It's 10pm. Do You Know Where Your Athletes Are?

Scott Hardie | February 10, 2009
Michael Phelps was photographed using a bong at a party. Alex Rodriguez has admitted to using steroids in 2001-2003. Which is worse?

My first reaction is to say that Rodriguez's actions are worse, since they defeated the fairness of the sport he was playing while Phelps's actions had nothing to do with the sport. To be clear, Phelps has been paid a fortune to be a role model, and the fact that all of those nine figures of income he's made aren't enough to dissuade him from toking up is a real disappointment. Steroids make baseball unfair (except for the argument that since all players use them, you have to use them too just to keep the game fair), but Rodriguez's steroid use isn't going to make kids think it's ok to use steroids.

But as far as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), Major League Baseball did not have a policy against steroid use until 2004, at which time Rodriguez apparently stopped, or at least was no longer caught. His actions weren't against the rules of his sport, even though they obviously should have been and provided a huge unfair advantage to him. Phelps's actions WERE specifically banned by his sport, even though they took place at a private party and had nothing to do with his performance in the pool. Phelps's seemingly innocent actions did break the rules, and Rodriguez technically did "nothing wrong." I guess that makes Phelps's actions worse, but it doesn't feel that way. The best conclusion I can draw from this is one that is obvious to anyone remotely familiar with the sport: MLB has been way too lax for way too long about steroid use, and the legacy of that is going to play out for years to come.

Amy Austin | February 10, 2009
...but Rodriguez's steroid use isn't going to make kids think it's ok to use steroids.

I suppose that really depends on if the "kids" in question are athletes... don't you?

Scott Hardie | February 10, 2009
Agreed. I oversimplified.

Samir Mehta | February 10, 2009
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | February 10, 2009
I couldn't have said it any better myself. (And I suspected that if I waited long enough I wouldn't have to.)

Mike Eberhart | February 10, 2009
Here's my thought.... Who cares! None of these people have any impact on my life. Yes, I like sports, but I'm not that in to them that if I find something out like this, it completely devastates me. And as for Phelps, IT'S SWIMMING. Gimme a break. He's only useful every four years. A-Rod, he could do steroids all he wants, my main reason for not liking him is he is grossly overpaid. No one deserves $25+ million a year to play baseball. That's just my two cents.

Erik Bates | February 10, 2009
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | February 10, 2009
I remember hearing a few months back that the *NFL* was conducting layoffs... the N-F-L!!! My first thought about that was, "Wonder how many players are getting the boot!" -- followed by laughter... followed by, "Wonder how many people's jobs could be saved by the loss of one player???" I wish I were a male professional athlete.

Aaron Shurtleff | February 10, 2009
Let me get this straight now...

Volunteered data says about 50% of people have smoked. Realistically that means the number is higher. I smell gross hypocrisy. The truth is marijuana has little to no long term impact, the gateway drug argument is a fiction, and a preponderance of people have smoked it with essentially no impact. Those who claim "impact", in my estimation, are people with larger personal, psychological, or educational barriers that would had cropped up in another way. Huffing glue, perhaps.

Amy Austin | February 10, 2009
I don't think that's the logical extension of his argument... I think it would be more that "alcoholism is more the exception than the rule" (i.e., the people who have severe problems with alcohol tend to do so because of a genetic inclination to addiction, blackouts, etc... with alcohol -- I believe he is positing that a similar tendency exists with marijuana... though perhaps on a more psychological than genetic level... and I am inclined to agree myself).

Samir Mehta | February 10, 2009
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | February 11, 2009
I see what you're saying, Samir, but this isn't just a few seedy pictures of an athlete. If this were some other famous person being criticized for using a bong, like a movie star or a novelist or a prince, I'd say the outcry is irrelevant and this person deserves some privacy. We can all agree that it's ridiculous that Phelps was paid eight figures to be a wholesome youth role model to carry massive endorsements, but he was. I think if somebody paid me that unimaginable sum to stay clean, I could keep a bong out of my mouth. This isn't a judgment call about the morality of marijuana; the object itself is irrelevant: I don't care if it's a cigarette or a beer bottle or a pornographic magazine or whatever else he was paid to stay away from. He could have easily avoided this, and should have. That's why I'm disappointed.

And to be clear, I don't really care either. Phelps bored me during the Olympics, and he still bores me now. But I saw a stupid poll online that asked whether Phelps or Rodriguez was more "morally objectionable" for their drug use, and it got me thinking about the hypocrises and double standards that become apparent when you compare them. For instance: Samir, you say that the NFL would lose revenue if the game turned out to be rigged, but chasing Hank Aaron's record, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire leapfrogging each other's total all summer, these kinds of superhuman feats are what drive crowds to baseball, and what drive most players to using steroids, making the few natural players fall behind. If baseball truly banned steroids and evened the playing field to make the game less rigged, they would in fact lose a fortune. I still think they should do so, but I don't really expect them to change.

Aaron Shurtleff | February 11, 2009
Actually, I have an anti-marijuana agenda (no, really!), and I probably shouldn't have hopped in so quickly. I think both athletes are equally morally objectionable, but I would find it true of anyone who took illegal substances for whatever reason.

And, honestly, if Phelps was saying, "Yeah, it was a bong, but it was full of tobacco", I probably wouldn't be quite so upset. I'm actually kind of have more respect for him for not lying about it. Kind of.

Samir Mehta | February 11, 2009
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | February 13, 2009
[hidden by request]

Aaron Shurtleff | February 13, 2009
In Phelps defense, the way camera technology is going smaller and smaller, and with the amazing proliferation of camera phones, how can anyone honestly be expected to know that they aren't being photographed at any given moment? I really think anyone who clings to the illusion that they have privacy in this day and age might be a bit naive. And anyone with any kind of celebrity status is a LOT more than a bit naive to think they have privacy when they are out in public.

And I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, necessarily. Although I think any good which comes out of it is wholly drowned out by the amazingly bad points.

And the whole issue of role models is tough anyways. Who should be a particular person's role model? I've seen some kids with parents and other family members that just make you want to weep for the kids. You apparently can't look up to musicians, athletes, anyone. Heck, even scholarly types have been known to pretty much compromise themselves and have their research results miraculously match the desires of the folks who pay them to conduct the research! The only way we can have role models, I think, is if we accept that we have good and bad role models, and that no one is perfect. But I think the key is that we have to let kids know what is right, and what is wrong, and that no one person is always right nor always wrong.

Not that right and wrong is a clear issue by any means. :)

Steve West | February 13, 2009
Aaron - your initial statement starts with 'In Phelps defense'. I see it as the exact opposite. It's a damning statement to make about the situation. How can a person anywhere, public or private (meaning priate home where a party is occuring), not be aware that he could be surrounded by a hundred cameras? And he's made himself a public persona, not just because of his athletic accomplishments, but by accepting $100 million to be a product endorser. I don't think he's naive so much as downright stupid.

Aaron Shurtleff | February 14, 2009
That is, more or less, what I actually meant by a LOT more than a bit naive, yes!

Scott Hardie | February 14, 2009
by accepting $100 million to be a product endorser... I don't think he's naive so much as downright stupid

That pretty much says it for me. I'm with all of you on the suggestion that "role model" is a foolish term to apply to all athletes and other public performers, especially in this day and age. But as I said before, Michael Phelps isn't just any athlete. He accepted an outrageous sum to keep a clean public image, and he just couldn't do it.