29 replies to this topic

[jacklamabe65]

From Cafardo's column today:

I’ve spoken to a lot of Hall of Famers this spring who are completely opposed to any player with a link to performance-enhancing drugs being elected. One even suggested that if the writers were to vote one in, there could be a big backlash against that player among the existing members. “You have to understand,’’ said one HOFer, “we played the game the right way. If we had taken something like steroids, we would have cheated to get where we are, and that’s not going to be tolerated.’’ It should be an interesting few years to come, when people such as Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Rafael Palmeiro come up for a vote. So far, the HOFers are pretty pumped up about Mark McGwire’s exclusion.

This actually makes sense; I know one HoFamer well, and he has have voiced the same thing to me, saying, "You wouldn't believe how many of us who are already in have taken the time to tell how we feel to the writers who vote for the Hall. They now know where we stand, and I think that it's made an impact on at least some of them."

Edited by jacklamabe65, 28 March 2010 - 07:27 AM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

This is going to come off as obnoxiously snarky, but it's a question that I think needs to be asked in rejoinder:

Do these HoFers Nick talked to think that "playing the game the right way" included taking amphetamines? Does anyone really think that no one currently in the Hall of Fame popped a greenie or two along the way? Or maybe had a weak moment in the 80s and snorted a line of coke one night?

These guys surely must know that the moral high ground is a slippery slope. I'm fine with the idea of keeping Clemens and Raffy and Bonds out of the Hall due to their usage of PEDs, but the tired pablum from anonymous HoFers about them "playing the game the right way" doesn't add much to their arguments, IMHO.

EDIT: Let me add that I know full well that there is no equivalency between the usage of 'roids and other PEDs and the use of greenies. One is undoubtedly worse than the other. At the same time when I hear retired players talking about "playing the game the right way" (which is what reitred players have been saying about current ones for 100 years now and possibly even more) my bullshit detector goes off.

[Spacemans Bong]

This is going to hurt the Hall of Fame more than it will help it. If the best players of a generation are not in the Hall of Fame because of some hastily constructed moral outrage, then you will have a Hall of Fame which loses all relevance.

EDIT: Let me add that I know full well that there is no equivalency between the usage of 'roids and other PEDs and the use of greenies.

Why?

Edited by Spacemans Bong, 28 March 2010 - 09:07 AM.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Not to get too far afield, but usage of one can radically alter physiology while usage of the other provides a boost in energy for a few hours or so. Neither should have a place in today's game, but I can see the argument that PEDs like 'roids and HGH are a worse offense than greenie usage. I was merely trying to nip the "You can't say greenies are as bad as PEDs" statements in the bud.

[Lars The Wanderer]

Yeah, take the buyout.

[smastroyin]

So the same guys who influenced the vet's committee to let in Phil Rizzuto just because he was a Yankee will be outraged?

Yay.

I'm moving this to Radomski's, where it belongs, btw.

[brs3]

This raises a question for me.. how much influence do HoFers have on each year's ballot?

With Roberto Alomar missing the cut this year, are these same folks having a little talk with the BBWAA to make sure they don't fuck it up a second time? Or were they saying anything(against Alomar) at all when the vote was out for the first time?

[bakahump]

This is going to come off as obnoxiously snarky, but it's a question that I think needs to be asked in rejoinder:

Do these HoFers Nick talked to think that "playing the game the right way" included taking amphetamines? Does anyone really think that no one currently in the Hall of Fame popped a greenie or two along the way? Or maybe had a weak moment in the 80s and snorted a line of coke one night?

These guys surely must know that the moral high ground is a slippery slope. I'm fine with the idea of keeping Clemens and Raffy and Bonds out of the Hall due to their usage of PEDs, but the tired pablum from anonymous HoFers about them "playing the game the right way" doesn't add much to their arguments, IMHO.

EDIT: Let me add that I know full well that there is no equivalency between the usage of 'roids and other PEDs and the use of greenies. One is undoubtedly worse than the other. At the same time when I hear retired players talking about "playing the game the right way" (which is what reitred players have been saying about current ones for 100 years now and possibly even more) my bullshit detector goes off.

I agree with you Joe.....Problem is these guys are already in and can afford to take the moral high ground. No tests...no evidence....never happened... I dont think the slope is all that slippery for them.

I also think they could/are convincing themselves that "hey we all did greenies....so it was level field. Whereas Roids where only done by a few cheaters!"

[inoffensiv philosophy]

Why?

There are two separate issues here, aren't there? One is a question of comparative effectiveness, the other of comparative ethics. No-one, as far as I'm aware, would argue that greenies are as effective in enhancing baseball performance as are steroids.

But when one makes an argument couched in terms of "playing the game the right way", one is making a normative, ethical argument. In that scheme, the comparative effectiveness of the substances is only an issue if one believes that, had amphetamine users in the 1960s been confronted with the option of taking steroids at that time, they would have refused; seeing this as an unconscionable step beyond the moral pale. That seems to me to be unlikely. No doubt some greenie users would have refused to make the switch for various reasons. But it might be revealing to replace the separate signifiers "using steroids" and "using amphetamines" with the general formulation "taking the most effective drugs available to oneself to enhance one's performance."

This, naturally, doesn't preclude one from opposing the election of players known to have used steroids into the Hall. But it does prevent that argument from being couched in such a moralistic register.

Or maybe had a weak moment in the 80s and snorted a line of coke one night?

I was not aware that cocaine has well-established performance-enhancing effects?

Edited by inoffensiv philosophy, 29 March 2010 - 08:13 AM.

[D Jack's Dome]

I was not aware that cocaine has well-established performance-enhancing effects?

It enhanced my performance on hazy drunk nights in college...so, that has to count for something.

[cheekydave]

It enhanced my performance on hazy drunk nights in college...so, that has to count for something.

speaking of enhancing, or not...

http://www.huffingto...y_n_516874.html

[Fred not Lynn]

Not to get too far afield, but usage of one can radically alter physiology while usage of the other provides a boost in energy for a few hours or so. Neither should have a place in today's game, but I can see the argument that PEDs like 'roids and HGH are a worse offense than greenie usage. I was merely trying to nip the "You can't say greenies are as bad as PEDs" statements in the bud.

You can't say "You can't say greenies are as bad as PED's", because greenies are stimulants - and stimulants ARE "PEDs". Stimulant abuse can be as dangerous long term and short term as steroid abuse. Doping comes in many forms, some which may be more or less dangerous than others, but doping is doping, and any type of doping in excess can turn athletes into dead people - like Steve Bechler. I'm no excercise physiologist, but from a laymans perspective, I'd suggest that Steve Bechler's physiology was radically altered by the ephedra he was taking.

In my opinion, the real test for the ethics of a particular practice is whether the athlete knowingly violated a well communicated rule of the game. The guys in the past who used stimulants used them in the context of a sport where no directive NOT to use them ever occured. There are those who used steroids long before any directive not to use steroids had been given. I won't be too critical of those players - they played within the rules of the game as had been communicated to them at the time.

There can be debate about what "a well communicated rule of the game" is. Is it an unspoken, unwriten expectation that you'll follow the laws of the United States (even when you are not IN the United States)? Is it a one-time memo from the commisioner? It is the more comprehensive anti-doping policy that is in place now? THAT part can be debated - but I don't think anyone should call into question the ethics of an athlete for breaking rules that weren't in place at the time he/she broke them, or rules that were in place, but that no one knew about, followed or enforced.

Edited by Fred not Lynn, 29 March 2010 - 02:27 PM.

[cannonball 1729]

Do these HoFers Nick talked to think that "playing the game the right way" included taking amphetamines?

Forget amphetamines - Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford were notorious spitballers; both of them even admitted to spitball use (Ford used his wedding ring to cut up baseballs, and Perry used Vaseline). Joe Niekro was also pretty notorious for his physics-defying "slider," so much so that he was once caught with sandpaper and an emery board on the mound. How is that more "playing the right way" than what Barry Bonds did?

[TomRicardo]

Play the game the right way? Bullshit.

Hell Babe Ruth would shoot up Goat Testosterone before games. He was the original roider.

Now if you say Clemens and Bonds, I can see them screwed being they both committed perjury.

[D Jack's Dome]

You can't say "You can't say greenies are as bad as PED's", because greenies are stimulants - and stimulants ARE "PEDs". Stimulant abuse can be as dangerous long term and short term as steroid abuse. Doping comes in many forms, some which may be more or less dangerous than others, but doping is doping, and any type of doping in excess can turn athletes into dead people - like Steve Bechler. I'm no excercise physiologist, but from a laymans perspective, I'd suggest that Steve Bechler's physiology was radically altered by the ephedra he was taking.

I'd suggest that Steve Bechler's physiology was radically altered by the amount of cheeseburgers he stuffed into his face during the offseason, followed by a lack of hydration and proper nutrition during intense workouts in a hot Florida sun. The fact that Ephedra took the fall for a grown mans ignorance might have been the main story, but it sure wasn't the main cause of his death. I'm no exercise physiologist either, but when people don't eat for a few days the body's metabolic rate drops to burn calories slower, countering the lack of caloric intake. By taking Ephedra irresponsibly, Bechler boosted his metabolic heart rate to a degree that the body couldn't handle with a lack of food. Couple that with the major issue that he was seriously dehydrated--jumping his body temperature up to alarming rates--and the slow response time by the training staff, and you have a tragic comedy of errors leading to the death of a young kid.

Getting back on track, I do wonder where the line is drawn as far as PEDs and how fair it is. I suppose the list of banned substances is comprehensive enough to cover nearly all steroids, stimulants, and diet pills...but should it? In Bechler's case, a pill that increases heart rate--vicariously increasing (mildly) energy--killed him. A chubby pitcher trying to cut weight should be considered a cheater? Is a diet pill really a PED that deserves banning? If Ephedra wasn't in pill form, would it be considered such an issue? It has very similar properties to caffeine, yet the Red Sox have Dunkin' Donuts signs draped around their field. In fact, a former popular (albeit unhealthy) form of diet involves both Ephedra and caffeine, known as the ECA Stack.

I suppose the line has been drawn conservatively in the sand to prevent any and all physiological changes to the human body, but this--to me--has always flown in the face of an advancing progressive society. We have created products that can (in safe doses) be used to save our athletes, lengthen their careers, and increase their production. Yet the MLB bans these substances because they fear the gray area between "healthy growth" and "cheating". They'd rather distance themselves from these products instead of instilling a watch program to make sure players take them in responsible and healthy doses. I assume a lot of this is the backlash of the steroid era (as well as the unobtainable goal to keep their history in the present), and I suppose it's better to ban it all immediately and deal with the repercussions later. Still, sports aren't fair. They never have been--as pointed out by the posters above me--and never will be. I guess this whole thing has brought us a step into a fairer direction.

[Fred not Lynn]

Getting back on track, I do wonder where the line is drawn as far as PEDs and how fair it is. I suppose the list of banned substances is comprehensive enough to cover nearly all steroids, stimulants, and diet pills...but should it? In Bechler's case, a pill that increases heart rate--vicariously increasing (mildly) energy--killed him. A chubby pitcher trying to cut weight should be considered a cheater? Is a diet pill really a PED that deserves banning? If Ephedra wasn't in pill form, would it be considered such an issue? It has very similar properties to caffeine, yet the Red Sox have Dunkin' Donuts signs draped around their field. In fact, a former popular (albeit unhealthy) form of diet involves both Ephedra and caffeine, known as the ECA Stack.

I suppose the line has been drawn conservatively in the sand to prevent any and all physiological changes to the human body, but this--to me--has always flown in the face of an advancing progressive society. We have created products that can (in safe doses) be used to save our athletes, lengthen their careers, and increase their production. Yet the MLB bans these substances because they fear the gray area between "healthy growth" and "cheating". They'd rather distance themselves from these products instead of instilling a watch program to make sure players take them in responsible and healthy doses. I assume a lot of this is the backlash of the steroid era (as well as the unobtainable goal to keep their history in the present), and I suppose it's better to ban it all immediately and deal with the repercussions later. Still, sports aren't fair. They never have been--as pointed out by the posters above me--and never will be. I guess this whole thing has brought us a step into a fairer direction.

You ask questions thet have been being asked for years. Doping in sport is hardly a NEW issue. This is what gets me most about MLB's failure to act earlier - in the 1960s, 70's and 80s, athletes from the Soviet Union, German Democratic Republic and other eastern block countries were systematically doped, and pretty much everyone knew about it - yet it didn't occur to MLB that perhaps guys with hundreds of thousands, and then millions of dollars at stake might happen to recognize that there's stuff out there that makes you better at sports.

The form, by the way, of the substance, is immaterial. Abuse of epherda herbally would be as banned as taking it as a pill, or as an injection. Caffiene, in excessive amounts has at times been equally banned in most sports - usually those amounts far transcend what you could possibly ingest drinking coffee, when abused in sport, caffiene is usually taken as a suppository, in fact. Vitamin B12 is totally legal, and taken as an injection. The form a substance comes is is a red herring to the argument of its accetablity as an ergogenic aid.

Here's a problem I have with the American media coverage of the issue, and with much of the discussion on here; The perception is that we're talking about STEROIDS IN AMERICAN BASEBALL SINCE 1990. We're not. We're talking about DOPING IN GLOBAL SPORT SINCE THE 1950S (or earlier, see above re: Babe Ruth/Goat Testosterone). This is a much bigger conversation than the small segments we're familiar with. Those who want to talk about "Steroids in Baseball" should explore the history of "Doping in Global Sport", and then have a much more enlightened dialog. My suggestion, visit the website of the World Anti-Doping Agency (http://www.wada-ama.org/). WADA Is hardly perfect, but you'll get a much better picture of why doping in sport is an issue, and why it needs to be fought. It's not the everything and anything on the subject, but it is a good place to begin.

One thing you note - certain products in "safe doses" can be used to save athletes and lengthen careers. There's no such thing as a "safe dose" for an athlete...the mentality that drives one to seek every little edge doesn't have a place for a safe dose. If one pill heals your injury, two pills will put you on the team, three pills could win you the Championship, but the fourth pill might kill you - an athlete seeking an edge will take five...and his rival six.

I do like what you say about sport never truly being "fair". It isn't, and never will - but I do think it is the responsibility of the stewards of all sport to do what they can to make it as fair, and as safe, as possible. That's why we need strong anti-doping policy - not just in MLB (and others - why the NFL gets a free pass with a doping culture that dwarfs MLB's, I'll never know), but for MLB to be part of a cross sport, cross regional strategy.

Edited by Fred not Lynn, 30 March 2010 - 01:01 AM.

[threecy]

I don't buy the implication that steroid use in baseball started sometime around the early 1990s (some point at the late 80s with the Bash Brothers, others point at the strike). I think it's ridiculous to assume that steroids never came into baseball decades earlier, despite the use in other major sports.

I think the Hall of Famers seemingly taking the moral high ground is just about the same as your parents telling you that they never smoked pot back in the 1960s. Possibly the truth, but unlikely.

[billy ashley]

“The good days really weren’t so good, and tomorrow isn’t as bad as it seems.”

It’s vital to any civilization to remember and at times celebrate the past but too often we ignore that even the best of us in years past were subject to the same follies as the worst of us today. People in general want to succeed; occasionally some of us compromise our ethics in order to stay ahead of the curve. As others have pointed out, amphetamines, spit balls, corked bats and almost certainly steroids have been used by baseball players to gain an edge since way before Jose Canseco.

What many of us (and apparently members of the Hall of Fame) forget is that the election of Player X into the Hall of Fame does nothing to diminish the achievements of Player Y. Likewise, Barry Bonds home run feat, PEDs or no PEDs, does nothing to deteriorate the legacy of Roger Maris’ 1961. Records and statistics mean hardly a damned thing without context. And the wonderful thing about context is that it is often open to the interpretation of the on looker.

To me 714 Home Runs may be the greatest achievement in baseball history considering the massive difference between Ruth’s home run totals o his contemporaries. To you, it may be seen as an example of a shift in playing styles aided by circumstances beyond Ruth’s control (right time and place, segregation, level of coaching and conditioning at the time).

So much of what makes baseball history so much fun is that there really aren’t any incorrect answers, only incorrect reasoning.

Something I think the members of the Hall here are guilty of.

Edited by billy ashley, 30 March 2010 - 11:03 AM.

[Lose Remerswaal]

Did you just quote Billy Joel there?

[billy ashley]

Did you just quote Billy Joel there?

Yup. I was thinking of going with Bill James but figured Billy Joel worked better given his history of PEDs.


Really though- I couldn’t help but quote a classic rock song while bitching about people looking back at the past too fondly. Where all entitled to some hypocrisy, mine is complaining about reminiscing while listening to mostly music produced before 1980.

Edited by billy ashley, 30 March 2010 - 11:28 AM.

[KiltedFool]

Did you just quote Billy Joel there?

Almost.

[maufman]

I do like what you say about sport never truly being "fair". It isn't, and never will - but I do think it is the responsibility of the stewards of all sport to do what they can to make it as fair, and as safe, as possible. That's why we need strong anti-doping policy - not just in MLB (and others - why the NFL gets a free pass with a doping culture that dwarfs MLB's, I'll never know), but for MLB to be part of a cross sport, cross regional strategy.

If safety was paramount, we wouldn't have maple bats. We'd close the field boxes along the 1st and 3rd base lines at Fenway. We might even have softer baseballs. We probably wouldn't play football at all.

In fact, safety is only one concern. There are other concerns: the integrity of competition, the profitability of the sport, privacy and due process considerations, the individual athlete's right to make decisions concerning his own livelihood, and so on. These are all appropriate concerns, and no one of them has an absolute right to trump the others. This is the culture of sport in America, and it's why WADA has so little credibility here.

[mt8thsw9th]

Almost.

I nearly had a heart attack ack ack ack ack ack when I read that.

[Sprowl]

I nearly had a heart attack ack ack ack ack ack when I read that.

You oughta know by now.

[The Belly Itcher]

You oughta know by now.

Who needs a house out in Hackensack?

[Wily Mo Lester]

Who needs a house out in Hackensack?

Belgians in the Congo!

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

For those who question how widespread the use of drugs of all kinds was in the 70s, say hello to Bernie "I was high when I hit that HR in '75" Carbo:

“When I came to the big leagues in 1970 with the Big Red Machine, the trainer told me, ‘You need to take these vitamins,’ ’’ Carbo said...

In the offseason, he asked his doctor for more “vitamins.’’

“These aren’t vitamins,’’ the doctor said. “You’re taking speed.’’

That was the beginning of the end, Carbo said.

“The Cincinnati organization trainer was giving me speed, so I never played a game without it,’’ he said. “Then he started giving me pain pills. Then when I couldn’t sleep, he was giving me sleeping pills. So I got to the point where I couldn’t play without any of them. “I was introduced to marijuana in 1969.

I was introduced to cocaine in 1973. So from 1973-80, I was taking Dexedrine, Benzedrine, Darvons, sleeping pills, smoking dope, drinking beer, doing cocaine, and chasing women, and I never played a day without it.’’

Sounds like a decent summary of the 60s, 70s and 80s baseball era right there.

[priestvalon]

*SNIP*

What many of us (and apparently members of the Hall of Fame) forget is that the election of Player X into the Hall of Fame does nothing to diminish the achievements of Player Y. Likewise, Barry Bonds home run feat, PEDs or no PEDs, does nothing to deteriorate the legacy of Roger Maris' 1961. Records and statistics mean hardly a damned thing without context. And the wonderful thing about context is that it is often open to the interpretation of the on looker.

*SNIP*

Seriously.... ^^this.

As much as I detest Barry Bonds as a person... as a player on the field he did amazing things, and I think those achievements need recognition.

Yes, the Steroid Era is a raw subject now, and the BBWAA may feel that its "protecting" the legacy of the game. I say, conversely that its hurting the future legacy of baseball by denying that this eras achievements happened. Give context, yes, surely... but induct these great (but flawed) players.

[Curtis_Lesspanic]

When It comes to PEDs in baseball I always ask myself "Would this substance significantly enhance an athletes peak performance beyond what they could attain normally." Honestly with Speed I'd say no. It was something that ball players used to get by. And if you look at the long term side effects of speed, it's hard to see how a guy like, Carbo for instance, didn't hurt his performance in the long term by taking them.

Steroids changed the game for offense. Speed use is just something that's use, unfortunately, became part of the culture of baseball.

[cheekydave]

Dan Duquette says there's going to be more Clemens PED info soon


http://hardballtalk...._medium=twitter