March 2005

It’s hard to believe the amount of attention being paid to the plight of Terry Schiavo. For 15 years she’s been in what doctors’ refer to as a “persistent vegetative state,” and in light of her husband’s latest court victory and the impending removal of her feeding tube, everyone suddenly has a stake in her life or death. Even Congress has added their two cents in what I believe to be a flagrant overstepping of federal authority. Frankly, it’s none of our concern. This is an issue between Terri’s husband and her parents. Is Michael Schiavo really the sleaze they’re making him out to be? Or are the Schindlers’ just being selfish in keeping Terri alive year after year? None of our business! Speaking for myself, a life like Terri’s is not worth living. I would not want my loved ones put into a position such as this. If anything positive has come from Ms Schiavo’s plight, it’s the importance of a living will.

The House Committee on Governmental Reform has subpoenaed several baseball players and may soon call out baseball officials to answer questions on steroid use by players. Baseball is fighting the summons, and a lot of sports people are complaining that Congress has no business getting involved, and are simply grandstanding for votes. Maybe they are grandstanding, but how quickly we forget that baseball, “America’s Favorite Pastime” was granted an anti-trust exemption by Congress in the early 1900s. Perhaps Bud Selig and the owners should “play ball” with Congress because the anti-trust exemption certainly isn’t in the players (or fans) best interest. It’s Selig and the owners that have the most to loose should Congress decide that baseball isn’t “just a game” and is indeed a multi-billion dollar corporation and not worthy of this exemption.

Seven active or former players, including Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Jose Canseco, and four baseball executives, including Rob Manfred, executive vice president for labor relations in the commissioner’s office and players’ association head Donald Fehr, have been told to appear Thursday. Also subpoenaed were Rafael Palmeiro, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas and Jason Giambi. Canseco has asked for immunity so he can testify fully.

I’m no fan of government intervention, but I welcome these Congressional interviews. Only because MLB isn’t policing itself! If you think I’m crazy consider the penalties for steroid use:

• First positive test for steroid use would result in treatment
• Second positive: 15-day suspension or fine of up to $10,000.
• Third positive: 25-day suspension or fine of up to $25,000
• Fourth positive: a 50-day suspension or fine of up to $50,000
• Fifth positive: a one-year suspension or fine of up to $100,000

Of course, the suspensions would be without pay.

So what MLB is telling us is that the penalty for the first time caught knowingly “cheating” is counseling? The player has to be caught cheating five times before the organization considers suspending for a season??

And you’re telling me, the Giants are going to suspend someone like Bonds for a year? Gimmie-a-break! He’d be levied the fine and that would be it. Still, $100 thousand is a hefty sum of money, right? Considering Bonds earned $18 million in 2004, that so-called hefty fine represents just one-half of one percent (0.05%) of his income. Ouch!

Dick Pound, World Anti-Doping Agency chairman, slammed baseball’s testing system and scale of penalties for steroid use. Pound told the Associated Press, “I think it’s an insult to the fight against doping in sport, an insult to the intelligence of the American public and an insult to the game itself.”

To put this in perspective, under the Anti-Doping Agency’s code, which has been adopted by most Olympic sports, an athlete faces a minimum two-year ban for a first positive steroid test and a life ban for a second.

Now, let’s see if I can get this straight…

Jose Canseco retires and writes a book. In this book he states that he used steroids and estimates that 85 percent of players do. Ken Caminiti has also admitted to using steroids. So far, these are the only two who have admitted knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs. But recent drug testing revealed 5-7 percent of major league players popped positive for steroids. Incidentally, this test included pitchers who do not benefit from steroids, so the percentages are probably larger for the big hitters, and this test was conducted after the anti-steroid policy was announced in 2003.

And what about Barry Bonds? Who denied using steroids, but during his grand jury testimony in the 2003 BALCO steroid distribution case, he admitted using a clear substance and a cream given to him by a trainer. He reportedly said he didn’t know they were steroids. (BALCO owner Victor Conte was indicted for illegal steroid distribution). Bonds was also said to have received human growth hormone, a very powerful steroid that can’t be distributed without a prescription. Still he categorically denies knowingly using steroids.

So, does Bonds use steroids? I think the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. After all, Barry Bonds became a client of BALCO in late 2000. Since becoming a BALCO client, he gained 20 pounds of muscle, and his performance soared. He jumped from 46 homers to 73 at age 36, and his win shares jumped from 32 to 54 from 2000 to 2001. He has won the MVP every year since, at ages 36-38. According to Stats, Inc. he had never hit a homer over 450 feet before then, whereas he has now done it 21 times. And who says your performance diminishes as you get older?

Truth be told, except for Canseco and Caminiti, we don’t know who uses or has used steroids. What if we find out that Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire use them? How will it affect their records? Will their records be revoked? What about the fans? What about the kids who look up to the Sosas and McGwires? What message do these players send to them? If you cheat, you’ll get your name in the record books or better yet, the “Hall of Fame” in Cooperstown!

Shame on them!

Well, Brian Nichols is behind bars. An interesting footnote to the event is that the judge who met his demise at the hands of this deranged killer is the same judge who allowed a plea bargain that effectively freed a woman who killed her 5-month old daughter. Although the judge really isn’t to blame, he doesn’t have much choice in the matter when the accused pleads out. After all, it was the district attorney, Paul Howard, who failed to protect the community he was elected to serve. Maybe Mr. Howard should have been standing in the way of the judges bullet.

Can you believe Michael Jackson? Showing up late for court because his back hurt? Arriving at the courthouse in his pajamas and hobbling into the building aided by his entourage until a fan yells to him…and in a time-stands-still moment out of the Twilight Zone, Michael turns and waves with painless effort. Hospital? I don’t think so. Oversleeping? Likely. Thinking the law doesn’t apply to him? You betcha! I await with baited breath for the end of this intergalactic freak show. Michael Jackson is a bad guy and guilty as sin. He preys on children and deserves to be put away for a long, long time!

I see the ones who crawl like moles
who for a front would trade their souls,
A broken mirror’s the only hole for them
And for you who’d exchange yourselves, just to be somebody else,
Pretending things you never felt or meant

They’ll never help you to decide, they’ll only take you for a ride,
After which they’ll try and hide the fact that they don’t know
What you should do, where you should go,
What you should do, where you should go.

- from Rolling Home by Peter, Paul & Mary

When I was high school I had a very good friend, let’s call her “Sandy,” who was very well read, intelligent, witty and a striking conversationalist. Although I cared for and deeply respected this young woman, we never became romantically involved. I mention this because I want to ensure understanding as I recall this story and comment on its circumstance.

Sandy could discuss anything with an insight rivaled only by our learned high school faculty. So what happened? Somewhere between our junior and senior year, Sandy got silly. In what I remember as a fleeting moment, she was transformed from an urbane intellectual into a dingy, moronic teenage girl. She could no longer converse without giggling and any attempt to delve into any serious topic was countered with an “ohmygod” and something about the outfit she saw in a recent fashion magazine.

Suffice it to say, that Sandy was passing into womanhood in the only way she knew how: by imitating the “popular” girls. She was flirty and always going on about this guy or that guy. And sadly, the guys noticed. Funny they never noticed her before. It was as though she traded her intellectual soul for this superficiality. Holden Caufield would say she was “a phony.” And she was. I lost interest in Sandy and we soon drifted apart.

A few years later, on the day before her wedding, she visited me. The visit was cordial. We talked about trivial things and played “remember when.” Just as she left, Sandy gave me a card. In the card she talked about how much my friendship meant to her and wondered what would have happened if we’d ever “gotten together.” She said that she respected me because I was honest and above all else was true to myself.

It seemed obvious to me that although we never acknowledged what happened after her “social transformation,” she understood and at least in part, regretted it. Sandy didn’t like the person she was in high school. She was different and thought she was missing out on something. Maybe she was.

I’ve seen Sandy a couple of times over the years and we have never mentioned the card or discussed our past relationship. The past is past and we are two totally different people. Although we can be friendly, we are no longer friends. Sandy’s betrayal of herself cost her our friendship.

It’s sad the way our society fosters false expectations. The misguided thought that what other people think matters in the least, entices people to try to be someone they’re not. All in the name of acceptance or worse, vanity. I can think of no greater dishonesty than to lie to oneself. After all, is it better to be liked by many or respected by a few?