So, today I went to distric individual speech where I participatated in a area called spontaneous speaking. In case you don't know what that is. You get to draw three topics that deal with current political issues, then you pick one, brainstorm for three minutes, and then mindlessly babble about that topic for as long as you can. The topic that I chose was this: Is the government wasting time by investigating the use of steroids by professional athletes? And since this was an impromptu speech I said the first thing that came to mind. I said no. Of course not. We need to make sure that these people are playing fair because these are role models to our children and need to be held accountable for what they do. This is how I answered (except it was drawn out longer and I backed up my statement) but now that I'm finished I find myself wondering, yes, they do need to be held accountable, and No they shouldn't be cheating by using steroids, but in all honesty is it really the government's place to take measures to making sure these athletes aren't cheating? In some ways would it be better for these children to be looking up to these people, despite ethical issues, so that they can get a taste that even heros need a little help? Is it right that the government is prying into these athlete's lives? What do you think? I'm having random second thoughts.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
While I understand you would say and think of that (especially at the time, I would too) I probably would say (though I am not totally sure) that sports issues should even be mentioned by the government, unless the individual is doing something illegally. I can understand why the government would take action because the drugs are often illegally perscribed, etc, but I would be in favor of them saying nothing beyond the issue of poor Medical procedure... but thats just me, ofcourse they can have opinions in their daily lives... but should it be up to the gov'? I dunno, I don't think so....
First, we should examine the question of jurisdiction. Professional sports (baseball, football, etc) is a multi-billion dollar/year industry. Furthermore, they are responsible for an enormous amount of interstate commerce. As per the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, the Federal Government has jurisdiction.
Now onto the question of whether or not jurisdiction should be exercised. Professional sports (baseball and football specifically) have been granted a limited anti-trust exemption. I am assuming that this anti-trust exemption is premised on said sports not promoting or engaging in illegal activities. Both fraud and large-scale black-market drug use/sale fall under the category of "illegal".
Now, lets divorce this from the sports aspect, and look at it as if it were purely a business. Would you or would you not expect the government to investigate fraud committed by a major company against it's investors, especially if this company had been granted an anti-trust exemption?
My Blog
"We cannot redeem evil, we must combat it." -- Jean Paul Sartre
I personally think that it should be policed by what ever sports agencie is running the sport, be it MLB, NFL, NBA, what have you. If a sport decides it is okay for players to use steriods, I'm okay with it, as long as it's the same rule for everyone involved. If a sport decides not to, I respect that choice because it allows athletes to perform on their natural abilities and demonstrate what the human body can do on its own. Either way, I definately think that it is none of the governement's business. Great post by the way.
I agree that the agencies that run the sports should be held responsible and accountable for the actions of its players. I do think that steriod use among athletes is an issue that needs to be attacked more aggressively by these agencies. However, if these agencies fail to take action, then I think that it is the government's responsibility to step in. Therefore, I think that it is first the agency's responsibility and secondly, if needed, than the government should intervene. But even then, their intervention should be minimal. Once the government sets a precedence and penalizes the sports agencies for failing to deal with the issue, the government should step aside and allow all future similar instances be dealt by the agencies alone.
Not poor thoughts or bad insight into the steroid issue, but several grammar and spelling errors distract the readers from the subject.
I agree with both the positions you present. The athletes are high profile people. Kids look up to them and want to be just like them. And high school steroid use is on the rise.
On the other hand, I dislike the blurring of government and business. MLB is a business, and the players are a commodity. I guess the government regulates other commodities, but it makes me itchy anyway. It's similar to how state governments keep bailing out their major league teams and subsidizing new, bigger, better stadiums.
But now I've given myself another point to ponder...given that state and municipal governments have so much money invested in their teams, maybe the government DOES have a place in regulating the behavior of players. It sort of makes them representatives of their team's state. There should be reparations paid to the states of any player who has been found to be using steroids. (I'm sure there are flaws in this argument, but I haven't taken the time to sort them all out yet).
Interesting topic!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
1] Congress has better things to do. The nation already has a multitude of problems, including a nearly $10 trillion deficit and an unpopular war adding on to said deficit. Trust me, there are others.
2]This isn't the government's problem. Frankly, the National League and American League need to create their own governing body for this type of problem.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Tsukurimashou; tsukurimashou
sate sate nani ga dekiru ka na.
Hai! Dekimashita!
If you can translate that on your own, you have my undying respect.