<p>I fully understand that steroids use is a very risky behavior, and it is especially bad for today’s sports “stars”, who are role models to young athletes, to use performance enhancing measures. I am very much a sports fan, and detest the idea of players “cheating” to beat the system and make their kazillions of dollars every year. however…</p>
<p>Why has so much time been spent in CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS on the steroids controversies…the Jose Canseco/Mark McGuire rounds, Barry Bonds discussions, and now the Mitchell report and all the time being spent on the did-he-or-did-he-not discussions with regard to Roger Clemens? </p>
<p>I would rather my elected officials address poverty, homelessness, health care crises, mortgage crises, the economy, rethinking our foreign policy, etc. etc. than this, and I cannot ever recall campaign speeches committing to fighting the use of steroids among professional atheletes. </p>
<p>Can someone explain what I’m missing? Why is it important that our congressional representatives take this task on?</p>
<p>Because doing what you’re suggesting would make sense? I don’t know; it seems pretty silly to be too. Let MLB figure out what to do. They are the governing body, right? Besides players from Toronto are under no jurdistiction from Congress.</p>
<p>They don’t want to say anything that will get them unelected? They are too busy finding future lobbying or influence jobs incase they lose this year’s election. Every Representative Congressperson is up for reelection this year. Senators maybe a third are up. Revenge time. The New President will be looking for change, and will penalize / reward those they have worked with (Obama, Clinton, Paul, Huckabee, and McCain) . The Presidential candidates have a long memory!</p>
<p>There’s a number being floated about re: a very large contingent of high school kids using steroids. Our elected reps are looking to be heroes. They want to eradicate this poison on the professional level so that it doesn’t continue to drift down to the amateur level. Besides, people will watch the “he said, she said” between Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee a lot faster than they will watch a tedious discussion about line items in a budget. Lots of face time for our elected reps.</p>
<p>Because they would rather spend time on events that will generate media coverage for them instead of actually focusing on the real problems of our country.</p>
<p>concur with razor, but would add: that’s bcos they know that they really can’t do anything about the “real problems” facing our country. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>After the eleventy-zillionth steroids-in-baseball report the other day, I asked my H why the heck there is so much concern about it. Certainly, there are steroids in many other sports. Why the focus on baseball? He thinks the baseball owners would like to see their sport cleaned up, so they are amenable to pushing the issue in their sport. Maybe.</p>
<p>I actually had a class that touched on this topic today: Sports and the Law. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, I didn’t do the reading, I was pretty sleepy during class, and I don’t feel like dragging out my class notes to see whether I have any useful information. :)</p>
<p>Astrophysics mom, maybe we should all write our congressmen/women and tell them we elected them to work on REAL issues. I’m a big sports fan, but I don’t see why gov’t needs to be dealing with baseball (or football - that one is even more ridiculous. No LAWS were broken, just NFL rules. Isn’t it the province of the NFL to deal with that?) Honestly, this is like re-arranging the deck chairs on a ship that’s 20 miles away from the Titanic…</p>
<p>Rep. Arlen Specter doesn’t want baseball to get all the credit—the “spy-gate” NFL/Patriots videotaping stuff…completely ridiculous for congress to get involved. Maybe in the twilight of his career, Mr. Specter wants to be remembered as the congressman who “saved” the NFL.??? </p>
<p>With regard to the Clemens/McNamee stuff, now the congressional hearings are really a joke…he said/he said??? arg. ENOUGH!</p>
<p>I heard parts of a debating contest on NPR a couple of weeks ago where someone (I think a physician) made a compelling case why steroids and other performance enhancing drugs <em>SHOULD</em> be allowed in sports. It was just a debate contest but it was quite a strong argument. </p>
<p>I just think it might make for an interesting spectator sport to have a “Steroid Olympics” league. Hey the Romans had gladiators, why can’t we have some performance enhanced athletes?</p>
<p>Because, legal or not, betting on sports is big business and a huge part of the economy. Ever read the studies that talks about how much business productivity is lost during the NCAA Final Four?</p>
<p>And frankly, I’d really like Congress to remain forcused in areas where they really can’t do too much trouble! (If PRO is the opposite of CON, what’s the opposite of Progress?)</p>
Thanks.</p>