PEDs are OK. Plato and Kant said so.

75 Comments

This story in The Atlantic may be the biggest, juiciest bit of Craig-bait ever composed. I want to take this story out for long walks and tell it all of my deepest secrets and have it love me for me. I want to make a serious commitment to this story and show it I’m not like all those other bloggers who will link them and forget them. It’s serious between this story and me.

Actually, I’m linking it because it will enrage most of you people and if you haven’t guessed it in the past four years, enraging most of you people gives me endless satisfaction.

The upshot: a philosophy professor citing Plato, Kant and others to counter the usual anti-PED arguments. Which, given the usual tenor of PED debates, will convince you anti-PED folk out there about as much as a Nikolai Volkoff soliloquy about why Hulk Hogan sucks would have convinced wrestling fans circa 1985. I mean, if you’re the sort of person who calls Alex Rodriguez “A-Roid,” I don’t feel like Immanuel Kant and Plato and references to the Socratic dialogue Euthyphro are really going to have a lot of persuasive power for you.

Actual honesty now: I agree with reason number 7 listed for why PEDs are bad: the arms race they create. As in, how Player X using PEDs may coerce Player Y into using them. At that point someone is being pressured into taking risks they may not have otherwise taken and I feel like that reason in and of itself is enough to justify the ban of PEDs. At least PEDs which present health risks. If there is some imaginary PED which, one day, is confirmed to be harmless, it changes things.

Anyway: I expect most of you to rail against this as stupid and to repat your “cheating is wrong” mantra. But it would be really great if you actually dug into the reasons why it’s wrong and admit that not all of the arguments tossed out by strongly anti-PED people hold logical water.

Major League Baseball told Kolten Wong to ditch Hawaii tribute sleeve

Getty Images
8 Comments

Derrick Goold of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Major League Baseball has told Cardinals infielder Kolten Wong that he has to get rid of the colorful arm sleeve he’s been wearing, pictured above, that pays tribute to his native Hawaii and seeks to raise awareness of recovery efforts from the destruction caused by the erupting Mount Kilauea.

Goold:

[Wong] has been notified by Major League Baseball that he will face a fine if he continues to wear an unapproved sleeve that features Hawaiian emblem. Wong said he will stash the sleeve, like Jose Martinez had to do with his Venezuelan-flag sleeve, and find other ways to call attention to his home island.

Willson Contreras was likewise told to ditch his Venezuela sleeve.

None of these guys are being singled out, it seems. Rather, this is all part of a wider sweep Major League Baseball is making with respect to the uniformity of uniforms. As Goold notes at the end of his piece, however, MLB has no problem whatsoever with players wearing a non-uniform article of underclothing as long as it’s from an MLB corporate sponsor. Such as this sleeve worn by Marcell Ozuna, supplied by Nike that, last I checked, was not in keeping with the traditional St. Louis Cardinals livery:

ST. LOUIS, MO – MAY 22: Marcell Ozuna #23 of the St. Louis Cardinals celebrates after recording his third hit of the game against the Kansas City Royals in the fifth inning at Busch Stadium on May 22, 2018 in St. Louis, Missouri. (Photo by Dilip Vishwanat/Getty Images)

If Nike was trying to get people to buy Hawaii or Venezuela compression sleeves I’m sure there would be no issue here. They’re not, however, and it seems like creating awareness and support for people suffering from natural, political and humanitarian disasters does not impress the powers that be nearly as much.