[Winstonm]

On the same day that Alex Rodriquez started once again for the New York Yankees, Dave Bliss was hired as a college basketball coach.

Ain't 4th and 5th chances great?

[billw55]

Well, as long as the information is available, I say let the buyer beware.

[mikeh]

Any reason to believe that these issues are unique to 'America'?

Seems to me that self-interest/money are powerful factors in every culture. Hypocrisy is a human trait, not an American trait.

[mgoetze]

I have no idea who Dave Bliss is but why on earth should Alex Rodriguez not be allowed to play baseball anymore?

[cherdano]

mgoetze, on 2015-April-07, 18:26, said:

I have no idea who Dave Bliss is but why on earth should Alex Rodriguez not be allowed to play baseball anymore?

In Europe, cyclists convicted of doping more than once would never be allowed back in a race. Right?

[mgoetze]

cherdano, on 2015-April-08, 02:53, said:

In Europe, cyclists convicted of doping more than once would never be allowed back in a race. Right?

Probably not (I don't really care about cycling), but I don't see why that should matter. They have their regulations, baseball has its regulations. Rodriguez actually received a higher punishment than foreseen in baseball's regulations already. He served his time and if he still wants to play baseball after that, good for him. Oh and it's not like the Yankees were misled into thinking he was some innocent Angel at the time they gave him a 10-year contract.

I know that nuanced views on this subject are not exactly popular, but it seems to me that PEDs in cycling clearly enhance peak performance, whereas in baseball the increase in peak performance is marginal. Yes, you might turn some fraction of your doubles into home runs, but if you weren't hitting those doubles in the first place, PEDs won't help you to do so. The main use of PEDs in baseball is for dealing with injuries and longevity. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be allowed (or disallowed), but it does mean that blindly copying regulations from cycling makes no sense, and at least on my personal moral scale makes a difference between clearly "cheating" on the one hand and understandable desire to prolong their career on the other hand.

[billw55]

cherdano, on 2015-April-08, 02:53, said:

In Europe, cyclists convicted of doping more than once would never be allowed back in a race. Right?

I also know little about cycling, but since you say so, I will take your word for it.

I consider this a matter of marketing. Whatever organizations govern cycling, have decided that doping is bad publicity and will cost them money (long term, short term, or maybe both). MLB has decided on its policies, also based on expectations of marketability. Enhanced performance was proven to be very profitable over a substantial period.

When fans get serious about not supporting a sport with PED problems, that is when the sport itself gets serious. It's all about the sugar.

[Cyberyeti]

There is an ongoing case in this country which is throwing this sort of thing into focus.

A Welsh soccer international Ched Evans was found guilty of rape in what was a pretty interesting legal case in that the facts were pretty much agreed, but whether it was rape wasn't clear. He has protested his innocence throughout. Now any time a club expresses any interest in signing him (he came out of jail on licence half way thorugh a 5 year sentence), a massive rentamob most of whom have never been to a match in their lives creates a huge storm of outrage, death threats against directors of the club involved etc. His case is now being reviewed by the body that looks at miscarriages of justice.

This is the first time it's really happened over here, there have been several footballers who've caused death through drink-driving and they've basically been able to get on with their careers on leaving prison. The pro footballers union insist he's served his time and he should be able to pursue his career.

[mgoetze]

Speaking of rape, the fact that Josh Lueke still has a professional baseball career is clearly more outrageous than the fact that Alex Rodriguez still has a professional baseball career.

[billw55]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-April-08, 07:11, said:

The pro footballers union insist he's served his time and he should be able to pursue his career.

True enough. Although, that does not obligate any club to hire him, or mean that people may not protest if one does. At least, not in USA - perhaps the law over there is different in these respects.

Harassment and death threats are crimes in their own right, and should be prosecuted as such.

[blackshoe]

There was once a legal tradition, if not a basic principle, that once one has paid one's "debt to society" one is free to resume existence as a free citizen. It seems that idea has gone the way of the dodo and we are rapidly headed back towards "the sins of the fathers, even unto the nth generation". Or at least, "he did it once, he'll do it again, and again, and …"

[barmar]

Sports figures are often held up as role models. While you might argue that this is an unreasonable attitude, it is what it is. Just because someone has served their time in prison, it doesn't mean the character flaw that got them sent there in the first place has cleared up.

Sports and entertainment are not like most other occupations. They're not just doing a job and we should let them get on with it as long as they're competent. No one cares if the guy delivering their mail or picking up garbage has personality disorders. But sports figures are in the public eye, they're cheered on, and they earn exhorbitant salaries as a result. They get their picture on Wheaties boxes, and kids aspire to be like them. While no one expects them to be perfect, we shouldn't feel good cheering for people who have committed heinous crimes.

Paying your debt to society doesn't have to mean that we forget what you're like.

[blackshoe]

There's a difference between "we haven't forgotten what you did" and "so we're going to persecute you for it for the rest of your life".

[mikeh]

mgoetze, on 2015-April-08, 03:40, said:

I know that nuanced views on this subject are not exactly popular, but it seems to me that PEDs in cycling clearly enhance peak performance, whereas in baseball the increase in peak performance is marginal. Yes, you might turn some fraction of your doubles into home runs, but if you weren't hitting those doubles in the first place, PEDs won't help you to do so. The main use of PEDs in baseball is for dealing with injuries and longevity. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be allowed (or disallowed), but it does mean that blindly copying regulations from cycling makes no sense, and at least on my personal moral scale makes a difference between clearly "cheating" on the one hand and understandable desire to prolong their career on the other hand.

While I acknowledge that PEDs are often used to help recovery from injury, the reality is that most athletes at the pro level are very close to each other in abilities, even tho we, as fans, see a vast difference between say the no. 1 athlete in a sport and the no. 50.

The same is true in bridge: the best half dozen players seem like they are much better than say the players who would be 100th or so, but compared to most of us, if we played a long match against them, we'd be crushed as badly and consistently by a team made up of nos. 97-100 as by a team made up of nos. 1-4.

At all levels, when our competition is actually close to us in those attributes that make for a good player, even a marginal gain may make a tremendous difference. Take a look at the home run hitters such as Bonds, Canseco, Sosa and so on.

PEDs can help you hit more doubles. A hit that might have been a single now goes to the fence. A hit that may have been a fly ball is now a home run.

These guys cheated. Bonds may have told himself that he was merely helping his body heal (tho my guess would be that he knew exactly what he was doing, and it wasn't primarily to heal), but when it came to signing a new contract, or an endorsement, he took full advantage of being the best home run hitter in the game, which was due to the drugs he was taking....drugs he knew to be illegal.

Rodriguez seems to be no better than Bonds. He is a cheat. He cheated to make money and to enjoy the glow of fame, or at least that seems to me to be the most plausible explanation.

He's back because of money.....his desire for more and the desire of management to make more off of him. Morality doesn't enjoy much shelf space in professional sports.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-08, 09:31, said:

There was once a legal tradition, if not a basic principle, that once one has paid one's "debt to society" one is free to resume existence as a free citizen. It seems that idea has gone the way of the dodo and we are rapidly headed back towards "the sins of the fathers, even unto the nth generation". Or at least, "he did it once, he'll do it again, and again, and …"

That is an admirable tradition, but it isn't one that is very popular in the land of the brave and the home of the (self-proclaimed) free. Most jurisdictions in the US deny convicted felons, who have completed their sentences, the right to vote.

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2015-April-08, 10:53, said:

These guys cheated. Bonds may have told himself that he was merely helping his body heal (tho my guess would be that he knew exactly what he was doing, and it wasn't primarily to heal), but when it came to signing a new contract, or an endorsement, he took full advantage of being the best home run hitter in the game, which was due to the drugs he was taking....drugs he knew to be illegal.

My understanding is that, for a nontrivial period, this was not actually prohibited by MLB, and that for at least some substances used by some players, not against the law either.

And, no way I am buying the fraudulent salary negotiation argument. Ownership and management knew perfectly well what was going on, and quietly approved.

[aguahombre]

mikeh, on 2015-April-07, 14:44, said:

Hypocrisy is a human trait, not an American trait.

Actually it is trait of both mutually exclusive groups.

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2015-April-08, 10:58, said:

That is an admirable tradition, but it isn't one that is very popular in the land of the brave and the home of the (self-proclaimed) free. Most jurisdictions in the US deny convicted felons, who have completed their sentences, the right to vote.

Not to mention the permanent and public sex offender registry.

[blackshoe]

"We have met the enemy, and they is us" -- Pogo Possum.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-08, 10:45, said:

There's a difference between "we haven't forgotten what you did" and "so we're going to persecute you for it for the rest of your life".

There is also a difference between telling a convicted child molester "I will let you make a living" and "you can go back to your life as a pediatrician".