Romero, baseball and the "unnatural'

In the midst of the war in the Gaza Strip and the looming trillion-dollar deficit, the Inquirer recently devoted most of its editorial page to the suspension of Phillies reliever J.C. Romero for 50 games this coming season. This was a Saturday, apparently time for a diversion. (See "Romero's hollow pleas," Jan. 10, 2009.)

In case you don't follow sports, Romero has been found guilty of violating Major League Baseball's newly Draconian rules about the use of chemical substances such as steroids, which are thought (correctly) to give a player an unfair advantage in his chosen profession. The facts of the case, as briefly as possible, are as follows, according to Phil Sheridan, also an Inquirer employee (January 6):

Last July Romero considered using an over-the-counter nutritional supplement called 6-OXO Extreme in conjunction with a weight-training program. Considering the ominous sound of the product's name, apparently, he also took steps to make sure that this stuff didn't violate Major League Baseball's rules. Beyond simply reading the product's label, Romero took his purchase to the Phillies' strength coach, Scott Lien, and a personal nutritionist for consideration. The former was somewhat cautionary, the latter not at all. (Lien then sent a sample of the supplement to MLB for testing"“ more on that later.)

The pitcher also considered the advice of the players' union, which"“ in July"“ took the official stance that over-the-counter products were safe to ingest.

Romero began taking the supplement and subsequently tested positive twice for a banned substance, in August and September. After the positive test in August, he stopped using the product immediately.

What did he know, and when did he know it?

Here this matter becomes even more complicated. Sheridan indicates that a copy of the test report resulting from "Lien's sample" was sent to the office of baseball commissioner Bud Selig. We are left to infer that coach Lien was also informed of the results. But the curious matter here is that, upon encountering the first FDA-approved, over-the-counter product to violate their rules, no one from Major League Baseball (nor anyone from the Phillies or the players' union) contacted Romero directly prior to his testing in August.

Then, in an even more curious twist, Major League Baseball called Romero in on the eve of the World Series and gave him, after discussion, a choice: He could accept an immediate 25-game suspension or face a possibly longer one down the road.

It's impossible to imagine that Romero didn't consider his role in the upcoming championship games. Also, according to Sheridan, the pitcher felt that Major League Baseball had been receptive to his argument for innocence. He didn't feel he had done anything wrong, and thus Romero rejected the immediate suspension and pitched in the World Series, where he won two games.

Ibsen had a phrase for it

Sportswriter Sheridan, in retrospect, correctly zeroed in on the heart of the issue: "Either baseball believes Romero cheated and allowed him to pitch in the World Series, or it believes he made an innocent mistake and is suspending him for 50 games anyway." I believe Ibsen applies here: "There is no talking way out of contradiction."

The Inquirer's editors, however, would seem to disagree with their columnist (and possibly Ibsen). Their editorial header declared Romero's claims "hollow," and they damned him for seeking a boost "beyond his natural physical strength" and his "natural physical attributes." They also fretted about the example Romero might have set for younger athletes (who, if forced to choose between pitchers and editorial writers for their role models, would surely pick the former).

Frankly, I find both arguments wanting. Both imply that sports competition should be "natural." But what, really, is "natural" sport?

Oh, for the days of Smoky Burgess

Who buys for a second that there is even one professional baseball player who is competing with only his "natural physical strength"? Gone are the Babe Ruths, Smoky Burgesses and John Kruks— roly-poly men with apparently superior eyesight, strength and reflexes who competed "honestly" with their stronger and better-built opponents. Weight training, with or without chemical or food additives, is not "natural." Neither is speed or quickness training if the focus of that training is beating a thrown ball to a particular point rather than running down a rabbit for dinner. Without a decidedly unnatural focus on strength training in baseball, Scott Lien would have a different, more normal and, maybe, natural job.

For another thing, baseball is arguably the least natural sport imaginable. Baseball's foundation rules, for example, posit a theoretically eternal game. Until that last out in the ninth inning is recorded, the players could all remain out on the field until, one by one, they drop dead. Even then, under the rules, the dead players would be replaced by substitutes. The game could literally go on forever. And what human experience is more unnatural than eternity?

More to the point of Romero's particular situation, though, consider the ordinary centerpiece of a baseball game: the overhand pitch. Any physiologist will tell you that the human shoulder isn't designed to throw repeatedly in this way. This is why even well conditioned pitchers' rotator cuffs tear. This is undoubtedly a condition a pitcher like Romero should logically seek to avoid. If Major League Baseball finds steroids unnatural, it should also mandate the underhand pitch.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's problem

I would argue that the laws of nature don't apply to Romero's case or anything else related to Major League Baseball. On the other hand, the laws of baseball, unnatural and arcane as they may seem, do apply— and that's the only possible basis for punishing Romero. All the rest is fatuous commentary.

I once read an essay by a famous ethicist who contended that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California was unfit for election to statewide office because he had used steroids while bodybuilding. Conspicuously absent from his piece was any mention of Austrian or American or bodybuilding law regarding steroids at the time Schwarzenegger allegedly ingested them. Maybe that ethicist should apply for a job as an Inquirer editorial writer.