Despite poll results, fans still show up
The interactive survey of 3,197 adult sports fans nationwide separated respondents into numerous sub-categories, including religion, political affiliation, income, geography and — for some reason — frequency of shopping at Wal-Mart, and finds that pretty much everyone wishes sports were clean. The poll, which was conducted Oct. 16-18, carries a margin of error of +/- 1.7 percent.
In the abstract, of course, fans are exemplars of moral rectitude. But in practice things get a little more sketchy. If I recall correctly, it seems more than 14.8 percent of the AT&T Park crowd was going wild when Barry Bonds hit No. 756.
 |
 |
|
|
Performance-enhancing drugs aren't sitting too well with fans. Read more about the recent MSN-Zogby poll. | ||
 |
||
While the survey gets very specific about the makeup of the people answering the questions (union/non-union, married/single), it does not require the respondents to plumb the depths of their own ambivalence and answer about real-world sports fan dilemmas. The kind presented by Bonds' pursuit of the record.
It is within that gray area where the gap between those who strongly oppose steroids (85.2%) and those whose enjoyment of sports is diminished by steroid use (58.1%) might be explained. Multiple-choice answers don't always illuminate the seeming contradiction of those fans who want steroids abolished on the one hand but don't cheer any less lustily when they know they are present.
So while questions about what achievements — Super Bowl titles, home-run records — might make fans look the other way on steroid use will have to wait for another poll, let's take a look at some of the more telling results of the survey.
One stat that jumps out is that the most tolerant demographic is ages 25-34, fans who came of age during the Steroid Era. In that demo, 75.7 percent of respondents wanted tough action on performance-enhancing drugs, nearly 10 percent lower than the average of the other age groups. The 18-24 demo came in at 89.2 percent and 55-69 were the strictest at 91.2 percent.
One could argue that that makes the 25-34 group the least hypocritical. They grew up rooting for guys whose hat sizes changed from year to year and a significant percentage of them are not willing to pretend they didn't like it.
|
|
|
|
Tune in live Thursday at 2 p.m. ET when FOXSports.com will be streaming the release of the Mitchell Report. | ||
|
||
Which might also explain why on the question, "If you were a professional athlete, would you take performance-enhancing drugs," the 25-34s are much more willing to go to the needle. A full 13.4 percent of that demo said they'd take the juice, a number that dwarfed the other demos. Only 0.8 percent of 18-24s said they would (an encouraging sign). The 35-54s said yes at a 3.9 percent clip, tapering off to 2 percent of the 55-69s and only 0.9 percent of the 70+ old-timers.
A possible explanation for this statistical spike is that whereas older fans feel a loyalty to Hank Aaron and Willie Mays and younger fans have grown up with the demonization of steroids, the 25-34 group has lived through the complicated transition, where we were supposed to shift from cheering the fall of home run records to wagging our fingers at the guys who did it.
When the respondents are broken down along racial lines, African-Americans are considerably more tolerant of steroid use than their white counterparts. While 67.4 percent of African-Americans want definitive action on performance-enhancing drugs, that number jumps to 88.9 percent among whites.
Though Mark McGwire had his embarrassing testimony before Congress and Rafael Palmeiro had his high-profile, post-testimony, career-staining Stanozolol bust, the face of the steroid controversy is unquestionably Barry Bonds. One possible explanation for the statistical gap between black and white in the poll is that there is a percentage of the African-American community who believe Bonds has gotten a raw deal.
In other areas, respondents broke down fairly predictably along tolerant and intolerant lines.
Of Republicans, 91.7 percent answered that they wanted decisive action on steroids (which doesn't necessarily mean that they troll for steroids in men's rooms). As for Democratic respondents, 81.5 percent wanted tough action (which doesn't mean they'd actually do anything if they were swept into power on a platform of ending steroid use). Independents were the least bothered by steroid use at 80.7 percent.
As for marital status, the toughest group was the understandably angry divorced/widowed/separated demo at 88.4 percent. The most lenient were those in civil unions at 80.1 percent.
Among religions, Catholics (90.1%) were the strictest, followed by Protestants (84.9%) and Jews (79.6%). Those who worshipped weekly came in at 88.7 percent, outpolling those who never worship (81.8%) by more than 6 percent.
The strangest category — frequency of Wal-Mart shopping — also produced the strangest result. The less you shopped at Wal-Mart the more opposed to steroids you were, unless you never shopped at Wal-Mart, in which case you were more tolerant of performance-enhancing drugs. The chart went weekly Wal-Mart shopper (85.7%), monthly (87.6%), yearly (88.2%), then dropped to 78 percent for never shops at Wal-Mart.
While all these categories and sub-categories are fun to explore, the poll is ultimately unsatisfying because nowhere do we see this supposed opposition to steroids carried into action by sports fans.
If the last 20 years have taught us anything, it's that sports fans' contempt for performance-enhancing drugs is exceeded by their hypocrisy and, more importantly, their desire to win. In this way, we are not so different than the athletes we so readily condemn (assuming, that is, they don't play for our team).
While the MSN-Zogby poll tells us Wal-Mart shoppers are more likely to condemn steroids than people who never shop there, it fails to probe more deeply with challenging follow-ups, like: If it meant your team would win the World Series or Super Bowl, could you look the other way if one of your heroes did a cycle of the juice?
Now we don't know how fans would answer this in a poll, but we do have a pretty good idea of how they've answered this in real life.
Charger fans still celebrate Shawne Merriman's sack dance, despite knowing he was busted for Nandrolone last year.
Patriot fans adore hard-hitting Rodney Harrison despite his HGH suspension.
Indians fans roared for setup man Rafael Betancourt despite his performance-enhancing drug suspension as he mowed down hitters in the playoffs (until the decidedly non-steroidal Dustin Pedroia took him deep). And presumably Indians fans will bellow for Paul Byrd next year despite revelations of his HGH use.
The fans have spoken twice over. They have said they wish steroids were not a part of sports. And they have also said — more loudly — that they are not willing in any way to change their rooting behavior on account of the presence of performance-enhancing drugs.
The message is as twofold as sports fans are two-faced on this issue. 1) Don't do steroids. 2) But if you do, we'll still root for you as long as you're helping the team.
advertisement
