The following is the first entry in a weekly series on steroids and the media that Harrogate will be bringing to The Rhetorical Situation.
Over the last few years Harrogate has become increasingly irritated with the media's rhetorical treatment of steroids in sports--baseball in particular, but the witch hunt for instances of doping extends to every corner of the Sports World (and has for quite some time). On this topic, the sanctimony of ESPN staples like The Sports Reporters and Outside the Lines is truly something to behold. And of course, the sanctimony trickles down to the rest of us, infiltrating our own little water cooler, barroom debates, as though we are clean-handed innocents looking for a fair contest in sports and life, alike.
Comes the cry from your buddy over wings, Bob Ley, and George Will alike: (drumroll please) THE FANS NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE SEEING IS REAL!
What silliness. Why do so few with media podiums (Jason Whitlock being a notable exception--more on him next week, links included) challenge this default use of the word "real," as though we all know exactly what it is and that it was never in question until steroids came into the picture? In baseball, such usage implies that all of the following falls under the category of stable, of the REAL: generations of fences moving in and out, pitchers' mounds going up and down, fluctuation in terms of season length and playoff participants, shrinking strike zones, the illegalization of spitballs, etc. But bring a performance enhancing drug into the equation and suddenly you've left us with nothing to count on!
Along these same lines, today's athletes, in whatever sport you want to talk about, get access to levels of weight training, physical conditioning, dietary practice, and generally pampered living that the predecessors whose records they so zealously chase never dreamed of. This is just a fact.
Bring them back, in their prime, and Lombardi's Pack Attack gets annhiliated by the worst team in today's NFL. And that, brothers and sisters, aint because of steroids.
Much as die hard fans like Harrogate and Solon might hate to admit it, professional sports is entertainment, not a continual unfolding of the Iliad. Homeruns, broken tackles, 100+ MPH pitches--this is what the industry in general has taught us makes it worthwhile top pay top dollar at the gate. And the media has been, shall we say, gluttonously complicit in framing sports in American as a metaphor for raw power.
Is it any wonder then that the athletes are giving us what we have been taught to want, to demand?
6 comments:
While I would not call myself a diehard fan of sports entertainment, I feel somewhat emasculated and marginalized by your decision to exclude me from your post, Harrogate. You mention that Salon likes sports, but you leave me out. I mean, I know that I drive an economical car and that I catch and release bugs that infiltrate my home rather than squash them, but like any other red-blooded American male, I like sports. For example, I have been an active member of the USA Curling Fan Club since February 1993, just six months after first being introduced to the sport. I am fully aware that my own interests aren’t what you would call mainstream, as they don’t revolve around baseball, football, hockey, or any other violent contest, but curling is a legitimate sport—and a highly competitive one at that. I bet that you and Salon, the so-called diehard sports fans of this blog, don’t know who the USA Curling team defeated to win the bronze metal in the consolation round of this year's winter Olympics. I do. It was Britain. And we won by two points, just in case you didn't know. I just want to be included here, Harrogate, even if there are no high-profile steroid abuse allegations in my of spectator sport of choice. Please don't make me an outsider here.
"I bet that you and Salon, the so-called diehard sports fans of this blog, don’t know who the USA Curling team defeated to win the bronze metal in the consolation round of this year's winter Olympics. I do. It was Britain. And we won by two points, just in case you didn't know."
This is very well said. It puts Harrogate in his place rather deftly and puts him in a position to cheerfully offer a full retraction and recognize fellow blogger, Oxymoron, for the full-on stud that he undoubtedly is.
And of course, the curling reference has added immensely to Harrogate's point because, frankly, such sports have indeed been fraught with steroid allegations, scandals, disqualifications, and the like for years.
Furthermore, Oxymoron's use of the term "high profile" provides a perfect segue into what will ultimately be Part Deux of the Steroid Series. Harrogate doesn't want to give too much away, but for the gaggle of readers devoted to The Rhetorical Situation, he here offers a taste of what the theme will be: Witch Hunting the particular superstar for engaging in something that is rampant among the comparative commoners.
Oxymoron, it would be extremely interesting to get your feedback Re the central issue of this week's Steroid Installment, the idea of sportswriters and fans drawing the "reality line," as it were, with performance enhancing drugs. Perhaps your vast knowledge of curling can be employed to shed light here: Would it be fair to guess that the curlers of yesteryear were far behind today's big time stars in terms of technological access with their training, nutritionists on staff, etc?
Oxymoron-
Now I am offended. Remember, I grew up in the North East with access to Canadian television. Hence, I watched the sport of curling on a regular basis. I even watched, time permitting curling at the Olympics. I watched as mcuh Curling as a did Hockey.
Oxymoron and Harrogate-
And it is Solon, not Salon. What is I called you Horrorgate and oxenmoron.
Oxenmoron is fine, Solon. So long as the "moron" portion remains unaltered, I have no issues. It's really the most telling descriptor I have.
I also want to extend my apologies to Solon. It is clear that you know well the achievements of the USA Curling team.
Post a Comment