Jumping to conclusions on steroid use in MLB

Will Carroll is an expert in sports medicine who writes a column for Baseball Prospectus($) regarding injuries to baseball players. Following up on thoughts expressed in this earlier post, Mr. Carroll notes in this NY Times op-ed that, from a clinical perspective, it is far too early to jump to the conclusion that Barry Bonds‘ phenomenal performance over the past several seasons is attributable to steroid use:

While there is no doubt that these chemicals are effective at their stated goal, albeit with significant complications, the question of how their effects manifest themselves in a baseball game has not been answered. There are no credible studies that connect drug use to improved performance, nor any that determine what cost these athletes may be paying. In 2004, Major League Baseball financed its first research grants with the pathetic sum of $100,000. The league values science about as much as one-third of the salary of the last player on the bench.

Mr. Carroll points out that Bonds’ recent production may simply be the anecdotal performance of a top baseball player:

What of this late-career surge? Certainly we can point to that with an accusing finger, sure that Bonds’s numbers in the record books have been written with some “cream” or “clear” substance. It’s much easier to point than to find facts.
According to Clay Davenport, a researcher at Baseball Prospectus, Hank Aaron’s best year for home runs – when he had the most homers per at bat – was 1973, when he was 39. His second best was in 1971, at age 37. Willie Stargell had his best seasons after age 37. Carlton Fisk put his best rate in the books when he was 40. Even Ty Cobb had his best home run rate at age 38, though the end of the dead-ball era helped that. It is not uncommon, according to Mr. Davenport, for a slugger to change his mechanics as he ages, swinging for the fences as his ability to run the bases declines.

And Mr. Carroll concludes by noting Hank Aaron‘s recent comments:

Perhaps Hank Aaron said it best: “I know that you can’t put something in your body to make you hit a fastball, changeup or curveball.”
Without more scientific studies on the effects that steroids and other drugs have on the game, we’re left with appeals to emotion, finger-pointing or worse.

Finally, in another off-season baseball post of interest, don’t miss Professor Sauer‘s fascinating post on how research is proving that the designated hitter in baseball is proving to be a moral hazard.

New Texas criminal law blog

South Texas of Law Professor Dru Stevenson is now blogging over at South Texas Law Professor.

Cheapening the death penalty

University of Iowa Law Professor Tung Yin observes persuasively that jury’s assessment of the death penalty on Scott Peterson is not in the public interest.

Pizza Inn CEO canned for cause

The simmering dispute of control of Colony, Texas-based Pizza Inn, Inc. boiled over yesterday as the Pizza Inn board fired CEO Ronald W. Parker for cause, which is a nice legal way of saying that he’s being canned with no severance payment. This move comes on the heels of this earlier move by the board to authorize a company lawsuit against the Dallas-based law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP for $7.4 million in damages for allegedly breaching its duties to the company in writing “golden parachute” severance package agreements for four senior Pizza Inn executives.

Penders reborn at UH

This Austin-American Statesman article profiles former University of Texas and current University of Houston basketball coach Tom Penders. It’s an interesting story about the grinding nature of college basketball. Check it out.

Is the worm turning on Bush Administration policies toward business?

In his Wall Street Journal ($) Political Capital column today, Alan Murray reports that certain business interests that supported President Bush’s re-election are conducting a quiet campaign to persuade the White House to dump Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, William Donaldson:

The groups argue that the post-Enron crackdown on big business has gone too far, and now threatens to hurt the economy by discouraging companies from taking risks. Their hope is to replace Mr. Donaldson with a business executive who has a reputation for integrity, but also understands the problems that the corporate crackdown has caused for executives and their boards of directors. Mr. Donaldson, they argue, doesn’t.
The Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and other business groups took an unusually active role in this year’s election, encouraging their members to reach out to employees and help register and turn out new voters likely to be sympathetic to the president. Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman has given them generous credit for helping to re-elect President Bush.
In return, these groups are now looking for some easing of the harsher regulatory and enforcement climate that has grown up in the wake of the corporate scandals. . . [business leaders are] particularly bothered by efforts by the SEC, and by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, to force large settlements out of companies by threatening charges.

But Mr. Murray notes that such matters are not discussed publicly because businessmen have become popular whipping horses:

The effort isn’t discussed much in public, and probably won’t get any attention at this week’s economic summit. That’s because polls show corporate executives still rank low in public esteem, and any effort to ease up on regulation or enforcement against them is likely to be politically unpopular.

As noted in prior posts such as this one, the Bush Administration has not been particularly friendly to business interests. In addition to the wayward SEC, the Bush Administration’s Justice Department has been particularly poor in exercising prosecutorial discretion regarding business matters. If the Administration is not responsive to business interests over this clear abuse of power, the Democratic Party will have a great opportunity to modify its traditionally anti-business policies and win over a business community that is increasingly disenchanted with the Bush Administration’s regulation of business through criminalization of merely questionable commercial transactions.