THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Well, part of his evidence is the reduced run scoring, which assumes that steroids is what lead to increased run scoring - the reasons to be skeptical of this conclusion are well known among readers of this blog, so I won’t rehash them.

Right, I agree.  (Pitchers also take PED and they also benefit, so, to the extent that PED is a benefit, whose to say who benefits more, etc.)

I think we can draw a bright-line in his article, and think of it as part 1 and part 2, and just focus on part 2: the incentives to no longer take PED.  And foreign-born players won’t appreciate as much the media hysteria.

Joe argued that mediocre players would have trouble finding work if they were caught on steroids.  But has that proven to be true?  Have otherwise qualified players (talent-wise) failed to be signed b/c of their steroid association?  And fans haven’t exactly gotten up in arms over Ryan Franklin, JC Romero and Edinson Volquez.

I would think that Joe’s point holds for players that have a lot to lose—but that doesn’t include all major leaguers even.

In my view, the under-reported facet of steroid testing is the “retiree.”

My guess is that players who are not currently under contract are NOT randomly tested.

(Warning:  baseless accusations to follow)

As such, when Sammy Sosa wants to get to 600 homers, he could hypothetically take a season away from the game, not be drug tested during that year, hypothetically cycle off the following January/February, and return after his one-year hiatus with a strong first half before tapering off.

Or, Roger Clemens could “mull retirement” for an extended six month off-season, not be subject to testing, and then hypothetically cycle off in April/May in order to join the Yankees mid-season in three consecutive years.

Basically I am highly, highly suspicious of one-year hiatuses, until I learn more about the rigors of steroid testing for players not under contract, and/or “mulling retirement.”

(As an aside, I don’t begrudge steroid use at all and am anything from a “Holy Writer”; however I wouldn’t some players to be able to get away with it and others not to).

I am 99.9% sure the only players tested are those on the 40-man roster.  There was a pretty clear protocol as to who is tested, and when.  You can find it easily enough.

Tango, you and Poz are interchanging “steroids” and “PEDs” and I think that is a mistake.

There is steroid testing.  There is amphetamine testing.  But those are just subsets of PEDs.

Human Growth Hormone, for example, carries no incentives against using whatsoever.  It is not currently tested for, and the only known tests that could detect it (blood tests) would require a policy change, which would give so much notice to players that they can be 100% certain that taking it today would never bring consequences or negative incentives upon them.

The notion seems hopelessly naive to me.

AFAIK, there is still no way to test for growth hormone use. Steroid users have already moved to legal “prohormones” - substances that convert to steroids in the body. On the horizon we have genetic therapy that will make steroids look piddly.

There are just too many ways for an enterprising athlete to get ahead. Many are not even illegal (yet).

The idea that public shame will act as a policing factor seems highly unlikely as well. Every tweener out there has way more to gain by making a major league salary than he has to lose by getting caught using.

Steroids are just part of the landscape of professional athletics. I don’t see how that genie can be put back in the bottle.

For what it is worth, I don’t think the outrage is phony. Misplaced, uninformed--maybe. The outrage is nevtheless real from many of the people expressing it. There can be little doubt that some expressing outrage knew about it and turned a blind eye, for which they are hypocrits. But the parents trying to figure out what to tell their child, who’s favorite player was Manny Ramirez, aren’t phony in their outrage.

Steven Tyler admitted in his book that several of his songs were only possible because he was on drugs.

When I went to school, followers of rock bands outnumbered followers of athletes by a wide margin.

“Dad, why did Manny take drugs?”
- “So he can make alot of money.”

“Dad, why did Steven Tyler take drugs?”
- “So he can make alot of money and bang girls.”

“Dad, what drugs did Steven Tyler take?”

You know what I don’t get? How is it that these athletes are held to such high standards, but the muscle mags that grace every drug store and supermarket in America get a pass.

It’s the biggest scam in the world. Body builders, who are on more drugs than you can imagine, are held up as the ideal physical specimens. They peddle mostly useless snake oil supplements with the implied message that they are what made them so “hyooj” (no, it was the steroids).

The sucker kids are tricked into wasting their money on these “supplements”. The more sophisticated ones are led to steroids so they can look like the guys that they see in these magazines. Young men have many of the same body image problems that young girls have now for pretty much the same reasons - magazines that imply they are inadequate physically.

So give Manny a break. The problem’s right there in front of your face.

Baseball::OldWhiteMen
as
Daughters::Fathers

Sorry to say dad, but Baseball is not so innocent.

If prohormones worked as described, bodybuilders would actually use them rather than just endorse them.

Matt’s right in that the modern bodybuilder uses between 60-100K of steroids, GH, and diuretics annually. The thing is that no one cares about bodybuilding and it’s not really a secret. Steroid testing in bodybuilding is like the referee in WWE.

I believe the IFBB’s steroid test is simply asking 6’1 300 pound (single digit BF%) Marcus Ruhl, “Did you take steroids?” “No.” “Okay.”

the NFL fan seems to only care about performance than process, wheras the MLB fan likely views it’s sport as being more noble than that, however misguided that may be.

#8/philosofool - I tend to think it’s phony because I haven’t yet heard of a good reason why someone should be outraged over this. Barry Bonds took steroids? I literally have no feelings about this whatsoever. I don’t know Barry Bonds. I don’t know anyone that does. His actions affected only himself. A-Rod? Same thing.

If you’re close to Bonds and trusted him I could understand some outrage, but a person who doesn’t know him, which is almost all fans, I don’t see it. We could be outraged that the drugs are being used, but that’s not really what we see. We see fans being outraged at specific players in baseball. Those players are the ones who hit home runs. I’ve seen some fans snicker at the marginal player who has tested positive saying “it didn’t work.” We also don’t see the same outrage when it comes to other sports. Can someone honestly be outraged over PEDs because someone broke a home run record? I don’t believe so. I don’t believe there’s any basis to be outraged over something like that.

Fans also still go to games, watch them on television and buy merchandise. They do all of that at record rates.

You honestly don’t see how a fan could have a basis for being outraged that a player broke the two most celebrated records while using steroids? In baseball, the sport that celebrates records and numbers as much, if not more, than championships?

There was outrage when Maris broke the same record with more games played?

I could argue that players taking steroids affected a whole lot more than just themselves, but I don’t think it would be a wise investment of time.

No I don’t believe a person can be genuinely outraged over breaking home run records. They think they are. They’re disappointed it happened in the manner it did and they’re confusing disappointment with outrage. Maybe they’re outraged at themselves for thinking baseball was pure and innocent. Perhaps they realized after this that it’s not and are outraged they didn’t see it before. That doesn’t seem to be since so many are still displaying phony outrage.

I believe Tango is usually talking specifically about the journalists. These are the ones who knew something was going on and said nothing at the time. That in itself shows their outrage is phony.

There wasn’t outrage when Maris broke the record. Once again, people confuse that with disappointment and probably in this case, sadness. People wanted Ruth’s record to stand forever and were disappointed it would not. We all knew all along it wouldn’t because records are broken.

If you want to argue that steroids affected a lot more people than the one I said, do so, but please do not tell me that parents were affected. I’m sick of that one. It’s my job to raise my children and influence them in a positive way. It’s my job to see to it that my children will not take an illegal substance to improve at something. This is true whether we’re talking about a drug to stay up all night and study or one to get better at sports. It’s also my job to understand that I can raise my children in the best possible way and they can and will still do things I do not approve of. Blaming the athlete is easier than a parent accepting the blame or accepting that children do stupid things. Even our own children.

I bet Manny got as many women as Steven Tyler.  Baseball players do pretty well in that category, even if they don’t make a lot of money.

I had to look up outrage, to make sure I was using it by definition ...

“a powerful feeling of resentment or anger aroused by something perceived as an injury, insult, or injustice”

[1] Outrage is the right word to use for this situation.
[2] There was outrage in the Maris situation, even by the Commissioner.

--------------------------------------

When I say others were affected, I’m talking about players and teams.

If I felt that many adults were truly concerned with the state of parenting, I would engage in the conversation.

--------------------------------------

There’s no injury or insult to the average fan. I guess if someone really feels it’s an injustice for someone to have a home run record over another then I could see it, but I think that’s irrational.

Let’s just say that most people expressing outrage over this are doing so in a dishonest manner. There cannot be this many people outraged. If there is, then it says something about our society that is truly depressing.

Phony is the perfect word to use in front of the word outrage.

Just thank the lord that Sean Hannity is not a baseball writer.

Tango, who do you mean is phony?  Writers who suspected something but kept quiet, or fans who think Bonds did something wrong?

Phony in front of outrage, ergo, “phony outrage”.  In 2004, meaning after Bonds’ leaked grand jury testimony, the Giants, IIRC, were the best, or one of the best, attended road teams.  And they kept flocking as he chased Aaron. Fans flocked to him, regardless of the phony outrage exhibited by most.

I would think that cheating your way to a record held by someone generally viewed as a non-cheater* would be both an insult and an injustice.

No, not in the same way that Aparthied is an injustice or anything of that nature. I think we’re all discussing this from a sports perspective, with the realization that sports is primarily entertainment.

I’m not going to say that McGwire and Bonds ruined my life or did 400K worth of emotional damage by breaking the record by cheating. But, I think we can say it’s an insult and an injustice.

I’ll leave it at that, because for me, as a former player, coach, dad, etc to get all riled up about it and talk as if I’m a MLBPA member would just sound absurd. But, it does piss me off. McGwire in the dugout as a hitting coach bothers me, actually it pisses me off ... but what’s the point?

------------------------------

* I hope we as intelligent people are not going to view Henry Aaron trying a greenie one time as being in the same realm as whatr Bonds & McGwire did.

------------------------------

We, as a group, seem to have different views on cheating in professional sports than we do in amateur sports?

I don’t understand why “outrage” always has to be represented by “giving up attending baseball games”.

Is that the only way a fan can express outrage?

I will state that there is no one baseball player or player action that can do something that will cause me to give up the sport I love, or attending games at the stadium.

I guess, therefore, I can never be outraged about anything in major league baseball.

We have some silly standards sometimes.

Well, what do you call it when the Giants lead the league in attendance on the road?  So, not that you have to walk away to express your outrage, but what do you call it when you step up your views and come to even more games?

***

Baseball is a sport.

MLB is a business.  You can give up MLB and not give up on baseball, the sport you love.

"We, as a group, seem to have different views on cheating in professional sports than we do in amateur sports?”

I don’t care who cheats in sports or how they cheat. It’s entertainment. I don’t care that the actors and actresses have their tummies tucked or surgery to fix some flaw in their nose or chin. I watch sports for pure entertainment value and don’t view the ones who hold the record as anything other than the person having the most of whatever statistic it is. Having the most home runs doesn’t make one the best player. It doesn’t mean they had the most power. It doesn’t mean they were the best home run hitter. It just means they hit more than others. I don’t care how they did it. I’m going to watch baseball if all the players are juiced, on greenies, and taking HGH on television.

A record is just a record. There’s nothing meaningful about it. If some amateur wants to take steroids, that’s too bad, but whatever. It’s his or her body and they can do what they want. There’s a lot of other stuff I’m going to get upset about before I start to even consider being upset at some athlete for cheating.

I compltely understand your pespective and am not trying (intentionally) to sway your opinion.

The only thing I am disagreeing with is the idea that all outrage is phony outrage, even though Tom makes a good point that much of it could be.

I’m saying that being outraged and attending games are not necessarily intertwined.

Admittingly, I attended a Cards-Giants game in the mid-sights just because that happened to be the open date that we all could attend.  I don’t think that makes me a hypocrite but I suppose that’s not for me to decide.

I don’t understand why being mad or outraged at a player or action requires one to abstain from MLB events. I guess my outrage doesn’t trump my other emotions.

I don’t even think being outraged at a player or the steroid era in general is rational, but people (myself included) often do irrational things. We knew steroids were in sports at the time all the home runs were hit. Any person old enough to read a newspaper knew it. I remember a good friend of mine and I talking in 1998 about how something was going on. In a matter of moments we each concluded that steroids were a big factor. I’m a Cubs fan and although I knew what was going on, I was thrilled to watch it and what others have learned since hasn’t changed that for me. The home run race in 1998 was one of the most exciting seasons in my life.

I’m not a Giants fan, but I very much enjoyed watching Bonds destroy baseballs. I’m glad I got to see that.

These things just don’t matter to me. I’m a recovering alcoholic and drug addict and for me, being outraged at one of them or the era in general would be silly. Some person I do not know being outraged at me would be equally silly. The family members and friends that I hurt, I understood their outrage. I was amazed at how eager they were to help me get better because they cared.

I’d also add that no amount of apologizing makes anyone less outraged when it comes to steroids. Generally speaking, admitting a wrong, apologizing and trying hard to correct it if possible will ease the outrage. That’s genuine outrage. A-Rod admitted he used, apologized to the world even though I was the last person to be owed an apology and people are still outraged? Where is the forgiveness? A-Rod’s actions hurt those supposedly outraged far less than my actions hurt those close to me, but over time I have rebuilt those relationships.

If you don’t have the ability to forgive someone, I don’t see how you have the ability to be outraged at them in the first place.

Tango,

In lots of other posts here, you have taken up the side of someone who has been wronged in some way - discrimination particularly, but in general, you have tended to come out on the side of those who have been treated unfairly.

So, let me ask this, in two parts:

1.  Do you think there are any baseball players who have chosen to abstain from PED’s out of principle?

2.  If yes, then do you think any of those players have lost their opportunity to become a major league player because of that principled stand, either by being beat out directly by a PED user, or indirectly by having their own performance stats damaged by PED users who opposed them?

Is this fair?  Are such players wrong for making the principled stand they have chosen (i.e. are they a “chump” for playing by the rules?)

Appreciate your thoughts (and everyone else’s, too)…

If you want moral outrage, express at those who stood by and did nothing.

This is a workplace safety issue, and they decided, the players did, to do nothing.  You may as well be upset at WWF wrestlers for following the script.

The players establish the landscape, and we watch (or not).

My point was that if there’s any outrage, it ought to center around the people (clean, marginal players) who were damaged the most.

Are you suggesting that one of those guys should have spoken up?  For one thing, they may not have *known* anything, but only suspected, if we define “knowing” for the moment as “possessing evidence that would stand up in court”.

For another, you’re expecting a lot if you expect the weakest member of a group to rat out the strongest members of a group with weak or hearsay evidence, or with suspicions only.  By that logic, if you see a guy walk by who “everyone knows” is a criminal, then you ought to go to the police and tell them that.  There’s a reason why that sort of thing doesn’t happen, and I wouldn’t presume to express outrage at someone in that situation who kept it to himself…

I’m with you that we ought to be outraged by people who knew about PED’s and stood by.  I just don’t think there were very many people who were clean and also really, truly KNEW.  Those who fit that description are culpable, IMO.

They knew. I’d say at least 90% of players knew at least one guy who took PED.

Rick Helling was one that was outspoken, but he couldn’t get people on his side.

#30. Rick Helling was very outspoken in the late 90’s about the rampant steroid use, but it did not get much press.  He asked to MLBPA to take action in the late 90’s because he said a number of players were being forced to use steroids or risk losing their jobs to players who were using.
Of course, he also probably did not appreciate all the HR’s that were hit against him.

There may have been some players who did not use out of principle, but more likely, those who did not use did so because their game did not rely on extra strength (eg singles hitters with speed), health concerns, etc. 

Some players may have used intermittently (contract years), or tried them and gave them up due to side effects.  Some estimates put players use at 50% or more. Those who argue against this number saying it is inflated and the numbers were closer to 6% are the ones quickest to say the across the board sudden drop in offense is due to the testing program, even as top sluggers like Bautista can still hit 54 HR. 

As for non-users coming forward, good luck.  Paxton Crawford came foreward after retirement and said steroid use was rampant with the Red Sox when he came up, and was ridiculed and attacked by his former teammates and the Boston reporters.  Manny Alexander and the bat boy from Dorchester is evidence Crawford was right, but the reporters covering the Red Sox chose to ignore this. 

The baseball media was part of the steroid coverup until the Balco Investigations exposed it and Congress got involved.  The media then took MLB’s side and blamed it all on the players, ignoring the fact that MLB was giving presentations to owners showing the benfits of steroids on player peformance in the late 90’s.

MLB has to play it both ways now.  Keep Congress off it’s back with a testing program they control, which allows them to protect the brand and MLB revenues by protecting it’s stars.  The reduction in overall offense provides the illusion that the testing program works, when it may be due to other factors under MLB’s control (balls, strike zone).

For all we know, Mike Gallego went to the A’s owner and TLR, and reported that Canseco and McGwire were using steroids in the locker room ... how would that have been handled?

Basically as part of a strong MLBPA, speaking own, unless you’re really talented is likely career suicide. That’s a high expectation to have on someone.

-----------------------------------

As for Bonds and Giants attendance on the road. I seem to recall him getting Boo’d everywhere he went, syringes thrown on the field at LAA, creative signs displayed at every park.

It wasn’t as if people were showing up to baseball games with the Giants on the road and cheering Bonds or acting as if it were no big deal. The dude was getting a “Haterade Shower” everywhere he went. Of course, knowing Bonds personality, it probably just made him perform better ... but fans weren’t wrong to show up and voice their displeasure. Boycott isn’t the only action. matter of fact, absence due to boycott looks exactly like disinterest ... so who knows if the message gets across in the first place.

It was venom at its best.

That’s exactly why the outrage is phony. People went to Giants games on the road to see history. They wanted to be a part of it. They wanted to be able to tell their children or friends that they saw one of his home runs that year. Honestly, how outraged can a person be if he or she really wants to be in attendance and share in what is happening?

Where was/is the outrage for Ryan Franklin? What about Troy Glaus? Why were people outraged that Mark McGwire was a hitting coach, but no such outrage was shown for Matt Williams? If fans are outraged over steroids, why are they so inconsistent? It doesn’t make sense.

There has to be something else. I’ve heard fans laugh about a player testing positive when the player wasn’t very good. Literally laugh! I’ve even heard fans jokingly say about such players that they should have used better steroids.

Where was the outrage in the 90s when everybody knew what was going on, but nobody talked about it? When it was a secret that everyone knew but didn’t discuss, it wasn’t a big deal at all.

the result from Tango’s ethics survey seems to suggest fans weren’t really that upset over the steroids era. I tend to agree because there is not enough consistency from the fans on this matter. For one player it’s a travesty. For another it’s a laughing matter. It can’t be both. If you’re truly outraged about Bonds then you must be outraged about the others. That just doesn’t match reality though.

The outrage is over the HR record.  That is it.  Gaylord Perry could have cheated on every single pitch, and no one would care.

Wasn’t it hilarious (I mean HILARIOUS) when Mike Scott threw his “scuffball” by Gary Carter, and then Carter immediately demanded that the ball be inspected?

You cheat, you are suspended, and you start with a blank slate.  You don’t get a scarlet letter.

Except for HR.  Oh, no, not the HR, where people pray at the alter of HR.  Oh praise be the god Babe Ruth, and all that you stand for, you holy one.

The outrage is over the HR record.  That is it.  Gaylord Perry could have cheated on every single pitch, and no one would care.

Roger Clemens says hi!

The PED outrage with Clemens was post-career, no?  So, the outrage is all based on his congressional testimony, and his constant denial about it.  If he pulled an Andy Pettitte on us, all is forgiven.

And the “outrage” over clemens is small fraction of what is seen thrown at Bonds or McGwire.  I mean, this conversation has gone on for 2 days and we’ve seen many references to Bonds (the name Bonds is said 12 times not including my post), several to McGwire (5), but we’ve only now twice mentioned Clemens.

Tango’s right, its the HR.  Without the numbers 62, 70, 73, and 756, no one would care about steroids.  No congressional hearing, no stupid report, no Bonds perjury trial, and probably no testing policy either.

It’s unquestionably about the HR and little or nothing else. That’s why football players can test positive and then win end of season awards. It’s why people forget Andy Pettitte used. It’s why people forget that at one team at least, more minor league pitchers tested positive than position players. It’s why Ryan Franklin and others can get away with it. But Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Manny Ramirez, Rafael Palmeiro and A-Rod? They hit a lot of home runs. The anger is directed at them.

There were lots of rumors about Clemens using steroids before it became common knowledge. It was ignored. When he insisted on testifying in front of congress the fans turned on him. I agree with Tango. If Clemens stepped to the podium today and apologized, all would be forgiven.

The HR focus is true, but incidental. 

The issue burns hottest where PED-fueled performance brings modern players within reach of records that have survived in MLB for decades.  That happens to be home runs, because via generational changes in the game, pitching career and season totals for wins are permanently out of reach.

Do you guys think that if Clemens had overtaken Cy Young’s career pitching wins mark, there would have been no particular uproar?  I can’t believe that anyone would think that…

This isn’t about HR inherently, it’s about rewriting history with what many believe to be tainted performances.  The fact that it is HR is incidental, as HR’s turned out to be the milestones that were the closest…

I think there’s some merit to the point made in 40/Greg, but a quick search just now showed steroid suspicions were brought up last year when Jose Bautista had 38 home runs, nowhere near anyone’s records.

http://thestar.blogs.com/thespin/2010/08/gotta-at-least-ask-the-question.html

We’ve been permanently sensitized to huge breakout performances in HR’s, ever since a HR total that had not been equaled in 37 years was all of the sudden exceeded 6 times in 3 seasons, and not exceeded incrementally like Maris did to Ruth’s 60, or Ruth did to his own 59, but left in the dust like roadkill…

#40 - The average fan can tell you who the home run leader is and probably even tell you how many he hit. The average fan cannot tell you who the career leader in wins is and would have no idea how many. So no, I don’t think there would be any phony outrage directed at a pitcher who approached the win record.

But my point overall is that if you are outraged at athletes who use steroids, you’re outraged at all of them. That’s simply not what we see. Fans are outraged at one or two, question a couple others, make fun of a few others for using, laugh at others for doing so. Obviously if it’s something worthy of outrage it’s not worthy of dismissing or ignoring any person who helped in making the steroid era what it was. That’s primarily why I dismiss all articles where someone acts angry. Maybe that one person is truly upset at all of them, but a large majority act as though they’re upset with one a few.

#43: you’re making my point for me: the pitching milestone numbers are so far in the past, and so far out of reach, that many people are ignorant of them.  The HR numbers are (obviously) not out of reach.  If the pitching numbers were being obliterated by PED-fueled modern players, there would be outrage.  That’s my opinion, of course, and you’re entitled to yours as well…

#44: it looks like you’re suggesting that right-thinking people should be just as outraged at a marginal MLB player who suspected something but said nothing as they are at a superstar who went pharmacologically crazy.  If you think there should not be degrees of outrage, then you must think there are not degrees of guilt.  Is this so?

the result from Tango’s ethics survey seems to suggest fans weren’t really that upset over the steroids era. I tend to agree because there is not enough consistency from the fans on this matter. For one player it’s a travesty. For another it’s a laughing matter. It can’t be both.

But my point overall is that if you are outraged at athletes who use steroids, you’re outraged at all of them. That’s simply not what we see.

Not to sound like Spock, but people’s emotions are rarely logical. Predictable, perhaps, but rarely logical.

There is also a tendency to equate volume of media coverage with degree of outrage.  Just because there are 10 stories about a superstar for every one about a marginal player who got busted, doesn’t mean the fans’ opinion of the transgression is radically different.

I’ve got a similar level of disgust for a celebrity caught driving drunk as I do for some nobody doing the same.  I don’t expect to hear about the latter in the press as much as I do the former, though…

And to continue that example, I have different levels of “outrage” for drivers who blow a 0.081 than I do for drivers who blow a 0.22% BAC… does that make me bad, or inconsistent, or illogical?

Good points being made all the way around.

I tend to agree most with Greg’s last point.

Plus, there’s only so much outrage to go around. Is feeling the same amount of any emotion for all situations even humanly possible?

Certainly we don’t feel the same about the exec that steals millions from the company as we do the data entry guy that takes a few bucks from a cash can. Maybe we should but we don’t.

"it looks like you’re suggesting that right-thinking people should be just as outraged at a marginal MLB player who suspected something but said nothing as they are at a superstar who went pharmacologically crazy.”

Not exactly. A person who said nothing is a coward. MLB is filled with cowards, which is why we didn’t hear much about it. There’s not much we can do about those people. I’m talking about the nobodies that used steroids.

As for degrees of guilt, I feel like people are missing the bigger picture with the steroid era. There isn’t one person who stands above all others. There were literally hundreds, maybe thousands of people who share in the blame. This ranges from the owners who encouraged it (easily the biggest share of the blame falls with them and nobody is outraged) to the coaches who looked the other way to the players who used to the cowards in MLB and to the complicit media to the fans who ignored the obvious and shelled out more money than ever in support of what they were seeing.

Think about it in terms of win probability. Those who contributed most to the problem earn a higher percentage of the win probability. There were hundreds of players who used. They all share in the blame. The owners who encouraged trainers to discuss how to properly use steroids must be at the top. This was about money. Attendance skyrocketed as players hit more and more home runs. It’s no surprise that as run scoring has declined so has attendance. It won’t be long before the owners are encouraging players to do something else.

And what about Bud Selig? He’s the boss of it all. In a typically corrupt business the boss is the one who is criticized. You can’t tell me that Selig didn’t know. He was commissioner for nearly the entirety of the steroids era.

All I’m saying is that if there’s outrage, it’s at the entire era and that there hundreds of people who share blame. Not one of them is so responsible to earn genuine outrage for their actions. If one is, it’s the owners or Bud Selig.

"And to continue that example, I have different levels of “outrage” for drivers who blow a 0.081 than I do for drivers who blow a 0.22% BAC… does that make me bad, or inconsistent, or illogical? “

Of course not, but this isn’t a particularly good example. It’s not like a steroid user in baseball is in any way comparable to the borderline drunk who gets into his car and drives. On a different day that person whose BAC was .081 may be under the legal limit.

I’m assuming we’re not trusting what the individuals say about their drug use. I believe that an athlete used steroids once like I believe it’s going to rain hundred dollar bills tomorrow. Maybe one or even two of the hundreds who used did in fact only use once. Entirely possible, but the majority of them stuck it. My guess is that almost all players who used for the first time stacked steroids and did at least two to three cycles of it. How long those cycles were, I’m not sure. Some say shorter cycles are better and others prefer longer ones.

Anyone in a professional sport is almost certainly going to be stacking the steroids. It would be very surprising if they didn’t. Even if someone used only once, it’s highly unlikely they just got some deca and did one cycle. Even less likely they took it one time. I’m willing to bet money that no baseball player ever took steroids one time. If you decide to take them, you’re going to do it for at least one cycle because you know going in it’s going to take considerable time to see the muscle growth.

So personally, I think they were all using multiple chemicals and using them frequently enough that the difference between what Bonds did and some of the others is probably much less than you realize.

Back to what I quoted. A more reasonable comparison is whether or not you’d be more outraged at a person whose BAC was .22 than if someone’s was .18. If Bonds was .22, we can be assured that some were .24, .25 and maybe even a few that were .3. Most were probably .20. the ones who say they used it “once” were probably .18 if they were being honest with us.

Would I be more outraged at someone whose BAC was .22 than another whose was .18? I don’t know. Probably not.

Well, I understand where you’re coming from a bit better now, but I have to say that you sure seem certain about the prevalence of steroids, when you almost certainly don’t have any first hand knowledge.  Why are you so sure? 

Do you have any first-hand knowledge?

I think blame is a seperate issue.

I think that outrage is proportional to the increase in performance, accomplishments, and the player’s response.

Maybe all of those are irrational, but that seems to be beside the point.

Greg/52 - I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of professional athletes, but I have known several people who have used steroids. A few of them have been collegiate athletes (one a baseball player). I don’t think I’m making any more assumptions than you are. The truth is we don’t know how many used or how much they used or how they did so. Your assumption seems to be that one or two players put significantly more chemicals in their body than the average person who used. It’s therefore those guys who should be criticized the most. But we don’t know that’s any more true than what I suggested as quite possible.

What we do know is that steroids were prevalent in baseball for two decades or more. How prevalent? Well, we really don’t know. I don’t believe the Mitchell Report any more than I believe Jose Canseco.

The truth is we’ll never know all those who used, how much they used and for how long. It seems naive to think that those we do know have been the worst abusers. We’re also never going to know how much impact it had on the game. As far as PEDs and cheating goes, what makes more of an impact: a player using steroids or what Gaylord Perry and countless other pitchers do? One has an overall impact, but the other impacts every single pitch that is thrown. So with regards to cheating, I think PEDs is pretty far down the list on the impact it has on the game.

I also don’t care who used or who is still using. They’re all adults and their PED use affects me in no way whatsoever. I’m active in NA and genuinely care when someone is addicted to crack, meth or some other narcotic, because of how drugs have affected my life and those around me. But steroids? I could not care less. The reasons for using steroids are entirely different than the reasons people use other illegal drugs. I find the reason people use steroids to be laughable and undeserving of any emotion from me.

@29: This is a workplace safety issue, and they decided, the players did, to do nothing.

Tangotiger, Forgive me for jumping in to this thread so late, but you’ve written something along these lines a few times, and I still don’t get it.

If it takes two antagonistic parties several years to eventually come to an agreement on something, it doesn’t necessarily follow that either party “did nothing.”

Beyond that, why is it even relevant what the players did or didn’t do?  If instead of PEDs, the issue was concussions, would you say the same thing?  I.e., “what a phony outrage for writers like Alan Schwarz to report about a workplace safety issue when that is the players own business to do something about or not?”

If the issue was sexual harassment in the workplace, would you say it would be out of bounds for anyone but the direct victims and their co-workers to speak out about it?  Unless the workers’ union has agreed to terms with management on an in-house process to charge and punish perpetrators?

The two antagonstic parties would not be the MLBPA and MLB, but two players within MLBPA.

This is one guy, Rick Helling, saying that he wants to pitch in MLB, but he will not endanger his life.  And there is another guy, I dunno, Kent Mercker, who does want to endanger his life.

So, they are both free agents, Helling might be a better pitcher, but Mercker juices his body and ends up being the better pitcher.  And Mercker is offered the job.

Now, Helling should (and does) go nuts.  He implores for the MLBPA to place controls, to ensure a safe working environment.

They don’t need MLB to oversee this.  MLBPA can oversee it themselves.  They can get an independent third-party to administer.  They can revoke membership in MLBPA.

Now, it would make for an easier path if MLB does oversee this, since MLB can impose greater disincentives (salary forfeiture).  And it makes sense to partner here.

But, the onus here must be on the players themselves.

This is no different than unions on a construction site requiring other union members to perform a job they’ve been trained to, and not allowing a non-certified contractor to work on the site.  (Though, really, they do it more for job-protection than job-safety.  But, that’s beside the point.)

One difference with the construction site example is that there are no 4th Amendment concerns there.

But why is it even relevant to this discussion whether or not the MLBPA did all that it could?  If the dispute between Helling and Mercker had to do with sexual harassment / homophobia, and the MLBPA did nothing to help the victim(s), would you take the same position?

Are you saying that one union member harasses another union member at the worksite, even though management meets all legal requirements to provide a safe workplace? 

And that the union leadership does nothing to address the situation?

Right, I’d hold the same position.

Yes, that was basically my hypothetical (although I’m not well versed enough on the ins and outs of “management’s legal requirements to provide a safe workplace").

Would you object to outsiders (e.g. holy writers) who express outrage towards the (alleged, with some supporting evidence) harasser(s)?

If the players have decided to NOT enact a safe workplace, then I would object to the holy writers singling out the individual players who are contributing to the unsafe workplace.  The outrage (disbelief actually) should be toward ALL players for not wanting a safer workplace. 

If the players DID enact a safe workplace, then I’d have no objection to someone singling out the one that breaks that safety rule.

***

The Holy Writers by the way express their outrage not because of someone being denied a chance at a safe workplace, or having to witness an unsafe workplace.  They do so because their holy numbers have been tainted.  Their objection is based not on the human conditions, but on the cold records.

It’s an irrational position to take, to revere the numbers more than the person.

Where we apparently differ is that I don’t believe players/employees truly “decide to not enact a safe workplace.” It’s hardly ever a decision point so much as it’s a temporary and unfortunate by-product of other influences.  In this case: inertia to change in the face of new circumstances, sanctity of the clubhouse ("don’t be a snitch"), machismo, fear of privacy invasion, fear of false positives, et. al.

***

Since the players did ultimately enact safety rules for PEDs, I suppose that means you have no objection if Holy Writers target post-2004 perpetrators (Manny Ramirez?) for outrage (and HOF ostracization)?

***

I can’t read anyone’s mind, but for me the objection is both (numbers and human conditions).  And I find it hard to believe and unfair to assume that all (or even most) of the “Holy Writers” revere the numbers more than the person.

Since the players did ultimately enact safety rules for PEDs, I suppose that means you have no objection if Holy Writers target post-2004 perpetrators (Manny Ramirez?) for outrage (and HOF ostracization)?

I have no objection if it’s proportionate to the crime.  The league has decided on 50 games or 100 games.  The league has not decided on banishment.

Take the case of Dale Hunter who did the dirtiest of hits after Pierre Turgeon scored a goal (play is dead obviously). 

I would not object to HOF talk for Hunter.  You yell based on the circumstance, and not on some final banishment over and above whatever the league decided.

That’s what makes them Holy Writers, that they know better.

League decisions to suspend active players are made with other purposes in mind.

I could be persuaded that a certain level of dirty hit deserves comparable workplace punishment to a certain level of PED use from a worker’s safety perspective.  That doesn’t mean the two offenders benefited equally from their misdeeds in terms of career accomplishment.

****

If I’m understanding your POV correctly, whatever framework players or their representatives created or negotiate with management should be the be-all and end-all in terms of how individual player actions can be judged by non-peers?  Should the values, morals, and laws of greater society have zero place (except possibly in the case of a criminal conviction)?

whatever framework players or their representatives created or negotiate with management should be the be-all and end-all in terms of how individual player actions can be judged by non-peers?  Should the values, morals, and laws of greater society have zero place (except possibly in the case of a criminal conviction)?

It sort of depends on whether you see MLB as a workplace with employees and management, with fans being just sort of incidental witnesses (like people outside the fence watching construction workers put up a building), or if you view fans as the ultimate reason for there being a league.

Not be-all, end-all, but certainly a large factor.

I object to the Holy Writers deciding on their own, after the fact, over and above whatever the players and league wants, simply because they decided to impose their own moral certitude.  They annoy me, with their approach to problem-solving and critical thinking. 

I object to irrational thinking.