Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Required 'Roiding

So . . . yesterday the University of Waterloo's football team was banned from competion for one year because nine of the players on the team failed drug tests. That's right, performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in Canadian university football. So if any of you sports fans out there still think that there are clean athletes in any competition, I say to you: Canadian university football.

*** Important Note: I name several athletes in this posting. Unless stated otherwise, I have no direct proof that they or anyone else cheated, broke the rules, used PEDs, or otherwise compromised competition. I am making no direct accusations to that end. Here endeth the disclaimer.

Our capacity for denial on this issue is immense. A couple of weeks ago Floyd Landis (cyclist, Tour de France winner who was stripped of his title for doping) finally came clean., He admitted cheating, and claimed that others, including Lance Armstrong, also broke the rules. The reaction was swift - sure that cretin Landis did it, but not our Lance! Where's the proof?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

We watch in wonder as athletes increasingly perform feats that amaze, inspire, and astound us. Yet in most other endeavours if someone was so successful, so far beyond what had come before, wouldn't we have at least a modicum of doubt? Usain Bolt breaks the world record by a huge margin, and no one utters the slightest expression of disbelief that he did it legally, despite the long history of Jamaican runners and steroids (and Jamaica is not the only such country - I'm looking at you, Dominican baseball players and cyclists from any country).

The list goes on and on: Michael Phelps, LeBron James, Stephen Strasburg. We want to believe so badly that these athletes are legit that we don't even allow ourselves the ability to question. Shouldn't it be the norm by now (at least in some sports, like baseball), where the assumption is that the player is dirty until proven otherwise? A few years ago I read an article about an up-and-coming baseball player that was hitting them out of the park like no one since Mark McGwire. Yet the article never mentioned steroids. You're comparing a player to McGwire, one of the most egregious juicers ever to play the game, and the word steroids never appears? Come on!

(I know that journalists and newspapers can't cast aspersions without proof, but it goes to show you how much we need heroes that a profile was done in the first place)

Well, if we don't ask the questions we won't be bothered by the answers. But I leave you with this: if nine players on a Canadian university football team (players who most likely will never sniff the professional leagues, even the CFL) that went 3-5 on its season were users, what does that say about athletes who are actually successful? The rewards far outweigh the costs to them. They have access to better, less detectable drugs. The leagues are not motivated to really hunt down the users because they don't want to know what's going on. So it is up to the fans to ask.

Ask questions like:

1. An Oakville doctor was caught with a bag full of PEDs and has a client list that includes Tiger Woods, one of the most successful golfers in history. Good thing he had that sex scandal to distract us from this.

2. Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics is old (by NBA standards) and had a knee injury last year that a lot of people thought ended his career. He's now back, and is a top performer on a team that might win the NBA finals tonight. Yay!

3. Ken Griffey Jr. retired recently, and he is the poster child for "players who were robbed of a greater legacy by the steroid era." Um . . . how do we know he didn't use steroids?

I'm not saying that I know that every athlete is a filthy, cheating liar; I'm just willing to wonder. Moralizing about whether PEDs should be banned or not is the topic for a different post. All I'm saying here is to doubt.

Or, if you prefer, you can choose to believe that only losing Canadian football players use steroids, but those world-class athletes, they're clean.

2 comments:

  1. A couple of interesting notes on the Waterloo football story:
    - Apparently the CFL has absolutely no PED policy right now (although they are supposedly working on one). So, there is even less incentive for high-end Canadian university players not to use, because they just need to get through their university careers without getting caught and then they are home free!
    - Apparently there were plans to test the Wilfrid Laurier football team as well (given that they are located down the street from UW and would have had easy access to the same dealer), except that the testers were mis-informed about where the team would be the day they showed up. As I understand it, the players were practising in the stadium and the testers showed up at the athletic office. So, to be clear, the testers showed up on campus, didn't think to check the football stadium, then just gave up and never came back.
    There may be more to that story (and it really isn't a commentary on your post) but I just thought it was interesting...

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is interesting - thanks!

    It reminds me of the U.S. government's policy on Mad Cow disease. They just don't test for it. Because they don't want to find it. Makes sense, no?

    ReplyDelete