Congressional Abuse and Steroid Witchhunt

Millard

Elite
Staff member
10+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Excellent article!

The Shame of the Steroid Hunt

By Matt Welch, AlterNet
Posted on March 21, 2005, Printed on March 21, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/21551/


Let's re-cap. A congressional body called the House Committee on Government Reform not the House Committee on "Getting Past" the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, not the House Committee on Urinalysis, but the House Committee on Government Freakin' Reform spent 11 hours on national television Thursday advocating several dozen illiberal measures that would give the government even more far-reaching power to harass individuals and neuter their labor unions. A microscopic sampling of these terrible ideas:



  • Federally mandated drug tests for all professional and amateur athletes, down to junior high school lacrosse players.
  • Ripping up federal labor laws.
  • Butting into the collective bargaining process of a single, targeted private industry.
  • Forcing private employers to share their confidential drug tests with the FBI.

The response from the nation's Fourth Estate? "Congress delivers heat, McGwire takes weak fifth swing"; "McGwire's image cannot be saved"; "McGwire whiffs on Hall [of Fame] pass."

In case anyone needed reminding, when sportswriters see someone holding a match to the Constitution, their instinctive reaction is to ask: "Where's the lighter fluid?"

Mark McGwire who has never, to my knowledge, held a government job or enforced the nation's drug laws had his reputation ruined by being forced to confront questions that suspected coke-sniffer George W. Bush and his non-inhaling predecessor never once had to face under oath. When the retired slugger concluded, reasonably, that answering specifics about his personal intake would put him at risk of endless government investigations, the reaction was as overwhelming as it was predictable.

"It could not have been more indicting," wrote Los Angeles Times sports columnist Bill Plaschke, "if he had begun picking his teeth with a syringe." (A week earlier, the constitutionally challenged columnist declared that anyone who refused to testify was "guilty.")

Plaschke, like all L.A. Times employees (and most American newspaper journalists) is subject to drug tests from his employer. The process he just applauded can now be used to confiscate his own piss, hand it over to the authorities and compel him to testify under oath, possibly without the benefit of legal representation.

Drug tests that baseball players assumed were confidential have ended up in the hands of federal investigators. The Government Reform Committee successfully subpoenaed records of all drug use-related punishment Major League Baseball has handed out for the past 15 years, even though that, too, was supposed to be between the Player's Union and management, as agreed upon in collective bargaining. At every step, across several overlapping government investigations and hearings, evidence that was supposed to remain secret like, say, Barry Bonds' lawyer-free grand jury testimony at the BALCO trial has been rushed into the public domain.

This public shaming of high-profile athletes often enabled through expressly illegal means, such as the grand jury leaks has been a conscious policy all along, far outstripping any real desire to prosecute criminals, or even get at the truth about steroid use.

The BALCO case got its start when a zealous Bay Area-based Internal Revenue Service investigator and former athlete named Jeff Novitzky became annoyed at the concept of a suspiciously muscular jerk like Barry Bonds breaking the all-time homerun record. "He's such an asshole to the press," Novitzky reportedly told an associate. "I'd sure like to prove it."

Ironically, Novitzky probably never will at least in a court of law. Despite an investigatory fishing expedition of a grand jury, Bonds so far stands accused of no crime, and has only admitted under oath that he unknowingly and briefly used two substances that might have resembled illegal steroids. But the court of public opinion has already hanged Bonds as well, in part because Novitzky made sure the cameras were rolling when his team burst through the doors of BALCO back in September 2003, and because someone gave the San Francisco Chronicle the sealed court transcript of Bonds' testimony this past December.

By then, this had long been a national political issue. In January 2004, President Bush, a former minority owner of the Texas Rangers, took time out of his busy State of the Union speech to warn, remarkably, that, "The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character."

I suppose the president is uniquely qualified to lecture us about "shortcuts to accomplishment," but unfortunately the Bully Pulpit generates other side-effects besides cheap laughs. Republican Senator John McCain threatened baseball with federal legislation this January, pushing the Player's Union to take the unprecedented step of ripping up its own collective bargaining agreement and making the drug-testing regimen much more intrusive and punitive.

But that still wasn't enough for Los Angeles Democrat Henry Waxman, who decided in late February that the Government Reform Committee which hadn't issued a single subpoena in more than a year needed to arbitrate the factual claims in former player Jose Canseco's book, Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big. Canseco's ridiculous testimony, notable mostly for directly contradicting most everything he wrote in his book (like, for instance, that steroids are great), yielded one very telling reaction: committee members didn't even pretend to care whether he was telling the truth.

"I would have questioned you about credibility because you made some inconsistent statements," Maryland Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger told the former Bash Brother. "But the more I think about it ... you put it out there on the table and now we're dealing with it."

The same committee members thrashed Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling for actually coming clean not about his drug use, but about his use of hyperbole, when telling Sports Illustrated a few years ago that steroids were rampant in baseball. His admission of "exaggerating," coupled with an unwillingness to immediately agree on the spot to year-round "zero tolerance" drug testing, led to many congressmen saying they were "disappointed" in Schilling's testimony.

But, like the press, they missed one stone-obvious con that was taking place right under their noses. Major League Baseball management, in the form of its loathsome, tax-sucking commissioner Bud Selig, successfully deployed Congress as a million-pound hammer coming down on his side of a labor negotiation. Congressman after congresswoman angrily dismissed all player and union talk of collective bargaining (the process, enshrined by federal labor law, by which the two sides arrive on working contracts), and placed nearly all blame for the "toothless" drug policy squarely on the shoulders of the employees.

It was a virtuoso performance, and may yield fruit sooner than even Selig dreamed eternally meddlesome Sen. McCain warned this Sunday that "we ought to seriously consider ... a law that says all professional sports have a minimum level of performance-enhancing drug testing." Committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-Virginia) suggested the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency handle the urinalysis.

Selig doesn't give a damn about establishing the precedent of the federal government overseeing the excrement of private citizens, but that doesn't excuse sports fans. Search and seizure of private property should be a last resort, conducted with probable cause, unless agreed upon privately between union and management. One should not become a criminal suspect by putting on a uniform.

2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/21551/
 
Our history books are filled with examples of how Senate and the House have ruined the lives of innocent citizens over the years only to be exonerated some time later.

Mr. Waxman, the esteemed congressman from Beverly Hills, California should soon be feeling the heat from his constituent base on Rodeo Dr, who spend literally millions a year on Anti Aging medication (which, incidentally, Mr. Waxman could use a good dose of).

Oh and doesnt Mr. Biden look good also? Has anyone seen past pictures of his hairlines ability to recede and then advance again? I certainly do wonder who his anti-aging doctor is in Delaware.

Would you just shit if Chris Matthews asked him -I know Arnold Schwartzenegger has admitted to using steroids but havent you had a hair transplant? Tell me what do you feel the difference is?-
 
I was listening to Bill O'Reilly's radio show a few minutes ago. They were talking about the Terri Schiavo thing. But a guest, Judge Andrew Napolitano, regular FoxNews contributor and correspondent, expressed disgust at Congress getting involved in steroids as well as the right to die. He authored a book called "Constitution in Chaos" (or something similar) in which he blasts Congress for sticking their noses where they don't belong.

Isn't anyone for SMALLER government anymore? Does anyone here believe that their republican heroes are going to protect them from the evil Big Gov'ment Democrats? It's getting hard to tell the difference. Everyone's so ideological, on both sides of the aisle, that the Constitution is thrown out the window in favor of legislating the party platform to their hearts content.
 
CyniQ said:
Isn't anyone for SMALLER government anymore? Does anyone here believe that their republican heroes are going to protect them from the evil Big Gov'ment Democrats? It's getting hard to tell the difference. Everyone's so ideological, on both sides of the aisle, that the Constitution is thrown out the window in favor of legislating the party platform to their hearts content.
Neither party truly believes in smaller government. I know their rhetoric may suggest they do, but it's bullshit.

This is what happens.

If one party controls both the legislative AND executive branches, this has inevitably led to significantly expanded government. It doesn't matter whether the controlling party is Democrat or Republican. All that matters, is that there are fewer checks and balances leading to expanded fiscal expenditures.

When the control of the legislative and excetive branches are SPLIT, this results in a more fiscally conservative government. There is a tendency, although perhaps not significant, for a Democratically-controlled executive and Republican-controlled Congress to results in the greaterst fiscal restraint.

We have great examples of this in the last two administrations, although it is not limited to these administrations...

Does anyone really think Clinton was THE reason that we had such impressive restraint during his term? It was largely due to the bitter fight/struggle with republican house and senate that offere great check on power.

Does anyone really think that the huge current deficits and recently expanded government are due to a deep-seated philosophy of liberal spending held by Bush and congressional republicans? Without a check on power any party will keep spending and spending - they can't help thmeselves. When politics is driven and motivated by the acquisition of power, the most obvious reflection of power is how much money they can spend for their respective causes, benefactors, etc.
 
Top