NFL

Calvin Pace, Another NFL Drug Cheat -- Where's the Outrage?

Jets linebacker Calvin Pace is suspended for performance-enhancing drug use. Why isn't this a bigger deal?Not to pick on poor Calvin Pace, who claims today to be the latest NFL victim of those sneaky, nefarious over-the-counter supplements, but come on here, people. At what point is it fair to start calling out the NFL on the performance-enhancing drug issue? This guy's no superstar, but he's an important player on a New York team. The baseball equivalent would be somebody like Ryan Church on the Mets or Hideki Matsui on the Yankees. Imagine if one of those guys had been suspended today for steroids? Would ESPN even think about leading SportsCenter with anything else?

More Coverage: Pace Suspended 4 Games


Over the past four years, twice as many NFL players (44) as MLB players (22) have been suspended for performance-enhancing drug use. But the NFL skates. The public accepts Pace's warmed-over excuse ("I didn't know it contained anything illegal!!!") without skepticism. The StarCaps players in Minnesota, who tested positive for a steroid-masking agent, become sympathetic figures. Confirmed drug cheat Rodney Harrison retires, immediately scores a sweet TV gig and ignites a debate about whether he belongs in the Hall of Fame. Nobody polls NFL Hall voters to ask whether his confirmed PED use will or should keep him out. Baseball Hall of Fame voters get two or three such calls a month about any number of guys.

There are several reasons for the double-standard, and not one of them is any good:

The most oft-cited reason I hear is that pro football is such a brutal, grueling game that everybody just accepts that you need some sort of drug to help you play it. Everybody's played baseball, and even at its highest level, the game seems attainable -- it gives people the impression that it's something they themselves could do. Football at its highest level is seen as hyper-fast, overly intense and physically brutal. We've all heard players talk about how they can't get out of bed on Monday mornings. Some of us have seen what it's like inside an NFL locker room after the game, players moving like partially mummified zombies, every contraction of every muscle an agonizing effort. How can we blame these guys, the theory goes, for taking something to help them through it?

That line of thinking might say more about our current there's-a-drug-for-every-affliction society than anything else, but it also defies responsibility. Whether they like it or not, whether they admit it or not, these players are role models. Is it really acceptable for them to create (and for us to be complicit in the creation of) an environment that tells kids the only way to make it to or in the NFL is to take drugs? That football at its highest level is impossible to play without chemical assistance? I don't buy it. And even if I did, I wouldn't want to be preaching it anywhere young football players could hear it.

The other factors fostering the double-standard are the age and the perceived effectiveness of the NFL's drug policy. The NFL started testing for performance-enhancing drugs in 1987, before any other pro sports league did. By 1990, they were testing year-round and suspending first offenders for four games. Baseball didn't start testing until 2003 and didn't suspend first-time offenders until 2005. So there's a perception that baseball players have been getting away with their cheating longer than football players have.

But so what? Unlike Mark McGwire, I'm all for investigating the past in an effort to avoid repeating mistakes in the future. But this point here is about what happens to the guys who get caught cheating in the present. A baseball player gets busted, it's "Shame! Shame! Shame!" A football player gets busted, it's "Too bad about that nasty, unregulated supplement industry. See you in October." Shawne Merriman keeps his endorsement deals. Harrison gets a national forum to act as authority on the league.

There would be value in making a stronger example of the players who get caught cheating. In refusing to give them the benefit of the doubt and take their "I didn't know it was illegal" explanations at face value. Pro athletes don't get paid millions of dollars just because they play a game -- they get paid millions of dollars because they play their games in public. Those who cheat deserve more of a stigma than that with which the NFL and its fans currently stamp them. It should be harder for a cheater to recover his good name than it is in the NFL. If it were, it might make those who follow him think at least one extra time before they cheat.

The NFL needs to be constantly re-examining this, too. It is fond of holding its program up as the gold standard of pro sports drug testing. But complacency is dangerous, and in this case it's unwarranted. A truly outstanding drug policy would be a deterrent. And while polls show that PED use among NFL players is down from about 20 percent in the 1980s to about 13 percent today ... that's still a pretty hefty percentage.

It's an axiom of any kind of law enforcement that the cheaters are always ahead of the cops. In this case, that means there are a lot more guys cheating than getting caught. The question is, with so many getting caught, why is it so easy for people to say the NFL's drug policy goes far enough?

The point, supposedly, is to stop the cheating. I understand the NFL is trying. I just think the numbers show that it has to try harder. And I think too many people find it too easy to give the league and its players a break on this.

Related Articles

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)