U.S. Government and Baseball

[daseinmind]

In lieu of the Mitchell Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Report_(baseball)) and all the news of it I see on TV, I have a question. Why is our federal government involved in this? I really don't know. Feel free to respond from a technical perspective or from a positional perspective.

My positional stance is that governmental involvement in athletics from a moral perpective is an outright misappropriation of national resources. I'd understand if they were assessing economic concerns about interstate trade...but steroid use? What next? A congressional oversight committee on the appropriateness of baseball teams wearing white after Labor Day? Can't we just let the league handle this one itself?

[Intension]

That implies one should expect politicians to exercise self-restraint. But why would you expect people who pursue power to then turn around and limit their own power, rather than stepping up to the bully pulpit and doing whatever they can get away with? It's grandstanding idiocy, yes, but no one should be surprised.

[daseinmind]

Does anybody know how exactly this became a congressional issue?

[Intension]

I haven't followed it very closely, but I have the sense Congress became interested after the publication of Jose Conseco's book Juiced. I'm not sure if it was the book itself or similar steroid controversy concomitant with that book, but it was around that time. Congress' current interest seems to follow release of the Mitchell report.

[daseinmind]

Pardon my ignorance but is that how Congress works? They point their attention to whatever they feel like? I know we're not talking law enforcement but it seems like there would be a similar concept to jurisdiction in play. I don't understand legally how investigations into the ongoings of the MLB falls within their authority.

It is apparent that I'm missing SOMETHING. Maybe I'll look elsewhere if nobody here knows.

[Thevenin]

Why is our federal government involved in this? I really don't know. Feel free to respond from a technical perspective or from a positional perspective...

I seem to remember that major league baseball is exempt from antitrust laws. So, perhaps this is how Congress, having legislated the exemption, can involve itself. OTOH, Congress can stick its nose in anything it wants to. It just sends out subpoenas and holds hearings. I once had the very anxiety provoking experience of testifying before Congress and, if I am lucky, will never have to do it again.

[Hustler]

It's all part of the War on Drugs. That's what makes it a federal issue.

[daseinmind]

I found this...


Valid use of Congress' time, or just a massive photo-op?
Did the House Government Reform Committee have the authority to hold its much-reported hearings into steroid use in Major League Baseball, or was the testimony of several former and present MLB stars little more than a taxpayer-funded photo-op?

Just a Photo-op
When established 1927 as the Committee on Government Operations, the House Government Reform Committee (GRC) was given jurisdiction to investigate "the operations of Government activities at all levels with a view to determining their economy and efficiency."

According to it's published scope of power, the Committee on Government Reform differs from other congressional committees in that its jurisdiction has grown over the years.

"While retaining the agenda of the former Committee on Government Operations, the Committee also has the responsibilities of the former Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and the Committee on the District of Columbia.

"The Committee serves as Congress’ chief investigative and oversight committee, and is granted broad jurisdiction because of the importance of effective, centralized oversight. Because it authorizes on a few agencies and programs, it is able to review government agencies and programs with an unbiased eye."

Despite it's claim of wide-ranging power, the congressionally mandated roll of the Government Reform Committee remains the investigation and reform of the operations of the government itself. The use of steroids by professional baseball players clearly does not fall under the scope of their authority.

On the Other Hand
The Government Reform Committee is charged as the "principal investigative committee of the House," which gives it the authority to conduct hearings on any subject falling under the jurisdiction of Congress. The Federally Controlled Substances Act, regulates the use of performance enhancing drugs, including steroids. In addition, Major League Baseball has been exempt from most federal anti-trust laws laws since 1922, when the Supreme Court ruled in its favor in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Clubs. The exemption prevents teams for suing if they are not granted the right to change locations at will. While its exemption from anti-trust laws has nothing to do with steroid use by players, it does place the affairs of Major League Baseball squarely under the jurisdiction of Congress.

[daseinmind]

Doesn't it seem like this would be a more worthy investment of time...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

[daseinmind]

It's all part of the War on Drugs. That's what makes it a federal issue.

Isn't that what the Executive branch is for?

[MacGuffin]

Baseball has an anti-trust exemption. That gives Congress the opening to pander to anti-drug voters.

[Karl]

Sports have a large economic and cultural influence, so it's only natural for the government to be interested. Also, the government has the right to try to prevent steroid abuse, sense that's already illegal.

[Thevenin]

Isn't that what the Executive branch is for?

I can't remember a more corrupt executive branch. And, I say that in the face of a ludicrously corrupt Congress. So, don't expect anyone in the executive branch to investigate corruption associated with the "freeing of the Iraqi people." What a horrible joke.

[daseinmind]

Baseball has an anti-trust exemption. That gives Congress the opening to pander to anti-drug voters.

But isn't that only because of their own self asserted authority. It is like saying, "Because I passed a one law directly targeting you, I thereby have jurisdiction to place extra special attention to your operations in regards to some other law (and I bet their interpretation is broader than that)." That seems like a missing linking principle that they would need to pass as a law before their authority is transitively viable. Otherwise, if someone suspects a law is being broken, again, isn't that the jurisdiction of the Executive branch?

[daseinmind]

I can't remember a more corrupt executive branch. And, I say that in the face of a ludicrously corrupt Congress. So, don't expect anyone in the executive branch to investigate corruption associated with the "freeing of the Iraqi people." What a horrible joke.

But public disdain doesn't translate to authority. I all seems unjustifiably self prescribed without an official act making it so.

[MacGuffin]

But isn't that only because of their own self asserted authority. It is like saying, "Because I passed a one law directly targeting you, I thereby have jurisdiction to place extra special attention to your operations in regards to some other law (and I bet their interpretation is broader than that)." That seems like a missing linking principle that they would need to pass as a law before their authority is transitively viable. Otherwise, if someone suspects a law is being broken, again, isn't that the jurisdiction of the Executive branch?

Wait are you serious? I just thought you were fucking around.

Congress has long had broad investigative powers, dating back to 1792.

[daseinmind]

Wait are you serious? I just thought you were fucking around.

Congress has long had broad investigative powers, dating back to 1792.

So, you're appealing to precedence? I am fucking around to the degree that I acknowledge that precedence is a highly relevant motivator to our governmental operations but my Ti still can't help but point out that there seems to be a logical disconnect in how they justify that authority in this particular instance. I hear Congressmen stating today that their interest in this matter is compelling because baseball is the American pastime, as if sentimentality a rational justification. Also, granted that the antitrust exemption decrees that Major League Baseball is not interstate commerce, hence teams cannot relocate without MLB approval, it would almost serve that legislation as limiting congressional scrutiny, not expanding it.

[Hustler]

I agree that this all seems frivolous, but the size, scope and the economic and social influence of Major League Baseball put this squarely in the realm of the federal government. The FBI is currently too busy chasing terrorists and tapping your phone, so who else is going to deal with this? Given how rampant steroid use apparently is in baseball, it's safe to say the current administration of Major League Baseball itself has completely failed. It is well within the powers and rights of the Congress to investigate this if they feel like it is warranted and, apparently, they do. I don't care who uses steroids and you probably don't care either, but we don't represent the majority in the United States when it comes to drug abuse, whatever the drug.

Maybe it's just another attempt by the Congress to attack the president, what with him being a former baseball team owner.

The funniest thing about something like this is that all you have to do to make it go away is ignore it. Unlike the War on Terror, this Battle against Steroids in the War on Drugs isn't going to cost you very much money and it isn't going to ruin the economy. It's just going to annoy you if you pay attention to it and think about it too much, so it's probably best to just stop caring. At least they're targeting wealthy people (professional baseball players, team owners, etc) who can actually cough up enormous fines, so maybe it will pay for itself. Not so for the rest of the War on Drugs or for the War on Terror.

[daseinmind]

So what does all this equate to? It is an oversight/investigative committee to an organization that is showing it has measures in place attempting to eliminate illegal substance abuse. Congress is then assessing whether that attempt is satisfactory. What happens when they say it is not satisfactory? Can the committee give them recommendations for change and MLB is legally bound to follow or is the output basically a threat: Keep us pleased or we will take this to the next level, legislation.

I seriously don't know.

[Hustler]

I seriously don't know.

I seriously don't care. It seems like a lot of legerdemain to me. There are far more epic failings of your government going on right now that are probably more worthy of your attention.

[daseinmind]

Like this?


Doesn't it seem like this would be a more worthy investment of time...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

This whole conversation for me stirred from an internal frustration, as you mentioned, regarding why are they even allowed to talk about A when B is going on. It's all device on my part to take outrage and transfer it to knowledge.

[Hustler]

Welcome to politics, n00b. This is how it works.

[daseinmind]

Now that Hustler's done throwing a tissy, does anybody want to take a stab at my honest question?


So what does all this equate to? It is an oversight/investigative committee to an organization that is showing it has measures in place attempting to eliminate illegal substance abuse. Congress is then assessing whether that attempt is satisfactory. What happens when they say it is not satisfactory? Can the committee give them recommendations for change and MLB is legally bound to follow or is the output basically a threat: Keep us pleased or we will take this to the next level, legislation.

I seriously don't know.