Isn't the steroid controversy a great paradox?

[MNBrew]

Maybe this belongs in the Mitchell report thread, but my thoughts seem to raise a different angle...

 

I'm not one for relative standards -- if something's wrong, it's wrong. So here's what I just don't get:

 

- If players obtained steroids legitimately, as in through a doctor's prescription, and especially in cases of recovering from an injury, how is that wrong? Shoot, I've been prescribed certain steroids to recover from a couple different respiratory things. That's totally legal and not against the spirit of players gaining an artificial advantage. How is that wrong?

 

- Since steroids have been outlawed by baseball only since the 2006 season (or was it 2005?), why do any players stand to get in trouble with MLB for "breaking a baseball law" before it was a baseball law?

 

- Applying the previous point, if steroids weren't against baseball's rules prior to 2006, why in the world is Barry Bonds being so vilified? Granted, there are other well-documented character concerns. But if he did it, and if it wasn't against baseball's rules when he did it, how can baseball at all justify this high-and-mighty stance and subsequent witch hunt?

 

- Taking it one step further, the fact that people even speculate about his potential HOF status seems stupid. How can the HOF dare ostracize Bonds, yet embrace a career-long cheater like Gaylord Perry? Everyone knew he doctored the ball forever. Late in career he finally was busted. To me, frankly, that's 1,000 times more direct and more blatant. There is NO consistency here at all.

 

I'm not a Barry Bonds fan by any stretch. But this whole steroid thing has turned into a major media witch hunt and that really puts me off. The fact that some pitcher in the playoffs (Paul Byrd?) was prescribed HGH or steroids or something by a doctor for legit reasons several years ago and it was presented as something devious, dubious, or controversial was ridiculous beyond belief. It was a non-story except for the fact that the steroid or hormone word was associated with it. Stupid.

 

There are ample ethical questions to be raised by guys taking the steroids before they were outlawed by baseball. But unless they obtained them illegally, there's not the first bit of anything criminal about it.

[TooLiveBrew]

I agree in that it's an interesting paradox, but...

 

The fact that some pitcher in the playoffs (Paul Byrd?) was prescribed HGH or steroids or something by a doctor for legit reasons several years ago and it was presented as something devious, dubious, or controversial was ridiculous beyond belief.

Fwiw, he was prescribed the HGH for a back (?) injury... by a dentist. Seem odd to you?

[MNBrew]

The fact that many HOFers said they'd turn their back on Bonds, yet they welcome Gaylord Perry without question . . . double standard?

 

Perry's doctoring affected whether batters could hit the ball or not at all. That's more directly influencing the outcome than how far you can hit the ball when you actually do make contact. Convenient amnesia?

[iluvlamp]

"But if he did it, and if it wasn't against baseball's rules when he did it, how can baseball at all justify this high-and-mighty stance and subsequent witch hunt?"

 

It was against the laws of the United States. It's ridiculous to me that it wasn't banned in baseball and has no bearing on my opinion. Bonds broke the law and cheated. All the guys who were users IMO should be punished except for medical conditions (but face it, most of those cases are jokes too since they get prescriptions from doctors they don't know.)

 

As for the witch hunt thing, is something a witch hunt that turns out to be true? People hammered McGwire, Sosa (english?), and Giambi. It seems people like to forget that fact. Giambi was the biggest joke when his testimony leaked and rightly so. Was it a witch hunt when the media and fans questioned his use of andro? Were they just drumming that up? If I recall the McGwire story was huge.

 

As for Perry, he wasn't a scientific freak of nature. He didn't do something that could not have been handled by the umps, batters and coaches to check when they thought he was up to something. You can police the game in that respect. You can't police the game as effectively when you have MLB not even checking into the Roidal Monsters. Hell, they still don't test for HGH!

[iluvlamp]

sorry for the double post. wifi went crazy:)

[logan82]

I believe baseball's rule said that taking substances that were illegal in the US were illegal therefore steroid were illegal in baseball. They just didn't test for them.

[TooLiveBrew]

Hell, they still don't test for HGH!

The spin on this one (make up your own mind if you think it's flat-out true or MLB enabling use), though, is that they haven't been able to develop a reliable test yet. Since HGH is basically just testosterone, I tend to believe them.

[homer]

If you ask me, human kind has freedom, but a freedom fraught with paradoxes.

[iluvlamp]

TLB, there is a test. The players union will not allow baseball to go the Olympic route and test blood. They are working on a way detect it in urine and hopefully that will be in place sometime next year.

[mothershipconnection]

Applying the previous point, if steroids weren't against baseball's rules prior to 2006, why in the world is Barry Bonds being so vilified? Granted, there are other well-documented character concerns. But if he did it, and if it wasn't against baseball's rules when he did it, how can baseball at all justify this high-and-mighty stance and subsequent witch hunt?

 

Like others said, it's because he took an illegal substance and stands accused of committing perjury which potentially impeded the investigation of a large drug ring. If it were a cocaine distribution network he was involved with and possibly covered up for, it'd be the same thing.

 

Being explicitly against or not against baseball rules is somewhat irrelevant, as baseball has no explicit rule stating that you can't slip horse tranquilizers into the Gatorade of an opposing player or burn down his house to "psych him out" the night before a big game.

 

 

There IS a HGH test, but it's expensive and you can basically only test positive right after administration, making it very impractical.

[MNBrew]

Perjury is perjury and if that's indeed what Bonds did (and so it would seem), then he deserves appropriate consequences for his actions. That's a different issue than what I'm asking because it's not baseball doing that investigating.

 

I still don't get why the retro-investigation is such a big deal, yet ONLY focused on steroids. If baseball's truly going to stand up against the lawbreakers, and also follow through on punishing those individuals, shouldn't they also go back and apply the same approach to everyone who's either been caught or retroactively 'fessed up to doing illegal drugs? Isn't it the same thing? Again, it's still a double standard?

 

Steroids? Greenies? All the cocaine and marijuana users from the '70s and '80s? All of those in their own way stood to affect the performance of the players and therefore the integrity of the game.

 

Scuffing baseballs? Using vaseline or K-Y jelly? Sandpaper, nail files (R.I.P., Joe Niekro) or thumbtacks? The drug stuff MAY have affected the outcome of games. I still think that Gaylord Perry's actions affected games' outcomes at least if not more directly. So that only makes him a cheater but not a criminal cheater. Still, Perry's a welcome member of the HOF club. That makes no sense.

 

Again, I'm not trying to raise a question about Perry's Hall-worthiness. He creates an easy example to help illustrate a double standard.

[TooLiveBrew]

TLB, there is a test. The players union will not allow baseball to go the Olympic route and test blood. They are working on a way detect it in urine and hopefully that will be in place sometime next year.

 

Ahh, thanks, lamp. When I saw Selig speak at UW-Madison last fall, he mentioned something like...

 

There IS a HGH test, but it's expensive and you can basically only test positive right after administration, making it very impractical.

Or, iirc, in his words (paraphrasing), 'We don't have a good test yet.' Sorry for misinterpreting that - thanks for correcting me!

[snyttri]

"...Steroids? Greenies? All the cocaine and marijuana users from the '70s and '80s? All of those in their own way stood to affect the performance of the players and therefore the integrity of the game.

 

Scuffing baseballs? Using vaseline or K-Y jelly? Sandpaper, nail files (R.I.P., Joe Niekro) or thumbtacks? The drug stuff MAY have affected the outcome of games..."

 

The PED investigation is being conducted by a politician and was generated from pressure from congressmen who were responding to voters. It's too late to create a high profile investigation for the drugs of earlier decades. Cocaine has been used by athletes for over a century and I don't think amphetamines are considered substantially different. Perry is in the cheaters wing of the HOF along with other scuffing pitchers. I don't know enough baseball history to identify them, but I'm sure there were a lot. Given Babe Ruth's lifestyle I would be surprised if he was a prude about a performance enhancing drug like cocaine he probably encountered in brothels and speakeasys. I think Aaron, Mays and Mantle are already considered in the amphetamine wing of the HOF given the prevalence of speed buckets in locker rooms during their careers. In the course of time what seems like a double standard now might be less so. Baseball has glossed over the amount of cheating in its history and I think Mitchell will try to carry on that tradition.

[gregmag]

I've said this before, but if -- if -- our argument for having MLB punish a player who used a PED at a time baseball didn't ban it is that the drug was illegal . . . well, first, we had better make sure our legal premise is correct (I don't know jack about drug laws), but second, we then have to be consistent about all the other illegal things players do, like beating their domestic partners and hiring hookers.

 

Once baseball bans a particular practice on the ground that it's especially harmful to baseball, then of course that provides an independent justification for disciplinary action. (I'd still toss the wife-beaters before the juicers, but those are just my priorities).

 

Greg.