THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Not sure where you’re going with this other than the mild “shock” value of linking Gibson to steroid use (about which I have no evidence or opinion). Cortisone is a corticosteriod; corticosteroids as a class aren’t related to testosterone, and not subject to the Controlled Substances Act or MLB’s drug policy. The steroids used by athletes are anabolic androgenic steroids, which ARE related to testosterone, subject to the CSA, and part of MLB’s drug policy.

You might as well have called Gibson a drug user; it would be just as accurate - we know that he certainly took plenty of legal, prescribed painkillers, and probably over-the-counter remedies as well.

The point of whether it is part of MLB’s drug policy is really irrelevant for my purposes.  Androstenedione was legal at one time by FDA and MLB, though the WADA had it banned.  Cortisone is banned by WADA.  (Though Sudafed would be as well.) If you want to discuss the qualification of what’s a PED or not, I’d stick with WADA, not MLB.

So, the real question is why is cortisone part of the WADA banned list.  Is it simply because it is part of the steroid family, and therefore, regardless if it has been proven to have PED effect or not, it’s banned?

If only this article would get more play and followup on the issue in a scientific way.  Whenever we hear about the “horrors” of steroids, HGH, or pick your favorite PED, 9 times out of 10 the problem is due not to use, but abuse of the drug.  Sure, someone has medical problems because they abused a drug.  You’ll have problems if you take too many aspirin. 

I would love to RealSports on HBO revisit the piece that Armen Katejan (sp?) did a couple of years ago on the effects of steroids.  He interviewed Clapp and several others.  The result of the piece was that there is strong anecdoctal evidence that steroids taken at the proper level as part of a health regimen can have good benefits with little to no side effects.  To paraphrase the above article, I wish someone would have the guts to do the necessary research on the long term effects of “proper” PED use.

http://www.imt.ie/mims/2012/01/anti-doping-2012-guide-for-prescribers.html

S9 Glucocorticosteroids are prohibited and require a TUE when used orally, rectally, or by intravenous or by intramuscular injection. Glucocorticosteroids administered by all other routes do not require a TUE.

Glucocorticosteroids are monitored out-of-competition only by WADA in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport as part of its Monitoring Programme.

So, it seems that the Gibson-drug is fine only if applied as a cream.

Which of course tells us that, without requiring people to pee and give blood after every game, we’ll never know who took what, let alone whose performance was enhanced by what.  And no one can ever prove themselves not guilty even if their performance is a statistical outlier.  So we should just stop killing each other over this stuff.

why is cortisone part of the WADA banned list.

It looks like there is a history of GCS being abused and utilized as a PED in specific sports, especially cycling.  The drug was monitored before it was eventually banned in competition.  So apparently the monitoring program showed that it was being used way more than medically justified.  However it’s still allowed (but monitored) during out-of-competition testing.

GCS is used legitimately to treat severe asthma which is why there is still an exemption for in-competition use.  And even so, there is concern that there are too many exemptions: 1317 in Athens 2004 (couldn’t find the # for Beijing).  However, at least part of that high figure seems to be explained by aquatic athletes, who appear to be disproportionally susceptible to asthma because of the high exposure to chlorine they endure during training.

http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10004:asthma-in-aquatic-athletes&catid=125:sports-medicine&Itemid=138
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Sport/Ban-on-cortisone-a-giant-headache-for-AOC/2005/05/19/1116361677991.html

=========

#3: Please let us know when there are medical studies that directly link a little too much aspirin to:
* premature coronary artery disease
* sterility and other sexual and urinary side effects
* hypomania in 4 out of the 5 studies attempted
* addiction-like behavior in animal studies (consistent with anectdotal observations in humans)

Cortisone only has a “performance-enhancing” effect in the sense that it can reduce pain/inflammation to allow someone to play, but a cortisone shot won’t help a baseball player become unnaturally better/stronger.

It’s actually a lot closer to the legal (when properly prescribed) uses of HGH than anabolic steroids. I’m still not sure why properly administered HGH to help an athlete recover from an injury isn’t permitted (especially since every study I’ve seen suggests that HGH doesn’t actually help performance, just health/ability to perform).

There are value judgments involved in all of this:

Gibson is injured and would recover with rest; but he recovers faster with cortisone.

Player B is fatigued and would recover with rest; but he can play at what someone thinks is his normal level of play with cortisone or a steroid or HGH.

Player C totally stinks, but he becomes a just-above replacement level player with a steroid or HGH.

Shane Monahan is a below-replacement level player who does not improve from steroids.

Barry Bonds is among the greatest players ever, but he becomes the greatest player ever with the cream and the clear.

There is no absolute that says which of these is good and which is bad; you apply your own judgment to it.  If the drug is banned, you can say they’re all terrible, but as the prior comments indicate, you can say other things, too.  If there were a drug that allowed teams to go back to a four-man rotation with no longterm effect on the pitcher’s arms, what would you think?  Some could say that was the equivalent of the Player B scenario, and some would say it was the equivalent of the Bonds scenario.  But I would argue you’re bringing a value judgment to your conclusion, it is not a priori.  Today, we’re used to five man rotations, but 40 years ago it would have been thought of as “normal level of play.”

#8: As a society we’ve decided that many of these drugs are too dangerous to be used without a doctor’s supervision.

There is something deeply inappropriate for anyone to be put in a position where they are coerced to take these drugs for medically inappropriate reasons just to keep up with their peers in their occupation.

No doubt there will be gray areas when it comes to deciding what is “medically appropriate.” I don’t see any fair way to handle those gray areas other than for medical experts to drive the decision making process.  And when it comes to competitive occupations, like sports, the same set of medical decisions ought to apply uniformly to everyone.

If an athlete illicitly circumvents such medical decisions to get ahead of his/her peers, I contend that is unambiguously and absolutely wrong.

#9:  I respect your contention that it is “unambiguously and absolutely wrong”, but so what?  Whose actions are you referring to?  Those who were caught or admitted it?  Those named in the Mitchell Report (which wouldn’t come close to the rules of evidence and was not subject to rebuttal)?  What about those who weren’t caught or named?  Do you know who they are or what they did?  Of course not.  What about those who are suspected, but in fact did not use or abuse?  Isn’t it unambiguously and absolutely wrong for them to suffer, even to suffer moral outrage, when it is effectively impossible to prove innocence for not taking a drug a decade ago? 

And of course it’s the owners who benefited more than the players.  I’ve seen comments (not yours) that the players who didn’t use are guilty of not insisting on earlier testing and thus should be lumped with the users.  The owners, though, were the ones who got the ticket money and TV money from the McGwire-Sosa chase, the Bonds chase and everything else.  If they really cared they could have insisted that testing was a non-negotiable item; instead, they negotiated it away for a pot of lentils.  I have a friend who won’t attend or watch a professional sporting event because he doesn’t want to support anyone involved.  Short of that, where do you draw the line, and why?

#10: I was writing in general terms about the ethical landscape.

If we’re shifting to the topic of what should happen to someone’s reputation when facts about possibly wrongdoing are in controversy, that’s a whole separate can of worms.

On one level, I think each of us is capable of forming our own opinion.  Just like many people form opinions that affect the reputations of people like O.J. or Caylee Anthony for example.

When it comes to professional honors like the HOF, I’ve stated in other threads that a certain standard of evidence ought to be expected.  Not a courtroom-level standard but probably a threshold that’s consistent with what is routinely expected in serious journalism and for serious historical research.

============

And of course it’s the owners who benefited more than the players.

How did you determine that?  And why is it even relevant?

I don’t see how you can say the above and simultaneously claim:

Do you know who they are or what they did?  Of course not.

What would Jose Canseco (for example) have earned in his career without PEDs?  Would he have even had a career?  How many other players gained fame and fortune that they never would have earned without PEDs?

Furthermore, it’s a fallacy to equate the lack of a collectively bargained testing protocol with tacit approval to use prohibited drugs.  Does the 4th amendment mean that we tacitly approve the trafficking of stolen goods?

As misguided as the MLBPA’s stance may have been, they did have very legitimate privacy concerns that deserved to be discussed.

Of course the primary victims were not owners, but MLBPA members and baseball players who never became MLBPA members because of the conduct of their peers.

"I contend that is unambiguously and absolutely wrong.”

But the participants themselves do NOT agree.  They did nothing about their own workplace safety conditions, even though it was in their power to do so.

It’s THEIR livelihood, it’s their environment, it’s all on them.  It has nothing at all to do with us.

WWF/WWE, Hollywood, baseball… scripted or not, ad-lib or not, human or not, it’s not for us to decide.  They set the conditions, and we are nothing but viewers.  We are not the ones who decide on the value system.  We pay with our wallets, and that’s that the extent of our outrage.  This is not our life.

It’s not like we have any moral outrage with NFL players on steroids.  It’s almost expected that they are, or at least, we don’t bat an eyelash.  We accept their 4-game punishments or whatever, and then we move on.  It’s like the emery board kind of cheating in baseball, or even intentionally hitting a batter (which should cause more outrage than a player PEDing himself).

They are punished if caught, and we move on.

We basically ask them to take on the risk for our enjoyment.

For some reason, virginal baseball is “different”.  It’s like your first love cheating on you.

But the participants themselves do NOT agree.

The participants do not have the standing to overrule what our society has already decided applies to everyone.

Can a factory union decide to agree to higher pay in exchange for agreeing to disregard safety regulations that are codified into law?

Can a factory union decide to agree to allow a workplace that discriminates against certain people?  Say pregnant women?  Even when the number of union members in that category are already artificially suppressed by the discrimination they are “agreeing” to?

Your analogies don’t apply in the least.

For example: assumed risk.  We don’t tolerate fighting in the real world, but we do in hockey, boxing, and other sports.

We don’t care much about PED in football, and we certainly don’t care at all in WWE/WWF. 

We don’t care about drug use by rock stars.

There’s a ton of things we simply don’t care about, regardless of any state or federal law, or whatever country you happen to be talking about.

The reality is that “virgin baseball” is treated as some possession, and the ballplayers are only temporary and highly paid trustees of a game that we “own”.  They do our bidding, and we’ll bury out heads in the sand, as long as everyone else does so as well.

Assumed risks are inherent to the rules of the sport and begin and end when you step on or off the field of play.

Sorry, but engaging, off the field, in black market transactions that often carry serious criminal consequences, long term health risks and limit one’s ability to procreate is not an “assumed risk” that I can find implied in the rules of baseball.

Even the real examples of assumed risk that you cite (e.g. boxing, hockey) are not boundless.  Boxing is heavily regulated.  Hockey players have been prosecuted for egregious actions on the ice.

AFAIK, WWF claims to drug test its employees.

I know next to nothing about the music industry.  I’m guessing that many rock stars work for themselves.  And I’m not sure competition between musicians is zero-sum in nature like it is in sports.  But regardless, if an entity that employs hundreds of musicians fosters an environment that effectively discriminates against those who would like to refrain from using banned PEDs, then that would be “wrong.” Even if the public doesn’t care.
I don’t mean “wrong” in the sense that people should take to the streets in protest.  In the greater scheme of evil in the world it’s relatively insignificant.  But then again we could say the same about sports in the general scheme of things.

I agree that there is no such thing as “virgin baseball.” Fans have every right to vent and express their opinions.  But from a fan’s perspective there was much more to complain about in the wake of 1919.

Good post, thanks.