“Professional sports” is an oxymoron, seems to us, at least when salaries or winnings are in the millions. We conclude that the New York Times agrees, though as its lawyers are in the picture, we can’t be sure.
The Times just published a plausibly deniable hit piece on tennis star (an unprecedented six Wimbledon titles) Serena Williams’. Wrapped up, the Times seems to think that a physique like Ms. Williams possesses is the basis of her triumphs and available but eschewed by other female players. We decode that as the Times believes that Ms. Williams is on steroids while most others in tennis are not, or at least, not to her extent.
As the Times doesn’t come right out and say that, we must guess. What we guess is not flattering to the Times. We perceive it as a coward.
We believe that many top sports figures are ‘biologically assisted” into their high income levels via steroids, blood doping, etc. Their appearances and performances are suggestive, their earnings, explanatory. A glance at Serena Williams is suggestive; at her record, compelling. We believe that the Times is likely correct. But we lack respect tor the Times.
The hypocrisy of pro sports is longstanding; recall the overthrow of cyclist Lance Armstrong on similar charges without a shred of physical evidence.
The Times evidently decided that Serena has been on top too long even for a black, record-breaking female (A courageous decision, right?). The Times, not the athlete, will decide. Seems a bit arrogant, but it’s the Times, after all. (Or what is left of it.)
Back at Reality Ranch, we suppose most high-income sports that can benefit from these treatments have done so for years. We assume politicians are crooked, knowing that they can benefit, right? Human nature!
So we say, if they all do it, why pick on Serena? It seems cowardly to us; she beats everybody, that may be boring but she earns it in plain sight. And if drugs are part of her training, they are certainly not denied her opponents. The Times cannot rule out the possibility that Williams is merely a physical rarity; such occur in our species. That would ruin the hit job, though. And we admit the rarity of that.
But given the general use of steroids, doping and such in the NFL, the NBA, cycling, et infinitum that seems to us to exist, we merely point to the hypocrisy of the quintessence of Liberalism, the Times, dumping upon an unbeatable black female athlete, apparently because she is in fact, unbeatable. (Mostly).
However she has done it, la Williams has fairly taken on and defeated all comers. She has earned what she has, in public. She deserves the plaudits of the world, not the small sniping of the Times.
We disapprove athletic chemical enhancement but we aren’t in charge and the world disagrees with us on that, in fact if not in public. Serena and her peers have to play in reality, not in the fantasy world of the Times.
We see that the Times list of subscribers has been shrinking for a while; Serena Williams fan base has apparently not followed. Perhaps the Times is envious?