Sports Curmudgeon - Topical Rants: Rebuttals

2/26/03 - The readers are restless. It must be the time of year. You know Seasonal Affect Disorder or the lull in sporting events between the Super Bowl and the NCAA Basketball Tournament or something like that. I have gotten two lengthy rebuttals to my last two topical rants and so I want to address the points made by the readers.

The first one comes from a long time reader of this stuff who happens to be an attorney. He did not like my idea that the baseball players union should be demanding the ban of ephedrine substances because the players need to make that choice for themselves and because – in the current case – it certainly appears that Steve Bechler was not reading the label warnings or understanding that they applied to him. Let me give you some of the rebuttal directly:

"From what I have read, and admittedly, it is probably not as much as you have, Mr. Bechler had as many reasons as anyone possibly could have had NOT to take ephedrine based products. He is a walking...excuse me, not walking...example of people who ignore directives, warnings, and explanations of limitations of appropriate use. He was overdosing daily and had several of the conditions that were listed on the label as reasons not to take the product.

"Anyone who overdoses or takes substances which they should not take may be subject to side effect, serious illness or death. Those who have diabetes should not eat large quantities of sugar. Some people do and suffer the consequences. Those who have arrhythmias should not take Viagra. Those who do have suffered the consequences, including some deaths.

"The FDA issued directives about ephedra use a number of years ago based solely on a study issued by two doctors working together. Since that study was published, based upon further study, one of these two anti-ephedra advocates has backed off and said that the studies they performed were tainted and inadequate. He has backed off of his complaints about ephedra.

"Listen to the medical researchers. There is nothing unsafe about ephedra when taken according to direction and without predisposition to physical reaction.

"I hope that you have the wherewithal to disseminate this contra-rant to those you have on your list. I would hope that you would feel it appropriate to provide contrary editorial opinions to yours."

I doubt that the dissemination of this "contra-rant" will have any great effect on anything anywhere. I suspect that the impact of my original rant was about the same as a butterfly belch but if dissemination of a rational contra-rant seems important, then I'll give it a try.

I agree that the absence of an FDA ban on ephedra makes it difficult to assert that it is so dangerous that it should be banned from some section of the populace. Here is the benefit that I think may be derived by having athletes stay away from ephedra substances. Athletes have short careers that are changed dramatically by improvements in the performance of physical feats. They have a vested interest in throwing harder, running faster, etc, than the next guy; and so, they are a segment of the population that can fall into the practice of overusing these substances. And to be as kind as I can here, athletes tend not to be MENSA members so they are probably not very likely to look at this from a cosmic perspective – nor even be able to take a broad look at the issues when presented with the information from which to take that look.

Athletes have advisors and family and posses who nominally have the best interests of the athlete at heart. I guess I have seen too many instances where these folks see the athlete as the gravy train and so I am not ready to say that every athlete has a support system available to help him stay safe. This is an overstatement to be sure, but lots of athletes are not very bright and are the only ones looking out for their safety because all the other people around them are merely looking to get a piece of the benefits. In biology class those other people would be classified as parasites. You make the call.

But there is an important point in this rebuttal that makes me think that a ban on ephedra may indeed not be a good thing. The drive to overcome obstacles and to make the squad and to set a record may be so strong in professional athletes that a ban on ephedra might send them into a nether world of really untested substances "to get an edge". Listen to the comments by Bechler's own teammates and they say that they will continue to take ephedra because they are taking it sensibly and they are not abusing it. If the death of a "comrade" that close to them does not give them pause, then what would it take to convince them that the way to show up at spring training near their playing weight is to have the salad more than once in a while during the off season? It would probably be easier to convince them to take some black-market "magic calorie burning substance". You can hear the pitch now. This product is so effective that the people who make all that diet stuff that doesn't really work have banded together and bribed the FDA to keep this off the market because it would put them out of business in 30 days. You know, just like those guys who invented the car engine that ran on sea water…

I think a ban on ephedra substances would make things easier for players in terms of products they will willingly ingest as part of a training regimen. I'm not so sure that such a ban will make them significantly safer as they pursue their physical goals and ply their physical trade. Maybe I want to find a way to legislate some common sense into their heads. If that is the case, then shame on me because that does not work. Common sense is like IQ points; you either got it or you don't.

The second rebuttal I got recently took me to task for my stand on Annika Sorenstam's participation in a PGA event. The writer thinks that if a woman is allowed to play in a PGA event then of course a man should be allowed to play in an LPGA event. And from that perspective, the reader takes me to task for not recognizing the innate athletic superiority of men over women in contests that involve speed and strength and things like that. He goes on to say that this is part of a larger struggle within society about men and women and equality and separation and issues of that ilk. Like the previous rebuttal provider, he overestimates the importance of these rants when he says:

"In your position with an open forum to influence the masses I truly believe you should re-examine your position on this issue."

In no way do I think that my "open forum" has any potential to influence the masses. If that were the case, we would have legalized sports betting (collegiate and pro games!) in every state, the USOC would be disbanded, PETA would be outlawed and that poor young woman friend of mine would be able to kick her addiction to figure skating and save lots of money. If anyone is reading these rants and has any sense that they are inspirational in some way, I suggest that you get a grip on yourself before you join some organization that has you wind up sucking down a poisoned Kool-Aid cocktail.

So let me be as explicit as I can here. Women cannot compete with the best men golfers in the world. Every once in a while, there is a woman who dominates the other women in her sport so much that it is natural for her – and some others – to wonder what she might be able to do against male competition. That is true of Annika Sorenstam now and she is going to give it a try; it is also probably true of Serena Williams now, but she has given no indication that she will try to play in a men's tennis bracket any time soon. Nothing is harmed by the decision of either woman cited here. Remember that Babe Zaharias played in a men's golf tournament (the LA Open as I recall) about 55 years ago and if you check the papers today, you will see that the sporting world is still going forward and that the rest of society has not reverted to a hunter/gatherer status.

This may not be the most politically correct thing to say here, but I am not into political correctness so I'll just say it. There is really only one reason for the existence of the LPGA in the first place. It is there so that some women can make some money playing golf. If there were no LPGA, there would be no women professional golfers. So it makes no sense to me to say that men have to play in LPGA tournaments – thereby putting women out of the pro golf business – just because the best women's golfer at the moment has decided to try to compete against the men. What would happen to the LPGA if they threw their doors open to men is not really in question.

The same thing is true of the WNBA and women's pro football leagues and women's boxing. Does anyone actually believe that any WNBA player could make it in the NBA? Or that Leila Ali could really go 10 rounds with Roy Jones Jr.? Of course not. Without those separate "divisions" and without a barrier to entry into those "divisions" by men, there would be no women in the professional ranks in those sports. Now you can ask if the absence of women from those sporting ranks is significantly deleterious to western civilization and that would be a fair question. The answer is: of course it does not matter at all. But by the same token, there is no damage done to the fabric of civilization by having a way for women to be professionals in these sports either…

Despite the comments in the rebuttal sent to me and despite the bleatings of many people who call sports radio stations, none of this has anything to do with the contretemps at Augusta. And, the Martha Burk/Hootie Johnson stare-down has nothing to do with anything of great significance and does not portend any major change in the ways of the world no matter how it turns out. None of this has to do with women's rights. None of this has to do with social justice. All this has to do with is one woman trying to play golf against the best male golfers in the world. Nothing more. It is not worth nearly the amount of stomach acid that it has generated already.

Thanks to both readers for taking the time to send in their rebuttals and offering different points of view. I still would prefer to ban ephedrine substances and steroids from sports but admit that it may be a change only for the sake of change. I still support Annika Sorenstam's participation in this PGA event and do not see it as some event that will be noted in the history books written in 2020 about these times.

I'm particularly grateful that these readers think this forum has some ability to shape opinions and thoughts. I never did until now. I was just venting here. But now that they clued me in to my potential power position, let me shout out one more time to my poor young woman friend to give up that horrible habit of going to figure skating events. It's not healthy. It's worse than taking ephedrine – in almost any dosage.

But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

<< Back to the Topical Rants Index

= Home = Recent = Topical = Wagers =
= Archives = Pros = Scores = Contact =






		Rebuttals

		2/26/03 - The readers are restless. It must be the time of year. You know Seasonal Affect Disorder or the lull in sporting events between the Super Bowl and the NCAA Basketball Tournament or something like that. I have gotten two lengthy rebuttals to my last two topical rants and so I want to address the points made by the readers. The first one comes from a long time reader of this stuff who happens to be an attorney. He did not like my idea that the baseball players union should be demanding the ban of ephedrine substances because the players need to make that choice for themselves and because – in the current case – it certainly appears that Steve Bechler was not reading the label warnings or understanding that they applied to him. Let me give you some of the rebuttal directly: "From what I have read, and admittedly, it is probably not as much as you have, Mr. Bechler had as many reasons as anyone possibly could have had NOT to take ephedrine based products. He is a walking...excuse me, not walking...example of people who ignore directives, warnings, and explanations of limitations of appropriate use. He was overdosing daily and had several of the conditions that were listed on the label as reasons not to take the product. "Anyone who overdoses or takes substances which they should not take may be subject to side effect, serious illness or death. Those who have diabetes should not eat large quantities of sugar. Some people do and suffer the consequences. Those who have arrhythmias should not take Viagra. Those who do have suffered the consequences, including some deaths. "The FDA issued directives about ephedra use a number of years ago based solely on a study issued by two doctors working together. Since that study was published, based upon further study, one of these two anti-ephedra advocates has backed off and said that the studies they performed were tainted and inadequate. He has backed off of his complaints about ephedra. "Listen to the medical researchers. There is nothing unsafe about ephedra when taken according to direction and without predisposition to physical reaction. "I hope that you have the wherewithal to disseminate this contra-rant to those you have on your list. I would hope that you would feel it appropriate to provide contrary editorial opinions to yours." I doubt that the dissemination of this "contra-rant" will have any great effect on anything anywhere. I suspect that the impact of my original rant was about the same as a butterfly belch but if dissemination of a rational contra-rant seems important, then I'll give it a try. I agree that the absence of an FDA ban on ephedra makes it difficult to assert that it is so dangerous that it should be banned from some section of the populace. Here is the benefit that I think may be derived by having athletes stay away from ephedra substances. Athletes have short careers that are changed dramatically by improvements in the performance of physical feats. They have a vested interest in throwing harder, running faster, etc, than the next guy; and so, they are a segment of the population that can fall into the practice of overusing these substances. And to be as kind as I can here, athletes tend not to be MENSA members so they are probably not very likely to look at this from a cosmic perspective – nor even be able to take a broad look at the issues when presented with the information from which to take that look. Athletes have advisors and family and posses who nominally have the best interests of the athlete at heart. I guess I have seen too many instances where these folks see the athlete as the gravy train and so I am not ready to say that every athlete has a support system available to help him stay safe. This is an overstatement to be sure, but lots of athletes are not very bright and are the only ones looking out for their safety because all the other people around them are merely looking to get a piece of the benefits. In biology class those other people would be classified as parasites. You make the call. But there is an important point in this rebuttal that makes me think that a ban on ephedra may indeed not be a good thing. The drive to overcome obstacles and to make the squad and to set a record may be so strong in professional athletes that a ban on ephedra might send them into a nether world of really untested substances "to get an edge". Listen to the comments by Bechler's own teammates and they say that they will continue to take ephedra because they are taking it sensibly and they are not abusing it. If the death of a "comrade" that close to them does not give them pause, then what would it take to convince them that the way to show up at spring training near their playing weight is to have the salad more than once in a while during the off season? It would probably be easier to convince them to take some black-market "magic calorie burning substance". You can hear the pitch now. This product is so effective that the people who make all that diet stuff that doesn't really work have banded together and bribed the FDA to keep this off the market because it would put them out of business in 30 days. You know, just like those guys who invented the car engine that ran on sea water… I think a ban on ephedra substances would make things easier for players in terms of products they will willingly ingest as part of a training regimen. I'm not so sure that such a ban will make them significantly safer as they pursue their physical goals and ply their physical trade. Maybe I want to find a way to legislate some common sense into their heads. If that is the case, then shame on me because that does not work. Common sense is like IQ points; you either got it or you don't. The second rebuttal I got recently took me to task for my stand on Annika Sorenstam's participation in a PGA event. The writer thinks that if a woman is allowed to play in a PGA event then of course a man should be allowed to play in an LPGA event. And from that perspective, the reader takes me to task for not recognizing the innate athletic superiority of men over women in contests that involve speed and strength and things like that. He goes on to say that this is part of a larger struggle within society about men and women and equality and separation and issues of that ilk. Like the previous rebuttal provider, he overestimates the importance of these rants when he says: "In your position with an open forum to influence the masses I truly believe you should re-examine your position on this issue." In no way do I think that my "open forum" has any potential to influence the masses. If that were the case, we would have legalized sports betting (collegiate and pro games!) in every state, the USOC would be disbanded, PETA would be outlawed and that poor young woman friend of mine would be able to kick her addiction to figure skating and save lots of money. If anyone is reading these rants and has any sense that they are inspirational in some way, I suggest that you get a grip on yourself before you join some organization that has you wind up sucking down a poisoned Kool-Aid cocktail. So let me be as explicit as I can here. Women cannot compete with the best men golfers in the world. Every once in a while, there is a woman who dominates the other women in her sport so much that it is natural for her – and some others – to wonder what she might be able to do against male competition. That is true of Annika Sorenstam now and she is going to give it a try; it is also probably true of Serena Williams now, but she has given no indication that she will try to play in a men's tennis bracket any time soon. Nothing is harmed by the decision of either woman cited here. Remember that Babe Zaharias played in a men's golf tournament (the LA Open as I recall) about 55 years ago and if you check the papers today, you will see that the sporting world is still going forward and that the rest of society has not reverted to a hunter/gatherer status. This may not be the most politically correct thing to say here, but I am not into political correctness so I'll just say it. There is really only one reason for the existence of the LPGA in the first place. It is there so that some women can make some money playing golf. If there were no LPGA, there would be no women professional golfers. So it makes no sense to me to say that men have to play in LPGA tournaments – thereby putting women out of the pro golf business – just because the best women's golfer at the moment has decided to try to compete against the men. What would happen to the LPGA if they threw their doors open to men is not really in question. The same thing is true of the WNBA and women's pro football leagues and women's boxing. Does anyone actually believe that any WNBA player could make it in the NBA? Or that Leila Ali could really go 10 rounds with Roy Jones Jr.? Of course not. Without those separate "divisions" and without a barrier to entry into those "divisions" by men, there would be no women in the professional ranks in those sports. Now you can ask if the absence of women from those sporting ranks is significantly deleterious to western civilization and that would be a fair question. The answer is: of course it does not matter at all. But by the same token, there is no damage done to the fabric of civilization by having a way for women to be professionals in these sports either… Despite the comments in the rebuttal sent to me and despite the bleatings of many people who call sports radio stations, none of this has anything to do with the contretemps at Augusta. And, the Martha Burk/Hootie Johnson stare-down has nothing to do with anything of great significance and does not portend any major change in the ways of the world no matter how it turns out. None of this has to do with women's rights. None of this has to do with social justice. All this has to do with is one woman trying to play golf against the best male golfers in the world. Nothing more. It is not worth nearly the amount of stomach acid that it has generated already. Thanks to both readers for taking the time to send in their rebuttals and offering different points of view. I still would prefer to ban ephedrine substances and steroids from sports but admit that it may be a change only for the sake of change. I still support Annika Sorenstam's participation in this PGA event and do not see it as some event that will be noted in the history books written in 2020 about these times. I'm particularly grateful that these readers think this forum has some ability to shape opinions and thoughts. I never did until now. I was just venting here. But now that they clued me in to my potential power position, let me shout out one more time to my poor young woman friend to give up that horrible habit of going to figure skating events. It's not healthy. It's worse than taking ephedrine – in almost any dosage. But don't get me wrong, I love sports... << Back to the Topical Rants Index = Home = Recent = Topical = Wagers = = Archives = Pros = Scores = Contact =