The Scooting Scholar

Stop Labeling A-Rod a Cheater

That’s right, you read the title correctly. It is not a misprint nor is it a ploy to get you to read further along only to see me backtrack from my original thesis. When I say we should stop labeling A-Rod a cheater, I mean it. The critic Kenneth Burke tells us titles or names are used to “identify a person or cause with whatever kinds of things will…call forth the desired response.” And we select these titles in accordance with our own biases and opinions (Rhetoric of Motives, 86). Lawbreaker yes. But cheater?

If for some reason you really have no inkling as to what I am speaking, let me clue you in. Earlier this month, New York Yankees third baseman, Alex Rodriguez was exposed for having tested positive for steroid use during the 2003 baseball season. Rodriguez further admitted to using banned substances in the 2001 and 2002 seasons as well. A most humiliating situation to be in for sure and it likely makes his enshrinement into baseball’s Hall of Fame a near impossibility precisely because he has been labeled a cheater.

I have no problems with identifying Rodriguez a lawbreaker. He took drugs in an illegal fashion. In this case Rodriguez injected himself with drugs for which he had no prescription. He knew it was wrong yet he did so anyway. But breaking the law is a separate issue from cheating. Therefore it needs to be dealt with appropriately.

If Rodriguez is a cheater as so many are quick to label him, whom is he cheating? It certainly was not the sport of baseball. For starters, I have a difficult time believing players as well as owners were not aware of who was and who was not injecting. As a player, if you knew and or believed your opponent was gaining some sort of unfair advantage over you, why wouldn’t you blow the whistle? True, most of us aren’t that brave (I know I certainly am not), but you mean to tell me out of over 750 major league players, not one was man enough to come forward, even anonymously? Yes, Jose Canseco wrote a tell-all book earlier this decade, but he did not do so until after his career was finished.

You also can’t convince me Rodriguez cheated the fans either. Why because he had high power numbers? Yet isn’t that what most fans want to see? We want to see the big hitters rip the tar out of the ball. Manufacturing runs may be great fundamental baseball, but it’s not considered exciting baseball to most. So to automatically assume a player’s power number were what they were due to steroids is a specious argument at best. Remember, we are talking about major league baseball, not Sunday afternoon softball in the park. There are numerous factors that contribute to a hitter’s productivity, such as where he hits in the batting order. Who hits in front of you or behind you can have a great deal of effect on your overall offensive productivity.

Where you play also contributes. The trend in the past decade or so of newly built ballparks has been stadiums that favor hitters over pitchers. Examples include shorter outfield dimensions (more homeruns) and less foul territory (more chances for a batter to put a ball in play). Also keep in mind major league baseball expand by four teams between 1993 and 1998. That’s 40 pitchers who would have been jobless otherwise. That’s forty pitchers (not to mention the other position players) who would not have been deemed worthy enough to play at the major league level a few years prior. Combine those factors and you can see why Rodriguez along with his colleagues could see their career averages improve. When Roger Maris hit his 61 homeruns in the 1961 season, one factor that rarely gets mention is that it was an expansion year.

Earlier I mentioned that no active major leaguer felt the need to speak out against Rodriguez or any of the other alleged steroid users. There’s another possibility why. More than any other sport, baseball is driven by numbers. Homeruns, RBI, steals, batting average. Strikeouts, wins, saves. They all are hallowed in some form or another. Numbers are what every major league baseball is measured against. If Alex Rodriguez was a cheater, what is quietly not discussed is ALL major league players benefited. It’s akin to the rising tide lifting all boats. If steroids did indeed help Rodriguez and his ilk to stratospheric offensive productivity and mega-sized contracts, it also helped lesser players who may or may not have juiced up realize fatter paychecks as well.

Baseball is a funny game. Much of it is built on deception. Cryptic signals, stolen basis, fooling umpires are all acceptable behavior. For years in the 1960s, the San Francisco Giants would allegedly water down their infield supposedly as a way to slow down the LA Dodgers’ fleet footed shortstop, Maury Wills. The short right field fence at old Yankee stadium was rumored to have been done so to favor Babe Ruth.

Numbers in baseball are sacred. The longer a record survives, the more sacrosanct it becomes. Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak. Nolan Ryan’s six career no-hitters. Rickey Henderson’s 130 stolen basis. Breaking these records creates the appearance of immortality. A-Rod’s admission demonstrates just how mortal he really is.

Well, I gotta scoot…

~Rich

Apology Accepted?

The news that the local sheriff in Columbia, South Carolina will not be prosecuting Michael Phelps for allegedly smoking pot at a frat party should come as a surprise to no one. While he quickly appeared to admit guilt immediately after the photo surfaced, the revelation he will not be facing a judge is not at all astonishing given that it would be fairly difficult to prove Phelphs’ guilt based on a low quality image snapped from a cell phone.

Frankly, I personally do not think Phelps really needed to make amends for anything. For one thing, who knows what substance was even present in the marijuana pipe he was supposedly smoking from? Obviously, he did not listen to me and instead Phelps has given “heartfelt” apologies (which I seriously doubt he’s authored) and he has lost at least one endorsement contract (Kellogg’s) due to his transgression. His acts of contrition are all well and good and I am sure they will go a long way toward appeasing the artificially outraged sector of our society (to be honest I am outraged at the outrage), that has nothing better to do than be outraged at behavior sometimes deemed as less than ideal.

I do not follow Michael Phelps’ career. In fact I don’t follow swimming at all. After all, while he may be the biggest name in his sport, I dare any of you to name the second biggest name in swimming. In spite of his relative fame, I see him as nothing more than an outstanding athlete who is also a freak of nature with a ginormous wingspan and an appetite that consumes a billion calories a day.

Despite the pictures, there was never any evidence of him being high in public. And while he has somewhat of a recognizable become a public figure, I am quite confident he presumed whatever behavior he was engaging in was taking place in a private setting. Maybe that was naïveté on his part, but it seems to be a logical conclusion in my estimation. And while he may have relative notoriety, does he really qualify as a celebrity? Maybe. However, I am pretty positive there were no paparazzi camping out in front of the frat house yelling his name as he loafed in. Nope, he was pretty much like the rest of the mooks gathered, only taller and more buoyant.

All of this brings me to ask the following questions: is a private frat party in actuality a public gathering? Should Phelps have anticipated the likelihood someone in attendance may decide to snap a photo and post it for the world to see? Does this occurrence have any relevance to you and me? Should the ubiquity of instant photography and the ability to easily post those pictures in public forums online such as Facebook, MySpace, or Flickr, to name a few, alter our behavior – even in the most intimate of settings? (However, there is the possibility even those images can be compromised).

In other words, are we forced to faced the unfortunate truth that maybe it is important and does have relevance to just about all of us? Does it mean we must live in a perpetual state of paranoia, worried any behavior acted out in fun could be misconstrued as questionable only to be recorded and shared with the world on the Interwebs? Probably not. Unless your name is Michael Phelps.

Well, I gotta scoot…

~Rich

Spreadin' the Love - Spreadin' the Baby Love

By now, I am confident you have become familiar with America's most infamous mom, Nadya Suleman, the 33 year-old mother of six who recently gave birth to octuplets. Not surprisingly jaws dropped when news of this amazing delivery took place.  However, that amazement quickly transformed into astonishment when reports of her personal life began to surface.  Most recently, Suleman has the been the subject of exclusive interviews by NBC News which has taken full advantage of the situation, airing segments of her story on the Today Show as devoting a full hour to her story on its Dateline program.  In the interviews she has revealed a strong desire to have a large family and that she had an isolated and lonely childhood.

Her story has sparked a number of debates revolving around areas such as medical ethics, reproductive rights, the role technology should play in determining family size, and fitness for motherhood.  Unfortunately these debates have led to arguments such as should there be enforced regulations on fertility clinics?  What repercussions will her choices have on the fertility industry in general?  My good friend, Sheila, debated some of these very points with me early on.  Should her fertility specialist have refused to perform additional treatments given that he was fully aware of her situation?  Did she have a right to have the embryos implanted - after all they were hers, weren't they?  Personally, I feel both she and her physician acted recklessly.  Whether she had a right to the embryos or not, it is tough for me to understand how this saga transpired in the way that it did.

In the spirit of full disclosure, it is only proper I make it known I find large families utterly impractical in contemporary society.  Whether conception takes place naturally or through artificial means, I have a difficult time fully understanding the desire to want a family in size well above the norm. The supersized family is a relic from an agrarian past.  The family farm is long gone.  As society became more urban the need for large families lessened.  While I realize not everyone may agree with me, I think we can agree that some of the reasons behind large families are no longer valid.  From a male standpoint, I don't think a man is seen as more virile because he has fathered a large number of children.  More importantly, women have much greater control over their reproductive selves. We no longer live on farms.  Large families are anathema to the way we live our lives today from transportation to entertainment to education, not to mention the financial commitments one has to make in order to raise a family of any size.

As for Ms. Suleman, her story is so over-the-top, at some juncture, it's almost comical to think that this one woman has given birth to all these children - not to mention at least one with special needs - and that she will somehow be able to raise these children on her own successfully.  It is a perfect situation for a reality show.  We will likely never know if her intentions were anything beyond simply wanting a large family to love and raise.  Though public curiosity about her family and choices is high, unfortunately for her, public support is not so great. Some have pointed to our weak economy and that in better times, her choice might have been embraced more openly.  Others have concluded that because she chose to have these children as a single parent she is being frowned upon.  Still others are showing disdain for a person they believe fully intended to exploit herself and her children for money.  In the past, families who experienced mega multiple births such as this received cars, homes, and lifetime supplies of diapers.  Not so in this case.  Thus far, the offers, outside of the NBC interview, have been non-existent.

I see Suleman as selfish, irresponsible, and perhaps even delusional - a far cry from the persona she hoped to portray.  Some have called for the authorities to monitor her family more closely.  While I am uncomfortable with that premise – one thing is for she’s going to need heaps of help from somewhere.

Well, I gotta scoot…

~Rich