Roger from Vienna, Georgia writes, "Steroids in sports used to be limited to track and field. Has that sport cleaned up its act?"
Track and field was the original gangster as far as steroid culprits in the world of sports go. Steroid testing has been in place in track and field for many years. Is it effective? Yes. Is it foolproof? Not by any means. Track and field athletes probably face more drug tests than athletes in any other sport.
Consequently, they likely know more of the tricks to beat a drug test than athletes in any other sport. You can bet that baseball players have learned a thing or two about masking agents from someone involved in track and field, whether that be an athlete, a coach, an official, or someone actually involved in the drug testing.
Just as in baseball, it is obvious in track and field when an athlete's performance is enhanced by steroids. Take a look at the women's world record holders in the four shortest events. Florence Griffith-Joyner holds the records in the 100 and 200 meter dashes, in times that haven't been approached since she set the standard at the 1988 Olympics Trials. The record holders in the 400- and 800-meter runs, Marita Koch of the former East Germany and Jarmila Kratochvilova of Czechoslovakia, clocked records that are 19- and 21-years-old, respectively.
What do all these records have in common, besides the fact that they are held by women with the musculature of a well-built man? Well, they were all set in the early to mid-'80s, when drug testing was at its least absolute. There is no telling how many track and field records are tainted, but these four stand out as very questionable. If you are old enough to remember what these three women looked like, you know that they were unnaturally muscular, not just for a woman, but for a human.
Let's forget about these women's muscles for a moment and take a look at the records themselves. The most recent record is Flo Jo's near 17-year-old record in the 200. As she did in the 200, Flo Jo set the world record twice in each event in 1988. In the 100, she broke Evelyn Ashford's four-year-old record; in the 200, she broke Ashford's two-year-old record. In the 400, Koch broke Kratochvilova's record in the 400 that had stood for two years. Kratochvilova's mark of 1:53.28 broke a three-year-old world record.
The point is, those record setting performances were the end of a natural progression world best performances, in which a new record was set every two to four years. As years go by and those records easily stand, the credibility of those records suffers. The natural progression of unenhanced human achievement would seem to dictate a new world record every two to four years, as was the case before these four records were set. These women set times so far out there that no one has approached them in the 17-20 years since they were set.
Of course, I could be totally wrong and these women may have just had incredible days or years. Flo Jo had her record-breaking year of 1988 and basically did nothing else. Mysteriously, she died of a heart condition in 1998. Kratochvilova set the 800m record once and never broke it. Koch's achievements lean more toward the legitimate side — she broke the 400m record seven times from 1978 to 1985. That, however, could also be suspicion itself that she used steroids. Not only can steroids enhance speed and power, they're also known to increase recuperative powers, which could explain Koch's longevity. So, maybe it was good days, but when you have days that good, that often, questions arise.
The "good day" argument could be used to support two titanic men's records that stood for almost two decades. Lee Evans set the 400-meter record of 43.86 in Mexico City, while Bob Beamon's incredible leap of 29' 2 1/2", also in Mexico City, shattered the old long jump mark by almost two feet. Evans record stood for almost 20 years, until Butch Reynolds 43.29 set the new standard. Beamon's mark remained in the record books until Mike Powell's leap of 29' 4" in Tokyo in 1991.
Evans' and Beamon's records were set in Olympic competition, but more importantly, in the 7,300+ feet altitude of the Mexican capital. In these two cases of records being set 20 years out of reach, the altitude seems to be the major factor. In fact, at the Mexico City games, world records were set in the mens' 100m, 200m, 400m hurdles, and triple jump, as well.
But the coincidences of the aforementioned women's records speak volumes: strangely muscular women, records set in the '80s, when steroids were widespread as ever in track, and records set out of reach. Western Bloc countries like East German and Czechoslovakia, were notorious for drug usage, and their athletic governing bodies were notorious for lack of enforcement. Did anyone ever accuse these women of steroids? Probably, but maybe the accusers didn't have the power to get anything done, like Carl Lewis.
Lewis had claimed for years that Canada's Ben Johnson abused steroids. In 1988 at the Seoul Olympics, Johnson shaved an incredible .14 off of the legitimate world record and ran a 9.79 in the 100-meter finals. Lewis ran the fastest time of his career, a 9.92, and lost by .13.
Lewis reiterated his point that no one should cleanly be able to run that time (by comparison, it took 14 years for Johnson's time to fall; Tim Montgomery ran a 9.78 in 2002). Officials finally caught Johnson in a positive drug test and he was stripped of his medal and time. Obviously, Johnson had passed previous drug tests, so why did it take so long to catch him? Lewis' adamant accusations helped bring the hammer down, but Johnson still got away with it for some time.
The bottom line is this: steroids are basically in all sports, and have been in track and field for some time. Drug tests don't always catch the culprits, especially when the culprits have help in sidetracking a potentially damaging drug test. Just like in baseball, players can lie and say they don't use steroids, but their numbers say otherwise. Roger Maris' record of 61 homers stood for 37 years. He broke Babe Ruth's record by one, 34 years after Ruth set the mark. Mark McGwire shattered Maris' record with 70, then Barry Bonds broke that with 73. Guess what Bonds and McGwire have in common? Allegations of steroids. Baseball isn't so different from track and field, after all.
But, to answer the question, track and field has cleaned up the steroid issue. But a "cleaned up" steroid issue does not mean they have disappeared. Not by a long shot. Not when athletes like Marion Jones, once a threat to Flo Jo's records, and Greece's Kostas Kenteris, the 2000 Olympic 100m and 200m champion, are being busted for steroid use. Steroid use can only be limited; it will never be totally abolished. Not as long as dishonest, unethical athletes choose to use them illegally.
Ryne from Champaigne, Illinois asks, "What's going to happen next season with Shaquille O'Neal's contract?"
This year, Shaq is being paid $29,464,288, and probably will ask for $30 million a year for three years. I think the Heat will sign him at any cost. You could put Shaq on any team and automatically, that team is a contender for the NBA title. I think Shaq still has 2-4 good years left in him — good enough to make whichever team has him a favorite. So, I don't see the Heat letting him go regardless of the situation.
Dwayne Wade is a great player, but I don't think he'd be having this kind of year without Shaq. It's like in baseball when you have a strong batter hitting behind another strong batter in the lineup. The pitchers have to pitch to the first guy because they know the second guy is equally dangerous. Shaq is hitting behind Wade, basically protecting him. Teams have to commit two players to defend Shaq; this opens things up for Wade. Not only is Wade benefiting from Shaq, so is Damon Jones. He's probably never seen this many open threes, mainly because of Shaq, and also because of Wade.
As far as letting Shaq go and rebuilding with all that money, I think that's easier said than done. Look at the Lakers. No Shaq, no playoffs. Shaq is one of a kind. Just his sheer size makes him irreplaceable. If the Heat chose to keep him, I think, at any time down the road, they can easily find a trade offer. The Heat can win the NBA title, resign Shaq, and at some point in the future, trade Shaq. It's inevitable that some team will offer way too much for an aging Shag.
Rebuilding requires time. Sure, the Pistons won the NBA title last year, but the winning combination was assembled over several years. The same can be said for Michael Jordan's Bulls. Without the supporting cast developed over the early years of Jordan's career, the Bulls would never have been able to win six titles, much less vanquish the Pistons, the east powerhouse at the time.
Unlike these two situations, the presence of Shaq transforms a team into an instant favorite, no assembly required. Shaq's presence makes the supporting cast easier and a lot quicker to build. The Heat have options: let Shaq go, rebuild, and maybe contend for the title in 2-3 years. Or, re-sign Shaq and continue to contend, and possibly win, one or two titles.
Shaq's numbers are down, but he doesn't have to do as much with Wade on his side. Not only can Wade score at will, he is an excellent passer, and he and Shaq play an awesome two-man game. Kobe Bryant had no interest in distribution of the ball — it was all about Kobe. Wade does what the team needs; with Shaq dealing with some injuries, Wade has picked up the slack. The Heat will have a lot of rest before the conference finals. This will allow Shaq to somewhat recover. I think you can expect Shaq's numbers to increase in the conference finals, and the Finals if the Heat go that far.
In short, I think the Heat will keep Shaq, then sucker some desperate team into a trade in 2-3 years, maybe sooner. God made the Trailblazers and Clippers for that very reason. For now, Shaq's got enough in him for a title or two.
Get Your Questions Answered!
Do you have a question or comment? Need a weapon of mass destruction planted in a foreign country? Have a kidney you're willing to part with? Need an alternate use for that newly acquired college diploma? Then send your question/political affiliation/blood type/college major to [email protected]. You may get the answer you're looking for in the next column on Friday, June 10th.
Leave a Comment