Tangotiger Blog

Friday, September 12, 2014

Propecia (hair loss retoration drug) banned by WADA

?Eight years ago, hockey fans will remember that one of the very few hockey players to ever fail any kind of drug testing administered by WADA was Jose Theodore, and it was due to Propecia. 

Head Team Physician, Dr. David Mulder, discussed details of the test.

Theodore tested positive for the hair restoration drug, Propecia, which is not an anabolic steroid but does act as a masking agent.  Mulder stated that Theodore has been using the product for "eight to nine years."

"He's been taking it on the advice of a dermatologist," Mulder told the assembled media. "And he has had very good success and he feels it has helped hair growth and prevented further loss and he has taken it with my knowledge."

So, it's a Bayesian drug: because it can be used as a masking agent for steroids, it is presumed to be used in conjunction with steroids.  It's the equivalent of a smoking gun.

Regardless, I have no idea how to feel about this.  Drugs, doctor's notes, etc.  I just found out that my dog was prescribed steroids.  And you all know what I've said about Gibson and Schilling's heroics tied to corticosteroids.  There's no bright line here.  I don't even know if there is a line.

But what I do know is that the only ones who should care are the other players in the union.  This is a workplace safety issue, and let the workers set some reasonable rules.  Having a therapeutic use exemption is a reasonable enough rule.  But it still does NOT involve me as a fan and my morality.  It's more like a pitcher punching a wall with his pitching hand.  Stupid yes, but not morally repugnant.

Friday, June 27, 2014

University suspends its own hockey program for one year amid rape allegations

University of Ottawa.  Since the incident in question involved reportedly at most three ?of the 24 players, the other 21 players feel they are paying for the sins of the perpetrators.  On the other hand, the school adminstrator is setting the tone here. 

Imagine in pro sports if team wins for the prior 30 days are vacated in cases where a player tests positive for PED.  That player would be ostracized by his teammates and vilified by the fans.  But that's only if you consider the issue of PED-usage very serious.  If you only consider it to be like corking a bat, or scuffing a ball, then keeping the punishment player-centric will keep you happy.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Fans continue to not care about PED

Here's Craig, pointing out the Ryan Braun is getting lots of fan support in all-star balloting.  When fans have the choice to vote with their pencils, feet, wallet, or anything of importance to them, they vote overwhelmingly for forgive-and-forget, or just who-cares. 

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Cheating v Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Taken literally, the conduct of cheating is performing an action that is against the written rules. Unsportsmanlike conduct is performing an action that is tolerated by the rules, but not tolerated by the participants.  (Though in some sports, unsportsmanlike conduct is spelled out as a rule.)

For a long time, there were no rules against PED, even though there were rules against scuffing balls and corking bats.  PED tolerance went through a phase, with various drugs classified and treated differently, both by whatever sport or athletic body, and by whatever government in whatever country.  Things like androstenedione is probably a good example of something that was sold over the counter at the same time that it was banned by WADA, to eventually be no longer accessible OTC.

In terms of cheating, it's whatever is in the written rules.  Presumably, if it wasn't written, it would at least rise to the level of unsportsmanlike conduct.  Corking the bat and scuffing the ball for example, if they weren't spelled out as cheating, would at least be considered unsportsmanlike conduct.

So, we have the use of pinetar.  Pinetar is tolerated by the participants, but is clearly spelled out as a rule that if you break is cheating.  But if it were NOT spelled out, no one would care.  It would NOT be unsportsmanlike conduct.

It is an interesting rule, much like the curved hockey stick.  Hockey used to be played with fairly flat blades until someone figured out that if you curve your stick excessively, it adds speed to your shot.  (The more you curve though, the harder to control passing.)  So, they came out with rules to limit the curvature.  But if they never had the rule, no player would think you were behaving in conduct unbecoming a sporting player.  This is why late in Game 2 of the 1993 Stanley Cup playoffs, a coach asking for a stick measurement that led to a penalty which led to a goal which led to Montreal winning that game and eventually the Stanley Cup was more about the unsportsmanlike conduct of the COACH in asking for the measurement than about the player playing with an excessively curved stick.  Why?  Because apparently, all the players do it.  They all tolerate it.  And if not for the rule already there, they'd be more open about it, and no one would clamor to bring it in.

The pine tar with George Brett was like that too.  In reversing the rule, it was about giving the batter a better grip, rather than increasing the performance of the batted ball, though naturally, getting a better grip will give you a greater frequenecy of positive results.  That is, if let's say normally Brett would hit a ball 50% of the time 300 feet and 50% of the time 200 feet, giving a better grip would keep the same distances for each bucket, but alter the frequency to say 60/40.  Overall, you get better results.

The same is true for using a foreign substance to improve the grip.  It may not help the pitch have better action, but it will increase the frequency in which those positive results will occur. 

So, we have a rule that fits under the cheating category, but would otherwise not be considered unsportsmanlike if the rule would be removed.  Virtually all other rules, if removed, would at least be considered unsportsmanlike conduct, and would be quickly brought back into the rulebook as cheating.

If you think in terms of how the participants actually behave, you will find that some actions are tolerated to the point that they don't think it's unsportsmanlike conduct.  And if the participants are fine with it, then maybe we should listen to them.

And the only reason that PED is not tolerated is not because of the enhanced performance, but rather, the perceived negative health e?ffects, as well as it being illegal in some cases.  And a player cannot be put in a position to choose a certain conduct to increase his chance of success if it negatively affects his health, and more importantly, breaks the law.  PED is a workplace safety issue that goes beyond cheating and goes beyond unsportsmanlike conduct.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Players finally agree: PED is a player-v-player issue

?It took a while to get here, but sanity prevailed.  Those most affected by players taking banned or potentially dangerous substances are those who feel their livelihood threatened if they don't join the crowd, or have to put up with the inferences (apples and barrels).

The playoff ban is tremendous.  I'd go even further, as I've proposed in the past, but this is good teeth.

Also note that these tests do deliver false positives.  So, that's why you can't go too crazy in terms of punishments.  Given the sheer number of tests, eventually, someone will be wrongfully implicated.  So while a year-long initial ban would seem reasonable, you need some sort of restraint in cases of wrongful results.

Anyway, as long as the players take the lead, the owners are really there to act as arbiters.  Indeed, we don't even need ownership involved at all.  But since part of the punishment is to withhold wages, that's why ownership is involved.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Anti-Anti-Steroidist

?That is a great line.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Drugs-to-recover-from-injury exemption

I don't know if any of you gentlemen out there have ever given birth? (my guess is no), but what women go through is h-ll.  Whatever drug they want before, during, and after labor, I'm in favor of.  That's because I have no idea what they are going through, but they've figured out that they need it, and that's good enough for me.  (Not that what is good enough for me should even count.  It doesn't actually.  It doesn't directly concern me.)  A family member of mine was going through some extreme pain, and the doctor prescribed codeine for her.  Good enough for me as well.

If an athlete is injured, I'm in favor of giving him whatever is needed so that he can get back to doing his job.  It's just a decision between him and his doctor.

But, this is where I'll draw the line (as if what I think counts, and it doesn't): the drug treatment program is made public, and the player has to be off the drug for a period of thirty days before he can come back.  When player after player is seduced by drugs for purposes of rehab, I can sympathize.  If any of us were there, we'd do the same.  So, let's bring it out in the open, and make it acceptable.

Now I know what you are thinking, that a player can be overprescribed, and that's true.  And I think that's ok, which is why we have a waiting period before he can come back.  And you can even make it that he does not get paid during the thirty days.  (And if 30 is too short, make it 60.)

And any player caught taking PED for non-rehab reason would get a two-year suspension (like in Olympics), or even lifetime (though I'm against lifetime, since the tests are not 100% guarantees, plus Norway and all make more sense).

Monday, July 22, 2013

Players implicitly agree: PED is a workplace safety issue

?As you know, I've never thought of PED as a player v owner issue, but rather a player v player issue.  It's for the players to determine it as a workplace safety issue.  That you don't want clean players to think of having to do PED just because they think they need to do it to keep up with the next guy.  And the MLBPA would defend and fight, not for the clean players, but for those accused of taking PED.  That's because it was an owner v player issue, and if the owner goes after a player, the union has to fight for that player.

But, now we have a situation where Braun cuts a deal, something that Weiner hinted at last week:

“I can tell you, if we have a case where there really is overwhelming evidence, that a player committed a violation of the program, our fight is going to be that they make a deal,” Weiner said without referring to specific players. “We’re not interested in having players with overwhelming evidence that they violated the (drug) program out there. Most of the players aren’t interested in that. We’d like to have a clean program.”

This is something new for the MLBPA to acknowledge, that they actually care about the rest of the members, to make sure they have a safe and legal workplace.  In reality, the players are NOW using Selig and the owners as a conduit to mete out the punishment to their fellow cheating players.  This is great and wonderful news for players who have finally taken control of their environment.

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Spilborghs the beans

?Get more players, let them rest, spread the money around.

***

We had another suggestion.  I don't remember who said it, but it was a great idea: a player would declare before the season if he'll be using PED or not. If he makes the declaration, he forgoes testing, but has to kick back say 25% of his salary for the year.  He doesn't even have to take PED.  He can even say that he won't take PEDs, but as a matter of principle he doesn't believe in testing.  Whatever the reason: he gives up 25%.  (And if 25% is not enough, then make it 50%, or 75%... whatever it is that makes sense.)

On the other hand, if he doesn't declare, but is caught, then he gets a severe punishment (say one year suspension).  And when he comes back, he can only play for league minimum.  Basically, his "clock" is reset as if he's a rookie.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Whistle-blower of biogenesis speaks

A rather comprehensive account of the guy who took down Biogenesis.  It's a fascinating read.?

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Arbitrary lines of PED

A good article over at Deadspin, with Ryan Madson's MLB.com interview in the center.

Wednesday, June 05, 2013

Your PED links of the day

Our old legal buddies from THT have you covered, with Eugene, and Craig.  Comment over on their blogs.?

Friday, May 10, 2013

Schilling takes part of blame for PED issue

Schilling admits:

And I keep going to back to, as a player, this is our fault. We did this. We let this happen. We had a chance to stop it and we didn’t... We had a chance among multiple collective bargaining agreements — and as a former player rep, I’m one of those guys — we could have stopped this, and we didn’t. And I think a lot of it was naiveté, I think there was some ignorance. But I think at the end of the day, it was out of sight, out of mind. And it’s coming back to haunt us.

?

Friday, May 03, 2013

Steroids study from HOF

Neyer reacts to a study (commissioned by the Hall of Fame) on problem areas in an adolescent's life.  And as expected, parents are most worried about alcohol usage and least worried about steroid usage.  And, one worry they have more than steroid usage is eating disorder. The Hall of Fame's conclusion suggests that this is a perception issue, and parents need to be made aware that steroids is a bigger problem than eating disorders.?

Neyer goes after the HOF's shoddy conclusions. I agree with Rob.

Steroids is a niche problem, while alcohol is prevalent throughout.  Steroids is I presume expensive and not-easy to obtain, at least compared to alcohol, which is often free (if you can sneak one past dad) or low cost, and easy to obtain (again, a surrogate will do, unwittingly or not).

Weirdly, tobacco use was not mentioned in the report.  I'd more worry that a kid is going to emulate tobacco usage than steroid usage, especially since most kids are not athletes, and therefore, would not be part of the steroid-tempted crowd.

If the survey was limited to parents of kids who are on a college football team, sure, the numbers would look quite different.

And a parent thinks about their kids' eating habits every single day from the day they are born to the day they die.  That's what parents do.  I'm just shocked it's not even higher.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Former player’s personal and in-depth account of greenies and steroids

A fascinating, riveting, and most importantly, sober account.

Hopefully, this will knock some people off their moral high ground.  Being put in the position that the players were in, where this was normal:

I remember a daytime doubleheader we played in Omaha where the trainer made two pots of coffee: one with greenies and one without. That never seemed wrong to me, and even those who didn’t take them never complained when the trainer labeled them with athletic tape so that no one would get them mixed up.

So that steroids was just one step away:

Steroids weren’t discussed openly in the clubhouse. There was still a stigma about them that kept the talk about them among players under the table and away from coaches, trainers, and player personnel people. Away from the field, they were discussed freely. Players would talk about where they could get them, what so-and-so from another team was taking, what was good and bad for your body, and what specific mixtures of steroids were the best for gaining strength, building stamina, or increasing velocity. Some players were more bold in their admissions, and others would deny use no matter how much their body changed or their power increased.

In that kind of culture, it's not about morality.  It's about survival, and it's about risk/reward.  It's people deciding that they're happy to trade years off their life, and health down the road, to climb that mountain.  As Barry Bonds once noted: ?

We've sacrificed our bodies. It's the way we made our living.

This story was always, and should have remained, a workplace safety issue.  The union should have protected those players who did not want to take the health risk, and legal risk, to keep up with everyone else who was taking those risks.  But somehow, the union decided that this was a bargaining issue, that somehow the owners were on the opposite side, when really, this had nothing to do with owners v players.  This was a players v players issue.

The media then got involved.  As Michael Caine once said about the paparazzi: "We had a great thing going, and then the paparazzi messed it all up."  Really, this was not an issue for the media to get involved.  It should have been an internal matter, and Rick Helling's voice should have been the loudest.  But the players simply were too myopic.

In retrospect, the media's initial efforts at least made everyone think.  If the players wouldn't handle the matter internally, then the media at least exposed them.  But after that?  Wow, did it turn into a morality play, a witchhunt.  Instead of the sober account like Eric Knott just provided us, it was all about finding out who did and who didn't.  It was the teenage bathroom wall run rampant.  And then the federal government gets involved?  Talk about the whole thing spinning out of control.

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

PED is a workplace safety issue

Matt captures my feelings on the matter.  PED creates an entry barrier, one that may require others to use if they want to enter.  But with the health risks, perceived or real, with PED, this now becomes a health concern, a workplace safety issue.

Here's a crazy idea: what if you allow players to use PED, but they must register themselves as PED users.  Much like players get TUE (therapeutic-use exemption), they get a similar tag for PED.  Except in this case, the registration is made public.  You can even provide some disincentive, say that the player must sit out one month a year (unpaid).  But any unregistered player who tests positive gets an immediate two-year ban.  He is then reinstated as a registered PED user, even if he promises to no longer use PED. And if one month is not enough, then make it a two-month unpaid sit-out.

Crazy?  Or crazy enough to work?

?

Monday, January 28, 2013

Bonds/Clemens v Lance Armstrong

A wonderful article that asks alot of questions, gives you many considerations, as the author tries to determine if he's a hypocrite or not.  It's a sane and sober basis for discussion, one that is short on histrionics and large on coherent arguments.  It asks the reader to come up with more questions, and not come up with any summary opinion yet.  I think it's such a sensational piece that the author has put the reader in a position to take both sides of the same issue.

In politics, you take one side by focusing on the positives of the position you have CHOSEN, and highlighting the negatives of the opposing side.?  This article is the antithesis of politics.  The author doesn't ask you to choose sides first, and then defend it like a fool (or politician... same thing).  The author wants you to think, ask questions, and try to find your answers, which undoubtedly will actually be even more questions.

Just a terrific piece.