-
APV Leaving aside incompetence, one reason the union may have wanted the names associated with those 2003 tests is that it knew a lot of players were doping and wanted to be able to re-associate positive test results with individual players so that players could figure out which doping regimes could make it past MLBs standards.
-
Jack Marshall There are some focus problems here.
The fact that the union did not protect the players on the list is a breach of trust between the union and its members, and is a violation of their rights. But the rights, not the players who tested positive, are the victims. The fact that the truth should not have leaked in this case doesn't change the fact that it is the truth, that A-Rod allowed himself to be portrayed as Mr Clean, violated the law and baseball's rules, misled the Yankees into signing him to a rich long term contract that presumed a PR bonanza from a supposedly drug-free chase of the Bonds records, and that he lied about his PED use to the nation, his fans, and Katie Couric. A-Rod is no less guilty or dishonest because the evidence showing him to be so was obtained unfairly. When a crack dealer suppresses the evidence against him because it was a bad search, he's still a crack dealer. We care about his rights, but not him.
The panel really understates the importance of this, perhaps from a viewpoint of pre-existing cynicism. This is the tipping point for baseball. It is officially, undeniably corrupt to the core. The excutives allowed conditions to exist that would encourage cheating, and have lied about what they knew and when. The union chose to protect its cheating, criminal, lying members, perhaps on the theory that their drug-induced success would increase revenues for all, at the expense of the honest, clean members who believed in playing by the rules, making it profitable to cheat and self-destructive to play fair, Grantland Rice be damned. It aided and abetted illegal activity by tipping off star players so they could continue to cheat. And too many players lacked the character and basic values required of any highly paid star athlete, not to mention honest citizens, to do the right thing.
So where are we? There are officially no individuals in the game who can be trusted with any confidence. None. Was Cal Ripken juiced? God, I sure hope not. But who really knows?
It is very wrong, and wrong-headed, to call this a "witch hunt." There were no witches, you know. This entire, sordid drama is an effort to save baseball's integrity, determine how it was destroyed and who is responsible, and to, somehow, rebuild it. How Lisa Gray can say she "doesn't care" that players shot up, that rules and laws were broken that led to the breaking of records, the distorting of salaries, the stealing of jobs and games, and the devaluing of honesty in the game to such an extent that some people are actually extolling a vengeance-driven roach like Jose Canseco---well, it's incomprenensible to me.
How can baseball start to regain trust? To me, it is in the position of the post-scandal Catholoic Church or the financial sector---there is no clear way back, once trust is lost. I think Fehr, Orza and especially Selig should be forced to resign. I would like to see the Yankees have the integrity to challenge A-Rod's contract in court as the product of bad faith. I would like to see some of the 103 unexposed players come out now voluntarily and admit their steroid use.I would like to see Rodriguez announce that as far as he is concerned, he will not count the home runs he hit from 2001-2003 in his final career totals, because he is ashamed of them....and then break Bonds' record without them. I would like to see MLB realize that the road to this fiasco was paved when it abandoned the idea of an independent commissioner who could unilaterally act on behalf of the game's integrity, and opted instead for a cowardly, pedestrian, money-grubbing puppet.
And I would like to see Scarlett Johansson serve me breakfast in bed, wearing nothing but a hat. That's not going to happen either.
Yes: the issues John raises about the ethics of PED's (and other technological and chemical advances) should be discussed (I'm ready when you are, John...) but the ethics of cheating, lying and law-breaking are not up for debate. The individuals responsible for letting steroids corrupt baseball ---union officials, MLB officials, and players--- have ruined the reputations of every player from the late 80s forward, destroyed baseball's statistical legacy, rendered the Hall of Fame incomprehensible, taken away our heroes, made children cynical before their time, and worst of all, taken a lot of the fun out the game. Jayson Stark is right: this is worse than the Black Sox. And at least this baseball fan is despondent.
-
brandini You really need to limit yourself from grouping 'laws' and 'the rules of baseball' in the same category.
Further, you need to look at yourself in the mirror. You and the rest of the Baseball Tonight fans of the game. This is not based on ethics, this is simply based on baseball doing what it had to to obtain the fans it had lost from the strike. Chicks didn't start diggin the long ball until baseball had dug itself a hole. Fans didn't start pouring through the turnstiles again until home run records were being shattered at an all time high.
Similarly, it is the Baseball Tonight fans who are throwing stones now that the game they built up, the facts they ignored, do not sit well with their Sunday morals.
Further, the fact that anyone would suggest a players records be voluntarily (or otherwise) stricken from history is shameful. As each day passes we are seeing that steroid use was far less 'cheating' then keeping up.
Was it wrong? Sure. Is speeding in a school zone on the way to a job interview wrong? Yes. Does that mean if an individual is running late for an interview they are going to swallow their pride and show up late? Doubtful.
That is, if everyone in baseball is doing it, as is gradually being implied, the 90's and the early part of this decade (even today) has been played on a level playing field. Subsequently, there hasn't been a cheater involved.
One quick question though. What happened to the happy-go-lucky, rose-colored glasses theory that baseball and it's deceitful executives uphold a higher ethical standard?-
Jack Marshall - No, laws and rules are both rules, just different authorities. Looking at it otherwise, as you seem to, just greases the skids for your rationalizations. However, in the case of steroids, the use was both illegal and against the rules. So I don't know what your point is.
- Baseball did not have to have home run records shattered to attract the fans. That's nonsense. Baseball just had to be baseball, have compelling stories, players and races, like it always has. The home runs were just what came along. Something was going to. Baseball may need "saving" now, but it didn't then.
- I wish you would at least try to read what I actually write. I suggested A-Rod himself should suggest that he would so regard his records as tainted, drawing a bright line on his own. I did not, and would not ever suggest striking any player's records, no matter what the reason. Frank Robinson, however, did suggest this, and I don't consider it "shameful"---just overly emotional...understandable, since his accomplishments are among those devalued by Bonds. No, the integrity of the stats are ruined, and nothing is going to fix them.
- It is no surprise, based on your other commentary, that you embrace the hoariest and most discredited of all rationalizations for unethical conduct: "everybody does it." Calling cheating "keeping up" is a sickening and corrupt concept., and explains exactly why "everybody does it" is false and corrosive. And, of course, everybody didn't do it and doesn't do it...just the players with poor character. Your interpretation, I supoose, is that those who follow principles like honesty and fairness are not virtuous, but dumb. I knew people were cheating in college...not enough to change the curve, but they had an edge. It wasn't hard. I still didn't cheat. You're response would be, I gather, that this was the wrong response...and that cheating would have been "keeping up." I'm sorry---not only can't I argue with that indefensible viewpoint, I can't respect it.
- I never said that baseball executives uphold a higher standard. I said that they understood in the case of Bonds that they had to embrace a higher standard. The A-Rod situation shows why. The owners thought they could get away from the stench of steroids by issuing the Mitchell Report and keeping Bonds at home. That was, yes, naive. Now baseball will be stuck with another 9 years of a young steroid cheat chasing records, and the sport will be permanently diminished...except, of course. among people like yourself, who regard objections to breaking laws, lying and cheating as "Sunday morals."
-
brandini "Baseball just had to be baseball, have compelling stories, players and races, like it always has."
Is that why the years after the work stoppage (95, 96, and 97) were some of the worst years for MLB in recent memory? Is that why, despite being in one of the best American economies in recent history, baseball went from being the uncontested number one economic sport in North America to being number two, maybe number three?
Believe it or not, but 1998 saved baseball.
"No, the integrity of the stats are ruined, and nothing is going to fix them."
So the integrity of baseball in the 20s is ruined because of the racial barriers? Or how about until the 50s when pitchers were scuffing up the balls to get an advantage?
In otherwords, we have about 30 years of honest 'records' and statistics to follow. This from the morally clean America which wouldn't allow anything immoral into their living rooms.
"Calling cheating "keeping up" is a sickening and corrupt concept...I knew people were cheating in college...not enough to change the curve, but they had an edge. It wasn't hard. I still didn't cheat."
Let's look at a few issues here. First you admit that the cheating in college was not enough to change the curve, in other words, it's admittedly an entirely different scenario, and thus illogical to compare. Second, even if the cheating in college was as widespread as steroid use is in baseball (/society at large) we're talking to vastly different punishments. One, expulsion and essentialy the end of an academic career, the other, a small fine and whatever small incidental penalties follow.
Further, you are right, cheating in college is wrong. Doing steroids was wrong. It isn't, however, 'cheating'. From my perspective, it is like speeding to a job interview or rolling a stop sign on the way to a major presentation.
Speeding is wrong and causes far more casualties then steroids, yet all the fathers who are up in arms about their children having tainted role models, don't think twice when going 10 over in a school zone to get little Bobby to soccer practice.
I'm not, nor have I ever suggested that steroid use was fine, rather that it is understandable. Further, I never linked it to other, substantially harsher penalties, such as cheating on an exam, murder, or otherwise.
That said, what I am arguing is that if everyone was doing it (as seems obvious at this point-something you must agree), we were watching a level playing field. If a juiced pitcher is throwing to a juiced hitter who is hitting to juiced fielders, is that not the same as a non-juiced pitcher throwing to a non-juiced hitter who is hitting to non-juiced fielders?
"I never said that baseball executives uphold a higher standard."
You didn't? What about,
"[B]ut baseball is the one professional sport that carries with it a duty to the American culture. Character counts in America, and baseball is bound by history, tradition and its role in legend and myth to make certain that character counts on its playing fields as well. Baseball players, as Bill James quite accurately stated, are paid to be heroes. The sport does not have the raw physical display of football, or the speed of basketball, or the simple-minded appeal of soccer. What it does have that no other professional sport even values very much is integrity, or at least an appreciation that integrity is important."
All that being said, I don't see breaking laws, lying, and cheating as 'Sunday morals', rather, I see the individuals who are throwing stones today as practicing Sunday morals. This is like the individual who goes to Church on Sundays but does not live a God-centered life Monday thru Saturday.The fact is, I don't really care what a ballplayer does in his spare time. I follow baseball because I enjoy baseball, not because of the fascinating people who play the sport. Maybe there are some individuals that need the 'good guy' nostalgic, but that's not for me.
That is, I wouldn't call a player who smokes pot or drives drunk a 'cheater', you might simply because baseball apparently upholds an American-way that has been dead for decades.
-
Jack Marshall My quote does not support your interpretation. I stand by it. Baseball is responsible for upholding a higher standard and the executives know it. That doesn't mean they always know how to do it or actually do it. Sometimes they try.
Your definition of cheating is bizarre to say the least.
Cheating is when someone uses extraordinary means prohibited by the rules or by tradition, not envisioned or sanctioned by the authorities, to accomplish results and goals that are beyond those achievable by them or others if restricted to their own abilities or permtted aids. And because it is not permitted, it is surrepticious and accomplished by deception and deceit. That's steroids.
Your speeding example is mind-boggling. It doesn't make the presentation any better, or provide an advantage over other competitors. It may be illegal, but one doesn't have to hide it from the presntation audience. I really don't see what you think the analogy is....an emergency transgression that is justified by the consequences of not doing it, presumably. But unless the presentation audience had a rule that speeders would be disqualified, even this isn't on point.
Similarly weak is the race barrier analogy. The statistics in the 20's were achieved by all MLB players playing by the same rules on the field. It is not similar to some players using banned or illegal substances while others did not and assumed they were not. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that "everyone" was cheating. Even if Camanitti was right in his estimate (which I doubt), even if it was a majority (which I also don't believe), it's still cheating.
Ask Mike Greenwell.
And you seem to think that hypocrisy alone invalidates legitimate ethical observations. It doesn't. A hypocrite is still capable of accurately assessing what is right and wrong; he or she simply isn't always capable of living up to the values he or she espouses. The United States' mission statement was written by one of the greatest hypocrites of all time. It doesn't make it less brilliant or valuable.
Your stone-throwing reference is a traditional excuse to avoid making sound ethical judgements, and bad theology to boot.
-
brandini "Your speeding example is mind-boggling. It doesn't make the presentation any better, or provide an advantage over other competitors."
Wait, steroids, absolutely, without a doubt, improve a players performance? While that is a nice theory, we are yet to see anything to back that up.
That aside, you are right, the act of speeding does not make the presentation itselt better. But are you telling me that if two equally qualified candidates are interviewing for a job, the person who shows up on time/early will not have the immediate leg up?
That is, a person's attire does not make a presentation or have them perform better at the interview, but it does go a long way to 'selling' the product. The same goes for a handshake.
So, Mr Ethical Standards, are you willing to approach your boss and tell him that there is a chance you cheated to get to where you are today? Keep in mind, this means that you have never gone over the speed limit (even 1mph) for anything that has subsequently led to you being in the position you are in now (conference, interview, exam, etc). Even if speeding did not 'enhance' your performance or was simply uneccesary, you still 'cheated' and should subsequently pay the price.
This is what I am infering to when I make my glass house reference. I know other people use it to proclaim others should not judge (which is a hypocritical statement in and of itself). What I am doing, instead, is suggesting that you put your very words into action.
It takes a bigger man to admit their own faults then to point out the faults of another.
But how is this, show up 5-10 minutes late for your next BIG presentation or court date. Do not call with warning or have a reason, simply show up late. Then get back to me and tell how things went
"It is not similar to some players using banned or illegal substances while others did not and assumed they were not."
Others were not? I wish we could go back a week and take a poll regarding Alex Rodriguez's steroid usage. The fact is, every player of that generation is now guilty. Canseco asserted that some 85-90% of players were taking, or had taken something. He claimed that Rodriguez had done juice and everyone scoffed.
The fact is, it is looking more and more likely that as many ballplayers were juiced, as the percentage of drivers who go 1 mile over the speed limit (something I am sure you have never done).
-
-
-
-
studes Obviously, I think that's a tremendous overreaction, Jack. I'm sorry you feel that way. Players are human, institutions are run by humans. Individual and institutional mistakes happen and bad habits form.
I agree that the ethics of cheating, lying and law-breaking aren't up for debate. But given that everyone was culpable, why is there no place for forgiveness? Why is there no sense of being willing to move on, make the future better, and stop trying to punish past offenders? Why is it so hard to say that we'll never know the total truth, and it's best to move on?
As a business executive, I have never understood the desire to fire people for making mistakes. People who have made mistakes, and have learned from them, are the people I want on my team. But this current focus on past steroidal "sins" has made it nearly impossible for anyone to admit mistakes.
Instead of calling for their heads, why don't we just call for assurances that all the people involved at MLB have learned from their mistakes and are working to make it right?
-
John Brattain Well, I think the feeling is that the people in MLB rarely learn from their mistakes. As Marvin Miller once stated--they never change the error of their ways, just the ways of their errors.
As Craig stated in the Annual, the Mitchell Report was to serve as the demarcation point from the steroid era to the new "clean" era regardless of whether it was truly the case or not.
I think Selig would be more than happy that the public and government think the game is clean even if it were dirtier than Paris Hilton's bedsheets.
It's hard to move on when the folks in charge have questionable commitment to anything other than the Almighty dollar.
I mean, the game "needed" a salary cap for years but now that it has become public knowledge that Selig makes more than 99% of the players suddenly he's off the salary cap bandwagon?
He knows what the reaction would be if he pushed for a cap now. Do you think for a moment that if he could convince the public he makes only a half million and implement a hard cap on the players that he wouldn't have a moment's hesitation?
Best Regards
John-
studes I don't think the two points follow. People in baseball don't learn from their mistakes, so let's skewer them for the past? I don't think that's a healthy approach.
Why not demand that baseball take the right approach from now on? And, if we think they have, then let's move onto other subjects.
If they haven't, let's talk about what they should do. Let's stop skewering people for past mistakes that were the result of major negligence by many parties.
And I disagree that baseball never learns from its mistakes. It does learn, however, much of a struggle is required. Baseball moved on from the Black Sox scandal, segregation, and the lack of player freedom. It took a fight in each case, but baseball has incorporated positive change in the past, and there's nothing wrong with expecting it to do so now.
-
John Brattain I'm cool with that if checks and balances are put in place--what form they would take I am unsure of at this point but a continuation of the status quo ain't gonna cut it--they cannot be trusted.
Strictly speaking--everybody is skewered for what they did in the past...this ain't "Minority Report."
"Mr. Selig, you are under arrest for the future drug problem in MLB."
As to the Black Sox--would the owners dare appoint another commissioner in the Landis mode? Segregation required a change of commissioners (and hard questions in the aftermath of WWII) and an outside arbitrator established player freedom.
In each case, a dramatic factor had to be introduced into the equation for the change to occur hence the status quo being unacceptable.
Best Regards
John
-
studes Again, I disagree, John. Landis was brought in BECAUSE owners realized they had to address the situation. Rickey would have brought in Jackie Robinson no matter who was commissioner (there is evidence that Landis's opposition to integration has been overhyped). And, yes, it took an arbitrator to introduce free agency, but baseball has incorporated it into their structure. It didn't take a change of ledership to make it happen.
Look, if people feel baseball isn't responding appropriately in the current environment, that's a huge issue. But constantly ruminating over who took what four years ago is unproductive.
-
-
-
-
Jack Marshall Dave, Anyone can make mistakes, yes. When people in a position of trust, however, undertake conduct that indicts their judgement and trustworthiness, then the prudent and rational thing is to get rid of them if they won't leave on their own.
Yeah, nobody is perfect. But I trust an executive that wasn't looking the other way when there was plenty of smoke to indicate there was a fire, and a dangerous one. That's Bud and his gang. The union execs behaved similarly to the Catholic Church in the pedophile scandal...they just let the damage go on as long as they could, protecting the priests at the expense of the institution's values and members.
You call for heads because of trust. It may well be that a pilot who's crashed the plane has learned from his mistake, but you know, I'd rather take my chances from a new pilot, who hasn't crashed yet and who also can learn from the old pilot's mistake.
There's also the matter of accountability. Somebody needs to step up (and this is John's point, I think,) and say, I'm the one who screwed up, and I deserve to lose my job, because the screw-up was that bad. Don Rumsfield is a capable guy, you know, and a smart one. but when he offered to resign (twice) after Abu Ghraib, damn straight it should have been accepted. Someone, at the top, needs to send the message that there are consequences for being at the helm when the ship runs aground.
And where steroids are concerned, there is no such thing as a three year mistake (A-Rod), or a two decade mistake (Selig, Fehr). I think t two decades of continuous, damaging mistakes are sufficient proof that the leadership needs to be replaced.
-
studes If there were evidence that the problem wasn't being properly addressed now, I'd agree with you. That may be a correct assessment, but A-Rod's positive test from three years ago is irrelevant to that particular question.
I don't call for heads just to make me feel good. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Donald Rumsfeld quit because he consistently made the same mistakes over and over. He showed an inability to learn. From what little I know, I think that Selig, Fehr and all have learned and are addressing the situation. If something were to come to light that shows they aren't, then I'd agree with you.
-
-
-
John Brattain Yes: the issues John raises about the ethics of PED's (and other technological and chemical advances) should be discussed (I'm ready when you are, John...) but the ethics of cheating, lying and law-breaking are not up for debate.
Jack--that was John Barten's comment; not John Brattain's (me)...my comment was on the role of agents in this mess (right below his); I concur wholeheartedly with your statement that "This is the tipping point for baseball. It is officially, undeniably corrupt to the core."
Gene Orza's actions--if true as reported--are despicable...pure enabling. Don Fehr would be well served in firing him however I do think both of them (as well as Selig) should resign. The MLBPA under Fehr has clearly lost its way and has lost its center. If they are to survive and not go the way of the other PA in pro sports they need to blow it up and start from scratch.
For their sakes they'd best hope there is another Marvin Miller out there.
Best Regards
John-
Jack Marshall My apologies to you and John. I just assumed if the idea was sensible, it came from you...-
John Brattain Well, once you get to know me I'm sure I can disavow you of that particular thought process ;-)
Best Regards
John
-
studes I'm pretty sure Jack was being sarcastic.
-
-
-
-
John M Barten Yes: the issues John raises about the ethics of PED's (and other technological and chemical advances) should be discussed (I'm ready when you are, John...)
Well, I was kind of hoping that somebody smarter and well-versed on the topics (both the biology and ethics of the situation) would take it up and credit me with being a brilliant visionary. I'm not an ethicist or a biochemist. I'm just the resident guy who pokes fun at the quirks of the save rule.
That being said, I will say a few words.
but the ethics of cheating, lying and law-breaking are not up for debate. The individuals responsible for letting steroids corrupt baseball ---union officials, MLB officials, and players--- have ruined the reputations of every player from the late 80s forward,
There are acres of topics for debate in the general subject that are very fertile ground on which one can grow a discussion of ethics. For example, do the ethical dilemmas change depending on how effective a substance is? Depending on what kind of systemic side effects a substance is known to cause? How do you decide what is a banned sustance? Do you punish all banned substances equally or weigh competitive advantage and negative side effects? I believe in Olympic competition you get the same 2 year ban for taking a cold medicine with a banned stimulant as you do for getting caught taking veterinary doses of old school steroids, which seems insane to me. How do you build a process by which false positives are weeded out? How do you build an appeals process that maintains some kind of due process? The ethics of cheating are fairly straightforward. The ethics of punishment and fairness and the responsibility of a league to take its employees well being under consideration could fill months of Outside The Lines specials.
destroyed baseball's statistical legacy, rendered the Hall of Fame incomprehensible,
Bah. It's certainly a thorny issue, but the factors that have made the last 15 years this friendly to offense is as long as your arm. From the bats to the balls to ballpark design. Records were going to fall. One of the themes of sabermetrics has been that ALL statistical records require context. Steroids are a part of the context just as much as the factors that made 1930's offensive stats ridiculous in comparison to the 1960's.
taken away our heroes, made children cynical before their time, and worst of all, taken a lot of the fun out the game. Jayson Stark is right: this is worse than the Black Sox. And at least this baseball fan is despondent.
For you maybe. This baseball fan isn't really fazed.
-
Jack Marshall John: Essentially, I regard this as an ethics train wreck. They occur with some regularity, and the common thing about all of them is that there is so much lying, so much going wrong and so little good conduct that it's impossible to come up with a coherent analysis or useful conclusions.
I like all your questions, but they don't really address the current accumulated mess. I do this for a living, but if you ask me why A-Rod's lie to CBS was less objectionable than Palmiero's finger, or which is a more ethical outcome, to reveal the names of the players who were assured anonimity so A-Rod isn't singled out, or to protect their rights at the expense of letting the public be suspicious of everyone, I have no immediate answer.
My problem with your stats anlogy is that all the players in the 30's had the same parks and conditions. Is there another factor in the baseball stats like steroids, that only effected an undetermined percentage of players?
-
brandini "Is there another factor in the baseball stats like steroids, that only effected an undetermined percentage of players?"
Yes, ballparks.
Also, if steroids affected an 'undetermined percentage of players' is it not as likely that 100% of the players did steroids as it is to be 35%? A week ago most would have argued that ARod was clean, but after this finding, its tough to imagine any player not being a user.
-
Jack Marshall No, not ballparks. Are you kidding? Both teams and all players play in the same ballpark for any given game. The park effects of having a pitcher-or hitter-friendly home park can be precisely determined. This isn't even close to similar.
"its tough to imagine any player not being a user"? Only if they all rationalize like you do, and thank goodness, many people don't. The fact that so many people do assume that every player is dirty because of stars is one more reason their conduct is despicable.
-
brandini Really? Albert Pujols has played the same percentage of games at Coors Field as Matt Holliday has? Wait, Coors Field was up and running in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s?
There is a large amount of evidence to support the FACT that the ballparks have become more hitter friendly in recent years. Because of this, there is very little evidence to support the fact that steroids actually improve the performance of baseball players.
That being said, is there any surprise that 3 of Rodriguez's 5 most powerful seasons occurred in such a hitter friendly atmosphere in Texas? Not at all. But with the recent news of steroids, most are going to link those seasons to the juice instead of the obvious inflation of the ballpark.
But let's get this out there. Give me your, 100%, absolutely, without a doubt, accurate, to the one, prediction of the amount of ballplayers who used steroids. Please and thank you.
-
-
-
Colin Wyers Here's the funny part, though. Offense wasn't just boosted for a handful of players. Offense was boosted for pretty much everybody. And it happened in all of two seasons.
Steroids usage does little to explain the surge in offense between 1992-1994. (In fact, given what we know about the timeline of steroid use in baseball, I'd argue it doesn't explain it at all.)
-
brandini Great point.
Let's not forget that pitchers were also pumping their veins full of this stuff. It isn't as if the hitters were stepping to the plate against clean pitchers and had an unfair advantage.
The problem is, people who have decided that the era is 'tainted' or that records should be erased fail to acknowledge that as many pitchers were shooting up as hitters.
-
Jack Marshall You know brandini, I'd love to have you accompany me in my ethics seminars as exemplifying the confident and unapologetic user of the full range of popular rationalizations for bad conduct. You endorse the Golden Rationalization, "Everybody does it!" You like "The other guys are cheating, so its OK for me to!" (It's really a sub-rationalization of the first.) You like, "It isn't the worst thing!", which is really useful, because almost anything can be excused this way. (Dan Shaunessey just wrote that "It's not like A-Rod killed the President!"). You like, "No harm, no foul" (although there was harm.) You support "I didn't start it!" I can send you about 20 more that you might also find useful.
Well, they are all really self-justifying lies we tell ourselves not to feel bad about doing the wrong thing. And they played a big part in getting baseball into this mess.
-
brandini Jack,
I never ONCE said that it was okay for people to use steroids, NOT ONCE! What I said is that I can understand a ballplayer using-given that everyone else was doing so without a penalty.
Put this in a real-world perspective. If the penalty for speeding was death, do you think anyone would go one mile over the speed limit? Probably, but a lot fewer. Especially if it was enforced the way parking is in any major city.
But the fact is, the average citizen knows they can speed and get away with it. They know, if they are caught the penalty will be minimal. You yourself probably don't think twice about driving 5 over in the 'speeding' lane.
SO yes, I understand WHY a player used. I don't think that makes it alright, but it also doesn't make the person unethical. The same way going 1 mile over the speed limit doesn't make the vast majority of the population unethical.
-
studes I agree with bandini's general point. Given the environment that existed in MLB at the time, taking steroids wasn't that different from going ten miles per hour over the speed limit.
Players took greenies for years. Hank Aaron reportedly did. Willie Mays did, Mike Schmidt did, etc. etc. From an ethical standpoint, how is taking steroids worse? Because they appear to work in ways people don't like?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
JeffA How sad is it that Jose Canseco may turn out to be the most honest person in all of this—his own steroid use notwithstanding?! Lots of dishonesty being assigned here, but I think Lisa Gray is the only one who’s touched on what may ultimately be the biggest story— the either total incompetence of, or the thorough dereliction of professional ethics by the press, who absolutely had to know what was going on over the past two decades and completely buried the story of steroid usage… at least until the two San Francisco reporters published their book on Bonds. As she points out about the press, we think that, “all they care about is the story…” Usually, yes. But not in this case. And I’m wondering why? And, thank you Jack Marshall. Your “Scarlett Johansson” line above is priceless! -
razor I'd like to ask how much of Bonds' career we are supposed to evaluate as relevant? I read on here where the integrity of the stats are ruined, and reputations stained basically from the late 80's on.
Are we as fans now supposed to throw out everything a player like Bonds did? What about all of the other players from his era? While I agree that baseball needs to clean up the PED era, are we really going to sit in judgement on this entire era?
It's a lot tougher in reality for some of us to pick and choose our individual fights here. I saw Barry Bonds play. I may not care for him as a human being on some level, but I saw the man play the game of baseball, and I'm also talking about a big chunk of his career before any of the steroid allegations took hold. I don't just think of the HR record when I think about how I remember Bonds. What I remember (let's say before 1999) is the best all around baseball player I ever personally saw play the game. I couldn't care less if he had never broken the HR record. In fact, I wish he hadn't because it still wouldn't change my mind about what I saw from him as a player. Now what came after (again, let's say 1999 or so) also has to evaluated, but does that really ruin everything? And does it absolutely have to reflect on everyone in his era?
I realize Bonds is an extreme case, but for me he was a HOF player before any of this PED stuff became news. Am I now supposed to look at Bonds' entire career as PED induced? If so, where should one draw the line of demarcation on this particualr era now? The late 80's?
As with all things in life, a little context goes a long way, and the one thing I do know is that the game itself is so good that even the yahoos running it right now can't really ruin it. The game is better than them. That's the beauty of it. It's more complicated because of PED, but I don't think we can judge an entire era. If anyone feels comfortable doing that then they are a better person than I am.
I don't condone any of this stuff. I think it's a shame as well, but unfortunately life is colored in a gray area when it comes to judgement a lot of times. Each of us will do it a little differently than the next person. It's not only the American way, it's the human way...I'm not capable of sitting in judgement on an entire era of baseball players. There are so many things I don't know. Did Bonds achieve what he did based entirely on PED use? I mean my God, was he never any good? Do we throw out his Arizona State collegiate career too? How does anyone really know where to start?
The answer is we don't, unless a player comes out and admits his entire career was PED induced. The game is not going to be "permanently diminshed." I don't believe that for a second. The game will do what it's always done. It will overcome and have us all arguing about who was better, or which record is "real." The game has always been better than any of the individuals playing it or running it, and I'll be damned if I'm going to be despondent about the game of baseball. There are too many other things in life to be truly despondent about...-
Jack Marshall I'm sympathetic with this view. We know that Joe Jackson was a great player, and yet he's disgraced. Nixon opened China, but subverted the justice system. It's not that the good things don't matter. But there comes a time when you have to decide about the whole man. I fully admit, I'm more sensitive to these things than some, perhaps irrationally so. I can't enjoy Frank Sinatra records, because as well as he sings, all I can think about is what a louse he was.
But Frank could never be accused of hurting his profession or his industry. To me, that's the cutting point with Bonds. He's like Jackson: whatever his legitimate achievements, he hurt the game, unlike the humblest third string catcher. So I really don't care how great he was. Ben Johnson may have been a great runner. MIchael Vick was awfully good. I just don't care. They forfeited the right to be admired.
As for the portion of Bonds' career that preceeded PEDs...well, an A student who's caught cheating on his final exam is still kicked out of school. Is that fair? Even if he almost certainly would have done just fine without cheating? Sure.
I spend, and have spent, too much of my waking hours thinking and caring about baseball to just brush this off and say, "It's just a game." Obviously its more than that, to me, or I wouldn;t care so much. And it's very hard to see something you care about degrade itself. I don't want to be ashamed to be a baseball fan.
And right now, I am.
-
rf.interference " I don't want to be ashamed to be a baseball fan. And right now, I am." Queue the world's smallest violin. If the steroid area, the actions of adults who are most assuredly not you, has genuinely caused you to feel shame, you need to spend more time in counseling and less time following baseball. Or perhaps not get overly dramatic when trying to argue your point, as I can't see why your emotional problems are relevant here.-
Jack Marshall I believe the appropriate response to that snark is "Bite me."
I would not be proud to be a fan of cock-fighting, professional wrestling, cycling, or, for that matter, the NBA. And,as baseball risks discovering in the near future, people tend to follow sports that have participants whose values they identify with and admire. Be as snide as you please. I know some people don't comprehend that, and can enjoy watching athletically inclined morons, felons, liars and cheats. I don't think that's anything to be proud of either.
-
brandini "And,as baseball risks discovering in the near future, people tend to follow sports that have participants whose values they identify with and admire."
I'm sorry, what millenium are we in?
Baseball is at best third fiddle among sports viewers in North America with a legitimate argument that it doesn't even crack the top 5. You had mentioned in your article (and you mention again) that the viewers want to see similar values.
Possibly this is true. However, this would discredit your belief that America is a nation of incredible values given your self-proclaimed analysis that the other sports are certainly less ethical (after all, what baseball team would employ the Cincinnati Bengals?).
-
rf.interference I wouldn't derive a sense of self worth through spectatordom in any capacity, be the athletes the finest gentleman society has to offer, or the most despicable lowlifes on the planet.
-
Jack Marshall You are obviously being intentionally obtuse. One's self-worth is in part (yes, only in part) defined by what one cares about and spends a significant proportion of one's finite time doing. Spending time and investing interest in activities with no social value or that reinforce negative societal values is a waste of one's human capital, and hence self-worth. I suspect you know this, and are just attempting to be gratuitously arch...heaven knows why.
-
-
-
-
brandini "As for the portion of Bonds' career that preceeded PEDs...well, an A student who's caught cheating on his final exam is still kicked out of school. Is that fair? Even if he almost certainly would have done just fine without cheating? Sure."
Different scenario. If the A student was caught cheating and so was everyone else in the world, there would be modifications/accomodations made to circumvent the issue (maybe a re-test, further investigation, etc). If he was alone on an island (as is the case in essentially all cheating scandals in academia) the student would undoubtedly be ripped from something he loves.
Stop linking steroid use to issues that aren't even close.
-
Jack Marshall Cheating is very similar to cheating. I can't help it if you don't understand that. Lord knows I've tried.-
brandini Jack, you're a lawyer, what's the penalty if busted for doing steroids? Would you suggest that it is greater, less, or equal to getting busted for cheating on an exam in college?
Saying that all forms of cheating are equal is like saying that breaking every law is equal.
-
-
-
-
-
gellin I don't know about the rest of you out there, but I find this brandini vs. Marshall battle thoroughly enjoyable...keep it coming guys!-
brandini Ha.
It's not a battle, just a discussion. I'm simply trying to get Marshall to look at things from an open minded perspective. Unfortunately he has already made most of his decisions without looking at the facts or explanations.
For example, Marshall cited the deviance rates in the NFL and NBA without suggesting there may be other factors involved (namely race and SES). Further, he claimed that America desires that their entertainment be 'clean' and 'moral', yet the NFL and NBA are far more popular yet admittedly less-'moral'.
-
Jack Marshall And I'm trying to get Brandini to stop looking at things from a nihilistic, cynical perspective. (See my incomplete list of Favorite Brandini Rationalizations for Good Behavior Above.)
If, by the way, you say the "facts" say the NBA is more poplualr than Major League Baseball, you have a funny defintion of "facts." And as for the NFL, baseball's cultural influence in America is stronger, deeper, and year-round.
As to popularity, there's no way to compare them fairly. A lot more Americans have been to a major league baseball game than an NFL game. In many NFL cities, the same crowd goes to all 8 home games. I don't concede your agument at all, but I'm SHOCKED that you now admit that the NFL and NBA are "less moral" (you should say "less ethical.") You unequivocally denied that just a month ago---ridicuuled me for suggesting it, in fact. Ah HA!! I'm getting to you!
-
brandini Check out the TV ratings of nationally televised games in either sport. Check out the TV ratings of the World Series v. NBA Finals. Check the dropping Little League enrollment rates.
You need to wake up from the 60s Mr Marshall. Baseballs influence on the 40 and under population is substantially less then Football, Basketball, NASCAR, Golf, even UFC.
Yea, MLB is way more popular then NBA which draws larger audiences and has a larger following.
Oh Jack, you aren't getting to me. You just don't know how to read. You are the one who suggested the NFL and NBA are less moral. You are the one who suggested that America leaches to morality. If these are both true (as you tried to illustrate with your poorly used 20 point scale) the NFL and NBA would be far less popular.
However, we both know that both sports are far more popular in America. This subsequently negates your theory that America wants morality-America simply wants to be entertained! For example, people could not get enough of baseball while a bunch of juiced up freaks were crushing the ball out of stadiums in 98.
-
Jack Marshall You're welcome to live in your skewed version of America, my friend. Luckily, most people do not.
You are good, I must concede, at assuming your argument and then turning it back on itself as "fact." A Brandini classic: your last (deceitful) sentence. If people knew that those bashing the ball in '98 were "juiced-up freaks," they would NOT have been entertained, as you well know. They were entertained because they trusted the players to be playing by the rules. And how you can possibly conclude the NBA has a larger following than baseball is beyond me. But it is futile arguing with someone who keeps saying, "Look, the sky is green."
Sure it is.
-
-
-
-
Uncle!
Baseball Analysts —
... we love - a look ahead at the 2009 season, maybe some work on prospects (did you know PECOTA has Matt Wieters as the best player in the AL in 2009?!?) or even do some prep on the college season, I decided we shouldn't completely ignore the subject of steroids. While I don't think I have any incremental insight or value to add to the discussion that is taking place, I thought I would point you to some work and commentary that caught my eye.
==========
Writers at The Hardball Times had an interesting roundtable discussion on A-Rod and steroids more ...
This Week's Links (2/9-2/13)
Vegas Watch —
It's baseball season. Joe Johnson, Kevin Durant, and O.J. Mayo are going to play HORSE -- er, GEICO -- on Saturday night. Johnson is a slight favorite. Some sane takes on A-Rod: Posnanski, The Dugout, Neyer, Sheehan, THT. This new injury tool thing is awesome. Ichiro won't be pitching in the WBC. Very sad.
