The Maverick Conservative

This is why the accuracy rate of this blog is at 99.1%, while that of Rush Limbaugh is still at "only" 98.8%.

For two days, Rush Limaugh has been on a rant against the Michell report on baseball players using steroids (naming names).

The way Limbaugh gets into trouble (intellect ually, on the rare times he does--I am not referring to "trouble" manufactured by leftists) is when he lets himself go off of the deep end on a subject--pushing his reasoning too far.

What was Limbaugh's take on steroids?  Well, unfournately, he fell in love with his idea that this was all because of the leftist, sports journalists making a big deal out of something the fans did not care about.  Now this blog has advocated BOYCOTTING ESPN because sports "journalists" are just as bad as the rest of the maintream media.

However, Limbaugh's rant went on and on about how the whole idea of sports was to ENHANCE PERFORMACE, and that people did not care that already gifted athletes have taken things to enhance their performance.  Limbaugh said that people just want to seee superior athletes performing, and that it was onlly sports "journalists" interested in steroid use.

Now does this IMPLY (almost state explicitly) that LImbaugh thinks that athletes should have the FREEDOM to use steroids if they wish?  Of course it does.  I LISTENED, and I can assure you it does (I am better than LImbaugh himself, and he is really good, in understanding what is being said).  Yet, a woman called in and accused Limbaugh of being ireesponsible, and encouraging kids to use steroids, and he accused her of being totally off base--of not listening.

Limbaugh was WRONG.  The woman was RIGHT. 

No, Limbaugh was not acually ADVOCATING that kids use steroids (he is not that STUPID).  However, he was certainly saying that there were good reasons for athletes to use steroids, and that it did not change their superior abitlity to the rest of us.  In other words, he was sayng that we, the public, is RIGHT not to care that baseball players used steroids.

That is WRONG.  It is WERONG because steroids are illegal.  It is wrong because steroids are HARMFUL, and yet many athletes will be tempted to use them if athletes are allowed to CHEAT--earning tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, of dollars in the process.  Ultimately, Limbaugh is WRONG because "winking" at this problem DOES encourage youngathletes to use steroids, just like their heores are.  Limbaugh would realize this if a LEFTIST went over the top this way, but he failed to listen to himself.

Now LImbaugh started off yesterday saying that the Mitchell report was wrong to "convict" players without a court hearing (again, a standard that Limbaugh would NOT applly to Hillary Clinton as to a natter nateruak to the public interst--as steroid abuse is material to the public interest).  Nevertheless, there is merit to this position.  Mithcell's report should probably NOT have labeled players "guillty" of steroid abuse, but simply have named players for whom there was substantial evidence that they had used steroids  (a fine distinction, but one I think is important).  This business about "court of law" is STUPID (and Limbuagh should know it is stupid).  The purpose of Mithcell's report had nothing to do with courts and legalities, and it is wrong to say it did.  Limabaugh could still defend the position that names should not have been named (especially when it is clear that the people named may almost have been capricious, and a matter of luck, while many others using steroids simply did not come to the attention of teh Mitchell investigators).

Unfortunately, LImbaugh did NOT stop at criticizing the naming of names.  He directly stated that the whole thing was not a big deal.  As the caller suggested, it IS a big deal for the CHILDREN of this country.  Limbaugh is flatly wrong if he is saying, as he appeared to be, that the use of steroids by athletes was not important, and that professionall sports leagues should not INSIST that their athletes refrain from use of dangerous, illegal substances to gain advantage over other athletes.

Now I also agree with Limbuagh in another respect (again, the problem is that LImbaugh just let himself go over the top into the realm of saying steroid abuse was not important, and perhaps even okay for athletes).   They key here is HARMFUL.  If there are artifical substances that "enhance performance" WITHOUT damage to the human body, is that worng?  In other words, if there is some magic "pill" that helps kids grow up strong ?AND HEALTHY, I don't see that the key here is "performance enhancement."  The key here is "DANGEROUS" and "UNHEALTHY."   Sports organizations have a responsibility to DISCOURAGE use of dangerous and unhealthy drugs--WITH SANCTIONS and PUNISHMENT. 

Is "human growth hormone" unhealthy?  I think so.  If not, I don't see what the problem is.  But I think it is.  Now in track and field, and Olympic type sports, I can see that ALL artificial aids (used at or near the time of the performance) could reasonably be banned.  The idea is to test "natural" ability, and not who has the best "blood doping" or stimulants.  However, I frankly don't see banning NON-HARMFUL substances in professional sports.  The problem, of course, is that most substances that enhance performance dramatically ARE HARMFUL.  That certainly inculdes steroids.

Nope.  Rush Limbaugh is WRONG, in this case (whether he realizes it or not).  And it fails to convince me otherwise when he denies saying what I heard him say (to the caller--albeit creating a "straw man" by suggesting that he did not advocate steroid use by children, which was not the point at all).

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this