The shrewdest of this group is Barry Bonds. In the wake of the Congressional hearings and the BALCO scandal, Bonds opted for a knee surgery that had the potential to sideline him for the entire season. Given that every media outlet was dying to make him the poster boy for the Year of the Steroid, it is simply a phenomenal PR move for Bonds to sit this one out. Bonds has always seemed concerned about his legacy and place in baseball history and knows that his reputation has been sullied. While not erasing the stigma caused by these allegations, by removing himself from the spotlight, he diminishes their effect on his legacy. This will become especially apparent when he passes Babe Ruth in 2006 and begins his chase of Hank Aaron's 755 home runs.
Speaking of legacies, the dog pile on Mark McGwire's Hall of Fame status needs to let up. After the baseball strike of 1994, three people were responsible for reinvigorating baseball and reinstating the sport as America's National Pastime: Cal Ripken, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire. Big Mac's 1998 season (along with Sosa) revived interest in a sport being brutalized by apathy. Not only was a riveting assault on the home run record made, it was done with every at-bat being nationally televised. McGwire and Sosa's chase of Roger Maris and each other generated unbelievable excitement. Plus, McGwire always showed great class with his acknowledgment and inclusion of the Maris family during his quest. Anyone who thinks McGwire's role and importance in the resuscitation of baseball is now tarnished by his refusal to answer questions about steroid usage is simply attempting to re-write history. Were McGwire and Sosa's numbers boosted by steroid use that year? Frankly, who cares? Haven't we progressed past the point where we expect athletes to be anything more than athletes?
Baseball players, as well as any other professional athletes, are blessed with the opportunity to make their living playing a game. While enviable, it doesn't change the fact that, to a baseball player, playing baseball is a job and the gauge of their success at their chosen employment is measured by their statistics. The ability to hit home runs or avoid injuries translates into a substantial sum of money. While most working folk have a professional career of 30 to 40 years, baseball players make the majority of their money in a 10 year period. Who can fault someone for attempting to maximize his earning potential, especially when the window to do so is so limited?
Article comments
1 - Droog
You dont take a punishment if your innocent.
2 - Natalie Davis
Not necessarily.
3 - Phillip Winn
There are many reasons to not fight a punishment even when one doesn't deserve it. But the odds favor guilt, sure.
4 - lawrenceleidal@hotmail.com
Health is a good thing.
If health is a good thing, then illness is a bad thing.
Steroids are a natural, material cause of illness (empirical, clinical studies).
If this is the case, then steroids are a bad thing.
A world with free will is better than a world without free will.
If we acknowledge the baseball players' free determination of their will, if players use steroids (a bad thing), then they have committed an act of ill will.
Law (what is just) and morality (what is good) are not co-extensive (the same thing). They exist independently of the other.
Thus, the legitimacy of baseball players' actions is diametrically opposed to natural law, which has its being in relation to the idea of the good, the idea of guilt.
Positive law, which has its being in relation to the idea guilt and the idea of idea of society and culture, is greatly influenced by the status quo or the norm-namely, what the majority of people believe/value.
If this is the case, then even if there exists no "rules" or "laws" (ethics) preventing the use of such substantival methods of enhancing athletic performance, we must conclude that baseball players would be acting in an evil way.
The fact that evil exists in this world even if I, as a human being, do everything in my power and good will to combat it would make me guilty (metaphysical guilt). If this is the case, then justice is humility and moderation-when we acknowledge the fact that we cannot, on principle, act good if the consequences of our actions cannot be wholly good. This is an example of the tyranny of the majority-how most people act and what they value/beleive. The "ethical" action would be one governed by humility and moderation; temperence. Taking substances such as steroids is not what I consider the mean; it is an extreme. We must bring their punishment into a form of the good-by excersizing moderation. We must not punish these baseball players, but we also should not act with indifference to their behaviour. We should act with good will towards them and educate them on the evils of steroid use insofar as we should act with humility and moderation (temperately) when considering the "hypothetical career drugs" you speak of.
5 - ochairball
"The potion is handed to you. Who among us says no?"
I DO!
That makes the playing field uneven. You have these super studs who take drugs and then you have those, who perhaps for health or moral reasons, choose not to.
either baseball passes out drugs to everyone who plays baseball or they ban use for everyone.
you see? It's about fairness.
you're right though that the greedy weasels who run baseball ought to be held responsible as well.
I have an idea, Let's all just not watch baseball! kidding.
6 - Temple Stark
I do too.
It's crazy bullshit to say people CAN'T stop themsleves from taking steroids and I guess turning down some extra cash.
Be a man - turn it down. (where's that belief in God to carry the day, eh?)
Simple. Simple. Simple. Simple. Simple. It's not like it's the difference between fame and homeless. It's the difference of a couple of extra million.
Cowboy up !!!!!!!!
7 - Jeff Davidson
the baseball execs looked the other way during this whole thing, they had to know something was up. 70+ homeruns...are you kidding? But, ESPN, the major networks, and most of America enjoyed the ride without questioning any of it.
8 - sal m
Using your example of the magical elixir, apparently you would have no problem with those "non-takers" who lose their jobs to the "takers." You seemingly would not respect the choice of those who would decide not to risk their health at the expense of the improved performance.
For this is what happens in not only pro sports, but in high school and college sports. Down the line someone will lose a job or a raise to the user. A kid who wants to stay clean won't get the scholarship because the bigger, stronger kid who uses will be the more attactive prospect.
Or the kids who can play clean at the college level can't make it as a pro unless he takes drugs.
The major leaguer who uses and can perform better that the non-user can take the job and the salary of the non user.
And the record's of years past and the legacies earned by the greats get overlooked because of those who cheat.
Is all of this ok?
9 - Jeff Davidson
sal m - doesn't your hypothetical already exist in high school? For example, rich kids who can afford SAT prep courses, computers and other study aids do better in school than poor kids. No even playing field there at all. Is that right? would you ban SAT prep courses?
10 - Mark Sahm
Winners never cheat... except of course the ones who get caught juicing and then make a public apology and maybe shed a tear (if they have to for added effect), and go on with their life and make donations and say "I'm a team player" and wait for time to smooth things over with a sugary forgetfulness.
Then they can get back to being a winner again.