Part of me thinks this is one of those "counter" arguments that often crop up in sports writing. The type that when Cal Ripken is on the verge of breaking the consecutive games record, some random writer writes an article staying he should go up to bat, but then step aside. No one thinks its a real or good idea, but it generates discussion and gets the writer mentioned.
However, I don't get comparing steroids to baseball segregation. One is cheating, the other is a matter of facing who you're up against. Babe wasn't cheating. Granted he may not have faced some great pitchers, but really, how big a difference could two or three extra pitcher make? He himself was a great pitcher that didn't pitch. Should all the other batters of that era be dinged because Babe elected to hit and not pitch? Taking steriods is cheating, period.
The idea that it should be excused because the home run derby helped the game only shows how sordid professional sports has become, and how much the athletes are above both the state and moral laws.
Everyone rails against hollywood. But if you want an example of uncontrolled immoral, unethical, disturbing, and self-absorbed behavior, sports is king...by far.
I'm not convinced that sport is any more corrupt than Hollywood or the business world or Congress. Sadly, the world is peopled with "win-at-any-costers" and what is right or wrong is governed only by what you can get away with.
The business world is a constant flury of litigation because people are constantly seeing what they can get away...how far they can push ethical conventions. But that arena is very complicted and understanding it is not as easy as understanding a home run. Therefore, there is much more focus on sports.
I agree with UBlo that sports has become a showcase for the lowest common denominator. But I'm hard pressed to think of the Hollywood libertine or Washington egomaniac who would be justified in looking down his nose at the sweaty hulks on ESPN.
Comparing athletes from different eras has no value. Babe Ruth was great when he played, Barry Bonds was great when he played...that's about all you can say without just tossing out random opinions. Not that it isn't fun to debate them, but there is no way to compare.
I think your right. Its not that sports is any worse than hollywood or business, its just that its fallen to that level. I've never rooted for an actor, I've never had long debates about how great Viacom is, and that they're the best team. Politics is the same. Something I used to love is more and more loveless. So maybe the deprevity its just more noticable in sports. I'm sure there are party boat equivilants in both hollywood and business. Everyone at that level gets away with DUI's. And at least one athlete and one actor have gotten away with murder. Maybe its not the venue, but the result. When you're rich and famous, some will think they're above the law, and society ofen proves them right.
3 comments:
Part of me thinks this is one of those "counter" arguments that often crop up in sports writing. The type that when Cal Ripken is on the verge of breaking the consecutive games record, some random writer writes an article staying he should go up to bat, but then step aside. No one thinks its a real or good idea, but it generates discussion and gets the writer mentioned.
However, I don't get comparing steroids to baseball segregation. One is cheating, the other is a matter of facing who you're up against. Babe wasn't cheating. Granted he may not have faced some great pitchers, but really, how big a difference could two or three extra pitcher make? He himself was a great pitcher that didn't pitch. Should all the other batters of that era be dinged because Babe elected to hit and not pitch? Taking steriods is cheating, period.
The idea that it should be excused because the home run derby helped the game only shows how sordid professional sports has become, and how much the athletes are above both the state and moral laws.
Everyone rails against hollywood. But if you want an example of uncontrolled immoral, unethical, disturbing, and self-absorbed behavior, sports is king...by far.
I'm not convinced that sport is any more corrupt than Hollywood or the business world or Congress. Sadly, the world is peopled with "win-at-any-costers" and what is right or wrong is governed only by what you can get away with.
The business world is a constant flury of litigation because people are constantly seeing what they can get away...how far they can push ethical conventions. But that arena is very complicted and understanding it is not as easy as understanding a home run. Therefore, there is much more focus on sports.
I agree with UBlo that sports has become a showcase for the lowest common denominator. But I'm hard pressed to think of the Hollywood libertine or Washington egomaniac who would be justified in looking down his nose at the sweaty hulks on ESPN.
Comparing athletes from different eras has no value. Babe Ruth was great when he played, Barry Bonds was great when he played...that's about all you can say without just tossing out random opinions. Not that it isn't fun to debate them, but there is no way to compare.
I think your right. Its not that sports is any worse than hollywood or business, its just that its fallen to that level. I've never rooted for an actor, I've never had long debates about how great Viacom is, and that they're the best team. Politics is the same. Something I used to love is more and more loveless. So maybe the deprevity its just more noticable in sports. I'm sure there are party boat equivilants in both hollywood and business. Everyone at that level gets away with DUI's. And at least one athlete and one actor have gotten away with murder. Maybe its not the venue, but the result. When you're rich and famous, some will think they're above the law, and society ofen proves them right.
Post a Comment