from Amazon
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Roids v Greenies
Rob Neyer calls out the BBWAA:
The argument as explicitly made is not about performance, but rather morality. The guy cheated.
But here’s a stone-cold fact: The non-prescription use of prescription drugs—amphetamines, anabolic steroids, you name it—has been a violation of Major League Baseball’s drug policy since 1971. Every player who ingested a single molecule of amphetamines without a prescription since 1971 was, technically speaking, breaking the rules. And if they were doing it with the intent of playing better, they were cheating.
When it comes to morality, the only thing that matters is intent. When Hall of Fame voters penalize players from the (so-called) Steroid Era while giving a free pass to every player who ever cheated with amphetamines, they’re drawing a line that—and yes, I’m going to say this once more—is intellectually indefensible.
As I have been for some time now, I’m waiting for someone in the BBWAA to draw the Hall of Fame-relevant disctinction between those two acts.
Beautifully laid out by Rob. So, is cheating a question of improving performance, or is it a question of cheating with an intent to improve performance? Do you have to rob a bank, or can you simply walk in with a gun and be tackled by the security guard?
That’s why I like Rob’s article. It’s a very focused look at the question, rather than just “hey steroids”, and then have some non-productive discussion with no purpose or expectation of results.