Join 3,363 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Manny gets brown stains on his shirt, too?
April 11, 2006 6:12 AM   Subscribe

Bored researchers conduct unappetizing study from a small sample that wasn't collected with even an allegation of neutrality. The conclusion? Winners sometimes use more drugs than their opponents. Did William Sessions and McGruff the Crime Dog lie to us? And is the Boston Globe even trying anymore?
posted by Mayor Curley (15 comments total)

 
I am tired of this use of non-performance enhancing drugs.

I predict that steroids will become legal over the next 10 years as boomers realize that steroids are 1) safe when taken under a doctor's care; and 2) an important component of fitness for those hoping to enjoy retirement that isn't based on a sofa.
posted by ewkpates at 6:17 AM on April 11, 2006


From the article:

"Mehul Tejani, one of the master's degree candidates who conducted the study, said the researchers' objective was not to belittle any one team or player.

'Our concern was more about the free advertising potential of the players using this on screen," Tejani said. 'The exposure is really what we were trying to get at, not necessarily the prevalence of use.'"

and

"Some players also believe -- contrary to all research -- that chewing tobacco will enhance performance on the field."

So,

we have

1. what is likely a graduate project (must be small in scope by definition)

2. A study that has nothing to do with a drug's affect on winning and losing, but rather is concerned with how much free advertising tobacco companies are getting through players' use.

Of course, ridiculous straw men are much easier to criticize.
posted by carmen at 6:33 AM on April 11, 2006


Kids, the Boston Globe says that if you want to win your Little League championship you had better stick a plug between your cheek and gum.
posted by caddis at 6:43 AM on April 11, 2006


So, we have

1. what is likely a graduate project (must be small in scope by definition)


Small like watchin' teevee and declaring findings based on what the producers/cameramen elected to show you?

2. A study that has nothing to do with a drug's affect on winning and losing, but rather is concerned with how much free advertising tobacco companies are getting through players' use.

Of course, ridiculous straw men are much easier to criticize.


You showed me! This is Metafilter and you used the term "straw man," which means a winner is you!

Actually, I wasn't seriously suggesting that chewing tobacco is a performance-enhancing drug. I was making a reference to the U.S.-in-the-80's "Winners don't use drugs" slogan because, well, the 2004 Red Sox won the World Series and they allegedly used the most chaw. But I suspect that your ire really comes from US-centric tone of the post. And that's why you had to cruelly beat me with "straw man!" Please stop! I hate having Metafilter's most overused intellectual crutch pounded against my backside!
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:44 AM on April 11, 2006


What do you like having pounded against your backside?
posted by caddis at 6:58 AM on April 11, 2006


Drugs are good. Spread the Good News, people, drugs are good.
posted by Meatbomb at 7:33 AM on April 11, 2006


If you want to find out how much exposure chewing tobacco gets on television during a major league baseball game, then I submit that watching games and measuring the amount of time that the camera shows people obviously using tobacco is appropriate methodology. They weren't measuring tobacco use among baseball players. They were measuring exposure.

I said you were using a straw man because you misrepresented the purpose of the study and then criticized the study for not using appropriate methodology to the purpose you (incorrectly) claimed they were trying to achieve.
I assumed that you were presenting a straw man argument because I assumed you understood the content of your post. If I was incorrect, please accept my apologies.
posted by carmen at 7:49 AM on April 11, 2006


carmen:They weren't measuring tobacco use among baseball players. They were measuring exposure.

the article:The study's conclusion: The Sox in Game 4 of the 2004 World Series were three times more likely to use the products than the Cardinals.

and

They chewed and spit more smokeless tobacco than either the St. Louis Cardinals, their vanquished rivals in 2004, or the teams in the 2005 World Series.

Fucking shut up. Please. Go condescend someone else, but check your assertions this time, asshole.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:01 AM on April 11, 2006


So that's a "No" on the apology? I'm scoring at home. All by myself.
posted by yerfatma at 8:07 AM on April 11, 2006


yerfatma, the replay does distinctly show a "No" on the apology.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:57 AM on April 11, 2006


why don't they just let people alone. the harvard school of public health is always picking on someone, always griping.
posted by brandz at 9:50 AM on April 11, 2006


I remember some time ago seeing a Sed Sox pitcher swallow his plug and puke on the mound. The cameras cut away, but the announcers were like "WHOA!"
posted by StickyCarpet at 10:01 AM on April 11, 2006


Are you thinking of Bryce Florie? That wasn't dip.
posted by yerfatma at 1:11 PM on April 11, 2006


2) an important component of fitness for those hoping to enjoy retirement that isn't based on a sofa.

Boy, I hope this was sarcasm.
posted by davejay at 1:13 PM on April 11, 2006


the Boston Globe, the love of my childhood, is dying a slow death at the hands of the New York Times.
posted by es_de_bah at 5:54 PM on April 11, 2006


« Older Can you prove it didn't happen?...  |  An advertising campaign in the... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments