Drugs, Athletes and the Language of a Modern Witch Hunt

Written by Xach on April 05, 2005

"Now that the first cheater has been caught ..."

So begins the teaser for ESPN's self-proclaimed must-read article on accused steroid user Alex Sanchez. It's an unforgivng lead-in for unforgiving times. It leaves no room for questioning, no room for interpretation. It says look everyone, there is a cheater and we found him! But is it necessarily true? Is it responsible journalism? Would a more objective teaser not simply state the known facts? "Now that the first positive test results have come in ..." would be a more objective lead, would it not?

To say that Sanchez is a "cheater" is not only to report that he has been caught, but to specifically report that he knowingly misled, beguiled or otherwise sought to deceive people. All we know factually is that he received a positive test result. Where's the proof that he knowingly tried to deceive anyone? He could have bought something over the counter at Christmas that was illegal by January and simply not considered that what was legal two weeks earlier might now be a controlled substance. It's perfectly possible. Since we don't know Sanchez's side of the argument, I would argue that ESPN's language is either a) purposefully defamatory, or b) utterly careless.

I won't hazard a guess as to which conclusion is correct, and I won't pretend to know whether or not Sanchez cheated, but I do think a discourse needs to be had on the type of media coverage athletes receive in regard to drug scandals. Whether careless or calculated in its use, language has meaning, and in this highly mediated age, it seems to me our society is overzealous in jumping to conclusions.

Replacing facts with buzz words

ESPN is not alone in its tendency to sensationalize drug scandals. Check out this headline on Yahoo.com from yesterday's (April 5, 2005) Associated Press wire service: "Thirty-eight minor leaguers suspended for steroids".

Yes, 38 players were suspended for violating the minor league drug policy, but were they all necessarily nabbed for steroids? Nope. Not according to Major League Baseball. MLB.com provides a much more objective headline, stating that the players were suspended "for drugs;" not necessarily for steroids. Even a quick glance at MLB.com's coverage shows the following:

The Minor League testing program is much wider in scope than its Major League counterpart ... In the Minors, players are tested for steroids and a variety of drugs, including amphetamines and recreational drugs like marijuana, cocaine and alcohol.

Factually speaking, we don't know that any of the thirty-eight minor leaguers tested positive for steroids. For all we know, each and every one of them tested negative for steroids and positive for marijuana, cocaine or amphetamines. It seems media outlets are all-too-eager to expose frauds, cheaters and all other evil success mongers who use this evil substance known as "steroids". It's a catchy word and a hot topic that sells newspapers, but it seems to me much of America has forgotten just what drug it's sniffing out and why reporting its usage is important. Is the point to stigmatize the drugs orthe players? Reading the coverage, it's easy to forget just which object we hate. Is it the drugs we dislike or the athletes? And which is more important for us to know about, the names or the numbers?

The AP report quoted above was posted verbatim by ESPN.com, foxsports.com, Yahoo.com, sportsillustrated.cnn.com, and countless other media outlets. It states the following facts quite clearly:

• Number of players suspended (38)
• Number of players tested (925)
• The name and team of each suspended player in list form
• The length of each player's suspension
• The percentage of positive results from "tests for steroids" last year according to baseball spokesman Pat Courtney (1.7%)

Does it occur to anyone other than me that some facts are curiously missing? Am I the only person who would like to know, beyond just "steroids" what drugs these players were actually tested for? It's incomprehensible to me that not a single one of the 20 major news outlets I canvased in writing this article bothered to make an editorial decision to state which drugs these players were actually tested for. The report mentions that the test also includes amphetamines (another highly stigmatized "performance enhancing" substance). But that's all. The headlines rage with words like "steroids" and "major bust". Check out this screen capture from sportsillustrated.cnn.com in which they boast 38 "steroid" suspensions as their "Top Headline":

Last time I checked, marijuana wasn't even a performance enhancing drug. According to Major League Baseball, it was one of the drugs included in the drug testing policy under which the 38 players were suspended though. Considering that MLB does not disclose the exact drug a player tested positive for, do we even know from these news reports that a single one of them was on any kind of performance enhancing drug? And if we do know, then why isn't anyone reporting the fact that shows me how we know this? Why is it more important that media outlets report the names of the players and link them with steroids and, apparently by extension, "cheating" than that we even know all the drugs that fall under the umbrella of this testing?

Major league baseball and the media in general report all this news of suspensions and cheaters as positive news, because it shows MLB's new "steroid policy" is working. But does it really help baseball's image if we think the players who play its game are steroid users and cheaters? Where's the report that says "of the 38 players tested, it's equally possible from the information we've been given that all 38 of them simply tested positive for marijuana, were negative for steroids, and are now being branded as cheaters by a bunch of image conscious assholes"?

Is that the case? I don't know. And why don't I know? Because no one's reporting enough information for anyone in the public arena to know the difference. And no one cares to, apparently. I mean, who needs that sort of information when we have each player's name?

Let me make it perfectly clear that I really don't know whether 38 or none of the players took steroids. And I honestly don't think the media is solely to blame for each suspended player's newfound public image problem. After all, MLB sent the list to the media outlets in a press release. All they did was run with the story. I'm not here to place absolute blame on anyone. I am, however, presenting all this as a dialogue for discussion about the media's tendency to use language that, for one reason or another, stigmatizes the players moreso than seems reasonable given the facts.

Other ways of editorializing instead of simply factualizing

Lest you should think the media's tendency to skew public perception on drug related matters is limited to the scope of MLB and the steroid issue, check out this quote from an AP report on former NBA star Shawn Kemp from yesterday:

... the officer found what appeared to be a small amount of cocaine, about 60 grams of marijuana and a semiautomatic pistol, the sheriff's office said.

Now maybe I'm crazy, but to me this quote reads as though there was a small amount of cocaine and therefore, by comparison, a large amount of marijuana. This AP journalist has made an interesting decision to editorialize his report and let us know that one quantity was simply "small" and the other quantity had a value of "60". Now maybe I'm crazy again, but when I see the number 60 in relation to a quantity of drugs, I'm usually thinking this is a big number. It's only natural. I mean if you told me Shawn Kemp was nabbed with 60 grams of cocaine I'd be concerned for the guy. Or maybe if he had 60 hits of acid or even 60 quaaludes, this report would make sense to me. But what if I told you Shawn Kemp was nabbed with 60 one-fourth pills of valum? If I said this, you would probably look at me funny and wonder why I didn't just report that he had 15 whole valium, which doesn't sound like nearly as big a deal.

Similarly, there are 28 grams of marijuana in an ounce. Shawn Kemp and his friend were nabbed with "about 60 grams." Might it make more sense to simply report that they were caught with 2 ounces?

If I told you two random guys were busted and they had only 2 ounces of marijuana between them (one ounce each), you'd wonder why this was even newsworthy. You'd probably tell me the two guys each spent a day in jail, hired a half decent lawyer, paid a fine and went on with their lives. Heck, anyone whose ever smoked pot has probably been in either the same vehicle or same house as an ounce. I think most pot smokers would agree that two ounces, while suitable for a decent movies-and-cartoons party, isn't a particularly large or unusual amount.

Shawn Kemp has had his fair share of image problems over the years and his fair share of legal battles too. People like to make fun of him for these things from time to time. And I'm not claiming he shouldn't shoulder his own blame. But let's face it, the guy's star has long-since faded, he's not in the NBA spotlight any more or even featured on television. Heck, for all we know he had a gun permit, the drugs and the pickup truck they were in belonged to his friend, and none of this really had anything to do with Shawn Kemp. So someone tell me: Why is this story reported by every major media outlet before anyone knows the facts of the situation? And what does it have to do with the NBA? Why is it the second-latest piece of basketball news listed on Yahoo's fantasy sports page even as I type these words? Does it have relevance to my fantasy team? Is Shawn Kemp even considering playing for the NBA this season? And if not, why does Fox Sports have it listed under the top headlines on their NBA page?

The affects of generally careless journalism

People like to say that the NBA has an image problem. But since when is an organization responsible for the actions of its former employees? I was layed off two weeks ago. If I get arrested next year for marijuana possession will anyone list that in the business pages next to my ex employer's logo as a "top headline" about the corporation?

What the fuck are we reporting? And why? Why must we all be informed about every famous accused drug user immediately upon arrest? If it turns out Kemp isn't guilty, will a back page note about his innocence repair the damage done to his public image by the front page headlines? What's the purpose in jumping to conclusions? Is the purpose to tell us something important or is the purpose, as it would seem with Shawn Kemp, to exploit his image for the sake of sensationalism?

The perception of someone as a cheater, drug user, perpetrator or victim has as much to to with the language we use as the facts we seek to present. If you present facts, there's no reason to editorialize them with modifiers like "a little" or "a lot". If you know a multitude of different drugs were tested, it doesn't make sense to just call them all "steroids". And if you don't know, then it hardly seems sensible to editorialize the matter, because you have an uninformed opinion. If Alex Sanchez bought substances over the counter when they were legal, he may have used banned substances, but it doesn't make him a "cheater".

Word spreads quickly in this age of Internet blogging, satellite radio, digital television and palm-held devices. So quickly that no one seems to care any more about meaningful content so long as it justifies a racy headline. In the meantime, people's careers are being ruined, their lives thrown upside down, images of entire leagues and organizations irreparably tarnished based largely on assumptions and speculation.

At times it seems as though everyone's so eager to catch the next "cheater" that no one bothered to look up the definition.

-- Written by Xach on April 05, 2005