M-M-M-Monster post: I had sent this to a friend the other day via e-mail
I've read a few of the article on Barry Bonds that seem to be constantly in the news and on ESPN's website lately, and I got to thinking. So what? All evidence points to him using steroids before baseball ever had a single rule in writing about them being illegal. In the late 90's after cal ripken set the mark for consecutive games played...baseball was still floundering. So all of a sudden when these guys started getting huge and jacking these massive home runs, and baseball started to become relevant again, no officials from baseball really investigated HOW these people were suddently defying natural human physiology and becoming this gargantuan. They turned the other way, because baseball needed to be saved, it was circling the drain so to speak.
To be honest I think it was always a "we'll look the other way until the sport is saved THEN we'll do something about it". Which is really too bad; if they hadn't have had the strike in the first place they wouldn't have needed saving. But back to Bonds, what's the worst he did? Took some supplements when almost every other player was either taking amphetamines (this was always baseballs 'secret' problem dating back to the 50's)? Took steroids when so many others were, and it wasn't even against the rules? Everyone now gets on a high horse and says stuff like 'oh wipe out the records, it was so unethical what he did' blah blah blah. Every good pitcher in the majors pretty much throws inside...people like Pedro Martinez will nail people in the head, intentionally. That's unethical, and intentional just as steroid use supposedly is/was.. So should we wipe out the records of every pitcher who depended on the massive intimidation factor of throwing inside?
Personally I think it is unfortunate that a lot of batters/pitchers were using steroids in the 90's not so much because I believe that they were cheating, but that there were plenty of players that did not, and we'll never knew WHO they were, and how these unknown players stats would have been better. Likewise what of players that were considered good that did steroids and people just don't realize it? Their stats might have been inflated. People keep focusing on the same few players (Palmeiro, Sosa, Bonds, and for some reason to a much lesser extent McGwire, who seems to be getting a fairly easy time of it). But these players are representative of what by some accounts might be as much as a 2/3rds to three quarters majority of players who were using some form of steroids in major league baseball. The whole late 90's early 2000's era really puts a chasm in baseball, there's the pre steroids era, the post steroids era....and in between the 2 this giant fissure where stats are in a vortex and we don't really know how to place those players into context. It's like Barry Bonds is some sort of doppleganger creature emerging from this chasm between the 2 eras in baseball to drag some of the most hallowed records back down to the abyss with him. Considering the one thing baseball has over other sports is the tradition and these hallowed stats and records it's too bad that baseball put itself in the position it is in now.
Maybe Bud Selig and other officials could have done something to nip this in the bud back in the 90's stats wouldn't have been all over the place. Maybe it would've taken baseball longer to recover, but at least there would be no rift between these 2 eras, baseball would still have an intact linneage. Also maybe salaries would've been kept more in check. It seems like with the frenzy of stats came a frenzy of money being thrown at players. Either way, there's really not a thing in the world baseball can do at this point without investigating each and every player extensively, and even then....what can they do? Steroids weren't against baseball policy, there was nothing in the rules about them. They can say 'well players XYZ used steroids....' and then not much else....it's really a shame. Baseball in addition to its history has the individual pitcher vs. batter, ball in play vs. fielder dynamics, and how can you review each and every pitch and figure out which specific instances of which specific matchups were effected...and in what way? It's really too bad they took the easy way out after the strike and chose to look the other way only to claim a decade later that they never really wanted it that way to begin with. Every official who says that, on some level, knows that because of the path baseball took, steroids saved the game. They wanted a quick fix, and they got it, rather than working to patch up relationships with fans and taking a longer path to recovery they took the easy way out.
Facebook
Twitter