A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Dec. 15, on the Mitchell Report:
It’s confirmed now. The Steroids Era in Major League Baseball was officially verified with Thursday’s release of the Mitchell Report.
But the real significance of former Sen. George Mitchell’s “independent investigation into the illegal use of steroids and other performance-enhancing substances by players” is not what it revealed. We already knew, believed or at least suspected every major finding.
As Mitchell said at the release of the report Thursday, those players who used performance-enhancing drugs “distorted the fairness of the competition.” Fans are right to be offended, and those players who tried to fix the game deserve the criticism they’ll receive.
Some may also forgo millions in salaries and endorsements or be denied honors (such as induction into the Hall of Fame) after retirement. So be it.
The report should not be the final word on the Steroids Era, however, but a guide forward. And with this in mind, baseball can do much to rehabilitate if not restore the integrity of America’s pastime.
“Baseball” in this context is all-inclusive: Major League Baseball as a corporate entity; the players union and its leaders; individual owners, individual baseball clubs and their executives; and the players themselves.
The Mitchell Report contains many sound recommendations, including creation of an internal investigations department, intensified testing and expanded educational programs that focus on more than just the health risks associated with use of performance enhancing drugs.
Ultimately, though, the effectiveness of efforts to eradicate chemical influence on performance in baseball will depend on the resolve of the baseball clubs as business organizations and the cooperation of the players union.
Establishing a “zero tolerance” policy for drug use by employees has become an expectation in many U.S. workplaces. Why not in the clubhouse as well?
Unwavering commitment to this principle, combined with the cooperation of the labor representative when employees are part of a collective bargaining unit, will establish the culture that comes as close as possible to eliminating drugs in the workplace.
Testing must be mandatory, and the consequences for violations must reinforce the zero-tolerance message. These are two extremely difficult principles for any labor organization to accept; yet the players union must.
And while, yes, enhanced drug screening would be intrusive—HGH tests now require blood samples rather than urinalysis, for instance—baseball players should not expect a testing regime that’s less rigorous than the one Olympic athletes, professional soccer players and competitive cyclists must endure.
The Mitchell Report is certain to provoke some members of Congress to attempt to intervene, as they have in the past. At least one lawmaker has suggested that Congress might “fire” Commissioner Bud Selig, as if Washington has the authority to appoint or dismiss corporate executives.
“Baseball” would do well to keep government at bay by acting promptly, decisively and in unity.
Editorial: nal-word/
———
The Denver Post, Dec. 14, on renewing the assault-weapons ban:
Matthew Murray has given us another reason to renew the ban on high-powered assault weapons.
Murray was the troubled young man who killed four people Dec. 9 and injured others at religious organizations in Arvada and Colorado Springs. Almost exactly a year before the rampage, he purchased an AK-47 assault rifle and a large shipment of ammunition. Less than two months later, he purchased another.
He was armed with a Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle, the kind used by military and law-enforcement personnel, during his killing spree in Colorado Springs. He also had handguns. The AK-47 assault rifle was found in the trunk of his car.
Such extraordinary firepower is not meant for hunting animals or target shooting. We see only one other purpose. And so did Murray.
The gun control debate is tricky, and emotional. But Congress should move quickly to re-enact a federal assault weapons prohibition.
Such a ban was approved in 1994 under the Clinton administration with the support of former Presidents Reagan, Carter and Ford. Yet, President George W. Bush, who declared his support for the ban in 2000, caved to the gun lobby and allowed it to expire in September 2004.
Congress needs to bring it back. And if congressional lawmakers lack the political will, Colorado lawmakers ought to follow the example of Maryland, which just enacted the Assault Weapons Ban of 2007. (It would mean amending a law now on the books.)
The law approved by Congress in 1994 banned 19 specific assault weapons, both rifles and handguns. The law also made it illegal to manufacture or import military-style semiautomatic rifles, shotguns or pistols.
During the ban, the number of assault weapons linked to crimes dropped. The proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crime dropped by two-thirds from 1995 to 2004.
The law didn’t ban all semi-automatic guns, only those with multiple assault weapon features.
Opponents argued that it placed an unfair burden on manufacturers. They also claimed that assault weapons were not a danger to the public—you know the argument: guns don’t kill people, people kill people. True, but they need the guns to do it.
And assault weapons are too easily available to people like Murray.
The families of Murray’s victims know that all too well. So do the families and friends of the Columbine High School victims. One of the weapons used by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold was a variation of the then banned TEC-DC9 semiautomatic pistol.
During the ban, the U.S. Constitution still gave citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It didn’t keep Americans from owning guns for protection or sport.
Frankly, we can’t figure out the benefits of having assault weapons easily available. Law enforcement officers universally agree that people wanting self protection don’t carry assault weapons. But criminals do.
Editorial:
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
Montrose Daily Press, Dec. 12, on reviewing the state’s blue law for alcohol sales:
Currently, 34 states permit the Sunday sale of alcohol. Colorado is not one of them. But the “blue law,” which dates back to 1933 and the repeal of Prohibition, is getting a possible second look during the 2008 legislative session. It’s time for a change, simply because it allows choice.
Beyond the jokeslike “our house, Super Bowl Sunday, BYOB” there is a real issue, one requiring a critical, common sense approach. Simply put, liquor stores are businesses, just like retail establishments and grocery stores. You don’t see the state telling retail giants like JC Penney, or local independents like Jeans Westerner, they can’t be open on Sundays.
Says Colorado state Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver: “There’s no reason the government would dictate to a business that they can’t open (on) a certain day.” Veiga fought against the Colorado law in 2005 but lost the battle.
Those against Sunday beer/wine/liquor sales cite reasons such as family, how Sunday is typically a church day, and limiting underage drinkers to alcohol. Yet, there aren’t restrictions Monday through Saturday. And while Sundays do have a place in our society for worship and “Sunday dinners” with families, the mood of Sundays has changed considerably with time and with how other consumer options are available.
Those favoring the repeal point to additional revenues and convenience. No doubt some liquor stores owners in Colorado appreciate the law, knowing they’ll have Sundays off. They should be able to have that choice like the rest of our retailers.
Editorial: 108391b1953946085.txt
———
Times-Call, Longmont, Colo., and Reporter-Herald, Loveland, Colo., Dec. 16, on elk management in Rocky Mountain National Park:
Rocky Mountain National Park has gone on record about how it wants to deal with its elk overpopulation problem—shooting as many as 200 animals a year to bring the population down from an estimated 3,100 now to between 1,600 and 2,100. Park officials released the Environmental Impact Statement for their long-awaited Elk and Vegetation Management Plan, detailing the ways they hope to deal with an elk population that has damaged willow and aspen stands and affected other wildlife that rely on the vegetation.
The park’s preferred alternative doesn’t rely entirely on killing the animals. It will also include the use of fencing to protect some vegetation, and some elk birth control methods will also be tried.
Though some people are upset that park officials did not pick the alternative of bringing wolves to the park to prey upon the elk, Rocky Mountain National Park officials have listened to much of the input they’ve received on the elk issue. And using wolves remains a possibility under the plan, if the other actions taken do not sufficiently cut the elk population.
Many hunters lobbied for the right to shoot the elk. The plan contains provisions for “authorized agents” to cull the elk through shooting. That could include volunteers approved by park officials.
But make no mistake. Culling is not hunting, which involves an element of chase and sport. Culling will be a controlled process in an effort to kill the animals as safely and humanely as possible.
The plan also has provisions for donating elk meat through an authorized food program, so the carcasses will not go to waste.
Provisions for testing of elk birth control are included, as are provisions for specifically targeting elk with chronic wasting disease, to try to reduce the incidence of that illness among the population.
Comment will be taken on the final Environmental Impact Statement for the elk management plan for 30 to 60 days, then the Environmental Protection Agency must issue a record of decision before the plan can go from theory into action.
After 11 years of work, park officials have crafted a plan on the controversial topic that addresses most of the concerns expressed by the public.
With the majority of elk culling efforts anticipated to happen between November and February, in a little less than a year from now the plan will finally be a reality.
Newspapers: and
