On Steroids and Beckham (unrelated issues)

Funny how things work out sometimes. I had two things I wanted to use today to discuss: Steroids/Performance enhancers and David Beckham. Both of those things were pushed really majorly into the headlines Saturday. Alex Rodriguez's positive test in 2003 came to light and the L.A. Galaxy finally publicly spoke out about Beckham and AC Milan's request to make the loan either extended or more permanent. Pretty long post.

First, steroids.

My view on steroids and performance enhancers is that the rules against them are for the athletes own good in terms of their longterm health. I would never take them because in the longterm I will not benefit in my health. In professional athletics I see nothing morally wrong with taking them, except for the fact you are probably breaking federal law since many, if not all, are banned without a prescription.

In the short-term performance nehancers can be great if used correctly, but you cannot escape the long-term damage. Especially with anabolic steroids. I know less about the adverse effects of things like EPO, etc. I do know that basically anytime you are in the normal range for a chemical in your body and you put more of it in to raise your amounts about normal there will be some negative consequences ranging from severe to neglibile. Unless you have a deficiency (or a natural excess), anything you do to put yourself out of the normal range will cause you issues.

An exception may be hGH, whose benefits and long-term effects are not fully understood for individuals who do not need hGH to be in normal levels. In fact, it may do little more than help your body hold more water in muscles, which is nice if you increase water intake to balance the rest of your body but not super enhancing.

The main goal of professional athletics are two-fold: entertainment and business. At some point a professional athlete must make this decision: are the possible long-term health effects, legal issues, and backlash from society and your sport surpassed or not by the possible financial benefits? As you can probably tell from MLB and by simply looking at the size and athleticism in the NBA and NFL (etc etc) between now and 20 years ago many are choosing performance enhancers.

Entertainment side: The function of preformance enhancers varies, but they basically all give the same basic effect: they allow better training. They allow athletes to recover quicker from injury or fatigue allowing them to practice or lift more often and harder. This leads to stronger, faster athletes with more endurance. This makes sports better because the sports are faster, more powerful, and more athletic and the star athletes stay on the field or court more often.

Financial: The more entertaining, the bigger the draw, the more money made. The more entertaining and skilled you are the more you are worth to owners. Owners don't care if you are taking these drugs as long as you don't get caught. They just want to make money. The best way to do that is to win. So, they just want to win at all costs.

My view for amateur athletics is a little more blurred. If the professionals are taking them, then amateurs should be allowed as well in order to be better ready for a transition to professionalism. That said, in today's society the term amateur athlete is a lot different than 40-50 years ago. The only true amateurs are weekend warriors, children, and non-scholarship collegiate athletes. Olympians lost amateur status long ago, but I will discuss here.

Obviously children shouldn't take these things that will cause them long-term problems, especially since legally they can't make this decision on their own as it is a "medical" decision. Weekend-warriors and college athletes should be able to do whatever they want.

I believe the Olympics should be free of any and all "enhancing" agents. There is already enough enhancement simply by nutrition, technology, and funding to benefit the "haves" in the world. Adding these drugs just widens the gap for the rich country athletes and puts individual athletes in totalitarian type regimes at risk of being forced to take these drugs. That's just what I believe.

Lastly, people argue that they ruin the integrity of the games. I argue that there is no significant enhancement of statistics due to these drugs today. First, they balance out when everyone is using them. Second, every era has its enhancers, such as the diminshed pool of athletes in the all-white MLB before segregation. The most enhancing part statistically would be longevity type records since players can stick around longer and come back from inury quicker. Sports ruled by a stopwatch will show major time drops in records, but not in huge chunks at a time. Judge those athletes by how much they change records or are ahead of their peers and you can filter enhancers such as drugs, training changes, and equipment.

Now: Beckham.

The big fuss is David Beckham's resurgence in international soccer since his signing with the L.A. Galaxy in 2007. First with Real Madrid, then with England, and now during his loan to AC Milan. Now Milan and Beckham mutually would like to make the loan extended past its deadling in March, which is when the Galaxy season will begin. Beckham wants to remain in Milan because it better prepares him for national team duties. Milan wants him to stay because he helps them win and is a major draw. The Galaxy want him back for the same reasons they signed him in the first place: money, winning (though not so far), and making soccer more popular in America (hence more money for MLS team owners).

What I love about this story is that for once everything makes as far as why things are happening on both sides, no one is lying about anything, and no one is getting their feelings hurt by the truth. Milan has publicly stated they want Beckham to stay and began talks with the Galaxy. Beckham publicly said he wants to stay so he can face the better competition to be better prepared for England. Both publicly said that Beckham's contract is with the Galaxy and while they hope to reach a settlement with the Galaxy to extend the loan they will honor Galaxy's wishes.

The Galaxy yesterday rejected the first offer (reported at 5 million pounds). They did so publicly in the media. A handful of quotes from AEG chief executive (AEG owns the Galaxy):

If David ultimately is an asset for this team, we want him back. If David has a hunger and a desire to come help us make the impact on the pitch that we wanted to make with him but haven't done yet, then he's an important member of this team. Our intention is to bring him back.

Clearly, if David's in a position where he wants to finish the season in Milan, and Milan in turn compensates the Galaxy so that we can suffer no damages to our fans or to our team, then we'll take a look at it. But we have made it very clear to them that we expect David back here [on] March 9. They agree and understand we own the contract. They understand the only way we do this is if, when this is all said and done, the Galaxy benefits. If the Galaxy comes out better without David than with David, then we'll take a look at it.

We understand his [Beckham's] infatuation with playing with one of the world's most popular club teams right now, and we understand his trying to mentally get around the idea of coming back to play with a team that didn't make the playoffs in MLS last year. That said, David and us actually are talking. He has never forced our hand on anything... David has made it very clear that if our decision is to bring him back here, he will return. Period.

The things I love about his remarks are they admit this is purely financial, they point out they understand Beckham wanting to remain with Milan verseus coming back to the Galaxy, and then poke at Beckham's competitiveness wihtout being assholish. If they can get enough money to cover the loss in revenue they will incur from not having Beckham they will make the deal to extend the loan until Milan's season is over (May 31 for Serie A). Then they get the added benefit of bringing in Becks midseason to boost sales. The truth is, last year the team was better on the pitch without Beckham than with him. My guess is the players probably watch too much with Beckham out there and also the liability Beckham can be on defense is not covered up by the fact he is surrounded by some of the best defensemen in the world. Opposing teams probably get amped to play Beckham a little more than usual.

What makes the most sense is Milan dishing out the extra money to keep Beckham a few extra months. Then Beckham will go back to the Galaxy until that season is over in October. Then both sides will determine the possibilities of another loan, extended or not, or even a full on purchase.

The truth is the Beckham experiment has not worked too well for anyone, except maybe Beckham himself. That can change if he is forced to stick out the entire contract and not get extended loans. When Beckham signed he had basically been cut from his national team by a new coach and benched by Real Madrid. It made sense to take the big bucks in America to be an ambassador of the game, extend his career, and see what happened if he could heal up and get fit again. Well, RM used him near the end of their season and Beckham played amazingly well and went on to win La Liga. He was recalled to the national team and continued his excellence and earning his place on the team.

In L.A. his time was marred early by injuries, or playing through them. Even then people were wowed by his skill. This past season I don't remember much being said about him other than the fact he was still very, very good. His team, however, sucks and did not make the playoffs either year. The Galaxy's attendence went up by 20% per match in 2007 over the previous year to 24,000 and in 2008 it was 26,000. This is not that much of a draw since the inaugural 1996 season saw 30,000 fans a contest and in 2005 (second highest attendence pre Beck) they drew 24,000 as well. He did bring considerable attention to soccer in America, but that is waining especially since Beckham's skill set is not the best to maintain attention in a bad league.

So the Galaxy gained a lot of money from merchandise, a boost in attendence, and attention for MLS. I don't see that continuing much longer due to Beckham. It just isn't sustainable. They aren't even winning games. It makes sense to let Milan have him until the June, get extra cash, and put together a better team to surround Beckham while he is there and compete when he is not. In the offseason they should sell his contract to AC Milan or whoever wants Beckham (with Beckham's wishes).

Beckham has won so much out of this: financially, athletically, and through reputation. Always known as a hard worker (his skill set is one of hours of dedication and not athleticism), he was praised by Real Madrid while benched because he continued to dedicate himself to practice and drills. He got more famous in America, expanded the game for at least some time, and turned himself into a top-flight player once again. As long as he is allowed back to Europe to play against the best so he can be able to play at a high enough level to play for England in 2010 World Cup and 2012 Olympics in London, he will be a huge winner.

So is soccer doomed to fail in America? Yes and no. The league currently is not profitable, but is on its way to being so. They project to turn a profit as a whole in 2010. With the recent economy, I have reasons to doubt this. However, the league has been here since 1996 and is readily improving financially and I see it surviving as long as they continue to look to Europe for how to run a soccer league. Their past mistakes include trying to draw more audience by tweaking rules which a) won't work and b) pisses off your core audience. So the league won't fail.

It also will never be anything more than the backwaters of international soccer. The best soccer players in the world want to play against the best and be paid like the best soccer players in the world. Outside of Beckham's signing (I believe each team is allowed one signing such as that) no one in the MLS gets paid over $400,000 a year. Beckham's salary from the team is about $9 a year, of which $5-6 was made from having Adidas pay to sponsor their jerseys, which Adidas already was doing and many more million from addition TV revenue. He basically pays for himself and he gets a $2-3 million raise from Europe. Now if you are an MLS star and get granted a contract offer from Europe ... you should take it if you care about being a better soccer player. It is the only way to be able to consistantly compete at the highest level. So MLS as a successful soccer league in the world ... no.

My plan to slowly make MLS a more respectable league:

• Keep salaries capped as they are and sign players to as long as contracts as possible.
• Encourage the loaning of your players to better leagues at every chance you get. It improves the player and your league noteriety.
• When another league wants to buy your player's contract, sell it to them at as good a price as you can get. Especially if they are an American since it will help the US National Team which helps boost interest in American soccer when they do well.
• Use the money you get from contract sales to enhance the league, sign new players, and promote youth soccer ventures.
• Every few years convince a big-time soccer player to extend their career by playing in America. It will work everytime if the name is recognizable. See David Beckham on how to pay for this. You will probably need to rotate teams to do this in order to make it feasible.
  
• Bring back old American players that have gone to Europe at end of careers as often as possible for near normal MLS salaries.
• Overtime you should have a sustainable league, a better National team, more interest in soccer in America, and thus better American players feeding into your league.

Last note: I love David Beckham. Everything I have heard about him is that he works amazingly hard, gets along with people, doesn't take himself too seriously, and cares deeply about the sport and his country. His skill at placing crosses and setpieces might outrank any other athlete's skill at any one thing today. That said, he rightfully has never been the "Footballer of the Year" (though second a few times) because he isn't the best overall Footballer/soccer player. He is, however, amazingly dangerous and an asset to any team.

His skills often rely on the ability of his teammates. They need to finish his crosses, make the runs so he can pass to them, and be good enough attackers to set up set-pieces. With bad teammates his great passes become great tries instead of great goals. His set piece opportunities get limited. This is what happened in America. He was amazing, but left non-soccer enthusiasts a little confused on his value.

If you want to being a star to America to get non-soccer fans interested, you need someone like Ronaldhino. A player who creates their own goals and chances through attacking on the ground and making moves within the flow of the game. You need an attacking scorer with flash. The subtleties of soccer are lost on people who do not follow or understand the game. (And yes I know Ronaldhino is no longer great, reportedly because he parties too much. Maybe he would be perfect to let him come here as a huge name and dominate the inferior competition. Maybe even turn his life around if partying is a problem ... or exacerbate it.)