jcdavey - this is a criticism i've heard about my column/blog post a couple of times in the past couple of days, and my own husband was among them.
I am not excusing Rodney. He used HGH, which under NFL rules is illegal. Do I personally think it should be? Not if it is used under doctor's supervision to heal injuries/surgeries incurred as a result of playing football. But as of right now, it is against league rules, he admitted to doing it, and he is paying his penance for what he did.
Do I know Rodney the person better than I know Luis Castillo? Of course. If Luis Castillo had injuries similar to Rodney's and took HGH to help heal from them, would I be as forgiving? Probably. It is impossible for the majority of fans to understand just what these men are doing to their bodies, and most fans don't care -- they just want big hits (have you ever watched "Jacked Up" on espn??) by big players when they sit down on Sunday with a beer and some wings.
I obviously have no idea how old you are or what you do for work, but let's say for argument's sake that your boss was starting to question your performance at your $75k/year job. Some young kid a year out of college is hot on your heels, and he makes $20k/year less than you. But if you smoke pot a few times a month -- something that by most studies isn't harmful for you but is illegal -- you'll perform better at your job. Do you do it??
smy
First of all, it's very cool of you to enter into the dialogue out here. Thank you.
Your comparison with the "$75k/year" person who uses pot and the "young kid" at $20k less is, however, specious.
I'm not telling you anything you don't already know when I say that, in pro sports (amateur as well), there is a direct, objective and verifiable link between performance-enhancing substances and, well, performance. The link has usually been proven over time by multiple sources. The intent of any policy in their regard is to assure a more or less level playing field. Many of the "forbidden" substances are indeed legal when properly obtained and used, just banned by a league or association because of their known impact.
The connection between smoking a joint and doing a better job is a matter of opinion that can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not of science (BTW, it is an opinion with which I might agree in individual cases). There could also be a conjectured connection between getting a good night's sleep and improved job performance or between having a satisfactory sex life and job performance or between working out on a regular basis and job performance...while I acknowledge that these latter activities are "legal," the point is that there are many activities that "might" impact performance without having been "proven" to impact performance.
You would have posed a better question if you had asked whether the $75k/year person might legitimately gain a competitive advantage by somehow snooping on the work of the "young kid," in a manner forbidden by company policy (for example by obtaining access to the report that s/he was about to present in a way that society at large would not consider illegal, but which is directly contrary to written company policy and sanctioned by the company).
Then, the comparison works. Is it OK to break the rules of an organization to protect your own job or interests if you are doing something that isn't technically illegal? I think not, but I am sure there are many, perhaps yourself, who might disagree with me.
Again, thanks for entering into this interesting and timely discussion.
Thanks for giving me a smile to end my day!
