Mickey Mantle: Cheater

At least the PEDs give the user something to think long and hard about before he tries them. Give the user at least grudging respect for taking a risk, not completely unlike the receiver who chooses to endanger himself by going over the middle for balls because he knows others won't dare do it and thus he becomes a more valuable player. Or the entrepreneur who risks his financial health and well-being on a business idea. Heck, isn't driving cars at 200 mph a risk to your health? Didn't Dale Earnhardt "force" you into taking some risks if you wanted to beat him? Want to win a gold in gymnastics? Better come up with a spectacular (and dangerous) flip. Don't we, as a rule in this country, REWARD and ENCOURAGE risk-taking?

Average weight for an NFL offensive lineman is about 315. Is that the weight their bodies are naturally meant to carry? Or are they forced to carry about 40-50 extra pounds above their optimal weight to compete for a job?

Corked bats? "Hey, there is ZERO downside to doing this, so why the hell not?"

I'm supposed to give more respect to THAT?

 

In Bobby Richardson's book he wrote that he used a 36-inch bat. Richardson's 5-9. I thought that was pretty remarkable he would use that large of a bat.

 

A Hobson's choice has only one option.

 

And I would think a user of PEDs can choose to attempt to use them wisely (to limit any long-term effects as much as possible) just as he can choose to abuse them.

Keep your health and have a great career is an option, too.

 

PED users also force their colleagues into a choice that may involve breaking the law and facing criminal liability.

 

Simply driving a car forces me into a choice that involves breaking the law or endangering myself and others by driving at the posted limit.

"It's the law" is an incredibly flimsy excuse for actions that affect no one but the user. 95% of us "break the law" every day.

 

Do you think the penalty for drug possession might be stiffer than the penalty for speeding?

 

So what? Now you're arguing degrees.

"Well, this one isn't so bad . . . but that one is much worse."

The law means something, or it doesn't.

A steroid never killed a person to whom it wasn't injected. Speeding accounts for most accidents. It SHOULD carry harsher punishments, because it endangers others.

How many athletes have been criminally prosecuted for possessing steroids? Seems they tend to get charged for LYING about them more than actually possessing them.

 

And it's worth noting that, even in that Hooton "exception", the evidence is conspicuously lacking. That was a case where a father decided to blame his son's suicide on steroids (and turn himself into an anti-steroid crusader) despite the facts that 1) the kid had for longer been on the anti-depressant Lexapro (which has been linked to suicide) related to other emotional issues; and 2) he apparently had quit using steroids well before his death.

There's no actual proof linking steroids to Hooton's suicide, that was a conclusion drawn from pure speculation. It could've easily instead been connected to the anti-depressants or other emotional issues that lead to teen suicide every day. Nobody but the kid knows the actual reason.

 

And Whitman, you damn well know as a lawyer how ginned up drug laws are and how they all but violate the Constitution in several ways and how subject they are to capriciousness and corruption and how the jailing of tens of thousands of users with draconian sentences allows rapists and murderers to go free sooner.

So to use the severity of drug laws as a justification for anything is kinda hollow.

 

Whether or not the drug laws are overly harsh, one remains subject to them if one violates them. Hence, a PED user forces his colleagues to choose between the risk of criminal liability and the risk of failing at his job. The fairness or unfairness of the laws are immaterial under this analysis.

 

How does one player using force another player to choose whether to use? Were pitchers that afraid of a juicing Neifi Perez?