Tony Gwynn, arguably one of the best hitters in history and Cal Ripken Jr., the ironman of baseball were both elected to the hall of fame today with record votes. Mark McGwire, however, did not garner nearly enough votes due to suspicions of steroid use.
McGwire's alleged steroid use has become so important to America that he had to testify in front of Congress about it.
Why? It's none of congress's business. And should he not be elected to the hall of fame because of his steroid use? Of course he should. He has a record number of home runs, RBIs, etc., just as every other member of the Hall of Fame has. He hasn't "wronged" America, he has only wronged baseball - and one could argue, as I will, that it is baseball's fault for not testing when the testing was available. Rumors of his steroid use were rampant years before he retired, yet no action was taken. No one knows that previous members of the hall of fame did NOT take steroids. And he was untested and thus it is unproven.
If you need some sort of justice for McGwire, which is fully understandable, then place the asterisk* by his plaque. But don't deny someone what they've accomplished simply because they allegedly did something, maybe, possibly, perhaps, feasibly, and most likely but unprovably in the past. And certainly this shouldn't be a political matter. Although, to be fair, it's not as if they were doing anything important at the time.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Gwynn, Ripken in Hall of Fame - McGwire Benched
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I understand your point that it's no one's business what an athlete uses or doesn't use if this were a "victimless crime" sort of issue. Proponents of legalizing marijuana make that case brilliantly, but it doesn't work for professional sports. There are victims ... other players, skewed statistics, and let's not forget the fans who pay their hard-earned money to see good baseball. But maybe I'm naive about that. I tend to be a purist where my baseball is concerned.
Taking steroids is cheating, pure and simple. And it's particularly shameful in professional competition. I mean, we aren't talking about a schoolground kickball match, we're talking about people who make a career out of playing a sport. In theory, these players are hand-picked because they are better than anyone else. It's possible that some of these guys (and not a few women) who are hopped up on shit they inject into horses are probably only slightly better at the game than I am.
For a professional athlete to take a performance enhancing drug that's banned by the league, well, that's not tantamount to cheating, it *is* cheating both ethically and probably legally speaking depending on contractual between front office and player.
And the "everyone's doing it" defense ... it didn't work on your mother, and it doesn't work here. This is no different than a CEO participating in insider trading --and you see how well that worked out for Martha Stewart. Don't take the drugs. Play fair. The player and the team may lose, but the fans win.
Let's not let the corporate giants forget that it's the fans who pay their salaries. They are conditioning fans to only want to come to a game to see the long ball, but everyone knows that real thrill of baseball comes from the pitching. Don't get me started on how corporations have ruined sports for the masses. I could go on a rather foaming rant about how they throw too much money at players who turn out not to be that good, and in essence force these hapless athletes to feel they have to take steroids in order to justify their paychecks.
I'm not naive enough to think that cheating never happens. And I don't think that taking steroids is the same thing as, say, conspiring to throw a World Series, a la the 1919 Chicago White Sox, because that implies malice and greed (although you could argue that owners are complicit in the use of steroids because they know that people come to the ballparks to see home runs).
The real bee in my bonnet over performance-enhancing drugs is that they give a player and a team bragging rights they don't deserve. Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Roger Maris, Mickey Mantel all achieved similar feats and more than a few of them did it DRUNK. You try hitting a home run after a good, old-fashioned bender. These legends were no shrinking violets. Not one modern player could play in their league.
I guess what I'm saying is that the use of steriods has turned a once great national pastime into entertainment that is about as serious as a Britney Spears concert. It turns it into a national joke.
Right... but that's not what I'm arguing. I never said it was a victimless crime or no one's business. I said it was not congress's business, because it's not. Amd what I'm arguing is that it's too late to prove he did steroids, so you have to respect his numbers. Sure we "know" he did it, of course he did. But we don't know that other hall of famers did not do it, because we didn't test. And many of them had random bursts of strength that went previously unexplained.
The point is that you can start testing now and keep them out of the hall of fame or kick them out of baseball as a punishment and as a fan of baseball I'm 100% fine with that, but you can't keep someone out of the hall of fame based on a guess, no matter how likely it is. If you can prove McGwire did steroids based on his blood right now, then I say go ahead, but you can't anymore. Players like Bonds are still playing. Test them. It should be part of their contract that they get tested so they can be caught cheating and punished for what baseball can actually prove.
Similarly - because this is a political blog overall - you don't go into a war or sentence someone to death without proof, and not just what other people say they do or what we guess. Did McGwire do steroids? Yes. Do we have proof he did? No. So that's the it. That's something future players and baseball have to live with and need to do something about so it never happens again, but it's not okay to punish someone for something you can't prove they did.
First, this wasn't a trial. It was a hearing, so there was no guilt or innocence assigned to anyone and no one was in danger of being hanged or incarcerated. That said, when someone makes a comment like, "Let's not talk about the past," you may not look guilty, but you definitely look a shmuck who's hiding something. And speaking of schmucks, none of this would have happened if someone could have talked Jose Canseco's fame-hogging ass from writing a tell-all book. The fact that congress took seriously a man who wears leopard print g-strings is a disgrace in and of itself.
Second, Congress, as representatives of the people, both democrat and republican, can call hearings to investigate literally anything it wants if it thinks it's unconstitutional, illegal, a matter of national security or a public health issue, the latter of which is officially, according to news reports, why it called the hearing in the first place.
And I will not argue your point that it was stupid of Congress to focus on baseball players during a time of war, global terrorism, environmental threats and shitty economic issues at home. You're right, it was monumentally ill timed and frankly shameful.
But the hearings opened up a whole other can of worms. They hit a raw nerve with sports writers. Clearly, enough of them believe that taking performance enhancing drugs is cheating and cheaters don't belong in a hall of fame of any kind, unlike, gamblers, drunks, crappy baseball players, assholes and womanizers.
The hall has five criteria for getting voted in ... according to Wikipedia:
"In addition, the Hall of Fame Committee had instituted a set of criteria for the voters to observe in completing their ballot; for each candidate, they were to take into consideration:
playing ability
integrity
sportsmanship
character
contribution to the team on which they played and to baseball in general"
This wasn't a drugs are bad issue, it was a cheating issue. Now, sports writers are not morality police, but they are, as a matter of actual fact, the arbiters of who gets in the hall or not.
And I understand that, but I think the hall of fame is only designed for two things: baseball and the fans. Although sports writers make the votes on who gets into the hall of fame, it is not them who the Hall of Fame is designed for.
That said, I believe it is baseball's fault for not making steroid testing mandatory - especially when everyone knew he was taking them. It's the "open-till" theory - if you leave the till open, even an honest man can become a thief. It should have been done, and it wasn't - if for anything than at least as a deterrant for potential users, and personally, although (and I say with exclamation) he OBVIOUSLY was on the 'roids, he wasn't tested and thus it cannot be proven. So the small chance he did not do it (which can't be denyed since we don't have proof) is all we can be left with. I don't believe you should ever punish someone for something you can't prove they did, especially when you had the chance and didn't, and thus he should still be eligible for what we know he accomplished and be sure that nothing like this happens again in the future.
Actually, the Hall is a run by a private entity, but yes, it's for the fans and it's also for the study of baseball. It's also worth noting that the hall is not associated with Major League Baseball in any official way. The MLB has zero effect on the inductions or the membership.
You're right about the Hall being about the fans and about the what baseball means as a sport and a pastime, but the Hall isn't a egalitarian entity. It isn't by the baseball fans for the baseball fans. The BBWAA is the one that started it and maintains the Hall of Fame -- it is THEIR list and bottom line is they will or won't vote in anyone they like based on the criteria they have set forth.
I agree that you shouldn't punish someone based on a suspicion or a hunch or a "his arms look too big and he's been seen eating carrots out of the third base coach's hand" approach to weeding out the users. But, the controversy remains ... it's the same reason Pete Rose won't get in. He's viewed as tarnishing a great sport and that kind of infraction isn't soon forgotten.
So far as I know, no one's been kicked out of baseball for using steroids/selling steroids. Only Palmeiro has been suspended. The baseball bargaining agreement gives players three strikes, literally, before they get kicked out of the league and thus far that hasn't happened. It's getting dissed by the Hall of Fame that will most likely be these players' punishment -- unless the goverment chooses to prosecute them, which it can do because steroids are illegal. I doubt that will happen unless there is another controversy, like some crappy 110-pound Mets pitcher hitting a home run all the way to New Jersey.
Actually, Ryan Franklin, a Mariner pitcher, had steroids in his system and was suspended, but to be fair, no one knew who he was then, or knows who he is now.
And I am okay with them being kicked out a baseball, even if its due to accidentally sitting on a needle, or whatever Bonds said happened.
Interestingly, I'm ambivalent about Pete Rose getting. I mean, it totally sucks that he gambled on games and even his own team, but there's no way to tell whether or not it affected the outcome of the games. Some suggested he strategized base on whether he be for or against -- that could affect the outcome of a game. So I'm on the fence
Drugs, in my opinon, absolutely affect outcomes -- and at the very least, positively calls into question whether or not the same outcome could have happened without the drugs.
Post a Comment