Professional atheletes are hyper competitive and driven to perform. If they are succesfull they are given millions of dollars and the idolization of fans. When they stop performing they are booed by the fans and dropped by management without a second thought. They are in a situation where small improvements can mean millions of dollars for them and wins for their teams, while small declines can mean the loss of the dream you have devoted your life to since childhood. Steroids were available and could make them better, yet MLB did not test for them. Given the incentives involved, of course hundreds of players used them, they knew if they didn’t their competition would. Anyone else faced with a similar situation would have done the same thing. MLB should have been testing for steroids if they wanted their players not to use them. The way the system was set up encouraged players to use steroids and now people are condemning the players. The owners set up the system, and made lots of money from all the home runs. The owners and the players union are too blame for steroids in baseball.
How can it be the fault of the players’ union and not be the fault of the players?
It was the owners, the players, the fans that don’t care, the press that ignored the issue for years and especially the players union that did everything possible to block testing.
The players union is the most guilty party but the players need to be responsible for their illegal actions. Baseball and in most cases the Feds had rules and laws against the use of these steroids and drugs. The Feds never bothered to investigate and the league never pressed hard but it was the union that blocked testing and punishment.
A-Rod, Bonds and several others did something that was wrong, illegal, and potentially dangerous and they lied about it.
While spreading blame, don’t let the sports press off too lightly. They never reported and investigated on the performance enhancers. This despite reporting on cocaine use heavily in the 80s.
The poor babies. They are such victims. If only other people hadn’t made them do it.
How is the players union different from the players?
?? I don’t understand your question.
Unless they had a shred of integrity.
Bah. These guys grow up with the world catering to their every whim. They’re getting paid bazillion dollars to do what a lot of us would do for free if we were good enough. They get to the big stage and decide that even that’s not good enough so they cheat to enhance their performance, and nobody tells them it isn’t ok because they’ve never heard the words “no, you can’t do that” in their lives. So they get caught and we’re supposed to feel sorry for them because “it wasn’t their fault”. Boo freaking hoo, cry me a freaking river.
How exactly did the union block testing? I don’t recall the owners coming up with a plan to test against union in the 90’s that the owners refused. More recently they haven’t agreed to every demand because their job is to protect their members including their privacy. Their job is not to make you feel better. They have frankly gone farther faster than I would have gone.
It was against baseball rules like jay walking is against law. The illegality of it is up to the feds to deal with, and they have or at least should have better things to do with their time. Like going after suppliers. If by block testing you mean the union tried to negociate a deal in a good faith than sure.
Like greenies.
Because other sports have done such a good job. I’m sure the 350 linemen are all completely natural.
I agree with much of what you’re saying, but this isn’t true. I’d be happy to be a pro athlete if I were good enough, but getting that good is very expensive and time-consuming, and unless they were indepedently wealthy, nobody would be able to do it for free.
True enough. I would require some pay, but there are a whole lot of people like me who would be more than thrilled to play pro sports at half the minimum salary for the league.
First of all, is it steroid use or steroid abuse? Secondly, who the hell cares what these guys do to themselves behind closed doors? Third, if someone wants to trade off their long term health for short term productivity, isn’t that somebody you should pity, rather than despise?
Finally, is there any reason to suppose that steroids actually, you know, enhance performance? It isn’t like there weren’t home run eras before steroids, and home runs decreased long before MLB started testing. I’ll agree it might speed recovery and minimize injuries, but I haven’t seen any conclusive evidence that it actually makes you a better baseball player. Frankly, as a baseball fan, I’ve been embarrassed by this whole witch hunt, which is driven to absurdity by my fellow mob, I mean fans.
The union repeatively told the owners that drug testing would not and could not be on the table. what exactly is the union’s job? Why is preventing drug testing part of it? Isn’t looking out for union member health & safety traditionally part of a unions works?
They have frankly dragged their heels for several decades on the issue of drug testing* very successfully and have increased the backlash against the players now exposed because of it.
- They blocked testing of recreational drugs very well back to at least the 80s.
Part of the union’s job is getting the best deal possible for members, and protecting their privacy is also part of the job. I think it’s true they got a good deal for players at the expense of the game itself. However the players are entitled to some privacy, and with Alex Rodriguez this week and throughout the BALCO case, we’ve seen how much regard everybody else has for their privacy.
I don’t think they even got a good deal for the players. For those players who weren’t doing steroids, it was absolutely crappy to have to compete against those who were. And those who did do steroids, thinking they were safe under the union umbrella, are now finding out otherwise.
But those who weren’t could have gotten away with it for quite some time, and everybody’s salaries have continued to increase.
You can test for steroids, but those who get an advantage other ways are still safe.
This did not answer the question about union member’s health and safety. Also how was any of it good for the honest players?
Do any unions volunteer their workers for invasive drug testing? I would think the assumption of innocence and the right to privacy (not to mention keeping the lynch mob at bay) would be their utmost concern. What’s in it for the players? But I don’t know, that’s why I ask.
Hijack: Am I the only person in the world who is against drug testing in general? Because, you know, the things someone puts in their body is nobody else’s goddamn business? I can’t comprehend how we got to the point that it is SOP to ask for your urine at a job interview. What the fuck?
The same thing that’s in it for players in other sports that agreed to drug testing long before MLB–the ability to earn a living without destroying their bodies by competing against juiced opponents.
Sammy Sosa is pretty strong evidence. He never hit more than 40 HR’s in a season, before exploding for 66, 63, and 64 at age 29. Then, with the advent of drug testing, he mysteriously fell back to earth.
They looked out for their wallets more than their health. I’m not excusing that, but there was a cost-benefit calculation, and it’s not impossible to understand. Baseball players already suffer a lot of injuries, so arguably some of them incurred greater long-term injury risk in return for a chance at a bigger payday.
Even the honest players who suffered competitively got paid more.