Now a full week removed from the startling revelation that Alex Rodriguez had tested positive for steroid use in 2003, it is interesting to take in the reactions of those both within the sports world as well as those viewing from the outside. From the perspective of pro baseball players, there seems to be three different reactions to the news:
1. Understanding/Forgiveness - This is coming almost exclusively from others that have been "outed" in the last several years for having done the same things. Players like Jason Giambi and Andy Pettite have been quick to commend A-Roid (I'm also partial to the nickname Ster-Rod, but no one seems to be catching on with it) for being forthright about his cheating. As if somehow admitting that you cheated after you were caught cheating makes it okay.
2. Anger - This is coming from those players, such as the Houston Astros' Lance Berkman and Roy Oswalt, that did not cheat (supposedly). Their anger, of course, is because of that "supposedly" that must now be placed by the names of all baseball players. Before A-Rod's exposure, there were still many that wanted to believe that some great players were simply great, and didn't require or even want to use the drugs. Now, every single baseball player of the last 2+ decades is guilty by association.
3. Silence - There are a couple of explanations for this. Either they don't have strong feelings about what's going on (seems rather unlikely), or they are trying to stay below the radar because they've done something they don't want revealed. I know that not every player used (at least I *hope* that not every player used), but any players that are being quiet right now appear suspicious, like they are trying to hide something. As we know, Rodriguez was just one of 104 players that tested positive in the supposedly confidential drug test. Right now, there are 103 other players praying that the rest of the names never get released.
So how do I feel about this whole thing? It's tough to say. I want to say that I've lost all interest in baseball because the purity of the sport has forever been tarnished. Then again, we knew this for years as we watched Barroid Bonds break record after record with an increasingly bulbous head. And then I just wonder how this is any different from the sleaze-ball bankers and executives that used unethical and even illegal tactics to bilk countless Americans (and now every American taxpayer) out of billions of dollars to line their own pockets. It's all cheating. Sports are supposed to be an escape for us, and yet we are now seeing in the sporting world the same greed and corruption as we see in the corporate world. The fact is, though, players have been doing things to get an edge ever since sports began, and especially since money became such a significant factor. Sure, now it's steroids, but in the 70's and 80's it was cocaine, before that it was spitballs, pine tar, even nail files being used to change the way the ball moved. Cheating in sports, and in baseball in particular, is nothing new.
Does this make it okay for today's baseball players to cheat? Absolutely not. All I'm saying is that if you enjoy the game, take it for what it is. Watch it on t.v. where you get the best view of the action and you're not paying exorbitant ticket prices, and understand that the idea of purity in anything in society, particularly anything concerning money, is gone.
To get updates and notices each time there's a post, subscribe above. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for the blog, please post below or I can be reached at chrisf884@gmail.com. Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I disagree that all, or even most, of the players who are silent on the issue are doing so because they have something to hide. They may be afraid to speak out for fear of retribution, either from the players they speak out against, or other players who have cheated and don't like hearing someone badmouth them for doing it, or even from managers/owners who allowed the cheating to happen.
Further, there may be those who don't want to be accused of "protesting too much". If it is assumed that silence = guilt, why would the guilty not start making angry public comments denouncing cheaters in order to avoid suspicion themselves?
To your point that nothing is untarnished and pure, I suppose I have to agree. Despite all the cheater talk, I am still excited for the baseball season to start. There should be testing, and it should be stringent, and there should be punishment for guilt in order to make people think twice about trying to cheat the system, but you'll never have a foolproof system. As long as there is some effort to crack down on cheating, I will be satisfied.
Having said what you said, would you now say that Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod and other confirmed or suspected cheaters should be allowed into the Hall of Fame? If your argument is that there have always been cheaters, then don't you have to let these guys in?
There's always been an argument about records and statistics in baseball because, let's face it, the game is kinda boring without them. People have always said you can't compare the past to the present, whether it's because of performance enhancers, differences in training and equipment, or even the height of the pitcher's mound. Despite this, the Hall of Fame still has players in it from all eras, past and present. I think the Hall of Fame is a recognition of who were (among) the best players of their era, and cheating or no, Bonds, Clemens, and A-Rod are that. Factor in that what these guys were doing was not against the rules of baseball at the time, and it seems like a no-brainer that they should be in the Hall. You can't punish them ex post facto (well, you could, but then you'd only be selectively punishing the ones who got caught or admitted to what they were doing).
That's the argument my brain makes. My gut, on the other hand, tells me you can't reward cheaters, and that you should punish those who have cheated. The problem is, it's damn hard to know who has cheated and who hasn't. How do you decide if there's enough evidence to "convict" someone of cheating? Do they have to go to court for it? Or is suspicion enough? It opens a whole can of worms. It comes down to the question, is it better to convict an innocent man, or let a cheater go unpunished?
Post a Comment