Again, James’s future eludes reality. Rose maintains his sympathizers not because he came clean (á la Alex Rodriguez) but because he never bet against his team. Meanwhile, Jackson was acquitted of his crimes, and managed to bat .375 in the eight-game World Series. But it would be foolhardy to say those who used performance-enhancing drugs did so with the pennant in mind. To them, numbers were the endgame, and juiced egotism reigned supreme.
Nonetheless, by 2040, James says, the Hall will fall. The Baseball Writers’ Association of America will open its hearts to the (purportedly) poor, broken souls who have suffered long enough through the decades of purgatory. This claim, though, is nothing more than a toss-up.
By the middle of the century, those allowing the players in will be arguably the most aggrieved faction the Steroid Era. The Millenials and Generation Y’ers, looking back on the game they were raised on, will remember a false time filled with empty moonshots and surly, numbers-hungry money-grabbers. They will feel used, tricked by the arrogance of the Era’s “greats.” In all likelihood, once this generation comprises the bulk of the BBWAA, they will keep Cooperstown shut, repaying the vitriol and disdain with which many of their childhood “greats” played.
The rosy, forgiving future that James sees won’t come. A dour outlook, certainly – but a fair one. In spite of a future crop of baseball players speaking on behalf of their outlawed teammates – James’s fourth point, by the way – an entire generation of Americans will yoke steroid usage with Hall banishment.
But it won’t be easy enough for these writers to simply say “no.” They will have to unearth the Will Clarks, Frank Thomases, and Edgar Martinezes of the Era, those whose remarkable numbers were never buoyed by steroids and whose accomplishments were constantly overshadowed. Those who never earned the honors they deserved. Those who never cheated. On this sub-point, James is correct.
Still, in a final display of twisted logic, James puts forth a belief that those who cheated, well, actually didn’t. “Is it cheating,” James writes, “if one violates a rule that nobody is enforcing, and which one may legitimately see as being widely ignored by those within the competition?”
I’ve read this sentence dozens of times, and I’m still confounded. Perhaps it is because I’m still in the thralls of academia, but I can’t help but picture a fellow student using this excuse with his professor: “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?”
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.