The Lance Armstrong Solution -- Stop Paying Male Athletes Millions and They'll Stop Cheating

Submitted by Mastodon on Mon, 2013-11-04 08:44

Article here. Excerpt:

Dare your best friend to eat a bucket of maggots. Then offer that same friend a million dollars to eat the same bucket of maggots and listen for that delightful capitalist crunch.

Humans are weak. And they become especially weak once you start shoving millions into their eager, money-grubbing fingers. Thankfully, most humans don't have to worry about making bad moral decisions after being offered a cool mill, because most of us are poor. Or -- relative to a baseball player netting $50 million a year -- poorish.
...
One pervasive argument for why women's sports aren't popular (and therefore less likely to have money thrown at them) is that the demand just isn't there. Women don't play or watch sports on the same level as men.
...
Everyone may lie. But everyone doesn't perform secret blood transfusions on a bus to get that annual $30 mill.

Reexamine why we play sports in the first place and turn off the millions flowing to professional athletes. And watch the bloodsuckers start to fall away.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... the feminist fix to a real or perceived problem is de-notch men. Pass a law capping salaries at something if for some reason (say, better ability or market demand), men generally are getting paid more than women. After all, it's irrefutable evidence of widespread misogyny/sexism against women.

Sexism-- maybe. Yes, in this case, maybe. Do ppl of either sex feel more like watching NBA games or WNBA games? For most ppl of both sexes, it's NBA games. But is it the sex of the players or the excitement of the playing? Anyway, no matter why, the feminist's fix to this terribly sexist situation is: stop paying male athletes quite so much. And it might also reduce the incentive to dope, too. Maybe for some, but my instinct says no. I think men and women who dope'd do it anyway.

No, what really frosts feminists is that male athletes command more compensation simply because the experience of watching them play is in so much greater demand. That simple truth drives them nuts, so nuts they needed to get the gov't to enact a law to try to suppress men's athletics at its most formative stage: college-aged men. Not seeing the results they want fast enough, some now want another step, perhaps? Legislated caps on salaries? League caps dropped lower? Certainly team owners would support that.

With one high-profile doping scandal, the author concludes: men must be paid less to get rid of the leechers and cheats. I submit that leechers and cheats may be found everywhere with or w/out great financial incentive. Being a leech or cheat is a character flaw. If one will go there for $30 mill, he or she'll probably go there for a mere $100.

Finally, if indeed female athletes are getting so shorted that they aren't prone to doping, explain this:

http://www.totalprosports.com/2012/05/30/11-female-athletes-caught-using-performance-enhancing-drugs/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-2184608/How-athletics-scarred-reign-chemical-sisters.html

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2013-11-04 17:49

Marion Jones

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by bronxman on Mon, 2013-11-04 18:05

don't make the big buck$,

how will all the gold digger$ and high priced divorce lawyer$ survive?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Tue, 2013-11-05 00:36

Why is there so much money in sport? Because couch potatoes are great to advertise to.

Maybe there's a solution in getting more men playing sport rather than watching it.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MrWombat on Tue, 2013-11-05 02:51