well. He needs to be commended for it. However, the people who booed him for making his statement, really need to feel great shame for their actions.

Now, I would like to think that all people are of solid intellect, and that this is just something the blew up out of someone's confusion -- and that nobody caught the error in the first ill-conceived judgement.

Perhaps someone was thinking that because the President was born in Hawai'i, that he was not born in the United States. This would be a simple error, and possibly very easy to make. Many baby-boomers were born before Hawai'i was granted statehood.

The President in not a baby-boomer. He was born in 1961 -- two years after Hawai'i gained status as a United State. Even had he been born before 1959, in Hawai'i -- he still would have been born an American citizen.

Hawai'i has been part of the United States since 1898.

It is also possible that someone was mistaken when they found out that one of the candidates in our last Presidential Election was not born in the United States.

Many would probably assume that was Obama. In fact, it was John McCain. McCain was born in Panama, during the construction of the Panama Canal, to American parents.

Some may question whether McCain was legitimately born in the United States. But, I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that having been born at a Naval Air Station, McCain in fact was considered to have been born within the United States -- similar to be being born in an American Embassy.

Regardless, both McCain and Obama have at least one American citizen as a parent, which would render the location of the birth moot. The United States grants citizenship to people who are born within its boundaries, and also those born outside of its boundaries -- provided they are born to a parents who is a citizen.

That of course would bring up the issue of dual-citizenship, which is not within the realm of this entry.

The above is simply the most polite way to view the issue. Unfortunately, it has occurred to me that this has carried well beyond being just an honest mistake.

So, I must ask why.

As much as I want to say this could be a product of die-hard Republicans, who are just sour over losing the White House. I don't think this can be blamed solely on the political system in the country.

I think the root is much deeper. I think, simply put, the issue is racism.

Why is McCain's birth not being questioned? Is it because he is white?

To be blunt, there are still millions of people who have forgotten that the Civil War ended 140-some years ago... and that the Confederates lost. We still have major issues with racism, and that is a shame.

We currently reside in a nation where we still look down on people based on appearance. They are different, and we don't like them. Sad.

Really, I think 'Birthers' are nothing more than white supremacists. People so upset that blacks, hispanics, and other ethnic groups are not being repressed. How sad it is for these ill-minded racists.

I'm betting they are the same people who are pissed to no end about immigration -- both legal and illegal.

You have to wonder how shallow-minded these people are. I would hate to stereotype these people, but they seem to come from a certain culture -- as all racism does. It was once said that racism is taught... which brings us to lineage.

Every person who lives in the great nation has ancestry from some other nation. Look in the mirror, then talk to your family. Where are you from? Someone in your family, somewhere, was not an American citizen.

Then stop to think about religion. Of the major religions, look at the diversity that exists.

Christians have Jesus Christ -- a Jew born of African decent -- and for all intents and purposes your ancestry can be traced back to Noah... who lived where? We call it the Middle East, now.

Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims... all from roughly the same area. In Asia. And you're telling me are going to judge people based on where their relatives are from?

People need to think before they start spouting off about others. Think about who you are. How you got here.

It may sound hypocritical for me to say something like this, but racists -- specifically white supremacists -- are dead wrong. There is absolutely nothing to justify such actions.

As far as I am concerned, the racists and white supremacists... with their misconceptions and wishes to violate the rights of others... need to think of the alternative. They have no right infringe on the rights of any other person in this world.

This nation was founded by immigrants, and has (for the most part) kept its doors open to all who wish pursue freedom -- and do so legally.

Thus, if you do not like something about the United States of America, specifically regarding how people look. Get the hell out.