Steroids
Posted by Andy on February 9, 2009
Over the last 3-4 years, I've heard several journalists with Hall of Fame voting rights say that they'll need a lot of time (i.e. years) to determine which players they will vote for from the Steroids Era.
I think the reason for their uncertainty is explained by the situation with Alex Rodriguez.
As recently as a few days ago, A-rod was the savior of baseball. In a matter of time, he was going to wipe away Barry Bonds' tainted HR record and make everything right in the game again. He was the cornerstone of the New Yankee franchise as they got rid of their steroid-tainted players (Giambi, Sheffield) and moved into their New Yankee stadium.
Now, there are countless reports that his legacy has been permanently corrupted and that the Yankee franchise is now saddled with a terrible problem for the next 9 years.
The only thing that happened to change the sitaution was that A-rod's name was leaked as being among a pool of 104 players with positive steroids tests in 2003. Prior to this, he was already suspected of being a steroid user during his time on the Rangers, as a number of other of players on that team are.
I've heard HOF voters say that guy like Frank Thomas--whose name has never been linked with steroids--would get their vote instantly, whereas a guy like Rafael Palmeiro will have to wait to see how the whole steroids thing shakes out. But what if Frank Thomas' name also turns out to be on that list of 104 guys? Do his reputation and legacy go right into the toilet?
Let's face it. In 2003, there were 104 positive tests. I think something like 1200 players were in the majors in 2003. What fraction of active players were tested? Probably not more than 50%. That means that 17% of players tested positive. And how many more avoided a positive test by not using steroids before their test (perhaps being tipped off), or using a masking agent, or using a steroid (or other PED) that wasn't among those being tested for? I think it's reasonable to assume that at least 30% of players were using steroids or other PEDs in 2003.
I just don't understand how, given these numbers, a player's reputation can swing so wildly on whether his name was mentioned or not. Let's say that it turns out that the top 50 HR hitters of 2003 all turned out to be steroid/PED users, which is not out of the question. Do your feelings about A-rod change? Do all 50 of these guys deserve to have their legacies erased? (This list includes Jim Thome, Albert Pujols, Carlos Delgado, Frank Thomas, Manny Ramirez, Todd Helton, Mike Lowell, Derrek Lee, David Ortiz, Jorge Posada, Magglio Ordonez, Nomar Garciaparra, Scott Rolen, Adam Dunn, and Chipper Jones.)
Now let's say that the top 50 starting pitchers also all used steroids/PEDs. How did that affect their stats, and those of the hitters?
This is why some journalists say they need more time to determine who gets a HOF vote and whose legacies will remain intact. We need to know all the names on that list of 104. But even then, how many others weren't tested or passed the test despite being a user? We'll never know. We're all going to have to make up our minds using a mixture of the partial information that will ultimately be available and our own intuition about the situation.
But this much I know--there is no player in MLB who deserves to be judged as "dirty" or as "clean" based on a mention of a name on a list and/or a positive test. The situation is a lot more complicated that that.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:47 am
"...he was already suspected of being a steroid user during his time on the Rangers, as a number of other of players on that team are."
This seems to be a pretty deep swipe at the Rangers organisation. Granted, looking back, a lot of the players that have come out as being tied to steroids do have connections to that franchise. But as you later point out, we don't know all who was using PEDs, maybe other teams have just as much use, but for whatever reason (Canseco's ties to the team as he is outing other players, or perhaps even former President Bush's ties to the team, given his political positions, leading to journalists being more eager to get 'dirt' on the Rangers) the Rangers have been stained more. Which is what makes me question Max Kellerman's assertion on ESPN this morning that the Yankees have been disproportionately hit by the steroids scandal as bogus. I believe the Rangers have been hit harder, and it's all the hype already surrounding the Yanks, and especially Kellerman's own bias, is what leads to his perception.
Going back to the quote from above, then, I'm guessing that my biggest problem is with the use of the present tense. The Rangers have almost completely changed their organisition in the past few years, and there isn't really evidence that this is still a problem.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I mean that other former Rangers are suspected of having been steroid users. A number have been implicated by various means: Canseco, Palmeiro, A-rod, I-rod, Juan Gonzalez, and John Rocker.
Here is more on why I feel that the Rangers are particularly complicit:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2008-02-11-781895666_x.htm
February 9th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Well said Andy. Ultimately, I don't think the steroids really bother me too much. I acknowledge I am in the minority on this, and I don't know that I'm "right" and everyone else is "wrong." I can certainly respect and understand a well-reasoned anti-steroid argument. What really irritates me is the hysteria. People who call for all these records to be erased, saying the Yankees should release A-Rod, saying this is the worst scandal ever -- these people seem to have little understanding of baseball history and don't want to do any thinking.
I'm more upset that Rodriguez's name is out at all. Anonymous testing and a sealed court document. Good to know the government can still abuse its power.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Well A-Rod admitted to it in an interview with Peter Gammons. It's gonna be on Sportscenter at 6 pm EST today. Here's what I picked up from his apology, according to ESPN.com. He said that he took it only with the Rangers for the 3 years he was with them. He said he took it because of the pressure of the large contract and felt he had to perform as the best in baseball. Basically, he threw Texas, a team that played badly while he was there, under the bus. Meanwhile, the two teams that have done well with him, Seattle and the Yankees, he claims to have been clean for. Interesting.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
So why does it take so long to figure out what to do, HoF-wise, with steroid/PED users -- even those who were never officially "caught" -- but those same voters had no trouble immediately enshrining guys like Gaylord Perry, who wrote a book about how he cheated in this great game (and was caught at it)? I agree with Johnny Twisto in as much as the hysteria (and hypocrisy) surrounding steroids is irrational.
Using steroids is bad -- but so is using amphetamines, cutting baseballs, throwing spitballs, corking bats, and a whole host of other methods of cheating that have been tried to various degrees of success in MLB. The bottom line for HoF voters should be, "Was this player one of the absolute best of his era at his position?", not "would he have (still) been one of the best of his era if he (and everyone else) didn't cheat?" If we're going to deny a Big Mac or an A-Rod entry solely because of steroid use ALLEGATIONS, then we should kick out all the Hall-of-Famers who are known cheaters or who have been accused of cheating in their day. What a small Hall we would have left...
February 9th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Perry actually didn't make it to 75% in his first two years on the ballot. Still, he was close, nowhere near where McGwire's been.
Maybe Perry was viewed less harshly than others because what he did wasn't representative of a game-wide problem. Maybe it was because he was only altering his pitches, not his actual body. Maybe it was because you can be ejected from the field of play if you get caught throwing a spitball, but an ump can't say, "You - you're using steroids. Get outta here!" I don't know.
My only real stance on this is that keeping guys like Bonds and Rodriguez out because of proven ties to steroids would be rewarding other players simply for avoiding detection. The line between someone who is a Hall of Famer and someone who isn't should not be "whether people found out about his steroid use." Steroids played a major part in baseball for a while, and baseball only did something about it when they became inconvenient. To say that only the players deserve blame and thus that each player proven to have used them should be barred from the Hall seems unfair to me.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:20 am
With so many players using steroids, why hasn't there been a Triple Crown winner since 1968? Why do pitchers pitch fewer games than they used to, and only once in 5 days instead of once in 4? Why has no one hit over .400 since Ted Williams? Where is the next 30-game winner? Why do Nolan Ryan and Sandy Koufax still hold the single-season strikeout records? Why does Hack Wilson's RBI record of 191 still stand? Because steroids only affect one number - home runs.
No team has become a dynasty because of steroids. The only thing they do is make hitters hit a ball further and pitchers throw a little faster. Hitters adjust to speed and hitters still have to be able to hit the ball to hit a home run.
Does anyone complain because Jimi Hendrix wrote music on LSD? Do you think Ernest Hemmingway wrote all that stuff sober? Did Jackson Pollock paint with a clear head? If you think baseball is ruined by steroids, then you'd have to make a similar argument for great art and music being produced with "performance enhancing drugs."
Let them play. People who think players should be suspended for using drugs should get over their sanctimonious attitude that baseball is somehow above it all. It isn't. it's just baseball, and the game is better when the players are stronger.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:23 am
It's going to take time for things to shake out due to how quickly opinions seem to be swaying on so little information. Let's see an example.
Here is a list of players who will be coming up for election to the HOF in the next 5 years:
Roberto Alomar, Fred McGriff, Barry Larkin, Jeff Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro, Larry Walker, Bernie Williams, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas.
Of these names, Bagwell, Palmeiro, Bonds, and Clemens have been linked one way or another to PEDs.
But let's consider two guys on this list: Frank Thomas and Greg Maddux. If you ask me, these guys are absolutely first-ballot HOFers. I think most sportswriters agree and they will both be elected in 2014. However, I also think that most people would have agreed the same about A-rod a week ago. What happens if a report comes out tomorrow showing that Frank Thomas tested positive in 2003? His career really got going around 1992-3, the beginning of the Steroids Era, and suddenly all kinds of doubt would be cast. No way would he be a shoo-in first-ballot HOFer, not because his numbers changed but because perceptions changed. Same goes with Maddux. Right now, there is absolutely no doubt he will be close to a unanimous selection. But if PEDs come into play? Then who knows.
Right now, people have their doubts about the careers of McGwire, Bagwell, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, and Palmeiro--all guys with numbers clearly worth HOF consideration. On numbers alone, Bonds and Clemens would be ridiculous to leave out of the HOF. But nobody knows--how many players were really juicing? Was it the roughly 10 that we have definitive positive tests and/or admissions for? Or was it the roughly 100 that tested positive in 2003? Or was it 500 guys in 2003? Or 1000 guys over the last 10 years? Think about this--we don't know if it's 10 or 1,000. That has a massive impact on the meaning of it all. If 1,000 guys juiced, do we simply wipe out all statistics from the last 10-15 years and act like it never happened? Of course not. If we definitively knew that only 10 guys juiced, then maybe we could scrap just those 10 guys. But we know that's not true either. So who the hell really knows what the context of the use of steroids and PEDs is.
Clearly, today, we do not have enough info. We'll definitely never have all the info. But within 5 or 10 years, we'll have a lot more info. I think the bottom line is that HOF voters want to wait until they have at least some additional info, to try to make the best decisions that they can. We're never going to have definitive info, though, period.
February 10th, 2009 at 8:25 am
One other thing to add. Look at how Clemens and A-rod handled their getting caught. Clemens continued to lie and sound more and more like an idiot. A-rod immediately confessed, though some doubt the veracity of his admission. In any event, the healing process has already started for A-rod--there is already talk of forgiveness and moving on. But Clemens is probably going to jail eventually. Clemens is an idiot, in my book.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Forgiveness for what? A-Rod didn't violate any existing MLB rules regarding PEDs. He merely confessed to being tested positive when testing began.
I think we also need to examine the "first ballot Hall of Famer" concept. Someone is either a HOFer or not. Making Jim Rice wait so long for enshrinement is supposed to mean what, exactly? Vote totals change every year, even though the player hasn't swung a bat.
February 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Generally I agree with you, apreziosi, with the one caveat that steroids and some other PEDs are harmful to humans and should not be used. I really don't care about how steroids have affected the game, but I do think that MLB needs to institute real testing policies and that penalties need to be more severe. Kids cannot be given the message that using steroids is OK.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Don't miss these comments by Marvin Miller:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3896888
That guy is a genius, still, at age 91.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I'm not sure what MLB wants. They have no trouble suspending guys like J.C. Romero for 50 days (over an over-the-counter pill, by the way) yet guys like A-Rod, Bonds and McGwire skate, and are only discovered after the fact. You can't name one marquee player who was suspended over a positive test since the program began. It's been minor leaguers and reserves.
I believe that MLB would have kept going on like the McGwire/Sosa era and continued on the path of 70+ HR seasons, had not public and media pressure convinced them to adopt a toothless policy.
Kids are the least of my concern. Kids have parents who should (and do) have more influence over their behavior than any pro athlete. Giving responsibility to an athlete for the actions of a child is shirking parental responsibility.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Let me be absolutely clear that I do not think athletes have the responsibility of raising kids. Read my post about Papelbon for more on that. My issue is that if MLB, MLBPA, and the media all accept it as OK, then that sends a clear message to kids, and even to parents, that's much larger than the influence of any one athlete. We're talking about reprogramming of culture.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Where kids are influenced comes in where the money comes in. Kids see athletes (in all sports) making scads of money and follow the lead of what constitues a success in life. Where parents come in is raising kids who know that value to society isn't hinged on a dollar sign on their paycheck. Sure, we all want to earn a nice living, but there are other ways to measure ones value. Hitting a ball or running fast is a nice skill, but the magnitiude to which society values it is WAY out of whack.
http://my-sick.blogspot.com/2009/02/some-things-are-just-too-funny.html
February 10th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
apreziosi, you're right that there are some issues with the First Ballot Hall of Famer setup. Somebody is or isn't. But the first 5 years are really important to have. If somebody retires the same year as a group of icons, that person has no chance of getting in. Also, a player's career becomes more special the more you wait after it. It gives people to look back at it with more fondness.
On another note. I've heard people say that Steroids weren't considered bad before 2004 when punishments were handed out. That's not true. They were illegal since 1991. They just didn't have a punishment. It's like my 9th grade Spanish class. Cheating is wrong. But everybody except me in the class cheated and the teacher allowed it. What did I get? B's while everybody else got A's.
Finally, Palmeiro was suspended for steroid use in the first set of steroid testing with punishments. About 5 months after he testified before Congress saying he never took any. Several months later, he was out of baseball and not even a Viagra joke anymore.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Thanks, Jgeller. I make that point all the time when I hear this nonsense about it "not being illegal in baseball" to do steroids prior to the punishments: if something is illegal in the country, it doesn't matter if it isn't addressed within the baseball rulebook. Do we really have to list felonies in the rulebook for them to be considered illegal in baseball?
February 11th, 2009 at 8:16 am
jgeller: I don't know of a limit to Hall inductees. It isn't like football, where there are a set number inducted each year.
If a player retires with a group of icons, why not put them all in? I think the bigger issue is the Chamber of Commerce in Cooperstown. They need at least one inductee or else the weekend is a washout financially. The town depends on that July induction weekend for a big part of their revenue - hotels, tourism, etc. I'm sure there is a lot of pressure to get someone of note in the Hall to bring people in for the ceremony.
I'm convinced that's why Gossage got in after years of waiting. They had to put someone in, and in a weak class, his was the most likely name. If he's on the ballot with Rice and Henderson or prior years with Ripken and Gwynn, he's still waiting. It's a flawed system.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
It seems I'm late to this whole steroid debate, but one thing stood out to me among all the arguments. Many times it has been said that guys like Frank Thomas or Greg Maddux, or other players who are believed to be clean, are held in high regard and are believed to be HOFers. I agree with this statement entirely, but if we did find out Thomas was on steroids, or Maddux god forbid, then they should be looked down upon. Why did fans love McGwire, Sosa and Bonds? They hit a lot of homers and it was believed that they were the pinnacle of human strength and accomplishment by "naturally" achieving in baseball. But then it was discovered that they most likely took steroids. I know this isn't entirely true, but it proves a point: any plain Joe can go buy steroids and become a muscle-bound homerun hitter, and that's not what we value in a player. We don't want to go watch a bunch of players compete to see who can take the most PEDs without dying and then slam a bunch of dingers. We want to see players like Maddux and Henderson who adapt their game as necessary to do the best with their natural abilities. I completely feel that players who take steroids should be looked down upon, because in the end the point isn't to just rack up the homers and RBIs, its to make yourself into a great player through hard work.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
wrobelmj: So, using that argument, Hemmingway should have written sober and Jimi Hendrix should have tried to write and perform music without drugs. Baseball is an entertainment medium (as are all sports) but we hold it in some religion-like esteem that we don't hold other entertainment medium to. Why?
Why is it wrong for McGwire and Bonds to use drugs to perform and we don't complain when rock musicians or comedians do it? We might criticize them but we don't withhold Grammy awards or keep them out of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Did Richard Pryor and Robin Willams make you laugh? Sure they did.
Get a grip on the element of baseball that Ken Burns and his ilk would have us believe is somehow above the level of the rest of society.
It's just baseball. Have a beer and enjoy the game.
February 11th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I see where you are coming from with this argument, but they are two different situations. We appreciate comedians and artists for their finished product and the value that gives to us, either making us laugh or the beauty of their art. But we don't value baseball players, or at least I don't, for their ability to pump themselves full of steroids and smash a ball out of the park. I value seeing a player preform to the best of his natural ability. I guess my problem is that I wouldn't value baseball if it just became a homerun derby with a boat load of juiced up batters. To prevent this situation from arising I prefer no steroids in the game, but if baseball wants to become a 9 inning homerun derby then I'll just watch more football or soccer instead.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I'm not sure what baseball wants, and maybe they don't either. I appreciate the history of the game, but I can't be any more serious about it than I am about the latest Dustin Hoffman film or Lewis Black CD.
Maybe Selig wants a juiced-up home run derby? It's certainly a big part of All-Star week. After all, there aren't any Strike-throwing competitions or baserunning exhibitions, so maybe that's it?
Home runs are overrated in my opinion anyway. It's all about run production, regardless of how they're produced. Grand Slams are rally killers. I'll take 4 straight doubles and really put some heat on the defense.
Now I'm off track. 🙂
February 12th, 2009 at 1:52 am
"any plain Joe can go buy steroids and become a muscle-bound homerun hitter"
Obviously that's completely untrue.
"make yourself into a great player through hard work"
"I value seeing a player preform to the best of his natural ability."
What is "natural" ability? That seems at odds with "hard work." We often hear about players with so much "natural ability" who didn't work hard enough to become great players. Does lifting weights push one beyond one's natural ability?
"Why is it wrong for McGwire and Bonds to use drugs to perform and we don’t complain when rock musicians or comedians do it? "
Because art isn't inherently competition. (I'm not saying that it's "wrong" for athletes to do it, but that's why the comparison fails.)
February 13th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Very insightful, Johnny Twisto. Here are two other idiosyncrasies to ponder:
[1] Why is the use of some chemicals (e.g. steroids) wrong, but the use of others (e.g. “diet supplements” and vitamins) acceptable and legal? It is my understanding that neither one will enhance your athletic performance by itself – you still have to work out and put in the time in the gym/weight room – but the goal of using either one is to give you a body more capable of doing your job as a professional athlete. While they may have different long-term consequences, isn’t our society based on the principle that individual ADULTS are free to choose what risks they wish to take and weigh the risk-reward equation for themselves?
[2] Why is it wrong for an athlete to alter his body through chemistry, but altering through weight training, diet, or surgery is okay? A few years back, Greg Maddux had Lasik surgery to correct his vision. I’ll bet seeing the strike zone clearer does wonders for one’s ability to throw strikes consistently. True, there are benefits in life-outside-of-baseball to having better vision, but there are benefits in life-outside-of-baseball to being physically stronger, as well.
Again, I am not an advocate of the use of steroids in any pro sport; I just wonder why it is given such a disproportionate reaction – especially in baseball.
February 13th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
One more thought…
Why make rules – like the banning of HGH or the banning of steroids prior to 2004 – that you can’t (or won’t) enforce? There are basically three or four ways people look at rules:
[1] The moral high road: “If it’s not allowed, that’s it, I won’t do it whether or not there’s any chance of my ever getting caught.” We’d like to believe that most our sports heroes fall into this category, but last I checked Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, and Mohammed were not drafted (or paid) by the Yankees or Red Sox. Pro athletes are subject to the same frailties as the rest of us and are more likely to fall into one of the following categories.
[2a] Temptation: “I know that it’s not allowed, but the rewards outweigh the risks and costs.” When the rewards include greater levels of fame and adulation and potentially multi-million dollar contracts (and even the minimum salary is many times what most of these guys could make outside of sports), there is no risk of getting caught, and the cost is ‘only’ a guilty conscience; it is difficult for any mere human to resist that temptation.
[2b] Indifference: “I know it’s not allowed, but I don’t care. I’m going to cheat in any way I think I can get away with.” Of course, when there is ZERO risk of getting caught, this attitude is essentially the same as #3, below.
[3] Rationalization: “It’s only illegal if you get caught.” A surprisingly large number of athletes – both pro and amateur – take this perspective. They truly believe that it is not wrong to break the rules – it is only wrong to get caught. With this view, an unenforceable rule is not a rule at all. For these guys, you might as well erase it from the books.
A rule that is easy to enforce and almost impossible not to get caught at when breaking – like, for example, banning players from throwing a baseball bat at the pitcher – makes for a level playing field. Everyone will follow the rule or pay the penalty. If the penalty is severe enough to outweigh the reward, no one will break the rule. With rules that are more difficult to enforce you will start seeing players in categories #2 and #3 trying to get away with it. The greater the reward and/or the smaller the risk, the more players will attempt to break the rule. But when you make a rule that is completely unenforceable, only players in category #1 will even attempt to follow the rule. Instead of rewarding players who follow the rules by penalizing those who break them (at least, those who get caught), you are instead penalizing players who follow the rule by not giving them the competitive advantage enjoyed by those ignoring the rule.
In the case of steroids, if everyone’s taking HGH except Skeeter Honestball (and of course, not getting caught or penalized for breaking the rule), then poor Skeeter has a competitive disadvantage. What’s the message we’re sending with that?