Deadspin’s rant about the A-Rod situation, which Blog of Team supposes stands in for all sorts of hipster arguments pushing for the legal use of drugs in sports, is an interesting enough read — as is everything on that great blog — but the problem is, unlike many great Deadspin reads, it contains too many factual errors to be taken seriously.
“Here’s something you might not realize about the case of Alex Rodriguez: There’s no physical evidence at all tying him to the purchase or use of any prohibited drug”
Wrong! There is physical evidence, obviously, and the arbitrator had every right to consider it. The writer kind of goes back on that claim but then says there is no physical evidence because he doesn’t like the credibility of the guy who provided the physical evidence.
Drug testing is “a moral regime, dedicated to the purification of the body as a way of purifying the mind.”
Wrong! Drug testing is in place to protect those who don’t wish to use drugs at varying levels of the game from undue peer, player, coach and industry pressure. It’s also in place to make sure cheaters can’t use drugs to gain an unfair advantage.
“Alex Rodriguez, to be clear, wasn’t suspended because anyone could prove he did anything; he was suspended because there was good reason to think he wanted or tried to do something. He was convicted, in other words, of a thoughtcrime.”
Wrong! Alex wasn’t convicted of anything. He was suspended under a drug-testing regime he agreed to and his suspension was upheld in binding arbitration.
Said regime “essentially makes contracts conditional, fully guaranteed only so long as the commissioner believes that the player is thinking sufficiently pure thoughts.”
Wrong! Baseball has the strongest contract protections of any major sport. It took a galactic douche like A-Rod to run afoul of them.