Before We Get Our Knickers In A Self-Righteous Twist About Steroids...
by ptbarnum on Aug 1, 2005 10:38 PM PDT
68 comments
Okay, I'm happy Rafael Palmeiro was busted. Anyone who blatantly lies in a public forum like the U.S. Congress should be flogged. I speak metaphorically, of course. (If the liars in question are actual members of Congress, however, I speak literally.)
Palmeiro's ass-covering, avoiding-jail-for-perjury comments are especially annoying. In Congress, he said, with a Clintonesque jab of the finger, "I have never taken steroids. Not a single time." (I'm paraphrasing a bit.) He did not say, "I did not intentionally take steroids," as his lawyer is counseling him now.
So, Rafael, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Enjoy the sweet smell of success.
But beyond the conniving, hypocritical individuals involved, is there really a problem here, within the context of professional baseball? Yes, non-prescription use of steroids has been illegal since the 1990 Federal Anabolic Steroids Control Act. But steroids were not banned in professional baseball at the time all these juice-ballers were taking the stuff.
My question is, given the obvious nonchalance of major league baseball toward steroid use, why shouldn't the players take steroids? Given the rewards and the performance pressure on major league players, why shouldn't they seek an edge? If you come out of the Dominican Republic, for instance, and you know your entire family will prosper or perish based on your success in baseball, and you know your success in baseball is dependent on, maybe, one hit more per week than the other guy, why resist steroids?
The competitive skills and drive that we applaud are exactly what led these guys to juice. If you are born and bred as a thoroughbred competitor, and you know, because of age, you suddenly can't keep up or stay healthy for a season, why wouldn't you juice? Because of a U.S. Federal statute? If you are from the Dominican Republic, or Venezuela, or even Canada or the good old US of A, why would you care about federal statutes? Professional baseball didn't.
Were baseball players right to ignore U.S. federal law? Not technically. But if you exceed 65 mph of I-880, you are breaking a federal statute. If you borrow an Ambien from your spouse, you are in violation of federal drug laws. I can assure you, virtually every U.S. citizen is in violation of some federal law, statute, regulation or prohibition. The Federal Code, including the tax code, runs in excess of 20,000 pages.
So, within the context of professional baseball, what's the big deal? Yes, you could say that it was not right for baseball to ignore fedral law, but it did. Why? Because it could. Baseball obviously regarded itself as exempt from federal law. If it is exempt from federal anti-trust laws, why should federal drug laws have any more importance? Bud Selig has not jeopardized his livelihood for ignoring federal law. Why should the players pay the price?
My advice for fans who are outraged by the "cheating" is simple. Let it go. Let baseball clean up the problem and sort out the various "Hall of Fame" credentials of the miscreants. The Steroid Era is like the era of big ball parks and high pitchers' mounds. It's gone. Enjoy the game for what it is now.
Besides, who did the players cheat? Each other? Any of the players could have blown the whistle, but, until the self-promoting galoot Jose Canseco, none did. The integrity of the game? Take a look at the competitive disparities of baseball and talk to me about integrity. The glorious history of baseball? This is the history that kept black players out of pro baseball from 1889 to 1947.
Shit happens, folks. After all, if Willie Mays doesn't mind that Barry Bonds beat his records using steroids, why should we?
0 recs |
68 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
...if ever.
"Barry Bonds may fulfill his own spring-training prophesy, as he declared Monday he does not expect to play at all this season ..."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/08/02/SPGH8E1BVH1.DTL
Awesome diary
Sorry
Anyway, for the tongue-in-cheek part, I came home wanting to write about this whole deal, but am left with little to say after your all-encompassing rant. We can all debate how much this should affect Hall-of-Fame credentials, but there's no need to make an effort at moral outrage.
I noticed some comments saying that "letting it go" was what allowed the scandal to happen in the first place. But I think the idea is that it happened, regrettably, and baseball dealt with it, FINALLY, and now we can move on. I don't think we need to maintain some heightened level of vigilance as fans. I mean, being a fan is supposed to be fun--our obligations shouldn't be many. We don't want to see cheaters prosper--now that they're not prospering anymore, we CAN let it go.
by rubin sierra on Aug 2, 2005 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions
But they are prospering.
I mean, the fact that we have a minor leaguer who just came off his third suspension is indicative to me that the problem is FAR from being handled.
The PR campaign? That's another story.
Great post...
Point of clarification: you should substitute 'cousin' for 'wife' in your Ambien reference - spousal immunity from testifying.
by southofcruiseamerica on Aug 1, 2005 10:57 PM PDT reply actions
I see your point
However, if roids are promoted, think of all the people who will abuse the drugs and become Brad Fullmers, and Ken Camineti.
Have you ever known someone whos juiced? Have you ever seen someone roid rage? I have, its not pretty. Not to mention that roids can kill you, thats just what baseball needs, someone to DIE on the field. I wont get into the whole role model thing because kids should look to their parents, NOT pro athletes but whatever.
These guys can put up numbers without the drugs, I dont care so much about the cheating as I care about the survival and future of baseball.
Agreed.
When the MLB decides to actually test for all performance-enhancing drugs, instead of just steroids, and when a first time offense means a year ban from the game, instead of just a week and a few days, then we can think about letting it go.
Until then, nothing can be trusted.
ptbarnum diaries
chicago tribune on palmeiro
Palmeiro, who had volunteered to serve on Congress' "Zero Tolerance" task force after the March 17 appearance in Washington, claims he unknowingly took a banned substance. However, a highly placed MLB source told the Tribune that Palmeiro tested positive for a "serious" steroid that could not have been ingested accidentally.
"There's no way to get around this," the source said. "This wasn't a little mistake, and as Mr. Palmeiro found out, there are no exceptions in our program. If you are found out, you will pay the price."
Palmeiro would not explain how he came to test positive. He seemingly tried to leave the impression that the banned substance was contained in a supplement that was not prescribed.
Palmeiro, according to the MLB source, has known about the positive test for "three weeks to a month."
"knickers in a twist"
by secret ASian man on Aug 2, 2005 12:31 AM PDT reply actions
You prefer them, eh!
Terrific post!
I think Boogie Down Productions had it absolutely correct in their late 80s rap song, Illegal Business where they rapped "Everything you do in private is illegal. Everything's legal if the government can see you. Don't get me wrong America is great place to live, but listen to the knowledge I give."
Well it least it seems as though they were spot-on. Now, what can I get for sixty-three cents?
KRS One come to start some hysteria ...
i agree with the post for the most part, but i don't mind a couple big stars getting smacked down, as hypocritical as it might be. for instance, i don't think a responsible parent tells their children to go out and do drugs, even though they may have a somewhat shady past themselves.
Saul williams
by Athletics fan and runner on Aug 2, 2005 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
saul williams is dope ...
Totally disagree
But, trying to make steriods look like not that big a deal and saying it is along the same lines as a speeding ticket is what I disagree with.
Steriods have been proven to be bad for you. Bad for your long term health and bad for your personality.
I understand that if Player A decides he wants to 'roid up, the only person it is possibly going to send to an early grave is Player A, so that is his choice.
But, what if Player B is in the same organization and is fighting with Player A for at bats or innings? They could work just as hard in the gym, off the field, in the tape room, but Player A is going to have that 5% advanatage. Player B's 380 foot out is Player A's 400 foot homer.
You are now forcing Player B to make a choice: lose out to Player A, or juice up yourself.
Now, Player C, in AAA, has to make a choice. And it goes to AA, down to rookie ball, to college, to high school.
You can either give the guys on the juice the advantage, or do it yourself.
by Athletics Central on Aug 2, 2005 9:04 AM PDT reply actions
how many
by NYC on Aug 2, 2005 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions
I know
by Athletics fan and runner on Aug 2, 2005 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Olympic Athlete Study
by Athletics Central on Aug 2, 2005 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Largely Disagree
All that being said, steroids have been terrible for baseball, should never have been in the game, and will be an albatross around the neck of MLB for years to come. You've managed to do a very good job of explaining steroid use in MLB, but this explanation falls far short of a justification.
Why are steroids bad for baseball?
First, they distort statistics in a game in which stats and history are very important. One of the enduring delights of the game is the ability to compare over a century of performances to each other. Of course, the game changes with the times, and one has to make allowances for these changes (Frank "Home Run" Baker's 12 homers in 1913 were much more impressive in that era than they would be only twenty years later). But most of these changes in the game have been public and open. Like (possibly) juiced baseballs in recent decades, steroid use is almost necessarily secret (since it's against the law), which makes it maddeningly difficult to judge the numbers of many players over the last decade and a half. This is not good for the game.
Second, steroids appear to help hitters more than pitchers. This has upset the balance of the game.
Third, there's the old role model argument, that Bill James famously made back in the 1980s in defense of baseball's (non-performance enhancing) drug policy. In the case of at least some drugs (i.e. marijuana), I never entirely bought the James argument. Yes, players are role models. But our marijuana laws are absurd, and reinforcing them by declaring someone to be unfit for role model status due to smoking some herb seemed (and seems) ridiculous to me. However, I think the James argument works very well for steroids, which are much more dangerous than many recreational drugs, are directly related to athletic activity, and are particularly harmful to young people, who often have both opportunity and motive for use while still in high school.
Finally, we've made a decision, both nationally and internationally, that sports performances should not be chemically enhanced. That is to say that the vast majority of professional and amateur sports have rules against steroid use. I know that some argue that performance enhancing drugs are, in principle, no different from, say, a weight lifting regimen, that is they are simply a way to make one's body work more efficiently. But as a society, we have overwhelmingly rejected these arguments. For years, baseball found itself allied with bodybuilding as one of the few sports not to aggressively ban performance enhancing substances. I think this was a terrible mistake.
There's one final aspect of this diary I want to disagree with. ptbarnum writes
Yes, you could say that it was not right for baseball to ignore fedral law, but it did. Why? Because it could. Baseball obviously regarded itself as exempt from federal law. If it is exempt from federal anti-trust laws, why should federal drug laws have any more importance?
This argument is ludicrous.
Baseball's antitrust exemption is quite specific and narrow. It is the result of the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1922 case Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Clubs. It is not some kind of all-purpose, "get out of federal laws free" card. Just as baseball players can't avoid playing federal income tax on the basis of the antitrust exemption, baseball cannot claim to be free from federal anti-steroid laws on the basis of it.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 2, 2005 9:13 AM PDT reply actions
It's all gray to me...
(A) Steroids distort statistics. But so do greenies, small parks, lack of integration, better nutrition, increased pay/fame, more time dedicated to staying in peak physical condition, an emphasis on one stat vs. another, different bats, changing mound heights, introduction of the DH, wars, etc., etc., etc.
I argue that it's maddeningly difficult to compare statistics against these backdrops. I think most stat-heads understand this, which is why they tend to compare stats within baseball "eras", as long as they can reasonably define an "era."
(B) Steroids help hitters more than pitchers? Prove it.
One of the keys of steroids is faster recovery time. I'd argue that an arm that's just been abused for 100-120 pitches is a great candidate for the healing powers of "the juice."
My point here is not that you are wrong (I have no idea if you're right or wrong), but simply that you can't know you are right.
(C) As an individual, I'm intelligent enough to make my own decisions about who a ball player is or isn't. I don't put them up on pedestals. They are gifted athletes, but every bit as human as you or me.
As a parent, I appreciate the "role model" argument, but I don't completely buy into it, either. My job, as a parent, is to instruct and teach my children how to navigate this world that is full of moral, amoral, and immoral influences. If my children choose to "juice up," do drugs, drive drunk, speed, partake in backyard wrestling, etc., these are choices that they will have to take responsibility for, but are hopefully choices my wife and I will have equipped them to avoid.
(D) Everyday life is chemically enhanced. The centrum or flintstones vitamins we take in the morning. Hell, the cereal we eat in the morning is artificially enhanced with 11 essential nutrients. The various, legal supplements out there are chemical enhancements over what was available 5, 10, 20, 70 years ago. Yes, steriods are different. I'm not arguing that. However, what makes them different is their legality. No one knows what the long term effects of many of the legal supplements.
Again, please understand that I appreciate your sentiment. Cheating is wrong. Steroids are illegal and against the rules. Players caught cheating should pay the price. However, I think a lot of the ancillary arguments that accompany the debate over steroids are impossible to prove and add little substance to the real issue: they're illegal, and they're now against the rules.
I'll also say one last thing. I have no idea how or why Palmeiro or Franklin tested positive. Yes, there are rumors and speculation about what was actually found. However, we, as the public, cannot know for certain since the CBA (to the best of my knowledge) prohibits the actual findings from being made public. The reason this is important is that various chemicals metabolize in ways quite similar to anabolic steroids. These tests do not find steroids, they find the metabolite and infer the use of steroids based on that. I think it will take a while for the players, the teams, and the league to come up with approved formularies so that everyone can be sure that they are consuming substances that won't trip the tests. Anyway, as far as these two cases are concerned, they tested positive and their appeals were denied. As such, they are subject to the sanctions outlined in the CBA and subsequently amended in the offseason.
by sfodoug on Aug 2, 2005 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Distorted Statistics
What makes steroids unlike, say, integration or small ballparks is that we simply do not know who used steroids and who didn't. We can measure statistically the effects of integration on baseball, just as we can measure the effects of small ballparks (or changing pitching mound heights, banning of spitballs, etc. etc). Accounting for these things statistically is not necessarily easy, but the effort is itself interesting. At least the data are relatively clear. Because steroids are illegal and their use secretive, we'll never really know who used them and when. This makes this distortion of statistics fundamentally different.
Bottom line, however is that steroids constitute a form of cheating. One might imagine a different world in which they don't, but in this world, they do. And that also makes them fundamentally unlike other forms of statistical distortion.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 3, 2005 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Well-argued post
The problem here is that baseball had no interest in cleaning up the problem until the BALCO indictments and Canseco's book.
And even then, the drug policy is still a joke, as it fails to test everything from human growth hormones to amphetamines. The only people who will be caught by this policy are the morons. "The Steroid Era" may be ending, but under the current testing system, it will only be replaced by the "HGH Era" or some other drug.
There's a long history of cheating in baseball (it turned out, after all, that the 1951 Giants run was helped along by a guy signaling the batters from the bleachers) and the game honors its charming rogues (see the recent ceremony honoring Gaylord Perry) who break the rules.
Baseball is only entertainment, so it's always easy to say we shouldn't take it too seriously. But I still would rather have an even playing field without chemicals that give some players a big competitive advantage.
Sorry ptbarnum;
In general, i find this "libertarian" perspective on sports laughable. Sure, its great when everyone should be able to do "whatever" but when you start getting your ass handed to you because you weren't smart enough, or didn't have the means, to CHEAT first you gotta start scratching your head and wonder what give here?. Then, we'd start hearing, probably from guys like you, "hey, this isn't fair!!!".
Listen, there are rules to everything-in life, in society, and in baseball. Some rules are explicit, while some are of the unwritten variety. One rule that we SHOULD all try to live up to is-NO CHEATING!!!! For too long we
(the collective "we") have looked away when rampant cheating has been the norm. CEO's have CHEATED stockholders out of their pensions. Over 50% of all marriages are ending in divorce-many due to spousal CHEATING. And yes, ptbarnum, baseball players who have used steriods have CHEATED the fans, their competition, the owners of MLB teams and the game of baseball.
"Were baseball players right to ignore US Federal Law? Not technically" Well, ptbarnum, "technically" US citizens everyday go to prison for "technically" ignoring (breaking!?!) US Federal law....perjury in front of a sitting Congressional Committee being one of them. But hey, what the hell, lets all "let it go", "give it a break", "shit happens"....blah, blah, blah. I find it ironic that during this discussion of CHEATING you desire to split hairs of technicalities vs morals.
Dude, CHEATING isn't "a technicality"...its wrong.
Go A's!
So explain the difference
Barnum is not saying that Palmeiro should get off without penalty. For years both MLB and the MLBPA looked the other way, much like the CHP looks the other way if you are within 10 mph of the limit and keeping with the flow of traffic. He is saying that for almost 20 years it was ignored and thus accepted. When you put any group of people together they are going to take advantage of that, especially if it brings you a lifestyle of fame and fortune.
Please dig somebody up who believes that Palmeiro or Sanchez took a job away from them because of the juice and find an owner who feels cheated, either fiscally or morally, from 1988-2004.
The users are only cheating themselves - it is their choice what they put into their body in the privacy of their own home - or bathroom stall. Go ahead and label that as liberal. You brought up adultery and white collar crime, what's next...abortion?
The ignorant label and accusation of never playing in an organized sports league are a little overboard. Or perhaps you can entertain us all about the time when you went 4 for 4 in your IM softball league while making sure all of you teammates and opponents were on the straight and narrow.
by southofcruiseamerica on Aug 2, 2005 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
OK, here it goes:
- There is no difference. Whether it be spit-balls, corking bats, stealing signs or manipulating the playing field...its all cheating and when caught the cheaters typically get punished. The only difference might be the seveity of consequences to each action. (I'm not sure what your point was there, but anyway....)
- Agreed, MLB and MLBPA are both culpable. It just goes to show that any industry-when operated by a spineless dimwit and a manipulative lawyer-can corrupt something as good as a game like baseball.
- There are about 400-500 minor league ball players that would gladly offer their careers up as examples to contradict "no career was harmed except those who choose to take steroids" Plus, how many 18, 19, 20, 21 yr olds observed a player like Palmeiro extend a MLB career that was probably over 2-3 years ago and said to themselves the only way to achieve success is to take PEDs.
- "Liberal" vs "Libertarian"...go look it up.
- I was much better at IM murderball then IM baseball. But really, I think you missed my point. The MAIN premise was a not my sporting background but rather does the "poster" write from experience of losing due to his opponent CHEATING? I have, and its not fun. Of course I can write about shit that I may or may not have done in my personal life....it would all ring hollow. Hey, aren't we all somebody were not on sites like this! But, again, that wasn't the point.
Okay
- No difference. Exactly my point. It is a game full of cheating, some ways more blatant than others. It is still flourishing - the game as a whole will survive the cheaters. I don't know anybody that is staying away from the ballpark because of rampant steroid use.
- Correct. MLB has always been corrupt in one way or another and we still support it.
- In the PED era, the minor leaguers that didn't crack the 750 ML jobs (or 100 fewer before the last two rounds of expansion) could have either cheated, tried harder or quit. I was just asking you to cite one guy that may have been on the cusp of making an ML roster that didn't and he can prove that it was because he chose not to take PED's. If a player the same age as Palmeiro, with an impressive career and the ability to still perform at a high level chooses to take them for recovery reasons while understanding the penalties if detected, can you really blame him? Plus Palmeiro is a DH, if there are minor leaguers aiming for that spot then their abilities are limited to begin with.
- I know the difference. I said liberal as a pre-emptive strike (of your labeling Barnum a libertarian) as the result of saying it is only your business what you put into your body.
- You actually might enhance your position if you explained your personal experience. What were the stakes and circumstances? I was pointing out the holier than thou position that many take when they say 'they played the game', so they know better, etc.
by southofcruiseamerica on Aug 2, 2005 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
For crying out loud...
Let's get real here. One isn't just against the rules, it's against the law.
The other is against the 'unwritten rules', and totally not against the law.
If you can't see the difference between them, then you're trying really hard not to.
I dont believe kids take Steroids cuz
Ostrich ploy.
Kids have died, man. Their parents testified at the Canseco hearings just a few months back.
Minor Leaguers are professionals and Adults
I saw kids take steroids so they would have bigger muscles, they didnt even play any sports they just wanted to look "better"
I also saw kids take anything and everything that would give them a better chance of making the team and playing..
The thought that teenagers are saying.. "oh look at Bonds 70 homers... let me grab the juice" is in my mind... asinine
Read my words...
And not to look good, but to compete in a sport dominated by gorillas.
Did the kids die
Nobody is saying that they are good for you. Rather that it was ignored by everybody for years. Now it isn't. The players who use now, regardless of whether they get caught or not, are idiots. So let's move on. There is another sport that many claimed have replaced baseball as our national pastime that have done just that without any long term ramifications.
by southofcruiseamerica on Aug 2, 2005 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions
You keep saying 'move on'...
Human growth hormone is one - that's the stuff that dozens of Tour De France riders tested positive for last year and got suspensions as long as two years for.
Masking agents are also not tested - the stuff the hides steroids from urine testing. That stuff is easy to test for, and every other sports does so - but baseball doesn't.
So no, I won't move on. Not until the loopholes are fixed, the penalties are made real, and the players start relying on natural ability rather than chemistry.
On this I agree
Well then I'll look for you on the OLN
by southofcruiseamerica on Aug 2, 2005 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
A law
Assault is against the law. Jail Kyle Farnsworth!!
by southofcruiseamerica on Aug 2, 2005 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Uh...
Murder isn't against the MLB CBA either, but I dare say if Raffy Palmeiro shoots a pitcher in the face, he'll be considered a lawbreaker.
Uh, um, yeah
Exactly. And the Fenway crowd was chanting steroids at Canseco in 1988. Thus, it wasn't a law until years after widespread use, particularly in football. America's jails are filled with those sent away for using steroids.
by southofcruiseamerica on Aug 2, 2005 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
So let me get this straight...
Dude, 17 years is plenty of time to stop using steroids. We're not talking last Tuesday here.
Yes, 17 years means it is time
by southofcruiseamerica on Aug 2, 2005 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions
'allegedly'?
You want to move on, yet they're still catching the cheats at a number of one per day at the moment.
And if you seriously think that's all of them, I've got a great ball team in Montreal you might like to buy.
Montreal? Perfect...
by southofcruiseamerica on Aug 3, 2005 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
The different kinds of cheating
The difference is the visibility of the cheating. All of the other examples are detectable on the field -- look at what happened to Donnelly this year, or Honeycutt when they caught him, or Albert Belle (until the Indians stole the bat back) or Sammy Sosa, or Maury Wills when he tried to move the batter's box up closer to the mound before a game against Rick Langford (to get his sinker before it sunk, supposedly). People are a little more willing to live with this kind of cheating because the opponent can catch you in the act, and also because, as a result of that risk, there's a certain amount of skill involved in cheating successfully. The real objection to steroids is that there's no way to detect off-field steroid usage on the field, and people think that it takes no real skill or craft to do successfully.
Statistics distorters
I'm not saying that there isn't an underlying truth that they have in fact done so, or that at least there's the possibility for same.
But what about the other, additional possible distorters:
- the size and wrapping-tightness of the baseball (everyone please note how carefully I phrased that to avoid the smutpuns)
- artificial turf
- radical improvements in training, treatment, and health
- indoor stadia
- franchise expansion
- equipment innovations (batting helmets, padded fielder's gloves, batting gloves)
- DH rule
- statistical analysis to gain platoon/pinch-hit advantage
But the most significant one, and one that coincided with -- and, IMHO, greatly magnified any effect of -- the steroid era, was the introduction of a smaller, more tightly wound baseball just about concurrent with the first recent major round of expansion.
This was the equivalent of the NBA owners moving the 3-point line in to, say, 18 feet in an attempt to boost attendance/interest.
All the shades of gray
As has become increasingly obvious, pitchers have been some of the biggest users of steroids. Yeah, it adds a couple feet to their fastball, but more importantly it helps relievers recover from regular use over the course of a long season.
Also, from everything I've heard, it's been very widespread in baseball. It's not just a couple of ginormous sluggers. So the notion of cheating is complicated by the fact that you have to hit pitchers who are on steroids. That the reliever next to you in the bullpen is more resilient and is going to get his contract renewed and you're going to get your unconditional release.
And, as noted, it's the difference for a lot of players between living in a tin roof hut in the Dominican or becoming a millionaire in America and taking care of your extended family.
I don't have a problem with the last 15 years being seen as The Steroids Era and judging historical performances in that context. I already make that adjustment thinking about Yaz hitting .300 in the Pitcher Dominant 60s & 70s. Baseball's gone through many such distinct eras, pre-integration, war years, dead ball etc.
The one place where it does make me feel uneasy is in judging players who seemingly achieved greatness without steroids during this era. Ken Griffey Jr.'s 50 home runs would probably have stood out in another time as a signal achievement. Similarly, I think we'd understand Jeff Kent's power numbers out of second base in a different way.
Steriod Bodies
Just go to the local gym and watch the trim guy bench as much as the big buffed guy.
Now, sometimes it is just jumps out at you. Bonds, of course, the most obvious. He comes from a high school, where I know they have a weight program for the baseball team when he was there and ASU, where I know they have a massive weight room structure for their sports teams. Then he gets huge a decade into his major league career. Okay, that seems kind of obvious.
But, if Jeff Burroughs or Greg Luzinski were playing today, would they look like the had 'roid bodies?
by Athletics Central on Aug 2, 2005 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Burroughs and Lusinski
If the hitter and pitcher are both on 'roids...
What it comes down to for me is this - when I think about people who take roids to get over dings and injuries and stay up for the everyday play, I wonder to myself... What about Cal?
That's a whole lot of games to go without taking a day off, and Ripken did it right through the middle of the steroid era...
And that's what REALLY pisses me off about all this - that one of my greatest memories of this game, watching Cal celebrate breaking the Ironman record, is sullied because assholes like Bonds and Giambi couldn't just be 'really good', they had to go cheat and be 'great' in a way that destroyed the integrity of everything around them.
The true damage of their cheating won't be known for decades, when our kids look back at our heroes and say, "oh, he wasn't that good... he set his record during the steroid era, dad..."
Speaking of knickers ...
it is part of the game
by captainamerica on Aug 2, 2005 1:55 PM PDT reply actions
My two cents
Okay, to start off, let me say I'd rather turn my back and pretend steroids don't exist and they aren't a problem. I'd like to believe that if I will all steroids away, they won't exist. It's a pretty silly thing to wish, I know, but I'm just so damned sick of all this right now.
I agree it's a major problem, it's illegal, it should be stopped. BUT honestly, think about it from a player's perspective - something to give you an 'edge', something that could possible make you a star...you'd take it, wouldn't you? I've said this before, and I'm going to stick with my story - cheating has and always will be a part of the game. Anything to help your team win, right? Steroids is just the latest idea to cheat.
I don't like players doing it. In fact, I hate it. It's cheating, and I don't like cheating. I honestly wish player's could rely on their own athletic ability to perform - maybe they could work harder on their own instead of trusting a drug to do it all.
I also don't agree with the view it's baseball's fault that kids are taking steroids. Baseball is not responsible for these children. I agree, it's a terrible image that, shocker, to hit 70 HRs you have to take steroids. I can see why it would have an appeal to kids. But think about it. Who decides to take it? Who actually does it? It's not baseball. It's the kids themselves. If they are willing to take the risk of getting busted and a huge 'Cheater' sign plastered across their back....that's not baseball's fault. The player's themselves should be aware of this, but these children are not under their care.
When player's like Derek Jeter step up and actively discourage kids not to do drugs...I like that. TONS of kids look up to Jeter, and if they hear him say 'Don't do drugs', they might think twice about it.
With that in mind, you might say my above argument has no substance, and that I just contradicted myself. But think about it. While these kids look up to these players, wouldn't you think that they might think twice about taking steroids if it might they would be shunned by baseball for cheating? Barry Bonds was a superstar. But now, everyone believes he took steroids and cheated - his grand feat doesn't seem so grand now. And why would anyone want that?
And last, I still believe kids are responsible for their own actions. I've been taught that growing up, and I am a firm believer in it. If you make the wrong decision, it's your fault. Obviously, other people CAN influence you, but when it comes down to it - you are the one who can say 'no.'
Grammar check
Is another wave of suspensions
One of the unfortunate items
by oscarwdog on Aug 2, 2005 4:23 PM PDT reply actions
Legal and illegal
Mr. ED
by AthleticsMojo on Aug 2, 2005 10:41 PM PDT reply actions
Did I miss something?
"Now that the BALCO case is resolved, we'd love to hear from Jason Giambi about his steroid use."
Has the BALCO case been resolved? Have I been living in a cave?
Link: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=olney_buster&id=2121915
They're illegal.
On the sheer PR level, they can't. They shouldn't. It's bad for the integrity of the game to ignore it, since this isn't a situation where guys are just being "characters", playing a little dirty ball in that roguish way that makes us all chuckle a bit. Guys who won't 'fess up are villains in the eyes of the world, and baseball can't afford to have their heroes taken down like that.
More than that, it's illegal. It's been illegal for well over a decade, there's no excuse for a single person in the game to ignore that. It's bad enough that actions that occur on the field have no consequences that any person would have to endure in a real job, but using illegal drugs in a blatant manner, having it thrust upon the media's stage, and IGNORING IT? Sorry, no. These guys deserve plenty of punishment, if for no other reason than for being STUPID enough to get caught.
It's time to test for HGH and its masking agents, to make sure every damn player in the major and minor league levels has a list of what suppliments and substances are legal and will NOT result in a positive test result, and it's time for players to be extremely aware of what they're doing.
I don't blame players for kids taking steroids. I don't. There's a hell of a lot of reasons for it, it can't just be blamed on pro-sports -- an image-conscious culture is going to make it so that kids are going to want to look toned and athletic. Heck, I read an article on sfgate not so long ago about teenage girls using steroids, and it just boggled my mind a little, since I just hadn't ever considered that -- and I've done a lot of ugly things for the sake of fashion when I was younger. And I could totally see the reasons why girls are doing it, why any teenager would do it.
But MLB sure as heck isn't helping this problem by having its greatest sluggers live under a cloud of doubt, that steroids CAN be the difference between you being a doubles hitter in the minors, or being a Jason Giambi in the major leagues. With the kind of pressure that minor league players are under, of course it's going to be a temptation. With the information that we have now, with the ability to test for it that we have now, MLB is making a CHOICE to allow it to happen, and whether that's morally acceptable or not is a personal decision -- but to me, it's morally outrageous to not do the simplest things to try and change behavior that is illegal in the game and illegal in this country.
Testing for HGH seems like it would be a HELL of a lot easier than finding every corked bat, every pine tar hidden by a pitcher. It's possible, it's something MLB can afford to do, and it'll be good for the game -- if there's a policy out there people can trust, then they'll trust in the game more. If we can trust these guys to get caught, if testing is done by a third party and we know that players have the information they need so that these "I didn't know what I was taking!" excuses no longer fly, then we can let this issue be handled by MLB, let it drop out of the papers and get back to putting the attention on the game rather than what players' are doing behind closed doors.
Cheating is a part of the game. Always will be. But sometimes, you have to try and trim it back, cut it back, for the sake of the game.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Swisher ends Orioles sweep dreams with timely homer
- Create-a-Caption: Dusty Baker wants YOU to buy playoff tickets
- Padres' Heath Bell wistful about Trevor Hoffman's 600th save
- Want your first career home run? Face a pitcher from Chicago
- Slumpbot .200: Phil Hughes runs into New York's Joba Rules
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
