The only credible witness was Palmeiro, who shortly after tested positive under the new enforcement program. He is now out of baseball.
So, who takes the fall? Well, somebody has to pay. In 2004, MLB decided it was Barry Bonds who would be their fall guy. He had the season home run record of 73, but at his age, there is no way he will get close to Aaron’s career record, right?
Wrong. Nasty, surly old Barry Bonds is going to break baseball’s greatest record, and Bud Selig stomps his foot and says he’s not going. Henry Aaron then stomps his foot and whines if Bud’s not going, I’m not going either.
Fools.
Why?
First of all, it is universally assumed that steroids make you better, and this is simply not true. If Barry Bonds did take performance enhancing drugs, is it a stretch to say that they may have hampered his production and he may have hit over 800 home runs by now?
If that isn’t the case, it is widely rumored that many pitchers in this era were juiced, and if their effectiveness was enhanced by steroids, wouldn’t this mean that the field should have been leveled by the use of steroids?
Has it been determined that steroids are more effective on hitters than on pitchers?
In 2007, pitchers on the disabled list (DL) in April were 14.4% higher than the same period in 2006. One writer stated that it couldn’t be steroids because of the added enforcement. I say that, because of the additional scrutiny, many pitchers stopped taking steroids to avoid detection, and the loss of muscle mass resulted in increased strain on the body, resulting in more trips to the DL.
Home run production is projected to be down about 18.2% from 2006 to 2007. Am I defeating my argument?
I’m not sure what the argument is anymore.
Article comments