Technically, this jarring description would be correct: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a pioneer is “one who begins, or takes part in beginning, some enterprise, course of action … a forerunner.” These cons are certainly the ones who began the movement — we don’t know who Player Zero is, but we know that if the steroid movement continues then these current cozeners would have helped pave the way.
Both James and the OED seem to miss the fact that pioneers, colloquially, are wrapped in a moralistic blanket. Those who are considered pioneers (Neil Armstrong, Jonas Salk, Jackie Robinson) bore untold burdens and achieved their success for the good of others, not themselves. Granted, there was surely a part of Armstrong that sought glory, or Salk that sought profit, but these whims were drowned out by the valor with which they accomplished their goals.
But ‘roiders are not pioneers. To call them such is to sling mud on the legacies of those who cleanly achieved such heights. These are frauds, much like the earliest tax evaders, bank robbers, and on-the-take New Jersey mayors. No society will ever hold them in esteem.
Misnomers and misjudgments aside, James believes that the future inevitability of steroid usage will land “some players” in the Hall. Bonds, McGwire, Sosa — all will eventually be enshrined. Failing that, he believes that a player currently in the Hall will one day admit to being a card-carrying contributor to the Steroid Era. And when that day comes, the dominoes will begin to fall in the direction of inclusion: “Once some players who have been associated with steroids are in the Hall of Fame, the argument against the others will become un-sustainable.”
James’s lands his readership on a dichotomous, two-way street. On the one hand, baseball writers will preclude all steroid associates from the Hall. On the other, the steroid issue will become as immaterial as Lima Time. No room for gray, not in James’s mind. Once the first user is admitted, stigma is erased, and all others deserve fair shots.
Of course, this second point can’t exist without the success of James’s first point, that one will eventually make it in. Thus, we can move on to his third notion: History is forgiving. This is James’s most salient, sound argument; if justification is needed, look no further than the sympathy George W. Bush has encountered in only a few short months. In the case of these steroid users, future-America will see these druggies less as villains and more as victims. Perhaps they will have broken bodies. Perhaps they will have pleaded for forgiveness. Or perhaps, writes James, we will just look back on them like we see Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe Jackson.
Article comments
1 - pronk
There was no rule!
2 - Michael
This is really well-written. Unfortunately it boils down to the same argument all the sports-talk radio hosts use every day: "cheater, cheater, that's all I need to know."
For one, the whole premise argued (by you and James) - that steroids have a consistent, controllable effect - is far from accurate. Quite the opposite. No one - NO ONE - can say how much, or even IF, steroids affected any player's results.
Second, there's the "level playing field" effect. If we are in fact in a "Steroid Era," and both the Bondses and Clemenses were juicing, it was a zero-sum game. And contrary to your school metaphor, steroids were NOT officially considered "cheating." There are rules in your school that say cheating is not allowed, and have for many, many years. There was no such rule in MLB until a few years ago.
Last I checked, Gaylord Perry was still in the Hall of Fame. And to a man, the very sportswriters who voted him in will tell you he threw a spitball. A spitball was forbidden by MLB rules for Perry's entire career - yet those sportswriters had no problem electing him.
Your beef with James misses the point: sportswriters are human, and they elect players to the hall for a variety of reasons. They never liked Bonds or Clemens, which is why those players are unlikely to be first balloteers.
But when the players they LIKE are nominated, their enshrinement will no doubt be rationalized.
Bottom line, the vast majority of fans aren't jaded and bitter (have you BEEN to a baseball game lately?). Sportswriters will give up their bitterness (or retire and give way to less bitter new writers) and start opening the Hall to those deserving.
3 - Rick Bumpus
It was against the law. The rules say anything against the law is against the rules.
4 - Brian J.
Once-clean game? Sorry but baseball has been the dirtiest sport in the history of competitive events. From spit balls to spiking to amphetamines to nail files to sandpaper to vasoline to gambling... it's been crooked forever. Let's stop kidding ourselves now that baseball was ever or will ever be "clean".
5 - Dave P.
So many problems with this post. Baseball has never been a clean game and offensive numbers had a greater drop off after amphetemines were banned than after steroids. Plus, its entirely naive to think steroids havent been around baseball as long as they've been around all other major sports. Sure the quantities jumped, but athletes always look for an edge.
To get an idea of the general fan response to steroids, look no further than Manny Ramirez. Fans of other teams really didnt care. Fans of the Dodgers welcomed him back with open arms. People are finally treating baseball users just like football users - no moral outrage, just disappointment that the team will be short a player.
And to think the people that grew up watching baseball in the '90s and '00s is going to look back with disdain seems far fetched. I grew up with the coked up '80s Mets, and I look back at that time with rose colored glasses. I somehow doubt a look back at the 98 HR chase will be viewed with the vitriol you seem to have.
6 - watercott
“But, sir, you left the classroom, and since there was no way you could see if I had snuck notes for the test or not, well, it’s not really cheating, is it?”
This analogy is dangerously close to a straw man argument. A more fitting analogy would be, "Sir, you are paying all of the students based on their test scores, and even though you surely know 80% of us are cheating, you gleefully hire those that live up to the standard set by those cheaters and, without remorse, fire those that have chosen not to cheat and cannot keep up. The people writing the questions are also cheating, the dean knows we're cheating, the trustees know we're cheating, and you all do everything you can to keep that knowledge from our parents."
7 - Frank
It seems those most interested in discussing the topic are the apologists for the cheaters. Unfortunately for them, the silent majority will never be swayed by acrobatic feats of logic to accept that steroid abusing cheats deserve the fruits of their crimes. They may be forgiven, but that doesn't mean they get rewarded. If you're not ready to accept that, that's fine, but the future is not going to go your way. Bonds will never be inducted to the Hall of Fame.