Steroids are an outrage. It vastly increased the number of home-runs Roger Clemens hit!
I’m not really sure the point of this argument. Illegal performance enhancing drugs are okay as long as they aren’t very effective? You can cheat as long as you aren’t very good at it? What exactly is the problem with HGH then, which has had numerous studies showing it there is no evidence that it increases one’s ability to play baseball well.
Joe Posnanski writing about an author who says all the reasons that people are outraged about steriods are wrong.
I guess I don’t see the point of such arguments, relative to discussions like this. Do people think that steroids and HGH don’t help performance, over the course of a season? (They why would any players take them at all?) No, that’s absurd, and in fact that’s not the argument made.
If we concede that steroids and HGH have any value to the players that take them (again, over the course of a season, which includes endurance and recovery, not just single-game “ability to play baseball”), and they were against the rules, then their use is, by definition, cheating. It doesn’t matter how much of Bonds’ power numbers came from steroids.
Okay, so this appears to be an argument that PEDs should not be banned, because they’re not functionally different than “killer workouts.” You can make that argument if you like. That’s a debate about the rules of the league. But don’t tell me there’s no ethical distinction between playing by the rules and breaking them.
I don’t think it’s that absurd to claim that athletes will do things that don’t help their performance, even at the risk of being caught, if they think it will help their performance. See: corked bats.
True, as far as it goes. All the article claims is that it’s not at all clear that the power surge had much, if anything, to do with steroids, and the attempt to attribute all of it to steroid use is most likely mistaken.
It is also not clear how “against the rules” it was. If an organization does nothing to punish violaters (and in fact doesn’t even attempt to catch them), while heavily rewarding the (perceived) fruits of the violation, is it at all surprising that members will break these rules?
There are spit-ballers in the Hall of Fame. There are players that admit to using other illegal substances.
My general position is that what happened happened, and historians and fans can sort it out. Blanket bans on HoF admission, or attempts to re-write the record books, should be avoided.
That’s not all it claims, as the quote shows. But I certainly agree there were other factors. All serious baseball analysts do, in my reading.
No, it’s not surprising that (some) people will break unenforced rules. It’s still cheating, or at least an attempt to cheat, and it’s still ethically distinguishable from playing within the rules. Current and former players have agreed with me.
Well, I don’t think we can really sort it out in terms of the statistical record. Even with the tremendous recent advances in baseball analysis, there are too many unknowns. “Rewriting the record books” is usually a strawman. Deleting anybody from the baseball encyclopedia is not practical. Every player’s record is interlocked with the records of all the players he played with and against, so leaving anything out distorts what remains. Maybe you just mean the acclaim of record holders, like the HR lists. Some people modify that informally already, as on the Maris-and-Aaron shirts.
I don’t believe there will be any prescribed ban on Hall of Fame admission. A number of voters have already spoken against that notion, and affirmed that they are willing to consider voting for players linked to PEDs; some claim they will “adjust” their interpretations somehow. I just think that a sufficient number of voters will reject all players who have been prominently and credibly linked. Under current procedures, 25%-plus-one can block any player.
Would you consider blocking the plate against the rules? It is pretty clearly is according to the rulebook, but I would a catcher called for it would have a pretty legitimate beef.
It isn’t just that the rule was unenforced, but it wasn’t even enforcable. It was vague to the point of useless (For example, it didn’t attempt to define what constituted a PED), not part the CBA, and dictated no testing nor punishments. I’m sure if Selig ever tried to punish a player not it, the union would have fought it and the union would have won.
Right. That’s what I’ve been calling an “umpiring convention,” when you have a situation where the written rules say one thing, but everybody understands that the umpires on the field will judge it in a different (but usually consistent) way.
Getting back to Clemens, it looks like Andy Pettitte’s deposition was key.
Also, a small correction to what I said upthread: Clemens actually faces six federal counts, with an obstruction of justice charge in addition to the perjury/false statements counts. :eek:
Call the Bushies stupid all you want, but they never made the mistake of being put under oath. Yes, one should not lie to investigators or grand juries or Congress, etc. But the government should not waste our tax dollars on hearings about steroid use in baseball.
