Sunday, August 09, 2009
One of the concepts that stuck with me from my time studying a summer in DC is the bumper sticker test: If you can’t fit your slogan/product on a bumper sticker, then go back to the drawing board because it ain‘t gonna sell. The public has no appetite for anything more than short statements and rudimentary concepts. It is all about the headlines and sound bites. Most don’t have the time and/or interest to dig a little deeper even when information flows more freely today than ever. But when discussing the use of performance enhancing drugs in baseball and playing jury as to whether a player or team is “tainted“, the details should matter if you are a fan of the game.
If the 2004 Red Sox World Series win is now “tainted“ with David Ortiz on “the list” and Manny Ramirez allegedly on “the list” as well as being suspended for using a banned substance in 2009, then the argument has to be: the banned substances taken in 2003 had to have a lingering affect that gave the sluggers an unfair advantage in 2004 and assuming that being on “the list“ equates to true positive test. It seems plausible, but we currently do not have enough information to render an educated opinion.
First, assuming it was an agreed upon positive test, we would need to know: what was taken, how it affects the body, would it help baseball performance and if so for how long. These questions would need to be answered for each confirmed positive test by a player before even discussing if the 2004 Red Sox had an unfair advantage on the field. We need to put on hold the discussion of asterisks.
***** Posts are going to be about once a week since I've found Twitter so follow El Guapo's Ghost. It is not lame. Twitter has a questionable brand right now; just like blogs and facebook did a year or so ago. It will pass too.