the big asterisk

[fox]

Up-front disclosure: I am intrigued to check out the Mitchell Report. I have entertained the thought of trying to pick the winners, as though the list of 50 or more steroid-using baseball players were an Oscar ballot. (The report comes out the same day as the Golden Globe nominations. Don't tell me that's purely coincidental. ;-) )

But -- forgive me for asking -- why the hell is the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in on this thing? This report was called for by the Commissioner of Baseball, which is exactly right; but I've been baffled for a long time now about why Congress is involved. I know we call it America's Pastime, but really, baseball isn't their business, is it? I mean, the drugs are illegal, which is their business; but nobody is disputing that the drugs are illegal. And if there's funny business going on in baseball, it's the baseball commissioner's office's job to deal with it, right? I really cannot comprehend how it's a federal legislative matter.

Anyone?

Comments

[acejillian.livejournal.com]

I have no idea why the govenment is involved in this particular report. I know Mitchell himself has ties to baseball in that he's a shareholder in the Red Sox, but if anything that would be reason for him NOT to be involved...

and ROFL on the picking winners :)

[kmg-365.livejournal.com]

The explanation I heard as to why Congress gets involved with baseball matters is some sort of anti-trust exemption deal...don't know the specifics, though.

[glasshouseslive.livejournal.com]

The Government Reform Committee is charged as the "principal investigative committee of the House," which gives it the authority to conduct hearings on any subject falling under the jurisdiction of Congress. The Federally Controlled Substances Act, regulates the use of performance enhancing drugs, including steroids. In addition, Major League Baseball has been exempt from most federal anti-trust laws laws since 1922, when the Supreme Court ruled in its favor in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Clubs. The exemption prevents teams for suing if they are not granted the right to change locations at will. While its exemption from anti-trust laws has nothing to do with steroid use by players, it does place the affairs of Major League Baseball squarely under the jurisdiction of Congress.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/steroids.htm

Didn't football go through all this about a decade ago? Thing is, I think the average person sets the bar higher for baseball players re: personal trustworthiness and character.

[datlowen.livejournal.com]

>That seems to jive with what I recall... the major pro sports leagues are exempted from anti-trust laws and as such are subject to government oversight.

This isn't actually true. Only baseball is "protected" in this manner. You may or may not remember the USFL, the XFL, or the ABA, but there have over the years been various competing leagues to the present majors (even the AFC, originally the AFL, was in competition with the NFL before they merged in the 1960s; in fact both the AL and NL were once separate leagues, too, but they settled their differences long enough ago that no one remembers--but this is why until a few years ago the only interleague games were exhibition and the World Series).

Baseball is specifically, by statute, under the regulatory aegis of Congress. Congress has specifically given itself the power to deal with baseball--the trade-off is that baseball gets the anti-trust exemption.

[darthhellokitty.livejournal.com]

Things have been so perfect in the last couple of years that Congress has a lot of time on their hands, and nothing better to pay attention to?