Bass Ackwards

Chiming in on the steroid debate, Barry Rozner has this gem in his column today:

"MLS commissioner Don Garber said he believes the right to eliminate contracts (after a positive steroid test) serves as a stronger deterrent than the right to impose a two-year suspension."

No it doesn't. Garber's statement implies that the teams don't want the players on steroids. That's wrong.

Everyone knows that the owners in all sports were very happy to turn their collective heads away and let juiced players in all sports excite the fans.

If Barry Bonds, two years ago, tested positive for an anabolic, you mean to tell me that the Giants would have voided his contract? The opposite would have occurred. The Giants would have hushed up everything and kept Bonds smashing homers.

It's mandatory suspensions or nothing.

And by nothing, I mean embrace the substances. I mean, where's the line anyway? Asprin? Sudaphed? Lasix? Tommy John Surgery? Cortisone shots? Steroids (legally perscribed)? All those enhance performance. If most of those are OK, why are steroids bad?