Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
May 24, 2005
McCain Strikes Again

John McCain wants to create a federal bureaucracy to handle drug testing.

"It's obvious that a vital component of this whole business is who does the testing," McCain said. "If it's not USADA, then clearly it has to be an organization that is entirely credible. And USADA seems to me to be a likely candidate for that."

He was the only senator present for most of Tuesday's Commerce Committee hearing on a bill that would authorize funding for USADA, starting at $9.5 million in 2006 and rising to $11.1 million in 2010.

This is a waste of tax payer dollars. Does anyone think that there is really a majority of voters who want to spend money cleaning up professional sports? Let the leagues take care of this themselves. If the fans don't like what's happening, they'll stay away.


Posted by David Pinto at 04:31 PM | Cheating | TrackBack (1)
Comments

Seems to me that the new self-imposed restrictions are working. Why do I get the feeling that it would be easier to get around government-mandated testing standards and tests?

Posted by: Benjamin Kabak at May 24, 2005 04:49 PM

I don't think the self-imposed restrictions would seem to be working without the real threat of the government stepping in. I'm not much for gov't bureaucracy, but the burden is on the professional sports to prove that they can handle steroids at this point; especially given there failures so far.

Posted by: Stan at May 24, 2005 06:02 PM

The new testing is simply a PR move. It is catching guys that either aren't paying attention to the precursor OTC drugs that weren't banned at the time or is catching guys that are too far down the food chain to take anything other than DECA.

THG is already old news in the steroid community. I'm sure a newer designer steroid has already taken its place and the only reason a test for THG is around is because a track coach turned in a vial. HGH is banned but not tested for nor is there even a truly reliable test available for it. Essientially MLB does not have an effective test in place for anything that someone like Barry Bonds would take.

Sadly, the only success of the steroid testing program is from a public relations stand point.

Posted by: Jason Rogers at May 24, 2005 07:07 PM

taxpayers who don't want to always end up paying for stadiums too.

Posted by: andy at May 25, 2005 01:35 AM

The politicians always know whats best for us.

Signed,

The Unwashed Mass

Posted by: Ed Zipper at May 25, 2005 03:08 AM

I think the worst part of it is the lack of care for false positives. 2 Years? I wouldn't want to be an immigrating player who isn't told what products on the shelves have illegal ingredients.

And hey, won't this cause some jobs to be lost?

Posted by: Adam B. at May 25, 2005 04:42 AM

Yes, by all means, the federal government isn't big enough, let's have another federal agency. And let's just do away with the Fourth Amendment altogether.

Posted by: RobertJ at May 25, 2005 08:21 AM

it is a self-serving witch hunt made by sanctimonious bureacrats... they do not see the finality of their actions with a two year suspension, especially when there will be much debate about the actual test results with over the counter supplements causing positive tests.. the NFL has a good plan that is what the other leagues should adopt... how should a man be forced to lose his career for committing a misdemeanor crime... Ray Lewis was involved with a murder and he is still playing in the NFL, Ahman Green has beaten his wife, Michael Vick is passing out herpes to the line to the left, but it is more poular to jump on the Steroids bandwagon. I do not like steroids either but steps have been made to eradicate the problem, leave it alone!

Posted by: rex at May 25, 2005 10:44 AM

I still don't understand why the government has a interest in whether professional athletes, as opposed to the public in general, takes steriods. It shouldn't matter whether the owners or government are the more effective in policing compliance, if the fans want a clean game, they will get one. If they don't, they won't.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at June 2, 2005 11:30 AM

Well I guess I see the social conservatism in this idea, but I'm certainly missing the small-government conservatism and the states-rights conservatism. When do we get small-government conservatives who repeal bad laws? Doesn't have to be on this issue. Pick another one. Or how about a pass one repeal two rule for a while?

Yours,
Wince

Posted by: Wince and Nod at June 2, 2005 03:21 PM

The great threat is that this will not stop with just the pros. Various federal testing bills that have been tossed around often included amateur sports, often including school athletics.

I belive a league at any level can set its own rules as it chooses. But when government comes in to force testing. Suddenly an entire class of citizens find their rights against unreasonable searches violated, without even the minimal standard of "probable cause"...

How little a jump is it from requiring federal drug testing for athletes to mandatory drug testing for everyone? Not so big a jump when they'll find another excuse to test another broad group, and another...

Now you may say only the guilty can fear such testing. You'd be wrong. Errors in testing, or bureaucratic snafus can put innocent people in jeopardy. Corruption at any point in the testing scheme can give individuals the ability to put innocents into the crosshairs of the law.

There are reasons why we put limits on searches and require subpeonas and warrants in order to have courts supervise police powers. It's not just a "game" to help get the guilty off.

Posted by: Shawn Levasseur at June 2, 2005 04:37 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?