Tell the BBWAA That the Steroids Era Happened
Yesterday, my blogging brother-in-arms Matthew Callan decried the writers' sanctimonious attitude towards Hall of Fame-caliber ballplayers with alleged performance-enhancing drug experience as those writers were the very ones in a position to call out said ballplayers when it mattered most.
Matt, of course, makes a great point regarding those writers with sin who continue to cast stones with impunity while we still wait for them to ask forgiveness or even fully acknowledge their role. Some have (ESPN's Buster Olney comes to mind, and there are certainly others), but then you get shlock from folks like Ken Rosenthal at Fox Sports whining that modern baseball is an illusion because it will never be clean.
The accountability still needs some work, but I continue to take great exception to the sentiment that what you, I, and everyone else saw over the past two decades should just be ignored. It discounts the realization that, to borrow a phrase from the Pete Rose apologists, "somebody got all those hits."
I adored Nolan Ryan as a kid, which was peculiar as I had no aspirations to become a pitcher. He'd long since left the Mets and long since moved on from the Houston Astros rivalry that fueled Mets fans in the 1980s. I admired that Ryan was a balls-out, somewhat erratic flamethrower with a curveball that made Doc Gooden swoon and a fearless demeanor to keep the young'ns at bay. And he had those seven no-hitters, which are presumably the envy of Mets fans everywhere.
I'm old enough to remember Ryan's last no hitter against the Toronto Blue Jays on May 1, 1991. Ryan threw 122 pitches that day, including 83 of them for strikes. He struck out 16 batters, including All-Star second baseman and MVP candidate Roberto Alomar with a fastball clocked at 93 miles per hour to end the game.
Nolan Ryan was 44 years old on May 1, 1991.
"There's always one guy that defies the odds," said Joe Carter of the Blue Jays according to the New York Times. "He's the guy."
They wrote similar sentiments about the ageless Roger Clemens in his latter years. Same goes for Barry Bonds, too.
This isn't a direct accusation that I suspect Ryan dabbled in PEDs. I have no tangible evidence, and stranger things have certainly happened in the history of baseball. Rather, I offer it to show how easy it is to get wrapped up in a witch hunt with the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence -- and that, even if I did have something of real merit, it wouldn't suddenly get the Ryan Express expelled from Cooperstown.
SB Nation's Marc Normandin offered a great write-up on the hypocrisy of high morals in curating the talent eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame. Of all the players recited as examples of impurity already within the Hall, Ty Cobb stood out most for me -- but not for the reasons listed by Normandin.
Cobb, of course, is the very definition of a first-ballot Hall of Famer as he was one of the first five ever picked. He, along with Tris Speaker, also retired suddenly in 1926 and one day prior to accusations made by Dutch Leonard that the duo along with Smokey Joe Wood fixed a game on September 24, 1919. Commissioner Landis exonerated the players involved, but suspicion persisted that the commish wanted to bury a scandal after the 1919 World Series and the Black Sox.
So there's sort of a precedent for dealing with this scale of corrupting the sanctity of the game. There was no Rule 21 yet, so Cobb didn't necessarily know any better but was hardly above suspicion. He then received more votes than anybody (including Babe Ruth) in the inaugural Hall of Fame class. The precedent? Eh, let him in anyway if he was that good.
(And if that's not good enough for you, former Giants manager John McGraw definitely bet on his own team to win in the 1905 World Series. He was inducted to Cooperstown one year after Cobb.)
It's not hard to come up with more examples of hypocrisy, but how does that help Jeff Bagwell or Mike Piazza? How does showing a past failing make it right to allow a possible one to occur again? And why aren't the writers in charge of sorting this skip the "ask for forgiveness" phase as they found religion on the topic of PEDs?
The trouble I have with this "Did he or didn't he?" bickering is that we're once again moving away from putting the players of a particular era in a proper context. No matter how high and mighty Rosenthal or Jon Heyman or Bill Plaschke get, the so-called Steroids Era happened. It counts. Somebody got all those hits.
Let's have a sincere dialogue about the Steroids Era to put it in a proper perspective for future fans looking back on box scores that always leave out the context. Let's stop with the finger wagging and name calling and instead make it an open environment for writers to admit their failings and players to speak without repercussion about the pressures and temptations of using PEDs to keep up with the Joneses over the past two decades. Let's make it clear that performance-enhancing drugs have been, are now, and always will be a gray area in a professional sport where even the slightest edge can be worth millions of dollars to a lot of people.
But, to those writers who continue to behave as guardians of the Hall to compensate for their perceived diminishing role in the modern baseball conversation, please stop telling me that the last two decades of baseball were a mirage. It truly is the only baseball I and a lot of my fellow admission-paying fans have ever known -- and our numbers are growing. The players have a role in this as well due to their stonewalling, but they're the ones who are afraid to speak because you're the ones in charge of writing their epitaph.
Tell us what you know to be true and not what you think should be true given the era. And don't crucify those who do before you're ready to come to your senses.
38 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The horror of steroids must end!
Look what they did to former big leaguer Eugene Schmidt

__________________________________________________________________
Really good kid.A very good player.Not a superstar. #BlameWilponz. Never Forget
by ScottfromPeekskill on Dec 21, 2011 2:09 PM EST reply actions
Thanks.
I’ll never be able to unsee that now.
Jagr? Seriously?
by Matthew Artus on Dec 21, 2011 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
Oh my God!
they turned him into a fairy boy?!?
"Anybody with ability can play in the big leagues. But to be able to trick people year in and year out the way I did, I think that was a much greater feat." -Bob Uecker
"Who is the girl in the dugout, with the long hair? What's going on here? You have got to be kidding me. Only player personnel in the dugout. I won't say that women belong in the kitchen, but they don't belong in the dugout." -Kieth Hernandez
i don't.. um
what?
I believe in one Dickey, Maker of knuckles and balls
by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs on Dec 22, 2011 7:12 AM EST up reply actions
What is this I don't even

"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage
by blueandorange4life on Dec 22, 2011 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
A few things on this.
I think there’s a difference between being sanctimonious and witch-hunty about steroids and saying that one shouldn’t ignore them. The unprescribed use of anabolic steroids has a combination of bad things going for it that most of the comparisons made don’t. It is a) illegal in this country, b) clearly has a real effect on how baseball as a game is played that is day-in-day-out advantageous for those using and disadvantageous for those not, c) encourages other athletes at all levels of the game to do things to their bodies with potentially nasty long-term effects, d) against the stated wishes of MLB (and probably only not against the rules prior to 2004 because the union fought to keep testing out of the CBA). The other things people compare it to—Perry’s spitballs, Ty Cobb being an asshole, etc.—don’t have that combination. (Game-fixing, when actually demonstrated by evidence and not by rumor, does, which is why I have not problem with Pete Rose staying out.) I’m perfectly happy, when considering the Hall of Fame, administering a substantial penalty to anyone demonstrated to have contributed to all the long-term perverse incentives and possible physical damage that steroid use did (in proportion to the extent of how each factor above affects the particular player’s case).
Yeah, lots of players were doing it, because they felt they had to, which is why one shouldn’t get too moralistic about it. But as Bill James has noted otherwise, the Hall of Fame is not for players who were like everyone else—it’s for people who were better.
I don’t think the “the Hall of Fame can’t represent the Steroids era if you leave out all the users; the Steriods Era Happened” argument works. As far as I know, no one has any evidence suggesting that Frank Thomas ever used steroids; nor Mike Piazza; nor Jim Thome; nor Barry Larkin; nor Bagwell and Biggio; nor Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, and Chipper; nor Jeter and Rivera; nor Schilling and Johnson; nor the Martinezes Edgar and Pedro; nor Ivan Rodriguez or Jeff Kent or Scott Rolen or Kenny Lofton or Jim Edmonds or a handful of other great players. That looks like the basis of a pretty decent representation of the post-strike/pre-Mitchell era to me. We can work from there.
by djletz on Dec 21, 2011 3:39 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Surprisingly
(or perhaps not surprisingly) you actually will have otherwise intelligent people challenging you on (b) in the case of steroids. Sigh.
that's never happened to me
Keith
I believe in one Dickey, Maker of knuckles and balls
by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs on Dec 22, 2011 7:26 AM EST up reply actions
We presume that only 'big' players who hit homeruns or struck a lot of guys out used steroids
no one would ever suspect larkin, maddux, glavin, lofton, pedro or Jeter from you list, despite the historical record of Jason Grimsleys and Brian Robertses
I believe in one Dickey, Maker of knuckles and balls
by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs on Dec 22, 2011 7:24 AM EST up reply actions
oh and Jeter is immune to criticism, so expect a phone call from MLB for even bringing him up
I believe in one Dickey, Maker of knuckles and balls
by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs on Dec 22, 2011 7:25 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
"Let's make it clear that performance-enhancing drugs have been, are now, and always will be a gray area in a professional sport where even the slightest edge can be worth millions of dollars to a lot of people."
Sorry Matthew but I think you are 100% wrong with this.
The McGuires and Sosa’s of this world knew that what they were doing was illegal although not actually breaking a specific baseball rule.
A-Rod, possibly Braun, Manny and others consciously decided to break the rules of baseball to both play better and make more money in the process.
These people are cheats and knowingly cheated. There is no black and white in either case, breaking the law is black, breaking the rules is black, no shades of grey only stark midnight black.
__________________________________________________________________
Really good kid.A very good player.Not a superstar. #BlameWilponz. Never Forget
by ScottfromPeekskill on Dec 21, 2011 5:47 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
That’s the part that gets me – even if there was no statute against them in baseball, it’s been a felony to possess Class IV drugs (which steroids were classified as in the 80s). That’s a pretty clear line.
by Bob Murphy's Law on Dec 21, 2011 6:26 PM EST via Android app up reply actions 1 recs
Of course, you're presuming that the PEDs used by McGwire and Sosa were illegal.
Androstenedione, the PED that Steve Wilstein observed in McGwire’s locker back in 1998, was legal at the time. It wasn’t banned by the US Food & Drug Administration nor listed as a controlled substance via the Anabolic Steroid Control Act until 2004. And we know it wasn’t banned by MLB, though other sports organizations including the IOC had it off their lists.
So you’re right, there’s no gray area. McGwire was well within his rights to keep using Andro in 1998.
I made sure to use the phrase “performance-enhancing drug” and not steroids for a reason: Because not all PEDs are steroids. (Think greenies.) Some of them are perfectly legal, or easy enough to get from a doctor (which is presumably how Andy Pettitte got his hands on HGH). And the drugs classified as Class IV don’t cover any chemical substance uniquely created throughout the universe in perpetuity. So one could theoretically beat the system for a time by sticking with a designer drug that’s significantly different from what’s listed as Class IV.
I’m not getting into the morality of this because we’ll end up chasing our tails. I’m just stating that this happened in a gray area and we should openly discuss that based on what we know rather than what we feel.
Jagr? Seriously?
by Matthew Artus on Dec 21, 2011 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That is assuming Canseco was lying about shooting McGwire in the ass daily for 6 weeks every 3 months.
Canseco says he was using the Andro but it wasn’t enough and were using other enhancers, injectable ones.
The andro in McGwires locker were capsules used as dietary supplements in the day.
I have to presume Canseco was telling the truth, I haven’t read anything that has accurately discounted his allegations and mcGwires bullshit testimony in front of Congress was pitiful for him and baseball.
__________________________________________________________________
Really good kid.A very good player.Not a superstar. #BlameWilponz. Never Forget
by ScottfromPeekskill on Dec 21, 2011 10:30 PM EST up reply actions
No, it's not.
You’re once again assuming that the PEDs injected by Canseco were illegal. If they were designer drugs or not listed as Class IV (such as the andro), they weren’t doing anything illegal.
I’m not even assuming that it happened, given McGwire’s denial when he himself admitted to a decade’s worth of PED use. I’m not saying that McGwire didn’t experiment with drugs that were illegal, but we don’t know with any kind of certainty what he used.
It’s certainly enough to discount what McGwire did, but not enough to ignore that it ever happened. How much do we discount? Well, that depends on whether we can finally start putting the Steroids Era in perspective.
Jagr? Seriously?
by Matthew Artus on Dec 22, 2011 9:36 AM EST up reply actions
Am I right in saying that you believe Canseco and McGwire enjoyed sharing a stall together not for the fact they were loading each other up on roids but just for the sheer 'fun' of it?
I don’t believe we can ever put the steroids era in perspective nor would I say that we actually should.
I just don’t want to see PED guys in the HoF. I don’t believe anyone who cheats belongs in that magnificent place.
Pete Rose also deserves not to be in the Hall. he brought the legitimacy of the game into question and should never be forgiven for that.
__________________________________________________________________
Really good kid.A very good player.Not a superstar. #BlameWilponz. Never Forget
by ScottfromPeekskill on Dec 22, 2011 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
Is a Hall of Fame without Barry Bonds really a Hall of Fame?
Mind you, I don’t like the guy, and he very obviously used steroids.
Pete Rose, his case is different. The MLB had an investigation, and he was made ineligible, based on the evidence that said that he was involved in gambling. Bonds, that hasn’t happened yet. He’s eligible to enter into the Hall of Fame. Could it? I guess it could, but if it hasn’t happened yet, I don’t think it will, and if it did happen, it would tease the problem of addressing every single player who ever was thought to have used steroids.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 22, 2011 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
The "Sanctity of the Game" is a Straw Man
djletz has the key issue as c). Most of the performance enhancing drugs have bad side effects. That’s why they are illegal except for people with conditions that make the downside worth the risk, and why medical supervision is required. This goes way beyond the mere game of baseball.
By taking these drugs, athletes not only gained an advantage in sport but also pressured other athletes to harm their health in order to compete. Thus, they spread the harm. And how far?
I don’t see much sympathy for those who won’t make the Hall of Fame because they didn’t use performance enhancing drugs in an era where most did.
But how about those who lost out on a chance to make the majors at all, or juiced themselves in order to do so? How about those who felt pressured to juice to have a chance of making their college team, their high school team? Should we just start giving testosterone to the kids in little league to make the little league World Series more entertaining?
To understand the Steroid Era, and the culpability of those who looked the other way, check out the Sean Connery movie Outland. There, on a corporate controlled asteroid, management looks the other way as workers take dangerous drugs so they can dig more ore and make more money. Occasionally, the madness induced as a side effect kills one of them, but the miners who are the victims don’t want the Marshall — Connery — to put a stop to it.
by WT Economist on Dec 21, 2011 7:31 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
So What To Do?
I’m not sure if I would necessarily ban everyone who used steroids. I would make some allowance for the era. But if I had reason to suspect, I would discount a player’s performance. Barry Bonds would have been a Hall of Famer without the steroids, based on what he did before 1999. Sosa and McGuire were not. If I were suspicious, I would wait to see if something came out. And I would take a close look at players whose numbers don’t seem as impressive because their careers followed a normal arc.
But if anyone wants to say “no steroid users in ever,” I have no problem with it. Gaylord Perry cheated. Pete Rose broke the fundamental rules of baseball. But this is much worse.
by WT Economist on Dec 21, 2011 7:36 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Well said.
That “making some allowance” is all I ask here, and having the conversation to decide that allowance. Discounting (but not negating) a player’s performance due to reasonable suspicion is an attempt to put that player’s performance in the context of his peers.
You (and, to a lesser extent, djletz) also hit on the point that the standard set by pros using PEDs puts the wannabes in danger as they experiment with lesser-known, more affordable drugs in an attempt to keep up. I hate to turn this into a “But what about the children?!?” commentary, but a kid in high school or college whose body is still going through puberty could do real damage to his development through PEDs. I don’t know if they’re more at risk than a fully developed adult, but I’d presume so knowing the fragile biochemistry of youth. It’s a fair point, and one I’m not entirely sure how to address.
But that starts with a dialogue, like the one I’m pleading for above.
Jagr? Seriously?
by Matthew Artus on Dec 21, 2011 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Taylor Hooten
shows it is hard to get away from “what about the kids” discussion. Hooten was a high school kid who played baseball, used steroids, got terrible mood swings and committed suicide. The steroid use by big leaguers had an impact down the line. His parents are convinced big league steroid use had an impact in this outcome.
Steroid Use Doesn't Preclude the Hall But
In my mind you need to be able to tell if the players could be extroidinary without PEDs. As much as I hate Bonds and Clemens, both were HoFers b/f either used PEDs. If I had a vote, I’d vote for both. The flip side is neither Sammy Sosa or Mark McGwire were HoFers b/f using PEDS so that is an easy choice too. The tougher players in my mind are the Raphael Palmiero’s who are in the very good category but went up to great due to PEDs.
And with regards to players who may be suspected but there is no evidence, you are innocent until proven guilty so if they have the credentials you have to let them in.
All in all I must say it is pretty sad era for baseball for a host of reasons including the 1994-95 strike which precipitated the steroids era. Plus as someone who much preferred watching Greg Maddux I found the 10-9 games tiresome.
Steroid use is morally wrong to gain a competitive advantage at your job
That’s my personal belief, anyway. Steroids are (rightfully) illegal, harmful, dangerous. Users knew this when they decided to help themselves via an illegal, harmful, and dangerous method. There is no reason we should be required to honor “achievements” based on their use. If there is a reasonable amount of evidence that a player used, such as official testimony / deposition, it is quite fair to keep a player out of the Hall on those grounds. If you want to make the hall, do it the right way.
by aronofsky40 on Dec 22, 2011 7:58 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
The morality of PED use is a different conversation.
Your opinions are valid, and you’re right to have them. But it still doesn’t change what transpired over the last two decades. The conversation shouldn’t be, “Is it right or wrong to use performance-enhancing drugs?” Instead, it should be, “Right or wrong, they used performance-enhancing drugs. Now what?”
Jagr? Seriously?
by Matthew Artus on Dec 22, 2011 9:39 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I agree with this. ""Right or wrong, they used performance-enhancing drugs."
My answer, which you may or may not agree with is to treat these people like Pete Rose. They should be kept away from the game, made pariahs, and never allowed to be around young players.
__________________________________________________________________
Really good kid.A very good player.Not a superstar. #BlameWilponz. Never Forget
by ScottfromPeekskill on Dec 22, 2011 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
Gaylord Perry made his career based around pitch that was deemed illegal
Mike Schmidt admitted to using amphetamines a bunch of times to help him. Willy Mays supposedly had his red juice that he used for who knows how long. Regardless of how much steroids may have impacted the game game more than spitballs or greenies, or how much more dangerous steroids are than spitballs or greenies, or whatever other factor that had an overall impact on the game, all three improved their individual game by some degree just like Barry Bonds, or whoever else, via means that were against the rules, the law, or the spirit of either. Should Gaylord Perry, Mike Schmidt and/or Willy Mays’ Hall of Fame plaques be peeled off the walls?
That doesn’t excuse steroid use, which I’ve denounced time and time again, along with other forms of cheating (Preacher Roe is the only one who gets a pass). But, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander- what makes this form of cheating so much worse than other forms of cheating, on the individual? Other cheaters, in part of in whole, have made the Hall of Fame. There is nothing inherently special about PEDs to preclude it’s users from making the Hall of Fame either.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 22, 2011 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Rec'd
Only thing that precludes PED users from the HOF is that some writers determine their self worth by how well they demonize someone.
by IanB in MD on Dec 22, 2011 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Not all cheating is equal
Drugs are physically and biologically dangerous. Spitballs aren’t. Big difference in my opinion.
What difference does being biologically dangerous have on the record books?
And, of course, since it’s a tired old trope (not that that lessens things), Ray Chapman died because of a spitball.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 23, 2011 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
I include amphetamines in PEDs, which is why I support not voting Keith Hernandez into the Hall.
I do think spitballs are inherently different, due to the fact that umpires can control them, which can’t be said about PEDs.
Would you remove Willie Mays from the Hall of Fame?
Or, if you were transported back in time, would you not vote for him, knowing what you know?
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!" Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 458 posts (08/24/11)
3rd Place- 2011 AAOP Contest | 1st place- 2012 AAOP Contest
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 23, 2011 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe not.
On the other hand, I don’t ‘know’ anything right now. This thread contains the first mention I’ve ever seen of Willie doping. I’d need some substantiation, which is the same reason that (as the evidence stands now) I’d vote for Piazza and Bagwell.
This is impossible
Nice post, but fruitless. People have their pitchforks out and are hungry for a riot. With a combination of twisted logic and special pleading, Sosa and McGuire will be punished! It makes people think it will be OK moving forward, even if it takes out Bagwell and Piazza – rendering the HOF irrelevant.
No one is interested in talking about the fine details (or, as you write, the “now what?”) The concern is with imaginary children or supposed integrity.
I think AA has managed to have some civil conversations about PEDs, baseball and the HOF, but only barely. Too many years of moralizing by writers and TV hacks poisoned the conversation. Drives me batty.
by IanB in MD on Dec 22, 2011 9:59 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Moralizing?
There’s nothing wrong with discussing morality.
Of course not
But in the case of PEDs, the moralizing is all relative – people make up their morality to defend their punishment of players.
by IanB in MD on Dec 23, 2011 9:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
































