albionmoonlight
06-24-2008, 08:14 AM
I'm a racing enthusiast, and I completely agree with this view. The states holding the main sway in the sport need to step forward right away and ban all steroids, and I think they would be well served to come up with something else as well -- like a fund to help promote proper training, research or something else that at least suggests a visible commitment to horse well-being. Just sitting back and complaining that the critics "don't get it" or that this will just blow over would be really unwise.
This quote got me thinking. When you look at sports that have fallen from grace (i.e. the big TV money) in the United States, you think of boxing and horse racing. Someone in the Big Brown thread also mentioned bicycle racing. In all of these sports, you lack a strong central governing authority with the power to pass and enforce rules. You also lack a strong central governing authority to negotiate on behalf of the sport with stadiums, sponsors, networks, etc.
Racing seems to be governed by the state legislatures in the states where racing is legal. Not a good system. Basic issues of safety and competitiveness cannot be enforced because you don't have one authority to which everyone must answer.
Boxing is run by promoters, state gaming commissions, and multiple major organizations that sanction titles. And we see where that has got us.
I don't know enough about biking to know how that is managed. But from the perspective of the outsider, from what I can tell it seems to be run by groups from various countries who all accuse riders from other countries of doping.
In contrast, the NFL, FIBA, MLB, NBA, NASCAR, and NHL all have a strong central authority that works to keep athletes safe and the games competitive (and, more importantly, projects the public image of doing these things). And they thrive.
Indeed, from what I can tell, when sports run into trouble in the public eye (large v. small markets in the NFL. Revenue sharing in MLB. Lottery tanking in the NBA), it almost always involves teams operating in their own self interest in some manner that makes us say "[Fill in the blank commissioner] really needs to step in and fix this problem."
I would also note that, psychologically, having one person as the commisioner adds to the public confidence in the system. When David Stern was asked after the Ron Artest suspension whether he put the decision to suspend up to a vote and he said, "Yes, and he lost 1-0" it was taken as a joke. But it was also a very savy way, IMO, of indicating to the public "Don't worry. I will protect the sport. There is no chance of any necessary action being bogged down in committee."
Anyway, I am sure that this post does not point out anything that you guys don't know. But it had never really occured to me in these terms until reading Quik's post and noting that a bunch of states would all have to get together and do something for the good of horse racing. And how impossible that will be.
So, I guess the next question is whether it will even be possible for sports like boxing and racing to ever have a dictator-commish structure. And whether it is possible for a sport to succeed and maintain public confidence without it. And whether I have forgotten about some examples that disprove my hypothesis.
This quote got me thinking. When you look at sports that have fallen from grace (i.e. the big TV money) in the United States, you think of boxing and horse racing. Someone in the Big Brown thread also mentioned bicycle racing. In all of these sports, you lack a strong central governing authority with the power to pass and enforce rules. You also lack a strong central governing authority to negotiate on behalf of the sport with stadiums, sponsors, networks, etc.
Racing seems to be governed by the state legislatures in the states where racing is legal. Not a good system. Basic issues of safety and competitiveness cannot be enforced because you don't have one authority to which everyone must answer.
Boxing is run by promoters, state gaming commissions, and multiple major organizations that sanction titles. And we see where that has got us.
I don't know enough about biking to know how that is managed. But from the perspective of the outsider, from what I can tell it seems to be run by groups from various countries who all accuse riders from other countries of doping.
In contrast, the NFL, FIBA, MLB, NBA, NASCAR, and NHL all have a strong central authority that works to keep athletes safe and the games competitive (and, more importantly, projects the public image of doing these things). And they thrive.
Indeed, from what I can tell, when sports run into trouble in the public eye (large v. small markets in the NFL. Revenue sharing in MLB. Lottery tanking in the NBA), it almost always involves teams operating in their own self interest in some manner that makes us say "[Fill in the blank commissioner] really needs to step in and fix this problem."
I would also note that, psychologically, having one person as the commisioner adds to the public confidence in the system. When David Stern was asked after the Ron Artest suspension whether he put the decision to suspend up to a vote and he said, "Yes, and he lost 1-0" it was taken as a joke. But it was also a very savy way, IMO, of indicating to the public "Don't worry. I will protect the sport. There is no chance of any necessary action being bogged down in committee."
Anyway, I am sure that this post does not point out anything that you guys don't know. But it had never really occured to me in these terms until reading Quik's post and noting that a bunch of states would all have to get together and do something for the good of horse racing. And how impossible that will be.
So, I guess the next question is whether it will even be possible for sports like boxing and racing to ever have a dictator-commish structure. And whether it is possible for a sport to succeed and maintain public confidence without it. And whether I have forgotten about some examples that disprove my hypothesis.