Pubdate: Tuesday, August 25, 1998
Source: Toronto Star (Canada)
Contact:  http://www.thestar.com/ 
Section: Sports
Author: Dave Perkins, Sports Columnist

RUTH AND McGWIRE: DIFFERENT TIMES, DRUGS

SO THE BIG slugger hit all those home runs while partaking of a
potentially dangerous substance that is banned in some places, but not
others?

Imagine that.

Why, what would Babe Ruth have done if alcohol hadn't been illegal in
the United States for most of his career?

Now, 60 or 70 years later, many people would laugh at the idea that
Ruth used, even abused, a technically illegal product (booze, and
often in vast quantities) while setting dozens of home run records.
Pitchers probably wished he drank more.

It is impossible to know what people will be saying about
androstenedione in several decades. Who knows? They might be
sprinkling it on kids' breakfast cereals in the middle of the next
century.

We as a society tend to change our outlook on what are harmful
substances and what aren't. (Even movie theatre popcorn is getting a
bad rap nowadays.) Only 35 years ago, there was intense, passionate
public debate over putting fluoride in the public water system. And
please don't suggest that the medical/scientific community was solidly
behind it. There is never unanimity in that large, diverse group.

All the semi-kerfuffle about Mark McGwire and his hot suppers seems to
centre on the comparative-guilt theme. As in, McGwire broke no rules
or restrictions, but others caught with the same stuff did.

The first part of that previous sentence frames the debate for many of
us. He used a legal performance-enhancing drug? Hey, pro sports is all
about enhancing performance. Give them an edge and many if not most
will take it. If the rules are there, that's one thing. No rules? Go
for it.

The second part, about others paying the price, sounds very much like
the Ross Rebagliati silliness at the Winter Olympics. You remember
that the Canadian snowboarder was detected with traces of marijuana in
his system. After that, everything more or less broke down. The weed
was illegal in some jurisdictions but not others. There were specific
rules against its use for these people over here (figure skaters, say)
but not those people over there (speed skaters).

Rebagliati ended up getting his gold medal back because, essentially,
no one could point to an applicable rule in writing - and the Olympic
family has many rules - that his urine specifically broke.

Main difference between Rebagliati and McGwire seems to be that the
baseball star hasn't claimed he is the victim of second-hand steroid
pollution.

Not to suggest it is all so simple, that McGwire broke no rules and
that Randy Barnes, the U.S. shotputter barred for life for using the
same steroid, did. But it is almost that simple.

This is no news flash, but there are different rules for the same
stuff in different places. Try getting caught with a couple of joints
on Yorkville Ave. Then get caught with it in, say, Malaysia.

Some day, baseball could well bar the use of McGwire's
over-the-counter steroid. If and when it does, fine. Anyone caught
using it then will then face the same penalties - a cycle of
education, rehab and, if it continues, possible suspension - that
players now face for getting caught with other illegal substances.

Would someone, someday, suggest going back and placing an asterisk
beside McGwire's home runs this season because he used a legal
substance that later became illegal? Not likely.

You don't see anyone rushing to mark up the Babe's home runs because
booze was illegal in the 1920s.

Or because cocaine was legal back then, either.

Anybody see much difference?

- ---
Checked-by: Patrick Henry