Hank Steinbrenner, Another Bad Seed
Published February 25, 2008
With nothing more than his own gut feeling to back this up, Steinbrenner completely failed to appreciate that as part of baseball's ownership elite, he and his family are as culpable as anyone in this mess baseball finds itself in.
The last time anyone looked Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Jason Giambi, and Chuck Knoblauch were all recipients of the Steinbrenner family's largess and all three high profile players are at the heart of the steroids scandal. And let's not forget that it was the Steinbrenners, too, who employed Brian McNamee, an admitted steroids distributor. Steinbrenner also has been quick to embrace Pettitte's illegal use, despite the growing body of evidence that Pettitte signed his latest contract with the Yankees, just days before the Mitchell Report was released, knowing but not disclosing to anyone that he would be named in it. If Steinbrenner is irritated, he needs look no further than the family album to figure out why.
But in case Steinbrenner isn't into self-reflection, then he can at least look at the differences between football's approach to steroids and that of his own sport. In that same story from the Associated Press, Greg Aiello, the NFL's spokesman noted "we've had year-round random testing with immediate suspensions since 1990 and we conduct approximately 12,000 steroids tests a year."
What Aiello didn't say but didn't have to was that the NFL and its union have mostly been out ahead of the steroids problem while baseball and its union had to literally be threatened by Congress with the loss of their antitrust exemption before embracing even a semi-meaningful testing program.
No one is foolish enough to think that simply having a testing program will completely eliminate the inherent stupidity of some players who think they are smart enough to beat the system time and time again. Indeed each and every NFL season brings its share of player suspensions. It's just that the public perceives, and for good reason, that the NFL has had a relatively effective mechanism for dealing with its problem players.
Baseball, as everyone knows, has treated steroids with a wink and a smile. It didn't start testing for steroids until about 10 years after the NFL. Moreover, it's not as if baseball owners have ever taken a particularly strong stance against them, refusing to draw a line in the sand each time the players' union refused to negotiate on the subject. By backing down instead of standing up, the owners let baseball's steroids era flourish. It's why, even to this day, the public still perceives that baseball's system for dealing with illegal drugs is a joke.
- Hank Steinbrenner, Another Bad Seed
- Published: February 25, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Sports
- Filed Under: Sports: Baseball
- Writer: Gary D. Benz
- Gary D. Benz's BC Writer page
- Gary D. Benz's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
I have a few problems with your analysis here:
1. People do care less about steroids in the NFL. Shawn Merrian took them and was comeback player of the year. Not a peep was uttered about Rodney Harrison's use during this year's Superbowl. That doesn't even begin to touch on Romanowski, the allegations that the Steelers team from 70's was all roided up, ect. Where is the outrage?
His claims that nfl is tailored made for steroids, beyond the evidence of everyone that has used them (many admitting it from the 70's)the game is a strength on strength situation. You can get by being smaller in baseball is you can do certain things well. In football, if you're too small, or weaker then you're opponent, you are out of job.
2. The Yankees not blowing the bank on Santana is a major change. First you accuse the Yanks of spending like crazy and then they get no credit for not going over board on him.
3. This idea that the Yankees spending has ruined baseball is a total joke. Fans pay good money to go watch a baseball game and you're honestly going to complain about an owner putting his money, that he made off of the fans, back into the product on the field?
For years I watched as multi-millionaire Mike Illitch spent nothing on the Tigers and turned a once proud franchise into total garbage.
Then he realized his error and brought in Pudge, Magglio, and the others and now they had to cut off season ticket sales so the general fans still could get tickets.
Every owner of a major league team is either a multi millionaire or a major corporation. Them not spending on their teams is a direct insult to the fans. They want people to pay $50 for a ticket, spend $30 on concessions, buy a $120 jersey, and then they won't put any of that money back into the team? It's robbery.
Small market teams do it to themselves. When the Royals wanted to pay Brett, White, and the others they were good. When the Brewers paid Yount and Molitor they too were good.
It's all about whether the owner is willing to invest in their team. The Steinbrenners should be applauded for their commitment to their fans and their good business sense to generate the revenue to be able to pay out to put a good team on the field.
It's a basic business principle. You produce a good product, people come, and you make money. Very simple. You put a worthless product on the field, people don't come, and you do not make money. These rules apply in all facets of business.
Tony, hhhmmm... regarding steroids in the NFL. they work against you in the end result. Remember Brian Bosworth here in Seattle? Hurts his shoulder. Steroids remove your body's ability to heal. He became permanently broken and had to reire.
One of my high school football coaches (Jim Norton, UW Huskies, Washington Redskins) warned us about seroids back in the early 70s. He was right. Glad I listened. Well, anything that messes with the penis is automatically out of the question in my book...
Gary, I love your analogy about the neglected kid finally getting the keys to the car... what is this I hear about the new Yankee Stadium having $2500 seats? Well if they keep beer at $30 it balances out....hehe
Anyway, interesting points in your article.
DM
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/74257)
Boston Sucks