Wednesday, December 08, 2004

My steroids take

I've got to admit, I have avoided most baseball related mass media for the last few days because I don't think I can stomach the righteous indignation that must be parading for journalism with regard to the steroid story. So I apologize if you've been looking for new material here. That doesn't mean I haven't read my favorite baseball blogs. Within the baseball blog community, I've read a broad spectrum of opinions. Some want to ban Giambi/Bonds, some want to erase the records (as if you could change history with a bottle of white-out), and others say it's no big deal. Shockingly, I find myself agreeing with that last group of folks. Let me explain why.

1. The news that Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi have admitted to using steroids isn't really news at all. Is anyone really surprised by this? I understand that according to the law, people are innocent until proven guilty. But public opinion, and certainly my opinion, has been that steroid use by star players is an unfortunate fact of the modern game. Indeed, at least 5% of baseball players tested positive in 2003, triggering the clause in the collective bargaining contract mandating testing in 2004. So explain to me how this is in any way a shocking revelation. Two former MVP's, Ken Caminiti and Jose Canseco already had admitted that they used steroids during their peak seasons. So explain to me how last week's news is in any way unexpected.

2. I'm repulsed by the hypocrisy coming from all parties involved. Well, repulsed is too strong of a word, but you get the point. For more than a decade, fans, owners, players, and media have looked the other way while players bulked up and shattered home run records, even while former players openly discussed steroid use. Now that two current “name” players have admitted using steroids under oath, everyone gets all red-assed about it. If you knew players were using it, how can you pretend to be outraged only now, now that you’ve learned Bonds and Giambi are two of the players who have used steroids. It’s a bit like the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. “As long as we don’t have proof that you are using steroids, we don’t care if you are using steroids (and by the way, we promise not to investigate if you are using them.)” If it is such a big deal that players were using steroids in 2000, why weren’t they being tested for them? The biggest hypocrisy in all this is that everyone is freaking out about something that wasn’t even against the rules. Ownership and the players had every opportunity to put a testing program in place during the 90’s. It took until 2003 for them to put a toothless testing agreement in place. At least the current policy means that steroids are finally against the rules, even if those rules have been constructed such that nobody will ever be punished for using steroids.

3. We have no idea how much steroids help. In fact, we have only circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that they help at all. I’m no expert on the effects of steroids, but from the sources I’ve read, steroids aid baseball players in two areas: they help build muscle mass and they help shorten recovery times. Obviously, both of those could be a help to players. But how much does steroids really help a workout freak like Barry Bonds? At some point, there must be a diminishing return on additional strength. If steroids help Bonds get 10% stronger, I doubt that helps him hit 10% more home runs. The truth is, we just don’t know how much steroids help. So until we do, and I doubt we will see any double-blind testing performed on professional baseball players in the near future, let’s not throw away a bunch of records and statistics.

4. The biggest problem most people seem to have in all of this is that the use of steroids are invalidating the holy record book. Let me be the first to point out that baseball, and sport in general, is not concerned with “records.” Records are purely the domain of fans who care about such things. In the end, all that matters is wins and losses. Whatever bookkeeping you do along the way is strictly for your own benefit. If the purpose of our games is to accumulate numbers, rather than to win games and championships, then we have really lost our way. Statistics might be interesting and records might be romantic. But in the end, statistics are merely facts used to record and evaluate history. If Bonds hit 250 of his home runs while taking steroids, the fact that he hit them doesn’t change.

A couple of final words: I’m all for steroid testing if it’s done in a way that attempts to accomplish something. That means random testing of all players throughout the year, and stiff penalties for multiple offenders. However, I think it’s absolutely ridiculous that baseball should toughen its policies in reaction to last week’s news. Let me see if I’ve got this straight….. they had a policy of testing that included penalties for failed tests. So what do they do when it turns out that players actually are using steroids? They make the rules tougher! So what was the previous policy for anyway!!??

posted by bkopec @ 3:03 PM   5 comments