Add new comment

Y'know, 90% of my ire about the steroids era is that the owners have by and large gotten a free pass on the subject.
While I understand fan ire at "cheaters" in general ... the simple truth of the matter is that EVERY sports organization is in charge of writing the rules, hiring the people to police the game, and making sure there is a fair playing field for all involved.
If (as an example), the NBA catches a ref fixing games and tosses him out - that's a league that is doing what it is supposed to do. But, if a league (MLB) deliberately and with plenty of financial calculation ELECTS to have no PED policy at all ... LOOOOONG after every other organized sports has instituted one ... IMO, the problem is NOT what the players were doing during that time frame.
Athletes cheat. This is fact going back to the Romans and before. The idea that athletes are going to be moral stewards capable of self-regulation is either delusional or the height of hypocrisy, (definitely the latter, if you happen to be an owner).
Prior to 2004, the MLB official policy on PEDs was ... NOTHING. The only policy was on "illegal drugs", which was written to specifically target cocaine and heroine ... and which was basically the 108 strikes and you're out policy, which allowed you as many paroles as you were willing to go to rehab.
The rampant use of PEDs in baseball was well documented by 1970, when "Ball Four" was published. And, at the time, the exact same cry of "LIAR!" that Bouton suffered would be the response when Jose Canseco made the same accusations regarding steroids 3 decades later. And baseball did NOTHING about PEDs in response to "Ball Four" - and they did NOTHING in response to PEDs in response to Canseco's book. It literally took Congress holding hearings to convince the owners that they needed to act.
If an ump is calling a huge strike zone, players adjust and start swinging at stuff on the edges or they get called out on strikes. Well ... MLB had established the widest of all strike zones in regards to PEDs. Have all you want ... just so long as you don't do cocaine or pot.
Does it taint all the historical records? Absolutely.
Was it cheating? For me - No. It wasn't cheating because those in charge of determining what is and is not cheating deemed it so.
If you post a speed limit sign saying 70 ... but then under it post a sign that says - "This law is strictly NOT enforced!" is driving 80 against the law or not?
Plenty of admitted cheaters are in the HoF. Gaylord Perry made nice money for his book spelling out his many cheating methods. And, occasionally, cheaters would get caught (nail files, corked bats, thumb tacks), and would get a hand slap minor vacation.
For me - prior to 2004 - NO player should be punished for any PED at all. MLB determined to make PEDs cheating in 2004 ... not before. Before, PEDs were welcomed with open arms by the owners - and the players union - AND the fans -- who cheered every HR that cleared the fence even while gawking at the physiques that Hulk Hogan envied that appeared overnight among MLBers.
Given the complete lack of integrity of the people whose job it was to ensure the integrity of the game, perhaps a Hall of Fame that doesn't have ANY of the best players from a generation is precisely what we all deserve.
No Rose. (at least in his case, MLB did have a very clear and unwavering policy prior to his crime)
No Bonds.
No Big Mac.
No Clemens.
Why bother putting in someone like ... Raines or Biggio ... because let's face it. If you remove completely the accomplishments actually produced on the field from the discussion of who belongs ... then all you've really got is a middle school class president popularity contest.
I don't know what you end up with - but Hall of Fame isn't it. Hall of "likeability"? Hall of "Morally Acceptable"?
Better to head to Cleveland over Cooperstown. I'm sure the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame is much better stocked with people of high moral fiber.