The Vault: Authenticity and External Incidents

This flashback Friday is from 9 SEPT 2016 via LinkedIn.

Authenticity and External Incidents: How to Approach it

For years I have been trying to find a unilateral system of repercussions across the so-called "Big Four" of North American sport. While this could include the "Big Six" or other professional leagues spanning this continent, we don't come across these issues nearly as frequently as the more watched and more social four. It's difficult enough that each league on an individual basis has at some point had difficulty in determining appropriate actions to be taken. However, to unify that across the board is that much more difficult. This isn't because of correlating the amount of time necessarily, but the ability of the player. While that shouldn't be taken into account, it often it is. But those are the ones nobody knows about. Either way, it gets even worse when these players got a whole career in before any sanctions could be placed and the list of what is acceptable and what is not changes in both directions.

Though that [performance enhancing drug (PEDs)] era in baseball is relatively behind us, we still discuss how it affects voting by the baseball writers on whether performance-enhancing drug users should be in Cooperstown. And every year, the two most prominent figures of that era always are the center of the discussion with exception to the last couple years where near unanimous nominees have been selected (that's another story).  Keep in mind that there have been changes in eligibility requirements not related to PEDs or other substances. Sportscaster Bob Costas is probably more influential in baseball than all of the other sports he commentates for combined. As I listened to him on a round table on MLB Network on discussing this year's nominees to the Baseball Hall of Fame, he has wonderfully constructed the following assortment of words:

That's the reason I have said that I would vote for [Barry] Bonds and [Roger] Clemens, because they were Hall-of-Famers before 1998. I wouldn't vote for Sammy Sosa because he put up numbers because of steroid use... Let's examine the logic in that. What you're saying is that if no hitters took steroids and no pitchers took steroids that Sammy Sosa would've hit sixty home runs three times? You happy with that logic? Go ahead, live with it. And when it comes to Barry Bonds, Barry Bonds was an authentically great player, but his records are not authentic... The last third of his career is inauthentic, and that's what the thing should really be.

Okay? There's more where that came from. I don't think Costas is wrong in his assessment. Now as for body of work, Bonds and Clemens are in the same category, which is that they were "inauthentic" in the tail end of their career. Yes, McGwire and Sosa are in there, but they are not competing against those two, so says the votes since their respective eligibility.  Under the same circumstances, on the pre-PED part of their careers, I had believed that Clemens not Bonds should get the call to Cooperstown for what was mentioned above - Bonds' records weren't there before his PED use. Not that Clemens didn't have some, he did wait around long enough to get three hundred wins. Bonds was also an everyday player though some would say that that hurts my argument.

Regardless, if one or both get in then we'll here it about why Pete Rose isn't in for gambling and that PED use is worse to authenticity. Yes, but in Major League Baseball there are two things you can't do and those things are using PEDs and betting on baseball and you are told that on day one and it is posted in every major league and minor league clubhouse per the MLB and MiLB. And by the way, just as Bonds and Clemens, Rose technically isn't ineligible from being in Cooperstown. However hecan only now be voted in by the veterans committee where he has no eligibility limit as he is ineligible to be on the active ballot. But in other sports, you have a point - which brings us to more of Costas:

When people talk about morality, drunks, and wife beaters, and racists. All terrible, actually - worse in a societal sense than using steroids, but does not impact authenticity of the baseball numbers. And when people liberally say 'well you know, Hall of Fame guys, some of the most revered names in the game took amphetamines. Yes they did. And what amphetamines were even though they've now been banned, they're more of a performance enabler than a performance enhancer. And the proof is in the numbers. Where was the massive distortion of baseball statistics or norms of greatness and in the fifties, sixties, and seventies? Was. Not. There. The steroid era is what created that distortion, and did more damage to the game and its history than almost anything other than segregation, which is the worst of all.

Spot on. Now imagine, just for a moment, that we're talking modern-day NFL as opposed to the modern (Super Bowl) era. How many complaints have been given on Roger Goodell and his legislation on recent activity? We are looking for too much on someone who had no guidelines. While Paul Tagliabue was Commissioner when Michael Vick was found for dog fighting, I will include that incident for purposes of this conversation. As for two other incidents, The Ray Rice incident and "Deflate-gate," we will include those as NFL and not Goodell matter. I'll address Deflate-gate first. The suspension of Tom Brady I'm glad was not more than four games. However, that said, it shouldn't be less than that either in this case (though it appears the suspension was given in part as a result of the controversy over Spygate in 2006).

I am not looking at this from a case-by-case basis. I look at this from multiple angles though, firstly that the New England Patriots are a repeat offender franchise in the last decade. Secondly, this event occurred during a game of higher significance. Suppose David Tyree actually had illegal Stick-Um on his helmet (you get the idea where I'm going with that). He'd probably get four games as well based on how Deflate-gate turned out. Now the Supreme Court part of this should have been discarded from the start as the suspension is within the bounds of the NFL to award. However if this is something not regarding the authenticity of the game, then it should absolutely be take to a higher court.

That's where the Ray Rice thing comes in. This was a very mild case that still got a large portion of the general public upset. While I was far from upset myself, I in no fashion support abuse of any kind. But four games is a lot in a season that has only sixteen games for a majority of the teams. In these instances, one of two things I would deem acceptable. The first is that the team takes the appropriate action as to what is necessary by their standards (e.g.: Aaron Hernandez). The other is that in addition to a sentencing, if it is less severe that doesn't require a jail sentence during the season and/or is only/reduced to a fine that the higher court may hand down a suspension to be instituted by the league assuming a league consultant is provided to the court. Briefly on the child abuse case of Adrian Peterson, that is simply disciplining of a child. I would never do that particular act towards my children however there is a need for discipline prior to a youth being of legal age. Furthermore, we as a society must examine why we have become sensitized to this example (and others) of behavior that was previously tolerable.

Now, how can we justifiably unify various corresponding punishments for incidents such as the above? I have an idea! Firstly, anything that does not consist of the inquisition of authenticity is to be determined by the federal court of the respective nation (which is to say the nation with the most participants in a given competition). The decision made by that power will then be provided to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for a final judicial review. In all circumstances, CAS will outline permissible sanctions translated into matches/games to be missed. Guidelines for unsporting behavior shall be modeled via the NHL's Department of Player Safety. Conduct regarding drugs and other related substance use shall be modeled after policies instituted by Major League Baseball and it's players association. All other sanctions not associated with any of the above will be at the discretion of the CAS, whose rulings are final and after which enforce said verdict by way of the respective league(s).

Everyone in the world was pointing the finger at the US Government when the FIFA case became publicly known sixteen months ago, which indicates front office personnel and other affiliated persons are not immune to sanctioning. Being a sore loser was cited as one of the reasons behind the investigation by opposition. However, while the US has it's right to search for the individuals believed to commit bank fraud and other such crimes, it would now be up to the CAS to provide recommendations (or at least insight) to the respective federal governing body in cooperating with a trial. All of these things put together I think are a great outline for uniting sport sanctioning across all participating organizations in order to discourage mischief through punishment and reward sportsmanship and positive self-esteem with the ability to play indefinitely.

This is perhaps radical, perhaps logical, or even perhaps wishful thinking depending on your opinion. But we, whether as spectators or as morality seekers, must present a case (be it this or another proposal) to be submitted as the means to appropriate the justifiable repercussions to return the integrity of many sporting institutions. I have no doubt this can be accomplished on the premise of the successes achieved through the NHL Player Safety office as well as Major League Baseball's illegal substance policies. The light at the end of the tunnel has not been turned off. We may be losing the battle now, but we can and will win the war.