A new take on the steroid issue...

by Kwitt11

This was a couple weeks ago, but I wanted to bring it up here.  This is Bill James, talking about Barry Bonds :

I look at it this way. There's a rule in basketball against traveling but the NBA has pretty much stopped enforcing it. Well, they still call traveling but they will allow you to take about five steps without dribbling as you are running toward the basket. There was no "decision" not to enforce this rule; they just kind of lost track of it. They started not calling one step and progressed to not calling two steps, not calling three steps, and eventually they just kind of lost track of the rule. Should the players who took advantage of this failure to enforce the rule be banned from the NBA Hall of Fame? After all, aren't they cheating? They're not obeying the rules. Julius Erving, out. The Hall of Fame doesn't need cheaters like you. Kobe, Michael, get out. If you don't play by the rules the way Elgin Baylor did, you're not deserving.

Or it is, rather, the responsibility of the LEAGUE to enforce the rule? It seems to me that it might be the responsibility of the league to enforce the rule rather than the responsibility of the media to punish those who didn't obey the rule that wasn't being enforced. I won't name any players, but there are a whole bunch of superstars who are now or are going to be involved in the PED accusations. We CAN'T start picking and choosing who we honor on that basis. It's hypocritical, and it's impractical. And it diminishes the game.

Bonds has hit more home runs than anybody else, or will have in a few weeks. That's kind of the end of the story as far as I'm concerned.

'  

I do agree with James' overall point - that we shouldn't punish the players for doing something that basically wasn't illegal, and that we don't know nearly everybody who did steroids, so otherwise we're just randomly picking people to punish.

I mainly wanted to hear your thoughts on his analogy to traveling in basketball.  I don't really agree with the analogy, but I can't really think of any obvious ways in which James is wrong.

MegECass110AAA-er

852 days ago

Score 1

This doesn't work for me. Sure, both could be considered forms of "cheating," but I highly doubt traveling threatens the integrity of basketball the way steroids threatens the integrity of baseball. Another thing-you can clearly see when a player travels. You see it with your two eyes, the refs see it, but they don't call it. With steroids, we can speculate all we want just by looking at the size of players, but no one will admit to it unless it's in front of grand jury. Steroids are mired in secrecy and controversy; I have a hard time calling travelling controversial unless the call seriously impacts the outcome of a game.

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

852 days ago

Score 1

Cheating should be punished in all forms of sport. The difference for me is intent. You can or cannot intend to travel. You can't help but take steroids unless you know about it.

Permalink | Reply

Kwitt11Varsity Captain

852 days ago

Score 0

That was the only difference I could think of. I'm still not sure it completely disproves the analogy, though.

Permalink

InsanMajor Leaguer

852 days ago

Score 2

This is the worst analogy I've ever heard. It has nothing to do with one another. The comparison to travelling would be the design of ballparks. Back in the 20's and 30's outfields were much larger, and over time they got smaller and smaller and the leageu didn't do much about it. Does that make it fair that Bonds is far ahead of Ruth even though Ruth was a better homerun hitter? That would be a better analogy.

Permalink | Reply

WrmjrRed-Shirting

852 days ago

Score 5

He also grossly overstates the analogy; it's true they don't call traveling as they should in the NBA, but no one takes 5 steps without it being called. That said, I'm not sure we can or should penalize players for something we wish the league had banned previously.

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

852 days ago

Score 1

It's never the responsibility of those that enforce the rules to catch them out. That's like saying murder is acceptable in real life, as long as they don't get caught by police. It is the responsibility of the athlete to play within the bounds of the law at all times. Okay, he may get called for penalties now and again - sometimes it can't be helped. But that's fine if you don't intend to commit the offence.

Permalink | Reply

Kwitt11Varsity Captain

852 days ago

Score 2

See, I think a better analogy to this situation would be if murder were legal, then the government finally decided to make it illegal and penalize people with jail sentences, and then started prosecuting people for murders comitted five years before they made it illegal. Would that be fair? (not that I'm trying to equate taking steroids with murder...)

Permalink

HappyskinnyAll-American

852 days ago

Score 0

How do NBA players start taking 3 or more steps on a regular basis. I played basketball since I was about 5 years old and through high school. Whenever I traveled, it felt really awkward to me. That is just taking three steps. I would know it right away and would almost stop right in my tracks.

Permalink | Reply

Manny StilesMajor Leaguer

852 days ago

Score 1

Calling travelling in the NBA is like an umpire not calling a batter when his foot comes out of the back of the batter's box and he puts it in play (Rule 6.06). The back line of the batter's box is gone and completely disregarded by the third batter on each side.

Permalink | Reply

Ea34Div-I Stud

852 days ago

Score 1

i can see what he's trying to say, but the analogy doesn't quite work. the travelling rule has always existed in basketball, it's just not called consistently. I think Kwitt's analogy is the best one. If something that was not illegal for a period of time is made illegal, it only becomes illegal with regard to infractions from that point on, not retroactively.

Permalink | Reply

Ea34Div-I Stud

852 days ago

Score 1

A real-life example that I've heard is this (not quite the same thing, but similar): a person that i know went to Amsterdam during a trip to Europe and visited a "coffee shop". This person had a job interview a week after returning (let's ignore the poor judgement). The interview mentioned mandatory drug tests and my friend bluntly said "I won't pass, i was in AMsterdam last week". Upon showing a stamped passport, this person was hired and not required to take a drug test because the substance was used in a place that does not frown upon such activity.

Permalink | Reply