Two somewhat separate events in the ongoing steroid discussion came together curiously for me over the weekend.First, NFL executives appeared before Congress to answer questions about the league's steroid policy. In a noticeable contrast from the baseball hearings of March, the NFL was largely praised for taking a proactive role in the fight against performance-enhancing drugs.
However, the league did not get off without admonishment. One of the league's top doctors was asked why the NFL does not test for human growth hormone, which is believed to be more effective than classic steroids and can only be detected by blood tests that are much more expensive than the urine tests that are employed by the league to catch users of other illegal substances. NFL doctors professed that there are times that science or money prevent them from doing everything possible to prevent cheating, but the committee seemed hardly accepting of that reality.
They wondered if testing closer to the more-stringent methods of the World Anti-doping Association were necessary to truly assure a cleaner league. WADA polices international competitions, including the Olympics.
Additionally, another doctor questioned the NFL's system of punishment. In pointing out that a second offense gets a player suspended for four games - 25 percent of the season - he drew a parallel to what would happen if he himself were caught dealing or using illegal steroids. He said he would be banned from practicing for at least a full year and his reputation would be so stained that his career would basically be over. Therefore, he wondered if punishments are harsh enough in the NFL.
Along those same lines, Saturday a letter from MLB Commissioner Bud Selig to the players' association suggesting stiffer penalties for the MLB drug policy was published. Selig suggested raising the penalty for a first offense from a suspension of 10 days to one of 50 games while also introducing a lifetime ban for a third offense. Currently, a player would have to test positive for using a banned substance five times before being banned for life.
The players' association will undoubtedly fight this increase in punishment so soon after the last agreed-upon lifting of penalties, but Selig's action and the NFL hearings bring to mind a different alternative.
What if instead of worrying about the punishment there was more emphasis on detection?
Opponents of capital punishment claim that it fails as a deterrent because those who commit capital crimes don't consider any sort of punishment. They generally don't expect to get caught, so why would they worry about what could happen to them if they do?
I think it is fair to say most would-be cheaters in athletics have the same mind-set. If they do, perhaps it would be better to concentrate more on improving the methods of detection rather than the ways of correction.
