So here's the thing: I love courtroom scenes. Paul Newman in "The Verdict," and Al Pacino in "And Justice for All?" Awesome. The jury room in "12 Angry Men?" Fabulous. The real culprit shouting out from the back of the court room, "Yes I did it! And I'd do it again!" in Perry Mason? Can't get enough. I love the cross examination of Jack Nicholson (as unrealistic as the Perry Mason scenes), the literary recounting of Scopes in "Inherit the Wind," the throwing of the briefcase on The Brady Bunch, and the yutes in "My Cousin Vinny." Basically, I love them all.
The reason I love them, I think, is because no matter how good or bad they are, every courtroom scene offers something to root for. You want the bad guy to get punished. You want the wrongly accused to be set free. Sometimes, like in Primal Fear*, there's a cool twist. But there's always something to touch you emotionally.
*I have been working on a list of good movies with terrible names, and at last check Primal Fear was No. 1 on the list.
I think that, in the end, is why the Barry Bonds trial that is going on right now has no affect on me at all. I am numb to it. I hate that it's happening. I don't want either side to win. I don't have a single rooting interest or a single reason to believe something good will come from this thing. I know that the ending, whatever the ending, will feel pointless and sad and like a horrible waste.
Here's what I think most people believe: Barry Bonds used steroids to become a better baseball player. He, reportedly, does not even deny this. He does claim -- and claimed before a grand jury -- that he did not KNOWINGLY take steroids. To think that Barry Bonds took steroids, but not knowingly, seems ridiculous, absurd on its face, and it seems an insult to the question and the people asking it. For seven years now the U.S. Government has been trying to nail him for this unconvincing bit of nonsense.
So, on the one hand you have someone who is probably lying -- and obviously we should not stand for people lying to grand juries. On the other, you have what seems an extreme use of government power and money and shaky methods to nail him for this lie. Supposedly at some point during this trial we are going to get a spurned girlfriend telling the court all about Barry Bonds' sex life and mood swings. The whole thing feels unseemly.
And ... for what? I have seen it written in numerous places that this trial will help us "get to the bottom" of the Selig Era in baseball. But, one thing that seems absolutely certain to me is that this won't help us get to the bottom of anything. People already know Barry Bonds used steroids. People already know Mark McGwire used steroids. People already know that Alex Rodriguez and Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield and Jose Canseco and Wally Joyner and Ken Caminiti and numerous pitchers and many others used steroids or some kind of illegal performance enhancing drug. There are no questions left that steroid use was prominent among the biggest stars in baseball, and many non-stars too. There is nothing left on that front to "get to the bottom of."
What we don't know is what it means. How we should feel about it. How prevalent it was. How we should view the Selig Era. And this Barry Bonds trial most certainly will not help shape a clearer picture there.
The most popular complaint about PED use -- steroid use in particular -- builds around home runs. Few seem to care much about PED use in pro football, for instance. Few seem to spend much outrage about PED use by pitchers or non-home run hitters (Roger Clemens excepted, but Clemens has always been a contentious figure). The thing is home runs, and the thing can be pointed out like so:
Players who hit more than 45 home runs between 1972 and 1986:
1. George Foster
2. Jim Rice
3. Dave Kingman
4. Mike Schmidt
Players who hit more than 45 home runs between 1987 and 1994:
1. Mark McGwire
2. Juan Gonzalez
3. Cecil Fielder
4. Kevin Mitchell
5. Andre Dawson
6. George Bell
Players who hit hit more than 45 home runs between 1995 and 2010:
1. Alex Rodriguez (5 times)
2. Sammy Sosa (5)
3. Mark McGwire (4)
4. Ken Griffey (4)
5. Barry Bonds (4)
6. Ryan Howard (3)
7. Albert Pujols (3)
8. Jim Thome (3)
9. Albert Belle (3)
10. Prince Fielder (2)
11. David Ortiz (2)
12. Rafael Palmeiro (2)
13. Juan Gonzalez (2)
14. Jose Bautista
15. Carlos Pena
16. Alfonso Soriano
17. Derrek Lee
18. Andruw Jones
19. Adam Dunn
20. Adrian Beltre
21. Todd Helton
22. Shawn Green
23. Luis Gonzalez
24. Troy Glaus
25. Jeff Bagwell
26. Greg Vaughn
27. Vinny Castilla
28. Jose Canseco
29. Larry Walker
30. Andres Galarraga
31. Brady Anderson
Whew. No matter how many different ways you put together the home run list since the 1994 strike, it boggles the mind. And, as you can see, many of the players on the last list have either admitted steroid use, tested positive at some point or were implicated in some way. And many of the others are strongly suspected -- so strongly suspected, in fact, that it has affected their Hall of Fame cases. With home runs so dominating the era, and the players hitting home runs at a pace unmatched in baseball history, we want to know what's real and what's unreal.
In this, the Bonds trial will not give us any satisfaction. The only satisfaction will be to those who want to see Bonds punished or to those who want to see the government case fall on its face. And that's not much satisfaction at all.
Baseball has a flawed history. Until 1947, African Americans and dark-skinned Latin players were barred from the Major Leagues. Until the mid-1970s, players were basically the property of the teams and relied almost entirely on the generosity of owners to make their living. Great pitchers scuffed and spit on the baseball. Great hitters corked their bats. Players took amphetamines to jolt them through the long seasons. Some bet on their games, some even tried to fix those games. "Win any way you can as long as you can get away with it," Leo Durocher rather famously said, and that philosophy, as much as any, has governed the game.
So the steroid era is not really out of character for baseball history, no matter how many old-time players say it is. Players found that using steroids could make them stronger. Baseball did not test for it -- which was like an open invitation to use whatever you wanted. Baseball was coming off a devastating strike and pro football had long before surpassed baseball as America's pastime and everyone wanted -- needed -- the games to be more exciting than ever before. Players from every single era, given those circumstances, would have widely used steroids. I believe that wholeheartedly. As the ultra-honest Buck O'Neil said: "The reason we didn't use steroids is because we didn't have them."
We don't know how much of a role steroids played in the power numbers. We may THINK we know. But we don't, not really. Sure, we know they played a significant role ... but there were other factors too like smaller strike zones, better home run parks, harder bats, expansion, perhaps a livelier ball. Everything was geared toward home runs and bringing people back to the park. For a long while, America celebrated baseball's glorious new era of extreme power. Comic books were made. Commercials were filmed. Chicks dig the long ball! Baseball dominated the summer of 1998 like it had not dominated a summer in decades. Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were heroes -- so much so that they were on the cover of SI as ancient Olympians.
It seems to me, that it really wasn't until Barry Bonds started hitting home runs like mad that feelings really turned. Bonds, throughout his career, was almost like a cartoon villain. He could be arrogant. He could be unfriendly. He could seem a bad teammate. I often compared him in his younger days to Ted Williams, who was also a genius of a hitter and also widely despised. I had this weird relationship with Bonds (though "relationship" is overstating things) where it seemed like whenever I needed to talk with him for a story, he was friendly and helpful and thoughtful. He could be like that. Most of the time, he was not. Anyway, when he started hitting so many home runs that managers simply stopped pitching to him, everyone seemed to agree at once that this steroid thing had gone too far. It was one thing when lovable Sammy Sosa and titanic Mark McGwire were hugging. But Bonds ... no, that was too much.
So I would say Barry Bonds, more than any other player, formed the public and media sentiment on steroids in baseball. He hit 73 home runs, often to boos. He passed Henry Aaron on the all-time home run list to almost unanimous boos and angry columns. He offered some cockamamie story to the grand jury about having taken steroid-type substances from his friend (and convinced steroid distributor) Greg Anderson but he insisted that he did not know what it was, and he insisted that only his doctor actually gave him injections. Anderson has since gone to jail -- and he is going back to jail -- rather than talk about it.
And so, the federal government -- particularly the seemingly obsessed Jeff Novitzky -- has gone hard after Barry Bonds. Now, they have Bonds in court. They may get him thrown in jail for a while. They may not. They will undoubtedly embarrass him. Bonds meanwhile counters with a high-priced defense team that will stop at nothing to protect their client. They may get him acquitted. They may not. They will undoubtedly embarrass the government.
And the whole thing will end, and we will be right back where we started when trying to figure out the Selig Era. Well, we won't be right back where we started ... we'll all be a little sadder. And then, we can look forward to Roger Clemens trial this summer.
Is it a jury trial? If it is, they'll be there to decide which side has the better lawyers...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think if Clemens, Bonds, McGwire - any of them - showed an ounce of humility during their entire ordeals, (some of) the public would soften to them. People just plain don't like them because of their arrogance and hubris.
ReplyDeletePersonally, if Bonds came out today and said this is what happened: x,y,z - I knew what I was doing all along, and though I wasn't sorry about it at the time, in retrospect, I am sorry for what I did, and said it genuinely - I'd vote him into the Hall on the first ballot.
It's not a steroids issue that is keeping these guys out of the hall (to me), it's the character clause. The world is full of people who don't admit mistakes or own up to the choices they've made, and these guys are just a sorry example of those types of people.
As for the litigation... I agree. It's pointless. I may derive a smidge of satisfaction from seeing him dump millions into a team of lawyers, and maybe that makes me a bad person. But in the end, just let him go. People know what happened, and the story of Bonds will live forever. Whatever happens in court will be a tiny footnote... far below the asterisk.
Paul Newman wasn't in "And Justice for All" -- that was Al Pacino. ("The whole trial is out of order!") Newman in "The Verdict" is awesome, though.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, great post as usual, Joe!
As a wise man once said...the Government hates two things:
ReplyDelete1.) When you hide money from them
2.) When you lie to them
And if you lie about hiding money from them?? You're stright f**ked. That's what Barry did. This isn't about steroids. He was laundering money through Kim Bell for years, and when they couldn't nail him on that, they tried to nail him on this.
I wonder if McGwire/Sosa/Bonds never reached Maris' or in Bonds' case Aaron's record. Fell short like 58 or 60 HRs, and then a total of like 707 or 709 if the steroids era would still be going on today? It seems in a way the problem was they got TOO good.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the thing that bugged me about Bonds is the way his career was following a typical path, peaking with a 205 OPS+ at age 27, declining to 155 at age 34. Then he puts up the following OPS+ at ages 35-39: 188, 259, 268, 231, 263. Because this is OPS+, I don't think you can just explain it away as park affects or a different ball. More so than McGwire (who was always hurt when he was younger) or Sosa (who was presumably in his prime), it seemed very clear that Bonds was doing something to cheat the natural aging process. I don't know how you can look at those numbers and conclude that steriods did not have a significant affect on his numbers.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeleteInteresting read as always. However, I think it is a bit of an over-simplification to declare that disgust or anger over PED's didn't happen until Bonds exploded offensively because he is a prickly type guy. People did question some guys before Bonds went nuts. Like with any issue of rousing public sentiment it takes several outrages to coalesce into group think. Additionally, as another commenter stated McGwire and Sosa while ridiculous were not impossible career paths. McGwire hit 49 homers as a rookie suffered a few injuries with poor performance and then had a stretch of healthy years coupled with better approach at the plate (strike zone recognition which players develop with experience). Bonds had an established career path of very good bat, some power and very good speed on base paths. All of a sudden in his mid-30's he completely changed into a massive home run guy. He coupled that with better strike zone usage to have several otherworldly seasons OPS+ wise.
I don't know if Bonds had poor legal advise or if he ignored it out of arrogance, but any lawyer worth a damn knows the government will hammer you more for poor memory/perjury than for serious crimes. Ask Scooter Libby & Martha Stewart. Both of them were never tried for the offense the initial investigation was about but both were convicted of lying.
What LargeBill said. Government trials always seem to be about nailing people for perjury rather than whatever the initial charges are. If Bonds takes the 5th, none of this happens.
ReplyDeleteCross posted at -
ReplyDeletehttp://barrybondstrial.blogspot.com/
i would, just once, love to read a post on steroids that actually separated the issues at hand properly and dealt with them with a greater level of specificity. this post is ostensibly about the bonds trial, but it devolves quickly into a thinly-veiled defense of steroids on the grounds of baseball's "flawed history", as almost all of joe posnanski's posts from the last year do. (this argument is tantamount to saying the constitution should be nullified because of america's flawed history.) however, i can't recall anyone who has had anything illuminating to say on the subject for quite some time.
ReplyDeleteabove all, it is extemely tiresome to keep hearing about "amphetamines" and "greenies" (let alone racism. WTF does racism, prevalent as it was and is, have to do with steroids?) as if there's some sort of analogy. has anyone who discusses this ever TAKEN amphetamines? they are not performance enhancers! they make you feel disgusting and unable to concentrate. the do, however, keep you from falling asleep. if "5 hour energy" existed back then i'm sure it would have sufficed for most. has anyone ever TAKEN steroids? i haven't, but i remember when they got popular in my HIGH SCHOOL fifteen years ago. kids were getting huge, angry, and out of control; there were fights constantly, even a few suicides that may have been related to the out-of-control hormones. it was an epidemic, and it was horrible.
steroids were bad for baseball, are bad for football, are bad, PERIOD. when the smoke from all this disingenuous-ness clears, i hope people understand this. at its base the issue has nothing to do with home run records.
finally, while i'm ranting, i'd like to add that all the lying in MLB is cowardly and embarassing. and yes, since all of joe's posts have an undercurrent of "blame selig, not the players", i agree that it does start at the top.
sorry for the long rant. i usually resist the urge to post and this time it just all came out.
all that said, i agree with the post's theme, the trial is stupid.
ReplyDeleteI think somewhere, Wally Joyner is saying, "Dammit, why'd he have to pick my name for his list? Joe couldn't have used Jason Grimsley instead?"
ReplyDeleteWe will never be going back to the pre 1994 era of power without a change to the physics of the game (such as a softer ball). Steroids or not, it's more about weight lifting, training, and the science of human biology. Even without steroids, the guys on the field are going to get bigger and stronger in days to come. I suspect they will last longer also. The peak years for players will probably start moving toward 30 rather than 27-28.
ReplyDeleteRemarkably the last list doesn't include ManRam who managed exactly 45 twice but never more than 45
ReplyDelete"So the steroid era is not really out of character for baseball history, no matter how many old-time players say it is."
ReplyDeleteSo you seem to be saying that baseball's character has not improve one bit since the days of institutional racism and open cheating. That's supposed to make us feel better?
@ Grayson:
ReplyDeleteI think you might have utterly missed the point (or perhaps I did) but I'm pretty sure Joe brought up amphetamines and segregation not to EXCUSE steroids (because...I mean...then he would be essentially saying--"steroids aren't really that bad! They're kind of like institutionalized racism") but to point out that a lot of our outrage at steroids comes not from the act, but how the effect of the act tainted our game for 10 years and skewed our stats. Joe seems to be pointing out that every era by the game is tainted by something (for instance, Babe Ruth's number are "tainted" by the fact that he never had to compete against some of the best baseball players in the country...which is why segregation was probably brought up)
I have to pick up on Grayson's theme here. For me, this has never been about home runs or the other statistical anomolies which are now so obvious. Those are merely the symptoms of the problem. It has everything to do with cheating on the game and other players who do not wish to put their bodies, and even their lives at risk by abusing prescription drugs. It as if no one takes seriously the deaths of Ken Caminiti or Steve Bechler (ephedra supplement).
ReplyDeleteAs Grayson notes, this has far reaching effects down to the amatuer level. I can't help but wonder if Joe might think differently about this if he overheard the kids on the bench of his girl's basketball team talking about who was / was not on steroids at school. That's exactly the talk I heard on my kid's 14-15 Babe Ruth team bench.
And that's why the Bonds trial is important. It will not get to the bottom of the steroids era. But it will peel back more layers which sports journalism failed to expose. There is a collective cringe every time a steroid story breaks. But this seems to be the only way the public gets to know what really went on.
One of the rare times I disagree with you, Joe, and for reasons that some others have said.
ReplyDeleteThe minute Bonds said, "I never knowingly took steroids" to federal investigators, this stopped being about baseball. It's now about perjury, and that's a truly serious matter.
I've heard others (especially Craig C.) say/imply that the government should lose, even if Bonds did commit perjury, because of their overreach. I have no idea how I feel about that - that's way above my paygrade. But, ignoring that (truly important) matter for a moment, it comes down to this: if Bonds lied under oath, he should be punished. It won't do the slightest little bit to bring any closure or clarity to the "Steroids in Baseball" scandal. But, that couldn't matter less. As much as we may forget it, there are things in life bigger than baseball.
chris,
ReplyDeleteno, i see what you are saying: one part of the argument that our outrage is misguided because every era has its analgous "steroids scandal". but a) the home run records are, a lot of the time at least, a straw-man, which is to say i actually don't think as many people care about them as is usually posited. and b) corked bats, spitballs, and greenies are fundamentally different in terms of advantage offered than steroids. the babe ruth example, sure, i'm with you there. also, as joe has pointed out, the basbeall changes no doubt play a large part. but i think this is sometimes overstated as an indirect defense of steroid use (to belittle its effect).
another part of the argument - the "flawed history" (joe's words) - is actually a moral defense. i also disagree that one exists. while i don't think you put it exactly right in the parentheses, the argument unfortunately is somewhat akin to that.
also, i'm not trying to accuse anyone of being PRO-steroids on this blog or anywhere. "steroid apologist" maybe?
It bears repeating that steroids weren't banned by MLB for a long part of the time that people like Bonds were apparently using. So, we have this strange situation in which many athletes were "legally" using performance enhancing drugs-with, let's face it, at least the tacit approval of both MLB and the MLBPA. Then, we haul them in to testify under oath about actions that were morally wrong, but didn't break the letter of the law-or, if they were illegal, were very common. They can either admit to (legal) cheating, and taint their legacy, or deny it, and be faced with perjury charges. And, we aren’t asking the replacement level players to show up to testify, because no one cares about them. We want the big fish for the show trails. How many college freshmen get asked under oath whether they’ve had a beer? That doesn’t mean to imply a moral equivalence between juicing and (underage) juicing. But what we should recognize here is that we are using the court system to hope to catch people in a lie so we can use the law to express our moral outrage. And, that moral outrage (or lack thereof) often seems very attuned to our rooting interests (see, Ortiz, David, and Pettitte, Andy). I agree with Grayson, above; What the juicers did here was cheat-they cheated their teammates, the fans, their opponents, and maybe worst, the history of the game. They cheated every player on Joe’s 45+ list who didn’t cheat. They deserve every type of shunning we can give them. But, are they criminals? Lying under oath is a crime, so, yes, if it can be proved they knowingly lied, they are criminals as well, and the Bonds and Clemens trials should go to verdict. But, let’s start looking to wrap this thing up. Put an asterisk next to their records, deny them the Hall of Fame, boo them, don’t buy their jerseys. Society has made its point here-I doubt there are too many high school baseball players out there who don’t know steroids are bad for you and lead to public disgrace. And there is a drug testing and punishment procedure in place. Make sure it is updated on a regular basis and the penalties have teeth. But, as for new trials, to paraphrase Mark McGwire, I don’t want to waste much more time talking about the past.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, I hadn't heard (or had at least forgotten about) Wally Joyner. That's nearly as disappointing to me as McGwire.
ReplyDeleteMike, steroids were absolutely illegal during the whole fiasco in baseball. They weren't against the rules of the game, but they WERE illegal. So yeah, every last one of thems who used is a criminal.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me Joe's making the classic case of moral equivalency. Not something I think he wants to teach his daughters.
ReplyDeleteJon-steroids can be legally prescribed by a doctor, and the "andro" that McGwire was using was a legally sold supplement. I'm not saying a lot of these guys weren't spending their money in the local speakeasy, but not all of those steroids were per se illegal. The federal law classifying them as controlled substances dates to 1990, but even that law does not ban them outright-it just puts them in the same category as narcotic pain killers-legal to possess and use under certain circumstances.
ReplyDeleteThe cross in A Few Good Man is, indeed, totally unrealistic: no lawyer would go there given what had happened up to that point.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it was sheer genius how Cruise set him up. It's worth studying, as a lawyer, just for that.
Few seem to care much about PED use in pro football, for instance.
ReplyDeleteAnd therein lies the crux of my problem with this whole mess; the faux outrage, the "omg, how could he sully the game?" rants by the same people who were cheering/championing these same players back before the "discovery" of PED use. When the same level of anger, disdain, and disgust is leveled at NFL players caught using them, get back to me.
Grayson,
ReplyDelete1. steroids in baseball pose almost no physical harm to opponents of steroids users (exceptions- bench clearing balls, line drives right back at pitchers, etc. things that almost never happen.)
2. steroids in football pose immense danger to opponents of users
3. nobody gives a crap about steroids in football. Brian Cushing was re-voted rookie of the year after testing positive for steroid use.
Looking at the available evidence, why do you think people are outraged by steroids? Let's at least consider the possibility that people aren't concerned for player safety but instead don't like seeing the hallowed records of their childhood heroes broken.
A few thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) A more useful chart might break up 1994-2010 into 1994-2004 and 2005-2010.
2) This whole thing is very much like the Clinton-Lewinsky "scandal." Certain questions, asked by grand juries or wives, are bound to elicit lies. Grand juries shouldn't ask those questions unless the answers are worth the money of the taxpayers. Neither Clinton's sex life nor Bonds' pharmaceutical habits meets that threshold.
3) We don't care about pitchers because sthe results weren't horribly skewed. If we had had pitchers throwing 105 MPH and strikeout totals in the 400s, we'd be getting the same response. I assume a chart of 300 K seasons would not be much, if at all, affected by what you so accurately term the Selig Era.
Bellweather Johnson makes a good point as to why this trial is happening. The government gets pissed when you lie to them.
ReplyDeleteI love it that Joe refers to this as the "Selig era." This problem should have come to a head in 1994 in the CBA during the strike which Selig presided over. There were whispers of steroids in 1987. Canseco lost an endorsement in 1988 because of suspected use. It was fairly accepted at the time that there was rampant steroid use on the 1989 A's. I remember having a conversation about Palmeiro's steroid use in 1993. But steroids became a common conversation in 1994 with the pre strike offensive explosion. Selig never brought up major league testing during the talks, and for the next 9 years he turned a blind eye to the problem while watching the money roll in. After the SI Caminiti article in 2002, he convinced Caminiti to say he exaggerated and pre announced a secret test in 2003. Although players knew the test was coming, 90 players still tested positive. His focus was not that 90 players could not pass a pre announced screening, but that only 9% of players were using,(it is actually around 12%) and it was not as big of a problem as suspected.
Only after the double barrel blast of the Balco book and the Canseco book did he call for an investigation. (When it became undeniable and threatened the money flow.) He expressed shock and outrage at something which was common knowledge.
Selig was hired as a stooge, a commissioner the owners could control. His only focus has been money. Where were the hard questions posed to him and the inevitable perjury trial when he once again lied about his knowledge of steroid use in Baseball?
I was watching
ReplyDeleteI think Joe's point is not to defend steroids in baseball, but rather to point out that we really don't have all the facts yet. People like to act like they do, but in reality we just don't the actual effects steroids have had on baseball. And because this trial has turned into a perjury matter, noting else will be learned about steroids, regardless of the verdict.
ReplyDeleteOops, sorry, about that.
ReplyDeleteI was watching an episode of Alaska State Troopers on National Geographic channel last night. At one point, a trooper tried to pull over a car that had been driving erratically. The car didn't stop, however, instead taking off, then turning onto some side road. Then the passengers all got out of the car and fled into the woods. The passengers were young, maybe 20-somethings, possibly some teenagers. Inside the car were empty beer cans and liquor bottles. The trooper said the car reeked of alcohol.
So, the trooper calls in reinforcements, they set up a perimeter, then they searched the woods for these fleeing kids. They even brought in a K-9 unit.
I was watching this thinking they should just tow the car, cite the owner, and move on to something more important. On this show they make it a point to tell you things like, "Trooper Johnson is the only trooper within this 60,000 square mile area."
So why waste your time chasing in the woods for some kids who had too much to drink?
Then I realized that a cop can't actually let people run away from them. They must chase after them. And they must call for reinforcements, K-9 units, helicopters, SWAT teams, what have you. Because they don't want people getting the idea that it's even slightly possible that if they run, the cops won't chase. So what the show Alaska State Troopers ends up being about half the time is troopers making a fuss over some guy who committed a misdemeanor punishable with a $50 fine.
I know who I blame for this whole baseball/steroids mess, and it's not the government.
Someone I know made the point that the difference between the reaction to PED use among baseball and football players is because playing baseball on the professional level is just so much closer to reality for many of us than playing football professionally.
ReplyDeleteWe can look at baseball players like Rick Reuschel, Bengie Molina, David Eckstein and Tim Lincecum and think, "Wow, they look normal."
That cannot be said for football players. The players are enormous and the game itself is violent, intense, and at times frightening. A vast majority of sports fans have never given a second thought (dream?) about playing in the NFL. Baseball, though was a dream for most of us throughout our youth (no matter our size or ability). And watching players who realized that dream of our youth "cheating" to stay ahead just pushes the level of outrage to another level.
Although this is also what confuses me about the Selig Era outrage. Shouldn't the outrage be focused on the replacement players like Alex Sanchez, Bobby Estalella, and David Segui? These players literally took a job from a "clean" member of their organization. In a way they stole millions of dollars that should have gone to someone else. But instead we focus on the star players who went from great to other-worldly.
There's also the studies that show PED use doesn't actually improve a player's homerun ability.
http://steroids-and-baseball.com/
i agree wholeheartedly that not nearly as much concern and attention is paid to NFL steroid users. however, it is just illogical to say that, therefore, it must be about the records in baseball.
ReplyDeleteone can only speculate about the lack of concern in football. it might sound controversial, but it is at least possible that it's because football players are viewed in a more dehumanized way; as commodities. witness the lack of guaranteed contracts in (probably? i dunno) the most injury-prone sport. the fox sports football robot doesn't exactly counter this view.
if you come at the question from a different angle, wherein your starting assumption is that maybe there SHOULD be outrage about NFL steroid use, you get to a wholly different discussion that doesn't try to justify or defend steroids in MLB.
I think Joe (and many others) are pointing out that the outrage cannot be simply about steroid use as no one cares at all about steroid use at all levels of football (from HS to college to NFL). If no one cares about steroids in any other sports but baseball (maybe track and field and cycling although they are more minor sports) than it logically follows that it's not steroid use that people care about but something else. I think Joe is trying to figure out exactly what that something else is.
ReplyDelete@Jon - as far as being disappointed about Wally Joyner. I'm not excusing Joyner but he volunteered the steroid info and was a very brief user: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=7
ReplyDeleteI really don't think he should have been one of the names mentioned by Joe. Its almost like listing a "good guy" is another way of making steroid use seem not as bad as many think it is. Listing Joyner instead of say, Manny Ramirez, would be like listing a shoplifter and a bank thief in the same sentence when talking about criminals in general. Overall, I love your writing, Joe, but I agree with a lot of Grayson's points and I disagree with the majority of this article. JMO.
Two things BB said on the record (neither about steroids) that defined him professionally and personally for me.
ReplyDelete1. Asked by a note-taking reporter about how his (at that time) wife Sun helped him manage his life, Barry said,
"She's amazing. I couldn't live without her. She's like... She's like..
She's like.... Toilet Paper."
2. Questioned by Dan Patrick whether it was true that Barry refused to share with teammates information about pitchers that Barry knew and used to his advantage.
BB, "Yeah. I don't share that stuff."
Dan, "But wouldn't it help your team if other guys in the order knew how to beat the pitcher they were facing that day?
BB, "Maybe. But f they get traded to that team next year and tell that pitcher what I told them, there goes my edge.
I have no idea how this trial will turn out, but this guy is an imbecile and a miserable prick.
btw... I used to have links to both of these incidents. Couldn't locate them (and didn't try that hard), so feel free to believe they're fictitious.
They aren't.
@kwic - I wanted to find links to those quotes. The toilet paper one might be slightly misrembered but he still compared Sun to toilet paper...
ReplyDelete"We met at a nightclub in Montreal in 1987. Sun was a bartender. I wound up going to another club and she went to the same place with a girlfriend. We danced, talked, had some fun. I wouldn't say it was love at first sight because I don't believe in that, but it was chemistry. We met each other's needs. We fit together ... If it weren't for Sun I wouldn't have two MVP trophies. She's probably the most intelligent woman I ever met. Being from Sweden, where they don't have much television, she reads all the time and she's a quick learner. She'd never lived in the States, but she got her high school equivalency diploma without studying. I gave her the driver's license manual, she read it and passed the test the next day, perfect score. And she is a great mother. Sun has more patience than toilet paper."
http://marriage.about.com/od/sports/p/barrybonds.htm
There is certainly enough blame to go around, and let's not spare the fans. Watching Sosa and McGwire slug it out thrilled us. We felt we were watching something historic. By the time Bonds started dominating headlines, it slowly dawned on us that all this was rather a holiday from baseball history. I guess it could have gone either way, but in the end opinion swung around to preferring an un-juiced version of the game.
ReplyDeleteI join Joe in feeling that the whole process of cleaning up leaves me feeling dirty. Owners, players and fans all have something to regret, but in the end only some of the players will pay much of a price. While I wish we could all move on, but, memory being the heart of baseball, we will all be mulling the steroids era for as long as fans continue to love the game.
@Dave/@kwic how many athletes say stupid things? Barry compliments Sun (in a weird way, but it's still a compliment). Is Sun quoted as saying she felt hurt with that comparison? Otherwise it's really unfair to assume he was being mean or even rude.
ReplyDeleteEven Barry's defenders (I count myself in this category), do not dispute that he can be an imbecile and jerk, but so can a huge majority of professional athletes. Is there really that much of a difference between things that Barry Bonds says and things Mat Latos says. Barry has a family history of watching his father completely assaulted in the media and therefore his default is to distrust that media. It may not be fair, but he is also right. That same media has used him as a scapegoat for nearly every steroid-related baseball crime. We do note dispute he used steroids, we dispute the fact that Barry is THE villain of the Selig Era. He is one person out of probably thousands who used PEDs when baseball tacitly approved of the use of any substance that would help create more fans.
Barry has a family history of watching his father completely assaulted in the media
ReplyDeleteBobby Bonds was traded from team to team because he was alcoholic.
Please explain how he was 'assaulted' by the media.
BB's compared his wife to TP as a compliment.
The fact that he wasn't (as you imply) trying to be rude or mean, points to a deep and abiding stupidity.
Yes, we all say dumb things, but seldom when a reporter is writing them down as we speak.
"The fact that he wasn't (as you imply) trying to be rude or mean, points to a deep and abiding stupidity."
ReplyDeleteOr a tone that was completely missed by the reporter or a sense of humor that he shares with Sun (and probably no one else). Or he was being stupid. My point is that athletes say stupid things in front of reporters all the time. Why should we expect Barry to better or worse than anyone else?
As for his father: Agree with it or not, but Barry believes the media's treatment of Bobby made his illness worse and even after Bobby was able to stay sober the media still treated him as a drunk. Compare that with the media's treatment of Mickey Mantle's alcoholism during his playing days.
Barry saw this first hand. It made a huge difference in how Barry related to the media and that made a huge difference in how the media treated him.
If I guy becomes better at baseball using steroids and accepting the risks of using something illegal to try to become better, it's just another facet of the competitive nature that drives athletes. That's why O'Neill, Schmidt, Mays, and other past players admit honestly that they would do it to try to be better players. The reason testing is in place is because people will use to win. Owners demonstrated that they couldn't be trusted to manage testing the players after collusion in the 80s, there was no reason for the union to even bring that up, providing information about the risks to union members would have been the extent of it, probably something like warning young men about unprotected sex.
ReplyDeleteThank you for making the point about the title of Primal Fear. I've been griping to friends about that for years and they generally just look at me like I'm strange and then move on to another topic of conversation. But for years it has bothered me. Nobody's really afraid in the movie, or at least that's not any kind of prominent theme. And whatever incidental fear Richard Gere or any other person may feel is certainly not "primal". There's nothing in the entire movie that could be described with the adjective "primal". It's like some movie exec thought that was a cool name for an action movie or an erotic thriller and somehow he got some scripts mixed up on his desk so he slapped that name on the movie by mistake. I've always wondered if there's some straight-to-DVD thriller out there called "Reasonable Doubt"
ReplyDeleteIf Joe's list is correct (and I'll assume it is), in the 23 years between 1972 and 1994, 10 players hit more than 45 HR in a single season, and none of them did it more than once. In the 16 years since, 31 men did it a total of *60* times. That's a huge difference, obviously.
ReplyDeleteMany of guys on the list have been associated with steroids, which has led a lot of people to assume that PEDs were the primary cause of the '90s offensive explosion.
HOWEVER, there are a few players on the list who have never (to my knowledge) been linked to PEDs, or have even been rumored to be on PEDs: Ken Griffey Jr., Ryan Howard, Jim Thome, Prince Fielder, etc.
And yet these guys all still managed to hit 46+ HR multiple times — something that the previous generation's sluggers (Schmidt, Kingman, Reggie) were never able to do.
So I see three possibilities here:
1. The sluggers of the '90s/'00s were much more talented than the sluggers of the '70s/'80s.
2. The sluggers of the '90s/'00s were ALL on steroids, even the ones we thought were clean.
or
3. The PRIMARY cause of the offensive explosion of the '90s was NOT steroids. Steroids contributed, but a combination of non-steroid things (Joe mentioned homer-friendly parks, livelier balls, harder bats, smaller strike zones) had a greater effect, with "a rising tide lifting all boats."
In the past 15 years it apparently has been easier for EVERYONE to hit more HR, roiders and non-roiders alike. To me, it seems pretty obvious that HR levels would have been up after 1994 even if steroids had never been invented. Probably not to the same extent, but I do believe most people overrate their effect.
@Noah: There have been a lot of scientific studies done that completely disagree with the link you posted. I thought it was basically common knowledge at this point that the baseball-and-steroids site was a steroid apologist site that has very little, if any, scientific value or truth.
ReplyDelete@John: Primal Fear is actually based on a book. The book was also named Primal Fear, thus the movie's name. Couldn't begin to tell you why the book was named that though.
Realistically, steroid were in fact GOOD for baseball.
ReplyDeleteIf they were so bad, the owners and the league would have done something about them way sooner.
After the strike, baseball panicked. They juiced the ball, and the players continued juicing themselves, and voila, record crowds.
And come on. Anyone who saw McGwire or Giambi or Canseco or Bret Boone had to know they were juicing. And guess what? Aside from Ken Caminiti, whose health problems were probably more a result of his cocaine use, have any of these guys died from steroid use?
Bonds was a great hitter before steroids, and he was a great hitter after steroids. If he'd hit 37 instead of 73 that year, no one would bat an eye at his career other than to proclaim it as the best ever.
And don't even begin to believe that players aren't still using substances to help get bigger. The chemists are miles ahead of the testers, and as more new methods and drugs emerge, more guys will turn into Jose Bautista.
One 45 HR performance from 1979 was left off the list: Gorman Thomas.
ReplyDeletescout..stand up your father's passing
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear about one legal matter. Bonds couldn't have committed perjury if there wasn't a legal investigation of steroid use to begin with, and I'm of the view that there's no sound basis for making steroid use illegal. It may be stupid and unwise, but there's no way it should be illegal.
ReplyDeleteNow, because it's illegal, Bonds was virtually required to lie to protect himself. And if people want to know why we aren't going to know the full truth about the steroid era, it's because the government has stuck itself in the middle of this whole thing and made people like Bonds lie and clam up. It puts a chill on everyone, and no one talks therefore.
I'm rooting for Bonds, because the government has no business trying to police this situation and mounting investigations and messing with the sports world. Baseball records are not exactly something the federal government has a role in policing. I mean, wtf?
Broken Yogi- Whether or not you agree that steroids should be illegal, they are a controlled substance like any other illegal pharmaceutical.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the government wasted their time, and used many congressional hours, on something which should not be in their purview. Really!? There aren't enough REAL problems in this country you could be spending your time on!?
In the end though, the congressional hearings were asked for by Selig while he was scrambling to cover his ass and look innocent and above the fray. He threw every player he could under the bus while managing to avoid being questioned himself.
As for congress, they all were scrambling for face time on TV to help them get re-elected.
Bonds knew they were illegal when he started using them though, and I am sure the penalties for perjury were explained to him. Selig may have used him as a scapegoat, but he still did this to himself.
Jay Ess seems to think the grand jury was trying to indict Clinton for sex - what ignorance! Or was that just an amateur attempt at political spin?
ReplyDeleteJoe.... please stop. Please. You're embarrassing yourself.
ReplyDeleteYou have ZERO credibility on this issue. If you weren't aware of this before, know it and accept it now: where steroids are concerned, you have NO credibility at all.
It's not just you, of course. Your colleagues, on the whole, were no better. When steroid use was at its peak, you completely ignored it. When the scandal finally broke,m it was NO thanks to you or your colleagues on the baseball beat.
And since then? At EVERY step of the way, you have either pretended that steroid use wasn't really happening ("No, it's not steroids, guys are just working out more... and the balls have been changed... and the parks are smaller... yeha, that's the ticket."), downplayed its importance ("Well, steroids probably don't really help THAT much."), and shielded players from the consequences of their actions ("Well, technically it's cheating, but that's no reason to keep a guy out of the Hall of Fame, is it?").
Stop it, Joe. When it comes to steroids, you were an unforgivably bad reporter, something you still haven't acknowledged. And ever since, you've done nothing but deny the obvious and make excuses for transgressors.
Bonds was virtually required to lie to protect himself.
ReplyDeleteGiambi didn't do that.
Nor did other athletes called before the Grand Jury in the Balco investigation.
The fools who lied to the GJ were all prosecuted and convicted.
Life is about choices.
And the consequences of them.
Khazad,
ReplyDeleteMy main point is not merely that this is stupid, and founded in stupid drug laws, but that if the main concern here is finding out what actually happened, it's the criminalization of this kind of activity that prevents athletes from coming clean.
Look, a couple of years ago a doctor found I had a low testosterone level, and gave me a prescription for steriods. What exactly is a "low testosterone level"? What exactly is a high testosterone level? Whatever you want it to be, frankly. I took them for a while, didn't like them, and stopped. But why shouldn't I be able to take steriods if I think it helps me out? If it makes me healthier and stronger, good. But here we have a legal substance that is made illegal if you use it to make yourself too strong. What the eff is with that? How can that make any sense at all? I can understand how organized baseball might not like it, but why on earth would a legal substance suddenly be illegal if you take more of it than some people think you should? People ought to be able to take whatever amounts they feel they need to. They know the risks and the benefits.
Canseco's book made it clear that steroids, taken responsibly, can be really healthy and fantastic for some people. Why should that be illegal? As for sports, why are steroids illegal but getting laser eye surgery is not? Or should we put a limit on how good your laser eye surgery can be, such that if you get 20/20 vision that's okay, but 10/20 vision is not. (That's vision comparable to what Ted Williams had naturally).
Some people naturally produce more testosterone than others. Should they be penalized for that? Should they be required to take testosterone reducing drugs to even the playing field? Should they be threatened with jail for over-producing testosterone in their bodies? If not, then why jail people for putting more testosterone in their bodies artificially?
It's all really nuts.
kwic,
ReplyDeleteYeah, Barry made some dumb choices because he was put in a corner, and his natural reaction in such situations is to say the wrong thing to protect himself, or so he thought. But why did there have to be a grand jury in the first place? The whole thing depends on the criminalization of using legal substances to make your body stronger. That's the root of the problem here. That's why there's a stupid ass trial going on. There are no victims here except Bonds. None. I know he's an ass, but I have a lot of sympathy for him anyway. He used steroid because some many others were, and they were getting all the attention and acclaim, when he knew he was the far better player. So he took them to show what a real great player could do with them. And it was really, really awesome. The fact remains that whatever he did to get that good, he really did get incredibly good, and it was a joy to watch. Others who took steroids never got anywhere near his level of skill. To me, the only tragedy here is that he got persecuted for being so good at it. And, that he had to do it under the table without fully qualified medical supervision, which could have probably made him even better and with much less negative side effects.
This is modern medical science at work, and it's a fact of life that isn't going away. It's only going to get better and better, in ways that will dwarf the effects of steroids. It's not really a matter of cheating, it's a matter of "being the best you can be". That "best" is going through the roof. And that shouldn't be illegal. It should be medically monitored though.
Yogi,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I appreciate the level of discourse here.
Decent people offering different opinions without personal attacks.
BB had the best legal advice anyone could hope for, which he ignored.
I just can't see him as a victim.
Man, this is one of the best forum discussions I have read. A lot of articulate, intelligent, passionate arguements. After deliberating, I will try to put my 2 cents into a worthy addition. I thought the scene where Mr Brady slammed the briefcase on the floor to bust the guy faking a neck injury was hilarious!
ReplyDeleteIn our system, we can’t prosecute people simply because we don’t like them, nor should we engage in selective enforcement-that’s an abuse of power that we should all be concerned about. To many people, neither Bonds nor Clemens are particularly likeable, and there have been a number of very good arguments made in this post that both may have fallen into a “perjury trap”. That being said, they made (under oath) the statements they made, and the system is going to have to play this thing out to decide if it was criminal or not. I do have to strongly disagree with those people who advocate for the legalizing of steroids. I think it is unfair for athletes to have it institutionalized that they must either choose between sticking a needle in their butt (at whatever health cost there may be), and falling behind others who choose to do so. Ideally, what happens on the field should be the product of talent and effort, not chemical enhancement. But, even if one could make the argument that adults should have the right to juice or not, I would still oppose it, because of the ripple effect it will have on amateur sports. If a 21 year old rookie can juice, why not a college kid, or even a 15 year old? And, however we may consider a 21 year old an adult, a 15 year old certainly isn’t, and an 18 year old isn’t old enough to drink. When he hears from his coach-and maybe his dad-that to take the next step he needs to get bigger and stronger, and when there is a whole “support system” of friendly doctors, boosters, pharmacists (as well as the peer pressure from his teammates), all ready to “help these fine young men to get to the State Championships”-he would have to be extraordinarily tough-minded to refuse. We shouldn’t be making teenagers into PED junkies, nor having authority figures in their lives encourage it. Last Fall, I had the pleasure of taking my oldest child to college. At one point, the newly minted Freshman were separated from their parents, and we parents were funneled into a field house. The University President got up, and said something along the lines of “we picked your kids, they are great, you did a great job, don’t worry, we will take care of them”. And about 4000 middle-aged heads bobbed up and down. If you are a baseball fan or writer, and you want to choose to ignore past steroid use in your rooting or your voting for the Hall of Fame, that’s certainly your business. I think we would all benefit from having that era reconciled. But let’s not taint the future with institutionalized chemical enhancements.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe Barry Bonds belongs in prison, but it’s amazing that people continue to try to make excuses for his behavior.
ReplyDeleteLook, if a ballplayer is simply an introvert who doesn’t want to be bothered by fans or media, there’s nothing awful about that. If Barry Bonds simply wanted to be left alone, it would have been VERY easy to make that happen.
He COULD have followed the example of Eddie Murray- Eddie Murray didn’t trust the media, so he simply didn’t talk to them. He didn’t do interviews, period. When reporters approached them, he just told them he had nothing to say, Sure, SOME reporters would have sniped that Barry was “surly,” but after a while, reporters would just have left him alone.
But Barry DIDN’T clam up. He DIDN’T just shut his mouth and play ball. He went out of his way to antagonize the media. He has a long history of setting up interviews and photo shoots and then not showing up. That is NOT the act of a guy who wants the press to leave him alone- that’s the work of a jerk who LIKES messing with the media.
In the same way, there are MANY introverted celebrities who don’t like signing autographs or interacting with fans. Fair enough! Not everybody is Babe Ruth. Shy celebs have a right to tell autograph hounds, “Sorry, no.” They have a right to avoid fans. But again, Barry Bonds DIDN’T avoid fans! To use one oft-cited example that Jeff Pearlman discussed in the book “Love Me, Hate Me,” all the Giants knew what time the bus would come to pick them up at their hotel to take them to the ballpark. Suppose the team bus was set to pick them up at 10 AM. An introvert who just didn’t want to deal with pushy fans and autograph seekers could stay in his hotel room until 9:58, then race right onto the bus. Barry Bonds never did that! He was always in the street waiting for the bus 20 minutes early, which GUARANTEED he’d be approached by numerous fans… all of whom he told to take a flying intercourse.
Get the idea? Barry didn’t tell fans and reporters “Go to Hell” because he was a shy guy who wanted to left alone. He did it because he’s just the kind of jerk who LIKES telling people to go to Hell.
Incidentally, allegations that the media hounded his Dad, Bobby Bonds, for his alcoholism is full of beans. I was a 14 year old kid in Queens when Bobby Bonds played for the Yankees. Did the so-called “brutal” New York media ever report that Bobby Bonds was a raging, violent drunk? NEVER! Dig up some old issues of the NY Daily News from 1975, and all you’ll ever read about Bobby Bonds was that he was a great guy whose only vices were striking out too much and watching too many soap operas!
While Bobby Bonds was playing, the media ignored his drinking problem completely. The idea that Barry Bonds turned against the media because they were cruel to his father is not only false, it’s ludicrous.
@John --
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for correcting the historical nonsense being presented as fact about Bobby Bonds' persecution by the media. I was 24 the year he played for the Yankees, and I have as little recollection of his mistreatment at the hands of the NYC media as you do. I am going to go out on a very short limb and say that the reason for that is that there wasn't any.
@Broken Yogi --
"What exactly is a "low testosterone level"? What exactly is a high testosterone level? Whatever you want it to be, frankly."
Kind of hard to take anything you say seriously after a statement like that. Ask your doctor to explain it to you if you don't understand it (and, BTW, I have been treated for the same thing).
Would/do you make the same comment about other numbers you get from your doctor, like, say, temperature, weight, cholesterol, blood sugar... ?
I know you don't think so, but I'm going to get a huge amount of satisfaction from the Justice Department and especially the creepily-obsessed Jeff Novitzky falling flat on their faces and coming up with nothing after this 3 year waste of time.
ReplyDeleteBobby Bonds did have a contentious relationship with the media in the 2nd half of his career when he played for 7 teams in his last 7 seasons. Its been blown out of proportion by Barry, but Ken Burns makes a point of it to some degree in his 10th Inning documentary.
ReplyDeleteSeveral thoughts on this discussion:
ReplyDelete1) What is considered to be performance enhancing? When Curt Schilling received his famous cortisone injection in the 2004 AL championship series, that was certainly a performance-enhancing drug since he reportedly couldn’t have played without it (and cortisone is a form of steroid). When pitchers have Tommy John surgery, that’s performance enhancing. When players workout in the weight room, it’s performance enhancing. Just taking steroids alone does not turn someone into a monstrous home run hitter; they only work when people put in the effort to increase their strength and stamina. Somewhere there needs to be a definition of what makes certain drugs go past the bounds of acceptable performance enhancing or this debate will continue ad nauseum.
2) The point of Ruth and others having an unfair advantage because blacks weren’t allowed to play is completely irrelevant to this discussion. That was not an issue the players had any control over and many of them, including Ruth, favored allowing black players in the majors. (I believe Ruth was once fined for barnstorming with a Negro League team even though the league had told him not to.) Also, while there were many stars in the Negro Leagues, how much of an impact they would have made in diminishing someone’s career is pure speculation. Ruth might still have hit 714 home runs, just off pitchers of different colors.
3) While there are many factors, including steroids, that influenced the increase in home runs, one area that is routinely overlooked is the different approach to hitting in the past 10-15 years. From about the end of World War II into the late ‘80s, most hitters – especially power hitters – were dead pull hitters. In part that was because many of the older parks had deep centerfields and long power alleys, but it’s also easier to hit a ball harder and farther when you pull it. It also gives pitchers much more of the outside part of the plate to get you out. A pull hitter trying to pull an outside pitch will swing and miss, or hit weak grounders or popups. As hitters changed their approach and began driving balls to the opposite field, they made contact with more balls, hit them harder and farther, and as parks became smaller, more balls began to leave the yard. Some players seem to have even more power the opposite way. Not only that, hitters today rely much more on scouting reports and game tapes to have a sense of what a pitcher will throw in certain situations. Add to that more marginal, mistake-prone pitchers due to expansion and the use of multiple relievers and you are going to have more home runs even if no one abuses any substances.
I basically agree with Joe.
ReplyDeleteEvery day in this country, rape and robbery cases are dismissed for failure to prosecute. Governmental budgets are being slashed left and right. But there is plenty of money for a full court press against lying baseball players.
Let's be serious here: The only reason to spend money on the grand jury investigation that started all of this, rather than other, more serious crimes, is that ambitious prosecutors know this will get them ahead. They have a case under the law, and a right to pursue it, but it's sad.
As for steroids, I still don't think it could absolutely be known, in advance, that they would be labeled "cheating." Mickey Mantle or Babe Ruth would have thought of arthroscopic knee surgery as something out of a science fiction novel. To say nothing of Tommy John surgery.
I don't see why mechanically rebuilding ligaments torn in the course of practice/competition is necessarily a perfectly fine medical procedure, while chemically rebuilding muscle torn in strength training is contemptible cheating. Isn't a blown knee or elbow evidence that a player isn't "naturally" capable of playing any more?
Seems like the only clear reason for the steroid treatment is "the rules say so" which, as numerous posters have mentioned was hardly clear at the outset. They were controlled substances, not banned across the board, and the rules of baseball competition didn't mention them.
Of course, there's the "steroids are bad for you/dangerous" angle. I recommend the documentary "Bigger Faster Stronger" for what seems like a fair approach to the American steroid saga. The filmmaker stopped taking steroids because he felt like they were cheating, but still gives steroid proponents equal time. Basically, there's plenty of anectodal evidence of "roid rage" or steroid-fueled suicide, but essentially no scientific evidence.
Two things: If the government is busy with a Bonds trial then it is less likely they will be doing something to screw up our lives. And where were all the reporters and columnists when this stuff was going on? We can blame Selig, the players, whoever, but why don't the writers get some of the blame for not reporting the steroid era? Probably because they were making a few more dimes from it as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's not forget the I Dream of Jeannie scene where Jeannie blinked the faker's wheelchair into rolling across the courtroom and into the wall.
ReplyDeletekwic,
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand how unsympathetic BB is too many, which is precisely why the government goes after him and Martha Stewart and other unsympathetic rich people to create scary precedents for everyone else to feel the fear of. And that's why I'm sympathetic to him, because I see that clever trap the government creates here. Yes, compared to most people BB is no powerless victim. Compared to the federal government, he can be crushed like a bug.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI gotta say, when I hear arguments about prohibiting anything that boil down to "protect the children" I get seriously nauseous. I have kids of my own, and you know how to protect them from things like drugs and steroids? Tell them about them, educate them, and let them decide for themselves as they get older.
Making something illegal doesn't make it go away, it just makes it impossible to be properly educated about. It drives the whole scene underground. And let's be clear, steroids are not illegal. They are widely prescribed. Almost anyone can get them, whether they are sick or not, to "enhance" themselves. (And to the guy who wants to know what a "normal level" is, yes, I did ask my doctor, and he described a range of levels that has no real limit to it, because humans beings are all very different, and there is no "normal level" for anyone).
So yeah, I'm against virtually all drug laws and restrictions, because they are far more unhealthy in their impact than the drugs themselves, if they were legal. Hell, I know doctors who say that pharmaceutical heroin is much healthier than alcohol, and they'd much rather see someone as a pharmaceutical heroin addict than an alcoholic, which is legal but far more interfering with health and functionality.
And of course steroids should be kept away from kids, but guess what, they aren't. Why? Because there's a huge underground market for these things driven by the illegality of it all. I knew friends in college who made the stuff for their athlete friends. It's everywhere. The baseball steroids thing broke out because guys like McGuire and Canseco got into weight-training (which for a long time the baseball world disdained) and there they found steroids everywhere, and all underground. It would all be much better if it were aboveground.
The truth is, steroids are actually a natural substance our own body produces. Testosterone, at least, and the rest are closely related. The question is what quantities are good for you, and how to take them properly. And of course issues of purity and so on. I'd much rather have athletes taking steroids under doctor's supervision than all this phoney purity business wrecking the sports world. I agree with people that the worst thing about all this is the secrecy. It's much better if we just let it out in the open and make sure it's used responsibly and with medically sound practices, than if we persue this insane policy of making it illegal and then having to worry endlessly about cheating.
So I mean this on both the legal front, and in the policy of sporting institutions. We can't pretend that technology won't change the game. It already has, especially in terms of the size and strength of players, and their overall health and training regimens. Taking PDEs is simply a part of the burgeoning biochemical-nutrional technology that has transformed sports already. The sane thing to do is to incorporate it intelligently into the game and recognize that we've entered a new era. We can't go back to 19th century baseball if we wanted to. We have to accept 21st century baseball for what it is in our era.
As a lawyer, I have always wondered what the assistant DA in "12 Angry Men" must have thought when the NG verdict came back. I mean seriously, he tries the heck out of the case, his opponent is basically an incompetent and then this jury comes back NG. He must have been ticked off. And further, he probably had a hard time explaining the verdict to his boss after he most assuredly told the DA that the case was a slam dunk.
ReplyDeleteYogi, we have a difference of opinion. And I certainly don't want to make you nauseous. I'm not naive-I certainly know my son has, and will continue to have, ample opportunities to engage in a whole range of behaviors I would rather he avoid. And we definitely did talk before he left. But he's halfway across the country, and he has to make his own choices. Hopefully, the worst result of the worst choice he makes is a hangover. Here's where I draw the line; If my son were to want to play organized sports, I'd be very pissed if the guy with the whistle and clipboard, the guy who controls his roster spot, his playing time, maybe even his scholarship, were to dangle a syringe in front of him. Maybe that makes me a a Luddite. I can live with that.
ReplyDeleteJoe, you are completely missing the point. This is not a case about steroids. It's a case about lying in a criminal prosecution. Think about what happens if lying becomes an okay thing to do in a court proceeding or filing. Suddenly, your whole justice system is completely eroded. That's what this case is about. Sure, there will be personal ambition and personalities behind the case, but you can NOT sit by idly while a court in this country is thoroughly embarrassed in a very public way. That sets horrible precedent, which needs to be rectified.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteYou know the best way to keep your son from that situation? It's to know in advance what the policy is of the school you are sending him to. If steroids are legal, the school can openly tell you whether the coach is going to put pressure on students to use them. Right now, you don't know, because it all happens behind the scenes. And don't think it isn't happening right now in all kinds of lockerooms. If a school allows steroids, then don't send your kid there. If they do, they will need to have doctors to monitor administer it, and provide full care. And you'll get to have the conversation with your son about whether he should do it or not. It's all out in the open, and you can have full input, and so can your son. You know, like most things in life, like what he's going to major in, what job he's going to take, what girl he's going to marry. But you start making those things illegal, then it goes underground and you are cut out of the decisions. Which world do you want to live in?
@Yogi
ReplyDeleteCompared to the federal government, he can be crushed like a bug
That's right.
And that's why Giambi and others - who were in the exact same situation as Barry at the exact same time - are not in the dock.
Some came clean. So long. Go with God.
Barry lied. See ya later. Come back with lawyers.
That's what what makes it prosecution, not persecution.
Yogi, we have an honest difference of opinion. You want to see steroids legalized, and I don't. Last three hypotheticals. 1) if it's ok for college kids, is it ok for high school? 2) Let's say I do my due diligence and find out that Coach A at Canseco State loves steroids but Coach B at Griffey U won’t tolerate them. My son chooses Griffey. Two years later, Griffey U fires Coach B, and hires Coach A. Now what? My son has to leave his friends, his school, maybe his scholarship, lose eligibility, etc.? What happens if that’s at the high school level? We have to sell the house, quit our jobs, and move? 3) My high school aged daughter swims. She’s been reading about PED’s. She knows what happened to the East German women and she’s very wary. But, her coach is telling her it’s ok, there are new drugs, they will monitor her carefully, and gee, honey, if you don’t want to do this, there’s an opening on the cheerleading squad.
ReplyDeleteYou can't handle the truth!
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteYeah, honest difference.
High school kids are minors. Over eighteen, they get to decide for themselves. That's why it's important to raise them right and get them to respect your input.
Laws for adults should not be determined by "but we need to protect our children" hysteria. I'm sure you are a good concerned parent, but you are treating your (hypothetical?) 20 year old son as if he's still a child. He's going to have to learn how to make decisions for himself. So if the school changes its policy (which isn't really going to be the case just because they hire a new coach - they would only hire a coach like that if they've changed their policy) your son is just going to have to be strong enough to resist the temptation. Or not, either way it's his decision, not yours.
This is idea that our laws for adults are supposed to be a form of endless parenting and the government and police are supposed to function as a nanny state preventing adults from every growing up and being responsible for themselves, is just pernicious and destructive, even to the kids we love. If you love your kids you have to let them become adults and make their own decisions. If you think eighteen is too young to be a legal adult, and want to control them well beyond that age, go ahead and try, but don't make the state do it for you by making everything you fear they might decide to do illegal. The cost of your trying to keep your kid "safe" is many other kids and adults going to jail for things they should be able to decide for themselves. That's too great a price to pay. Being a good parent means letting your kid grow up and not expecting society and the law to be their parent forever, so they can be a child forever.
Yogi, I think this has to end. I'm not sure why you think it's ok to presume to lecture me about my parenting, but it's really not. Gentlemen (and ladies, I hope), good night. I enjoy Joe's blog, I often learn something from the comments, but, in the future, I'll keep my opinions to myself.
ReplyDeleteMike and Broken Yogi
ReplyDeleteThat was a terrific discussion-it was very illuminating.
Mike - please don't keep your opinions to yourself.
Yogi - I tend to your side of this argument (even though Mike made some good points)for the simple reason that legalization will remove some of the hypocrisy in the situation.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteIf you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. You think I'm crossing some line by telling you how to raise your kids, but the way you want to raise your kids is putting people in jail and ruining lives, and that's just not okay with me. That's crossing a very serious line. You can raise your kids any way you like, just don't make the laws of this country around that. Leave them neutral on this topic is all I'm asking for. You can't pretend that your demand that the government put people in jail to protect your kids, even well past childhood, isn't crossing a very terrible line.
So I'm really not sorry to have offended you. I'm glad you put your opinions out there, because that's the best way to see the consequences of them and weigh for yourself whether they are really a good idea. Same goes for me too. So don't be shy, just because I'm criticizing your opinions. That's what public discussion is all about. If you are reluctant to do this again, it's probably because your opinions can't really stand up to the light of day. That's worth knowing also.
Yogi, I see I was wrong in disengaging. Because I dare to suggest that a high school coach not pressure a fourteen-year old into juicing, somehow I’m not merely a bad parent, I want to “ruin peoples lives” and I’m “demanding that that the government put people in jail to protect (my) kids”. I said nothing of the sort-in fact, if you read my posts-all of them-you might be surprised to see the opposite opinion expressed. I called it a “perjury trap”, and noted steroid use was not per se illegal. I also said that after the Bonds and Clemens trials were over, it was time to move on. Pity you didn’t read them all before trashing me. My sin, it appears, is that I’m unwilling to give a full-throated embrace to a loaded syringe. Sorry, no matter how much verbal abuse you seem to think is appropriate to give people who disagree with you, I’m not backing down. I think using steroids is cheating, and until MLB decides otherwise, it will remain cheating. And I think that, given that the long-term over-usage of steroids may have demonstrable adverse health consequences, children should not be put in a position of having to buck the authority figures. Adults like you can do what they want. That’s my bottom line. Agree with it, don’t agree with it, but spare me the vitriol.
ReplyDeleteYogi, I enjoy the kitchen. I just don't appreciate personal abuse, and this place, or any other public forum, shouldn't give license to it. Try reading all my posts-all of them,including the ones about "perjury traps", "abuse of power", "selective enforcement", before accusing me of "ruining lives" and wanting the government to "put people in jail to protect my kids". Want to disagree with me about steroids; no problem. Inflammatory language, baseless accusations, not acceptable.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteI'm not personalizing this, I'm just responding to your arguments. You're the one who brought in your kids and used them to make a point here, not me. I just responded to that, and now you are trying to claim I'm personalizing the argument, which is pure bullshit.
I'm glad you think the perjury issue is BS, but that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about the fact that steroid use is being made illegal in the first place. That's what drives it underground, not perjury issues. And you seem to be arguing that having this whole thing made illegal and sending people to jail is just fine with you, for the sake of your kids, as if that even protects them (it doesn't). So I'm talking about the real world consequences of your argument and the fact that you think it's okay to send people to jail to make it easier to keep your adult kids a little less tempted to use steroids of their own free will. You are de facto accusing me of corrupting your kids by wanting steroids to be legal for personal enhancement purposes, but it's fine for you to put people in jail and drive this whole thing underground in the vain attempt to protect them from the real world? I find that more than a bit dishonest. If we were really having an honest agreement you'd just say, yeah, I do want to put people in jail for that purpose, so what? Instead you're hiding behind your kids, who you brought into this in the first place, and accusing me of "personalizing" the argument. That's not kosher, dude.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who brought up your adult kids and your need to have the state make steroid use illegal, and thus to send people to jail, in order to keep them from being tempted to do things you wouldn't want them to do. There is no "perjury trap" without there being an underlying illegality to investigate in the first place.
So yes, you are advocating ruining the lives of people who violate laws you want in place simply to "protect" your kids. That's not a baseless accusation, that's precisely what you are advocating. Why not just own up to that, or advocate that steroids be legalized? You can't have it both ways. Stop complaining about being "personally abused" and just face up to some sense of responsibility for the consequences of what you are advocating and supporting.
LOL
ReplyDeleteI often see the comment that prosecution shouldn't be pursued because of the expense.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have with this is that the prosecution is expensive largely because Barry is rich, and can afford fancy lawyers. If we make the litmus test about whether to pursue these things based on the expense, we're effectively saying that we're not going to prosecute rich people.
Online degrees have gained importance from last several years because of the ease of admissions and degree completion process. This is best way to get graduated without much effort.
ReplyDeleteDistance Education in india
http://purchaseonweb.blogspot.in/2012/03/list-of-press-release-submission-sites.html
Definitely agree with what you stated. Your explanation was certainly the easiest to understand. I tell you, I usually get irked when folks discuss issues that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail right on the head and explained out everything without complication. Maybe, people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more. commodity trail
ReplyDelete