I was disappointed, but not really surprised when I heard. I was hoping A-Rod would break all the records "clean" so the sanctimonius old-timers would have less to complain about when it comes to the record books.
Per the larger issue, as far as I am concerned, this is the nail in the coffin: it seems clear to me that there was a systemic performance enhancing drug problem in baseball for about 10 years (1995-2005 ish). To assume otherwise at this point is naive. Even if there wasn't a systemic problem, we will never know for sure who was and who was not "juiced" and I am very uncomfortable with a subset of guilty players shielding the blame.
Since it's clearly systemic, this also reaffirms my opinion that we should view those years as the Steroid Era. Rather than keeping individuals out of the Hall of Fame or putting asterisks in the record books, I say just put an asterisk by the era: Performance enhancing drugs were prevalent and impacted the game on every dimension. All events from that period should be viewed within this context. To obsess on individual players is not only exhausting, I believe it distracts us from the larger issue and unfairly projects blame on a few specific individuals.
At this point, the only thing that will make me angry is the continued media obsession with the story. Let's accept the era for what it was and move on,
1) I'm with you in hoping the clean guys would break the records, but a) old-timers are always going to complain about something, b) we're going to be whiny old geezers at some point ourselves, and c) I don't know that it's a bad thing that the old records stand for a while. If they're going to be broken, let it be by someone not under suspicion.
2) I'm half-willing to label Kenny Rogers and Chad Curtis as clean, but only because they've chosen to speak out against what their peers were doing, spoke out at the time, and did so by choice rather than by being dragged in front of Congress. Beyond that (and perhaps even them as well), you're right, it's unknowable.
3a) Placing the era under an asterisk opens up a big can of worms for me. Do we group the 1876-1947 years as the Cracker Era? The '60s and '70s as the Amphetamine Era? I think you're always going to have some new shift that rocks the playing field with regard to "fairness," and it's debatable which should fall into the truly fair category. For instance, computerized scouting reports could theoretically be labeled "unfair." 3b) By the same notion that we don't know who was dirty, we also don't know who was clean. Rather than an asterisk on the era, I'd just as soon let every number stand, and let people wonder "How the hell did so-and-so do that?" Because, really, that uncertainty is the point of the last fifteen years.
4) I'm 100% certain we'll see someone on television - my bet is John Kruk - tell us "Rodriguez did nothing wrong, steroids weren't banned at the time." I'm also 100% certain that excuse is a steaming pile of horse pucky. Just because baseball didn't ban it doesn't mean it's not wrong, or even if you don't buy its intrinsic wrong-ness, just because baseball didn't ban it doesn't mean the laws of the United States haven't banned it. That's akin to saying beating Dusty Baker about the head and neck with a fungo until he's dead isn't wrong, because baseball didn't have a rule against that action.
3 comments:
I was disappointed, but not really surprised when I heard. I was hoping A-Rod would break all the records "clean" so the sanctimonius old-timers would have less to complain about when it comes to the record books.
Per the larger issue, as far as I am concerned, this is the nail in the coffin: it seems clear to me that there was a systemic performance enhancing drug problem in baseball for about 10 years (1995-2005 ish). To assume otherwise at this point is naive. Even if there wasn't a systemic problem, we will never know for sure who was and who was not "juiced" and I am very uncomfortable with a subset of guilty players shielding the blame.
Since it's clearly systemic, this also reaffirms my opinion that we should view those years as the Steroid Era. Rather than keeping individuals out of the Hall of Fame or putting asterisks in the record books, I say just put an asterisk by the era: Performance enhancing drugs were prevalent and impacted the game on every dimension. All events from that period should be viewed within this context. To obsess on individual players is not only exhausting, I believe it distracts us from the larger issue and unfairly projects blame on a few specific individuals.
At this point, the only thing that will make me angry is the continued media obsession with the story. Let's accept the era for what it was and move on,
1) I'm with you in hoping the clean guys would break the records, but a) old-timers are always going to complain about something, b) we're going to be whiny old geezers at some point ourselves, and c) I don't know that it's a bad thing that the old records stand for a while. If they're going to be broken, let it be by someone not under suspicion.
2) I'm half-willing to label Kenny Rogers and Chad Curtis as clean, but only because they've chosen to speak out against what their peers were doing, spoke out at the time, and did so by choice rather than by being dragged in front of Congress. Beyond that (and perhaps even them as well), you're right, it's unknowable.
3a) Placing the era under an asterisk opens up a big can of worms for me. Do we group the 1876-1947 years as the Cracker Era? The '60s and '70s as the Amphetamine Era? I think you're always going to have some new shift that rocks the playing field with regard to "fairness," and it's debatable which should fall into the truly fair category. For instance, computerized scouting reports could theoretically be labeled "unfair."
3b) By the same notion that we don't know who was dirty, we also don't know who was clean. Rather than an asterisk on the era, I'd just as soon let every number stand, and let people wonder "How the hell did so-and-so do that?" Because, really, that uncertainty is the point of the last fifteen years.
4) I'm 100% certain we'll see someone on television - my bet is John Kruk - tell us "Rodriguez did nothing wrong, steroids weren't banned at the time." I'm also 100% certain that excuse is a steaming pile of horse pucky. Just because baseball didn't ban it doesn't mean it's not wrong, or even if you don't buy its intrinsic wrong-ness, just because baseball didn't ban it doesn't mean the laws of the United States haven't banned it. That's akin to saying beating Dusty Baker about the head and neck with a fungo until he's dead isn't wrong, because baseball didn't have a rule against that action.
3b) I agree, I'm basically saying the same thing by "put an asterisk on the era". We just don't know who was dirty, who was clean.
4) Also agreed. Using prescription medication off-label without the permission (expressed written consent?) of a doctor is illegal.
Post a Comment