Jose Canseco doesn’t just speak with his bat. He lets people know what’s on his mind. But is he getting fair treatment from the press?
An article by AP in today’s news refers to Canseco’s comments as a “diatribe.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines diatribe as a “bitter, abusive denunciation.” Okay, let’s look at what Jose said, as quoted by the AP:
”The policy sounds great, but that’s not the problem,” Canseco said Monday. ”There are major problems not with the policies but the individuals who are instituting this policy. For example — and this is theoretical — if Roger Clemens gets tested positive and it comes back, what do these individuals do with this policy? It’s going to depend on a case-to-case, player-to-player basis.”
Bitter? Abusive? Doesn’t sound like it to me. What Canseco is saying makes a lot of sense. The cats (people who stand to make a lot of money from sports, including owners, the MLB, the press) are in charge of the canaries (positive drug tests).
This is one of the reasons that Olympic sports like track and field stopped giving their own organizations (USATF in this case) jurisdiction over drug testing. That responsibility now goes to independent organizations like USADA.
The temptation to “overlook” a superstar’s positive drug test is just too huge. Look what drug testing has done to the Tour de France this year–this scares sports organizations to death. Canseco is right on–individuals make the decisions about which results get reported. We know NOTHING about the internal policies, if any exist, that prevent one or a small number of people from burying a positive result.
The MLB is not doing itself any favors by trashing Conseco. MLB spokesperson Rich Levin called Canseco’s latest remarks “total nonsense,” and went on to say that “The stuff about Palmiero is complete fabrication.” Mr. Levin, you should be VERY sure of your facts. If at any time in the future, you turn out to be wrong and Conseco right, any credibility you and your organization have will be severely damaged.
Instead, MLB could take the following point of view. They could say that they are taking Conseco’s remarks seriously, even though they believe their policies are working, and will engage in an internal investigation to see if there is any basis for his concerns about “case-by-case” favoritism. They can be transparent about the policies and oversight they have in place that would prevent a positive test result from getting the attention it should.
A search of the MLB website does not return any pages devoted to a drug policy. The policy is referenced in some news releases and a 2002 article about collective bargaining, but unlike USATF, there is no anti-doping page. Having a page like this seems like an obvious way to make MLB look more responsive to concerns about drug abuse.
This all assumes, however, that MLB would be willing to deal with the implications of Conseco’s being right.
0 Comments