Phelps and A-Rod: Minority Report

  This past week, two sports stories transcended sports and found their way into the mainstream media.

   1.  Olympic swimming god Michael Phelps was photographed with a bong.

   2.  Sports Illustrated reported that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003.

  Phelps issued the expected corporate apology . . . I'm sorry I let down all the widows, orphans and baby koalas for whom I had been a role model, I promise never to do it again, I'll gladly narc on the person or persons the weed was obtained from, just ask me, and any fan who would like his or her car detailed please e-mail me and I'll send you a gift certificate to Jiffy Wash.

   It was a nice piece of PR hackwork -- for better or worse publicists have had a lot of practice issuing these endorsement-saving (they hope) apologies on behalf of athletes.  But most of them involve something more serious than being photographed with a bong.

   And that's the essence of Minority Report, Part 1.  Once, just once, could one of these guys just admit they smoke weed and skip the mea culpa, which, let's face it, no one believes anyway?  Phelps will smoke weed again -- he'll just be more careful about the circumstances and the company next time.

   I understand it's against the law . . . but consider -- of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana -- which has the highest social cost?  Marijuana is a distant third.  The "gateway drug" argument is easily debunked (or universally applicable, equally as devastating to the argument).  

  Anti-drug ads urge our children to "live above the influence."  I wonder, will an athlete ever live above the influence of sponsorship dollars?  I am guessing not.  Some addictions are way too strong to break.

* * * * *

   A-Rod tested positive for steroids in 2003.  This is a big deal because, a) it's A-Rod, b) he's on the Yankees, c) he's an easy target because he cares too damn much what people think, and d) he has denied using steroids (smartly, however, not in front of Congress, as Dumbest Living Human Rafael Palmiero did).

  Back in 2003 baseball did mass tests, for the sole purpose of determining if steroid use was widespread enough to warrant an actual "policy" and/or further steps.  5-7% of the players tested, tested positive.  The results were never meant to be published, in terms of who had tested positive and who hadn't.  In fact, a court order sealed the 2003 results.

  Well, someone leaked the A-Rod information to a reporter and the story breaks.  

  I assume the story is accurate.  Sports Illustrated is not looking to invite a massive lawsuit for reporting something so damaging and then having it turn out to be false.  A Rod has not denied it to this point.

  My problem comes in here.  Whoever leaked the information to the reporter knowingly broke the law.  The reporter accepted and relayed information she knew to have been illegally obtained.  

  

   Why doesn't that matter?  I understand it has no bearing on A Rod's guilt, innocence, or legacy.  But it's a small example of how the press, in its boundless arrogance, has lost touch with the common good, and with the people they so condescendingly claim to ultimately act on behalf of, when in fact they pursue career objectives with the same single-minded zeal as the most aggressive drug company sales rep.

   So, by all means, everyone who wants to trash A-Rod, have a ball.  But let's not pretend that it was "journalism" that caused the story to ever become a story.

[My thanks to iris, who contributed to this post.]