Obsidian Potency 3.0
On Steroids and Double Standards.
posted Thursday, 11 August 2005
My sports-fan friends have already heard my views on the whole steroid scandal surrounding baseball. Now it's your turn; I'll keep the re-hash brief.
To make a long-winded opinion short, I don't share the sense of outrage some of my peers do. To hear them tell it, Palmeiro shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame anymore. Bonds should have an asterisk next to his records. Etc., etc. Why? Because they (allegedly, in Bonds' case) cheated. They used illegal drugs to recover faster, to build muscle, to improve performance. Players of previous eras didn't have those advantages.
My side, briefly, is this: steroids -- though illegal -- were never banned by baseball until this year. Unlike gambling, there were no league-sanctioned consequences for using them. So naturally, players took advantage. Just like underage kids drink illegally, just like people take speed illegally (and legally), these guys took performance-enhancing drugs. Some are available over the counter at GNC; some are hidden within products that claim to list all their ingredients, but don't. And of course, we don't know exactly what these drugs all do, or all the nuances of how they affect the human body.
But the biggest joke to me -- the strongest argument for my side -- is the double standard.
Truth be told, players of this era and others DO have other unfair advantages. They have other ways to cheat. But for some reason, people's sense of outrage usually disappears when we talk about "old-fashioned" cheating.
I'm talking about pine tar, scuffed baseballs, altered balls, spitballs and corked bats. Hell, people barely even talk about the notion that pitchers might be using steroids even in the face of players like Roger Clemens, who are mowing down pitching milestones at an advanced age. How come nobody asks how Nolan Ryan played so long, or how Cal Ripken sustained his streak?
Simple: it's because they weren't hitting home runs.
The home run is what everyone comes to see. What everyone worships. As two pitchers famously said in a Nike commercial, "Chicks dig the long ball." But it's not just chicks; it's dudes, too. The pitchers and great defenders weren't a challenge to Babe Ruth's legacy. For whatever reason, when it comes to Babe Ruth and home runs, baseball fans go apeshit.
When it comes to general cheating, though, people think it's cute. Why isn't Gaylord Perry's Hall-of-Fame status challenged? Why not Ty Cobb's, or Whitey Ford's? We KNOW those guys cheated. We KNOW they broke the rules.
The response I most often get when I bring up this point is: "Well, it's baseball, and fans don't care about the other stuff as much. The hitters will always get the most blame. That's what everyone looks at first. That's just the way it is."
Forgive my saying so, but to my ears that counterpoint just sounds retarded. Is that even an argument? Are average baseball fans really that myopic? If so, maybe I'll just never understand the psyche of the hardcore fan. Maybe I should add that attitude to my long list of reasons why football is far and away my favorite sport, while baseball remains deep in the second tier.
Speaking of football, let's compare their drug policies. The NFL is position-blind when it comes to cheating. You get caught, you get punished. Been that way for decades now. Doesn't matter if you're a quarterback, safety or lineman. All those suspensions leading to a possible lifetime ban add up after a while, and they'll affect your numbers. But your records don't get wiped away. You still will get into the Hall of Fame. Just ask Lawrence Taylor.
The NCAA is much more hardcore. When Michigan's basketball program was found to have violated NCAA rules during the time of Chris Webber's Fab 5, all their wins were wiped from the record books. Michigan had to forfeit all the official accolades earned during that time period. Why don't we have this attitude in baseball towards wins and losses, particularly for pitchers? Why is the line arbitrarily drawn to prosecute power hitting? Where is the outrage?
Something tells me fans would balk at the notion of punishing whole teams for the behavior of individuals. However, these cheaters influenced the outcomes of entire seasons...and their teams reaped the benefits. What if we found out that a pitcher could get 3 extra wins a year and lower his ERA by 1 by taking steroids? What if we learn that Randy Johnson or Curt Schilling is juiced? Would we care as much? Would it matter? Would we bar them from the Hall? Put an asterisk next to their records? Why aren't more people discussing this?
An excellent article written by Jayson Stark of ESPN asks these questions in a way that I wish I could on my own. I simply don't know baseball history well enough to outline the argument as clearly as he did. But my main assertion has always been:
If we really cared about cheating, we wouldn't stop with the Palmeiros, Cansecos and Giambis of the game. We would go after everyone. Which is why I argue that calling the achievements of players like Giambi, Palmeiro and other juiced hitters "tarnished," or using their transgressions to keep them out of the Hall of Fame (in the case of Raffy) is disingenuous at best...and hypocritical at worst. Call them names if you must...but don't spend all your barbs, insults and legacy-altering decisions for them alone.
If we really cared about cheating, we wouldn't have just snapped out of our fan-worship, hitting-induced reverie once we heard about steroids in baseball. We would have cared all along. We would have punished those pitchers for cheating, kept them out of the hall, or made special provisions around their records.
Most importantly, we would care about all kinds of cheating right now, not just about juiced power hitters.
Don't hate the players. Hate the game. Because it is what it is. And it is what the fans make it. The game can be changed, and probably should be. But let's not draw arbitrary lines based on our worship of offense. Let's confront the game's prejudices head-on. Only then will justice, and fairness, truly be served...
...assuming such values are meant to be part of our national pastime.
To make a long-winded opinion short, I don't share the sense of outrage some of my peers do. To hear them tell it, Palmeiro shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame anymore. Bonds should have an asterisk next to his records. Etc., etc. Why? Because they (allegedly, in Bonds' case) cheated. They used illegal drugs to recover faster, to build muscle, to improve performance. Players of previous eras didn't have those advantages.
My side, briefly, is this: steroids -- though illegal -- were never banned by baseball until this year. Unlike gambling, there were no league-sanctioned consequences for using them. So naturally, players took advantage. Just like underage kids drink illegally, just like people take speed illegally (and legally), these guys took performance-enhancing drugs. Some are available over the counter at GNC; some are hidden within products that claim to list all their ingredients, but don't. And of course, we don't know exactly what these drugs all do, or all the nuances of how they affect the human body.
But the biggest joke to me -- the strongest argument for my side -- is the double standard.
Truth be told, players of this era and others DO have other unfair advantages. They have other ways to cheat. But for some reason, people's sense of outrage usually disappears when we talk about "old-fashioned" cheating.
I'm talking about pine tar, scuffed baseballs, altered balls, spitballs and corked bats. Hell, people barely even talk about the notion that pitchers might be using steroids even in the face of players like Roger Clemens, who are mowing down pitching milestones at an advanced age. How come nobody asks how Nolan Ryan played so long, or how Cal Ripken sustained his streak?
Simple: it's because they weren't hitting home runs.
The home run is what everyone comes to see. What everyone worships. As two pitchers famously said in a Nike commercial, "Chicks dig the long ball." But it's not just chicks; it's dudes, too. The pitchers and great defenders weren't a challenge to Babe Ruth's legacy. For whatever reason, when it comes to Babe Ruth and home runs, baseball fans go apeshit.
When it comes to general cheating, though, people think it's cute. Why isn't Gaylord Perry's Hall-of-Fame status challenged? Why not Ty Cobb's, or Whitey Ford's? We KNOW those guys cheated. We KNOW they broke the rules.
The response I most often get when I bring up this point is: "Well, it's baseball, and fans don't care about the other stuff as much. The hitters will always get the most blame. That's what everyone looks at first. That's just the way it is."
Forgive my saying so, but to my ears that counterpoint just sounds retarded. Is that even an argument? Are average baseball fans really that myopic? If so, maybe I'll just never understand the psyche of the hardcore fan. Maybe I should add that attitude to my long list of reasons why football is far and away my favorite sport, while baseball remains deep in the second tier.
Speaking of football, let's compare their drug policies. The NFL is position-blind when it comes to cheating. You get caught, you get punished. Been that way for decades now. Doesn't matter if you're a quarterback, safety or lineman. All those suspensions leading to a possible lifetime ban add up after a while, and they'll affect your numbers. But your records don't get wiped away. You still will get into the Hall of Fame. Just ask Lawrence Taylor.
The NCAA is much more hardcore. When Michigan's basketball program was found to have violated NCAA rules during the time of Chris Webber's Fab 5, all their wins were wiped from the record books. Michigan had to forfeit all the official accolades earned during that time period. Why don't we have this attitude in baseball towards wins and losses, particularly for pitchers? Why is the line arbitrarily drawn to prosecute power hitting? Where is the outrage?
Something tells me fans would balk at the notion of punishing whole teams for the behavior of individuals. However, these cheaters influenced the outcomes of entire seasons...and their teams reaped the benefits. What if we found out that a pitcher could get 3 extra wins a year and lower his ERA by 1 by taking steroids? What if we learn that Randy Johnson or Curt Schilling is juiced? Would we care as much? Would it matter? Would we bar them from the Hall? Put an asterisk next to their records? Why aren't more people discussing this?
An excellent article written by Jayson Stark of ESPN asks these questions in a way that I wish I could on my own. I simply don't know baseball history well enough to outline the argument as clearly as he did. But my main assertion has always been:
If we really cared about cheating, we wouldn't stop with the Palmeiros, Cansecos and Giambis of the game. We would go after everyone. Which is why I argue that calling the achievements of players like Giambi, Palmeiro and other juiced hitters "tarnished," or using their transgressions to keep them out of the Hall of Fame (in the case of Raffy) is disingenuous at best...and hypocritical at worst. Call them names if you must...but don't spend all your barbs, insults and legacy-altering decisions for them alone.
If we really cared about cheating, we wouldn't have just snapped out of our fan-worship, hitting-induced reverie once we heard about steroids in baseball. We would have cared all along. We would have punished those pitchers for cheating, kept them out of the hall, or made special provisions around their records.
Most importantly, we would care about all kinds of cheating right now, not just about juiced power hitters.
Don't hate the players. Hate the game. Because it is what it is. And it is what the fans make it. The game can be changed, and probably should be. But let's not draw arbitrary lines based on our worship of offense. Let's confront the game's prejudices head-on. Only then will justice, and fairness, truly be served...
...assuming such values are meant to be part of our national pastime.
Want to read comments, or have something to say? Bring it.
Obsidian Hit Counter
Total: 299,672
since: 18 Oct 2004
since: 18 Oct 2004