THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Impossible!  Bud Selig was unaware of steroid problems!

“If baseball has a problem,” Selig says, “I must say candidly that we were not aware of it. It certainly hasn’t been talked about much. But should we concern ourselves as an industry?”
- Bud Selig, 1995

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n30_v219/ai_17320724/

I wouldn’t say it’s completely victimless.  Many players felt the need to take steroids knowing that to compete for MLB job they had to do what others were doing, putting their health at risk.  If the playing field were even (full drug testing), many would not feel the need to take steroids.

And on top of that if they are illegal then it is more than a workplace issue.  It’s a legal issue.

I for one, won’t make excuses for those who did something illegal and unfair.

vr, Xei

Even if the drugs themselves are illegal, employee drug testing is a workplace issue, as are the penalties MLB sets up itself.  MLB’s policy has nothing to do with the legal issues.  The legal issue is purely a matter for the government, which is independent of anything MLB sets up in the workplace.

It seems that Selig has done or said a lot of disingenuous stuff that could look pretty bad under scrutiny.

Xei: how high is your horse?  I can eventually construct a scenario where you would do something illegal but you would consider those actions just.

Posted this over at the BPro discussion:

The first player who comes out and tells the TRUTH will be my hero.

What truth is that? The truth that they don’t regret having taken steroids. Do you REALLY think McGwire regrets taking steroids? I don’t. Instead we have to listen to all these PC bullship mea culpas.

The statement I want to hear is, “While I don’t recommend anyone use steroids to enhance their athletic performance and while I would never encourage anyone to do anything illegal, I cannot say that I regret using steroids. They helped me stay on the field and reach my potential. They helped me win games for myself and my teammates and make millions of dollars for myself and for baseball. While I do regret lying about using steroids, I cannot regret using them during a time when the use was tacitly encouraged by my team, MLB, the media, and the fans.”

Maybe Barry Bonds will be the guy who does this. He doesn’t seem to be too concerned with being popular or politically correct.

"I can eventually construct a scenario where you would do something illegal but you would consider those actions just.”

Sure you could but please don’t go there.  Nothing done by professional athletes should be compared to a desperate man trying to feed his starving family.  Going there detracts from the debate.

Why isn’t Jose Canseco already your hero?

I’ve been meaning to ask this for a while. Tom and a few commenters here have some strong feelings on the issue of steroids, and they are very different than my own. I know what bothers you most is the phony moral outrage from sportswriters (and some fans), but I want to go deeper than that.

We all have the same facts, and we’re all using the same logic, but we’re coming to very different opinions on steroids. It’s a lot like politics. I think when thoughtful people who share the same facts disagree, it’s because they have different starting points--different preconceived assumptions deep down. These are things we usually don’t even bother to articulate because they are givens to us.

I’d really like to know what your starting point is, what your ‘givens’ are.

For example, my starting points are that:

-Takings steroids is, at its heart, selfishness. It raises one’s own performance, fame, salary, etc. at the expense of others and the integrity of the game itself. This is why it is a moral issue to many.

-Individuals bear the responsibility of their choices no matter what the “system” is. It doesn’t matter that everyone else is doing it.

-It robs all of us of enjoying future HR races and other similar facets of the game because the records are now so far out of reach. It robs other other record holders, and future potential record breakers of those accomplishments. To me it’s not victimless.

-The level playing field is ultimately what’s important. It needs to be vigilantly defended, and that’s why the HoF and other honors are important. In the end, it doesn’t matter who breaks records or wins championships as long as it’s done fairly.

-People have always been and always will be selfish, myself included. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying to uphold an ideal. Ideals are just that, not minimum standards.

I hope I’m coming across as genuinely interested in your thoughts. Not by any means do I intend to say my side of the debate is morally superior. What are your ‘givens?’

"For example, my starting points are that: “

Actually, your starting point is that you have allowed baseball, the game, to be held in trust by MLB and MLBPA.

Baseball is a beautiful sport.  A fantastic game.  It’s a nearly perfect framework.

MLB has one such implementation of that framework, an implementation that allows it to get almost all of its best practitioners on the field.

I don’t subscribe to the idea that the implementation of MLB requires me to associate that to anything other than what it is: an implementation that gives me great thrills to watch.  And that’s where it ends.

Some people want to make it more than that, to somehow link to the utopia that is baseball, the game.

That’s your starting point, that baseball = utopia, that MLB = baseball, and so, MLB = utopia.  Once you do that, you have expectations on MLB players that you don’t even have of your own wife and kids.  You’ll forgive your own family things that you would not tolerate from strangers who have done nothing to you directly.

"Nothing done by professional athletes should be compared to a desperate man trying to feed his starving family.  Going there detracts from the debate. “

But it sets the question that we are in large part a product of the environment.  While you would never think of stealing, if your life depended on it, you would do it, or at least seriously consider it.

The environment of MLB and NFL was such that “everyone was doing it”.  That doesn’t mean they get to skate, but neither does it mean that we get to pass judgement without understanding the circumstances.

As soon as you, as the writer, pass the moral judgement that you would not do what they did, then I, as a reader, get to call out your phoniness.

What you are allowed to call out is that the players did not care enough about their workplace to institute any kind of controls.  Even now, they have no controls on something as simple as pitcher usage, so if a manager wanted a pitcher to throw 150 pitches a game every 3 days, there’s nothing to stop him other than an injury.  This is an issue that is not about circumstances.  This would be a standard issue in any workplace environment.  Players are extremely selfish in this regard.  They have rules to prevent more than, say 20 games being played in a row (or 3 in a row in the NHL), so they think about something.  But, they don’t go far enough.  And there’s nothing about the circumstances that prevent them from doing things.  Just pure selfishness and cowardice.

@#7 Rally:

Because his admissions were profit driven and he implicated others. Otherwise I’d have no problem with him.

So as long as it thrills you, most other things are ok? What if the MLB umps conspired to create lots of game-7s like what was alleged in the NBA? That might be thrilling temporarily but it’s certainly hollow. Even if the MLB is simply ‘an implementation,’ it’s the one we’ve got, and steroid rules are part of the that implementation.

We can be intolerant of something and at the same time forgive someone for doing it. If we didn’t disapprove, there would be no reason to forgive. If my son lied to me, I wouldn’t tolerate that, but I would forgive him.

Forgiveness does not require that we look the other way. It doesn’t stop us from creating incentives to deter future transgressions. And it doesn’t mean that we must honor the transgression by building a bronze bust of the person responsible.

But as you point out, forgiveness is not our business with baseball players. These guys are strangers to us. Only our approval or disapproval matters. I believe it is our right as consumers to tolerate or not tolerate certain behaviors.

My “givens”, so to speak:

* I personally do not care what substances other adults choose to put in their bodies, be it broccoli, beer, steroids, or heroin.  I don’t consider it any of my business, and I don’t grant any moral authority to laws that purport to make it the state’s business.

* MLB and MLBPA certainly can, through collective bargaining, set a policy on steroid use.  They didn’t, at least not until several years after McGwire retired.

Once they make a policy, I respect their right to hold players to that policy and penalize them in the manner the agreement calls for.  That still doesn’t obligate me to bring down moral condemnation on those who violate it, or not express my belief that the penalties are too severe.

* I evaluate baseball players solely on the basis of their on-field contributions.  Anything else is well above my pay grade.  This isn’t the NCAA--there’s no rewriting of history after the fact to pretend as if games didn’t happen when thousands of people saw them.

* Baseball records mean next to nothing to me.  Barry Bonds hit more home runs over the course of his career than anyone else has.  That’s a fact, but I don’t heap any additional meaning upon it.  It doesn’t necessarily make him a better home run hitter than Hank Aaron--in fact, I guess that Hank Aaron’s gross total of home runs contributed more wins to his teams than Bonds’ did.  The emphasis on records in mainstream media and fandom is, I believe, based on a very naive premise that context can be ignored.  Context is king.

So as long as it thrills you, most other things are ok? What if the MLB umps conspired to create lots of game-7s like what was alleged in the NBA? That might be thrilling temporarily but it’s certainly hollow.

Then I would treat it like WWF.  I stopped watching as a teenager.

Even if the MLB is simply ‘an implementation,’ it’s the one we’ve got, and steroid rules are part of the that implementation.

But those rules were NOT in place at the time in question.  That’s the point.  When MLBPA actually cared about this enough to make it a workplace issue, the rules came in pretty late. 

Our reaction to McGwire/1993/steroids should be the same if there was a Gibson/1968/amphetamines.  A non-story, non-issue, irrelevancy.

I believe it is our right as consumers to tolerate or not tolerate certain behaviors.

And you do that as a consumer: by not supporting the product or service, or actually doing something about it.  Otherwise, it’s phony outrage.  The Holy Writers are the worst of the offenders in this regard.

Ditto Patriot/13.

Brian,

I personally don’t care about steroids. In a perfect world, they wouldn’t be used; but this isn’t a perfect world.

My starting point is this: if we get outraged about steroids, we have to get outraged about everything “impure” that ever happened in the majors. Anyone pre-1947 is tainted because he played only other white guys. Everyone who played since then is tainted by the widespread use of amphetamines, which is generally agreed to have begun around that time. Basically, there’s no way to prove anyone was “clean” or played the best players in the world. For that matter, Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame for throwing an illegal pitch. I strive to be consistent in the way I approach things, and selective outrage simply doesn’t work for me.

The other point here: steroids and amphetamines (and the spitball, for that matter) are used to improve the individual (and thus team) performance. Just because I’m ok with steroids guys doesn’t mean I’m ok with the Black Sox. You play to win the game.

Bottom line for me: if I have to be outraged about steroids, I have to be outraged about too many things to actually enjoy watching the best players in the world. If you’re not ok with that, just go watch Little League. Baseball is there to enjoy, and if you get no joy out of the majors, there are plenty of other ways to get it.

high horse?  I’m sorry, but if something is against the law “it’s against the law” in my books.  I don’t make the laws, and I don’t enforce the laws.  And if someone is breaking the law, I don’t see that it is being on a “high horse” to point that out.  I understand that sometimes people break the law out of desperation, but it is still breaking the law.  And I fully understand that Murder >>> Rape >>> Illegal Substance Use.  And I also understand that “personal responsibility” goes against the philosophy of the owners of this blog.  If you cheat, if you break the law, in the end you ONLY have YOURSELF to blame.  Blaming it on “the system”, or “circumstances” or the “MLBPA” or the “Commissioner” or the “owners” is NOT taking personal responsibility.  There is plenty of blame to go around for the steroid/PED etc… usage that was so widespread in MLB but if you break the law, lie and cheat it is YOUR FAULT.
Bibere venenum in auro.
vr, Xei

Xei: I wonder how you would feel as a woman in a third-world country, or a black person centuries ago in this country.  “Law is law” is something that the majority say to keep the minority in check.  Justice is justice is the correct term.

***

“And I also understand that “personal responsibility” goes against the philosophy of the owners of this blog. “

That is not correct.  First of all, MGL and I have different philosophies.  My philosophy is this: don’t judge others by projecting your personal principles onto them.

***

Just so people know, this is the ethical spectrum of people who read this blog:
http://tangotiger.net/ethics/ethics_results.php

Steroids is like playing with the ventilation or using an emery board.  It’s nowhere close to an outrageous action or event.

#18. Good point(s), but I would hope we could both agree that Steroids/McGwire != 3rd World Legal System/Centuries Ago US Legal System.

Thanks for clarifying your philosophy.  I really liked and was actually surprised by your take on Tiger Woods, calling him a jerk for cheating on his wife/kids even though you had to project some of your own personal principles upon him. 

vr, Xei

#9: thats very much how i think more people need to keep professional sports in perspective.  MLB is not “baseball”.  its a company that makes money from the best players in the world playing baseball.  it usually works pretty well for fans but sometimes it the incentives get screwed up and we get the 1990’s steroid bonanza (in deference to selig’s dislike off the term ‘steroid era’ )

steroids are not a good thing for baseball, or for anyone in general, but on the list of moral failings of baseball players, taking steroids is pretty low on my list, especially considering the mitigating circumstances.

brian williams is the latest and greatest media hack to blow this thing WAY out of proportion.  on the nightly news! 

whats next, disappointment at learning stockbrokers do cocaine so they can work longer hours?  how do i talk to my children about the global financial economy now?

I’m a baseball fan because I enjoy the sport and I love competition.  PEDs doesn’t detract from that, at least not when it’s widespread enough that it doesn’t provide any one team or group of teams with a disproportionate competitive advantage.  Therefore, on the field, I have few problems with PEDs use. 

I do, however, have a problem with players that detract from the true competitive nature of the game- players, for example, that slack off on the field or fake injuries in order to ensure that their option is not picked up so that they can negotiate a new contract.  That, to me, is the far more terrible offense because it negatively impacts the competitive integrity of the game.  But that’s hardly a blip on the radar and almost completely forgotten (or at least never mentioned) less than 20 months later.  Yet we’re still concerned about what McGwire and Bonds and Clemens did years ago.  Pete Rose was banned from the game forever (or for life- I forget which) for betting on games which MAY have impacted the competitive integrity of the game while the player I’m referring obviously impacted the competitive integrity of the game (if not the actual end results).  (unrelated question:  Does anyone familiar with the way Pete Rose played the game really believe he was capable of giving < 100% in any game, whether as a player or manager even if he did have money riding on it?).

Enhanced performance vs.  Diminished performance? 

I really don’t understand the outrage over PEDs.

Xei: actually with Tiger, I didn’t need my attitude.  Tiger first of all made a vow to his wife, and to a certain extent, his kids.  He demolished that.  Secondly, from the viewpoint of his wife, he’s an assh-le.  So, just within the Tiger/Elin universe, I didn’t even need to use my judgement.  Finally, he sells his persona to the world.  He invites judgement.

The only bias I had was publication bias.  So, I did cast my moral judgement by introducing my opinion.  If I agreed with him, I would not have said anything.

I love also how people make the distinction of “enhanced performance” against “enhanced performance in a competition”, as well as what is “enhanced”.

So, for example, Sgt Pepper is great.  The audience members who are stoned at an AC/DC concert?  Perfectly fine.  Performances enhanced, but not in competition.  We’re good.

What about The Beatles v The Stones in an American Idol competition, doing drugs?  That ok?  It’s more an exhibition than competition, so, ok I guess.

Taking a corticosteroid shot to limp to bat against Eck?  Great! (performance not enhanced… it was reset back to where it should have been!)

Corrective lenses?  It’s not Geordi Laforge, so it’s corrective, not enhanced, even though it’s actually enhanced from the current baseline.

Really, just take the outcome you want, then add all the conditions you need to make, so the argument makes sense.

oh man, it took me a few beats to catch up with the TNG reference but once i did i was like, haha, yeah nice. 

engage.

A crucial question is whether it was “against the rules” to use PEDs prior to 2004.  I don’t think that’s a cut-and-dried issue.  On the one hand, neither the MLB rules nor the CBA specifically prohibited it.  But isn’t it reasonable for players to assume that it is impermissible to take illegal actions in order to gain competitive advantage?  If a player went into the opposing dugout and used a baseball bat to break the arm of that day’s starting pitcher, wouldn’t we all agree that was “against the rules”—even if no specific MLB rule said “thou may not assault other players?” Or if there were a rule prohibiting assaults during a game, and the player broke the pitcher’s arm in the hotel the night before the game, wouldn’t we still say the player was cheating? 

It seems to me that most players would (and arguably should) assume that the laws of baseball are presumed to be IN ADDITION to the laws of the land, and that these players would then be at a competitive disadvantage vs. those willing to break the law.  Certainly, we don’t want to design baseball rules in such a way that a players’ willingness to break the law confers an advantage on the playing field.  So it seems to me such an obligation to obey the law should be made explicit.  (Assuming it isn’t already—if the CBA included a general clause requiring players to obey the law, then McGwire was indeed violating baseball’s rules.)

I’d be interested in Tango’s and Patriot’s (or anyone else’s) views on this. 

that are illegla
MLB and MLBPA certainly can, through collective bargaining, set a policy on steroid use.  They didn’t, at least not until several years after McGwire retired

No, I don’t think all those things are “cheating”.  It’s not something, for example, that they could be suspended for. 

Jurisdiction of assault outside the field of play is totally a state / provincial matter.  Assault on the field of play belongs to the participants if it’s “assumed risk”.  Assault outside of that provision (say like we’ve seen with Bertuzzi) is a state / provincial matter as well.

So, the rules are limited to within the scope of the workplace.

Guy,

Many steroids are controlled however, not simply illegal.  All you need is a doctor’s prescription and you’re good.  For example, taking cortisone without a prescription is just as illegal as steroids.  So what do we make of all these cortisone shots that are really only done to allow players to get back out on the field to play baseball at its highest level and not to return what me might define as some sort of normal function?  Like say when an older man gets a cortisone shot for a herniated disk that makes it too painful to even sit or stand.

Then of course, and I almost forgot, many steroids (or at least testosterone analogs or precursors, which we generally refer to as steroids) aren’t even controlled.  Just go step into a GNC.

Basically, if we want steroids to be against the rules, just make it against the rules and be done with it.  I’m perfectly fine with that, just like I’m fine with the rules saying its 90 feet to first base.  But lets not pretend that steroid use was somehow obviously against the rules.  It was MLB and the MLBPA’s responsibility to establish the rules in which the game is played.  And they failed.

So the World Series is tied 3-3, and the night before game 7 a player on the AL team manages to slip poison into the food of the NL team’s ace pitcher, who had won his previous two WS starts and is scheduled to start game 7.  The pitcher becomes gravely ill and can’t pitch, and the AL team wins the World Series.  (And the MLB rules are silent on the issue of poisoning opposing players.)

Your position, then, is that this is strictly a matter for the legal authorities, that as baseball fans we should have no particular feelings about this, nor should we conclude that the AL player “cheated?” I just don’t think that’s a sustainable position, or even one that you would actually hold under these circumstances.

@Guy #25
Do you distinguish between breaking the laws to maintain an advantage and breaking the laws to gain an advantage?  What if the law is unjust?

How about if the starting pitcher gets caught in traffic on his way to the ballpark in the morning and has to exceed the speed limit to get there in time to properly prepare for his start (maybe he does 70 in a 55)?  He broke the law; should he be prohibited from starting that day? 

@ Tango #23
Since you brought up music…
Music recorded in a studio is “enhanced” (arguably beyond the musicians’ natural talents in some cases) and nobody seems to have a problem with that.  Heck, microphones, amplifiers and speakers enhance the volume so their live performances can be heard by thousands of screaming fans. 

Practice, training, coaching, elite equipment all enhance performances too.  What’s wrong with that?

Wally:  I obviously don’t know what McGwire took or its legal status.  But the fact that he chose to humiliate himself and destroy his image by repeatedly invoking his 5th amendment rights on national television, strongly suggests to me that at least some of what he did was illegal at the time.  (Indeed, I assume that the statute of limitations has now passed, which is why he is now speaking out, though I haven’t seen that addressed anywhere). 

In any case, the issue I’m raising is whether we should say that all illegal actions that confer competitive advantage are by definition “cheating” and confer an unfair advantage on those who do it?  And shouldn’t that be made explicit, so that a player’s willingness to break the law does not give him any baseball edge?

Without some kind of agreement in place, there is no agreement on what constitutes an unfair performance enhancer.  Steroids and other substances aren’t banned because they enhance athletic performance--they’re banned because the FDA and Congress in their infinite wisdom decided they should be (that probably reads a little snarkier than I intend it).

Was Babe Ruth cheating by using illegal substances (alcohol)?  I think most people would agree that he was not--alcohol is generally not considered a performance enhancer.  But I suppose someone could cite the anecdote from the Historical Abstract about Leo Durocher giving a pitcher brandy before his starts, as he felt it calmed his nerves.  Had alcohol been illegal at the time…

In lieu of an agreement between the players and owners on what constitutes an unfair performance enhancer for baseball, I don’t think its fair to simply pick and choose from the list of federally banned substances what confers a baseball advantage.

Well, McGwire certainly believed that whatever he took gave him a baseball advantage.  I don’t see how the purpose of the federal ban (or requirements for prescription) matters.

”...the laws of baseball are presumed to be IN ADDITION to the laws of the land...”

So then, for example, prior to Evans v. Romer if a gay baseball player was in Texas for a game, it would be against the rules of Baseball for that player to have sex with another man. 

A player arriving to the Stadium late would be violating the Rules of Baseball by speeding and then jaywalking on his way to the Stadium?

This is your suggestion?  Or is it just some laws that you particularly feel strongly about that should count as both laws “of the land” and rules of baseball?

BTW, the surest way understand the problem with your “laws of the land” construct is to ask yourself what the Baseball penalty is and where it is defined.

Guy,

If you want to and can get MLB/MLBPA to agree to make every illegal action defined as “cheating” and confer some “advantage,” fine by me.  Its a game, and all games have arbitrary rules.  But no such thing was even remotely in place when McGwire played.  And seeing that steroids are legal with a simple call from a doctor and that we have many steroid or steroid-like drugs that are perfectly legal, I’m not sure what real force this would have.  Surely McGwire could have just found a doctor, if that’s all that he’d of needed.

Similarly, I’m still curious of your answer to my previous question: What do we make of all these cortisone shots that are really only done to allow players to get back out on the field to play baseball at its highest level and not to return what me might define as some sort of normal function?

Are these not conferring an advantage to those that are willing to risk the side effects of such a treatment (which are actually worse with regular use then any effects of anabolic steroids)? 

What do we think of the moral/legal issue that these controlled drugs with relatively sever side effects are being handed out for the sole purpose of enhancing performance?  Is this not the equivalent of taking greenies to stay alert, or a college kid taking Ritalin to improve concentration?

i was at a natioanls v mets game this year in DC and it was pretty terrible until i enhanced the experience with a couple few 16 oz beverages.

Patriot:  The purpose of the law is irrelevant (to my argument).  In the Durocher case, IF alcohol was illegal, then yes it would be cheating under my argument.

But lots of things are cheating, including spitballs and corked bats.  Having said that taking steroids was cheating—which is my provisional opinion—doesn’t require me to favor any particular punishment.  Nor do I have to consider all forms of cheating equally serious. 

Paul:  if you have evidence that gay sex and/or speeding enhances performance on the field, I promise to seriously consider your argument.  As for what the penalty might be, well, McGwire is being kept out of the Hall, he’s been publicly shamed, and his greatest achievements command far less respect than they once did.  Seems to me a pretty serious set of penalties.  And had he confessed steroid use in his playing days, I believe Selig would have tried to impose a punishment.

Wally:  if McGwire’s steroid use was legal—which I find to be highly implausible—then we have nothing to argue about.  Conversely, cortisone is not illegal, so again, we have nothing to argue about.

Now, how about my example of poisoning an opposing player?  Anyone really want to argue that, as a purely baseball matter, there is no “cheating” or violation of “the rules” in this scenario?

Guy,

If you’re going to avoid a discussion of the morality, legality, even safety of cortisone shots by hiding behind the strict letter of the law, then why should anyone else engage in some poisoning senerio.  If a player poisons another, he falls under the rule of law in this country, and the rules of baseball don’t say a damned thing.  So, we have nothing to argue about.

Guy,

What if the act of speeding simply allowed the player to make the game on time?  What if it allowed for extra BP?  Isn’t that in fact the argument against many PED, that they don’t necissarily make you better, but they do allow you to play more or train more?

"I believe Selig would have tried to impose a punishment...”

Because that is what he did with A-Rod and the others that were leaked and/or confessed?

During the period of time when McGwire played, there is really no evidence at all that MLB or MLBPA cared about PED use.  There is, otoh, some evidence that it supported it.  Frankly, in light of the timing of everything, there is reason to believe that the only reason MLB cares at all is PR (or a less cynical view is that they really were all idiots and only in 2004 did PED use and its health issues become apparent to MLB).

Concern over PED use is the hand-wringing issue of the moment.  It happens to be my profession, so I to an extent I should be happy that everyone finds it so concerning now.  The post-hoc morality, however, is really grating.  It is particularly irritating, however, that people in power (which, sadly, includes on this issue the BBWAA) want to condemn others for things done during a time when it was not prohibited.  This is especially true of those, like Selig, who willingly turned a blind eye.

MLB didn’t seem concerned about the sudden performance increases when the McGwire/Sosa run was returning MLB to the interest of the public.  The same BBWAA writers currently voting against McGwire’s induction were not writing inquisitively about his sudden increase in power and longevity, they were making cash writing articles celebrating it.  Those are the sorts of people I really cannot abide.

“if you have evidence that gay sex and/or speeding enhances performance on the field, I promise to seriously consider your argument”

Where is your evidence that:
1. taking steroids enhances performance on the field?  (I am not saying it does not exist or that it does exist, I just want to know from where you derive your opinion).

2. taking steroids *without a prescription* enhances performance on the field.  Steroids, well some of them, were then and are now perfectly legal.  You just need a prescription for them (not unlike Ankiel’s hGH prescription).  So, the illegal act was not taking the steroids, it was obtaining them without a prescription.  How does obtaining something without a prescription - anything, really, not just steroids - enhance performance?

"I believe Selig would have tried to impose a punishment...”

My reply to that left out the most obvious - McGwire himself.  Selig is doing nothing to punish McGwire - who is currently employed by an MLB team.  If you think Selig and/or MLB would try to impose a punishment then where is it?  Selig could (as much as he could for a player) remove McGwire from MLB - permanently or temporarily.  He isn’t and McGwire is gainfully employed by an MLB franchise.

There is just no teeth to anything you say on this matter.  The only people “punishing” McGwire are a large group of blowhards that really have no business having the little power they do have over the Hall.  But, that decision is one for the Hall to make.

Now, how about my example of poisoning an opposing player?  Anyone really want to argue that, as a purely baseball matter, there is no “cheating” or violation of “the rules” in this scenario?

Would it violate the rules of a baseball game, as defined in the rulebook?  Quite obviously not--there’s nothing in the rulebook about poisoning the opposition.

Would it violate the rules of organized baseball?  Probably not in the letter of the law, but it would fall under the umbrella of the commish’s powers of discretion.

Would it be illegal?  Yes.

Would it be immoral?  Yes.  Reasonable people differ on whether the use of certain illegal substances is immoral or not--I say no, but many others say yes.  I don’t think there’s anywhere to devise a rational, sane moral code that wouldn’t condemn poisoning someone over a baseball game.

How about this (*): On the night before Game 7 a player takes an opposing player out to dinner and tries to get him drunk.  Does this violate the rulebook?  Of course not.  The general laws of organized baseball?  I dunno; I suppose it possibly could be interpreted as run afoul of some rule against fraternization.  Is it illegal?  No.  Is it immoral?  I say no; buying drinks for a consenting adult is not immoral unless you then encourage/enable him to get behind the wheel or something.

In this case, though, the intent is the same as poisoning the opponent--incapacitate him for the game.  Is it cheating as well?  And if so, what makes it so?  Intent?  A difference in your moral interpretation of the situation and mine (in which case I’ll agree to disagree)?

I’m not trying to clutter the discussion with another hypothetical for its own sake; I’m trying to get a better sense of what it is that defines “cheating” for you.

And had he confessed steroid use in his playing days, I believe Selig would have tried to impose a punishment.

Had that happened, I have to believe the MLBPA would have contested it and won, whether it went to the arbitrator or to the courts.

(*) Incidentally, there are stories about teams messing with Rube Waddell vaguely similar to this scenario.  Rube was probably a little slow, which shifts my opinion on the morality of getting him drunk, but that’s neither here nor there.

The obvious point that seems to be lost in this discussion is that there is reason to believe steroids pose serious health risks.

An athlete choosing to take steroids is not a victimless endeavor.  It forces other athletes to choose between following suit to compete or compromising their livelihood. 

I think we’ve all seen the testimony that Barry Bonds began to take steroids after 1998, in large part out of jealousy of McGwire and his tainted accomplishments.

This was a vicious, insidious, cycle that McGwire helped perpetuate.  Sure, he didn’t start the cycle on his own and there’s plenty of blame to go around (including for MLB management).

But the ‘everybody was doing it’ or ‘50% of the players were doing it’ argument is at best dishonest.  All the available evidence says that the true figure was closer to 10%.  And some degree of moral indignation at that 10% (or so) of the players is completely justified.

Not lost. I said this:

to any other direct-victimless endeavour.

You took out the part I went out of my way to add.

Where are you getting 10%?  You kidding me?  7% were nabbed on the test.  You don’t think that some part of the 93% that weren’t caught did not do it at some point in their careers?

If you want to say that 10%, at any one time, are doing it, fine.  But, 50% doing it at some point in their careers seems perfectly reasonable.  And I’d say 95% considered it.

And yes, that is the problem: to even be put in the position to consider it.  That’s 100% the fault of the MLBPA.  They could have stopped it themselves.  Their wallets acted like anchors.

Michael,

There is also reason to believe steroids have pretty minimal side effects for adult men.  So, I don’t really see how steroids differs from other drugs which carry side effects (such as cortisone shots, which are probably worse for you than anabolic steroids given how they are used in pro-sports) or even surgical procedures that have complication rates (basically any time you go to hospital and get cut, there is a non zero chance you die from infection, even something like LASIK could leave you worse off than you started).

Victimless? I’m past the point of caring all that much about steroid use in baseball and certainly can’t abide the righteous indignation from the Buster Olneys of the world. But victimless? Hardly. Workers w/out legal documentation take jobs from law abiding people who would like to feed THEIR families too. And steroid use creates something of an unfair choice for talented people who would like to compete for a job in professional sports but feel that steroid use is dangerous, unhealthy, etc.

I said DIRECT-victimless.  Hello?  DIRECT as opposed to INDIRECT.  How many times do I have to repeat myself before I stop being misquoted?

I don’t particularly care for the ethics of steroids debate to begin with - there are reasonable arguments on both sides.  What bothers me is the reaction to this issue.  I do believe that standards, when established, should be applied equally to all people.  On one hand, we’re outraged over MLB steroid use, but why is the same standard not applied to other sports - specifically, football?  The NFL had a steroid problem, too, heck, how many players from that Panthers Super Bowl team were connected to PED’s?  Why is it such a big deal that baseball players did it, but not football players?  Why does the breaking of the home run record seem to have such a large impact on how important this issue is?  What about other PED’s?  You may consider steroids worse, and that’s fine, you can make a rule that punishes someone more for them...but where’s the outrage over greenies?  They’re illegal, too.  What about all the prescription drugs that get abused in sports, used for performance reasons rather than their intended use (and as someone who’s gotten a couple BS prescriptions for sports reasons, I can tell you, it’s widespread and happens at levels as low as high school)?  Heck, going to another venue, what about college students abusing ADD drugs, often to literally enhance their academic performance the way steroids supposedly enhance athletic performance?  Where’s the concern over these issues?

Next - look who’s taken the blame for this.  The players.  Based on all the circumstantial evidence we have, everybody knew.  You have a former trainer (Larry Starr) saying:

“I have notes from the Winter Meetings where the owners group and the players’ association sat in meetings with the team physicians and team trainers. I was there. And team physicians stood up and said, ‘Look, we need to do something about this [PED’s]. We’ve got a problem here if we don’t do something about it.’ That was in 1988.”

You have the FBI telling baseball about McGwire in 1993.  You have stories where a guy’s syringes were just sitting in the locker room and fell to the gruond so any reporter walking by could see.  You have stories of team doctors essentially educating their players how to properly use steroids, knowing full well they were.  Everyone knew.  From Bud Selig to the team trainer to the media, everyone knew, and was an accomplice to this “crime”. 

And everyone that knew benefitted from it.  The media gets to sell their stories these days, and sold stories of how McGwire saved baseball in the late ‘90’s.  Where were the questions about steroids when it was happening?  Selig and the owners got rich.  The players got rich.  Why is it that McGwire, Sosa, ARod, Bonds and Clemens are taking the fall for what everyone knew and benefitted from?  We’re demanding their records get striken from the books - where’s the demand for World Series championships to be returned?  “Sorry Boston, looks like your 86 year wait will have to resume - your title should be stricken from the books.” Where’s the demand for accountability and investigation into the owners and Selig?  Much like the investment banks managing to deflect the public’s attention towards regulators and the Federal Reserve, somehow Selig and the owners have deflected your attention onto a few individuals.

So that’s what’s I’m mad about.  I’m mad that the “outrage” the public and media (I blame the media, they say it, eventually the public just follows their lead) is pure BS.  I’m mad that there’s not even an attempt to apply consistent standards.  I’m mad that there’s so much misinformation out there about the issue.  For instance, how long have steroids been in baseball?  Try wikipedia’ing Tom House, did you know that already?  Funny coincidence that he caught Aaron’s record HR.  I’m mad that a few individuals have been thoroughly harassed and beaten down and dragged through the mud over this stupid issue, while everyone else responsible walks away, hands clean.  I’m mad that most people don’t even bother to educate themselves on the issue before forming a strong opinion.  The issue makes me mad, and frankly, I think it’s a sad reflection on us as a whole.

As another poster said, I hope Bonds has the balls to stand up, confess to what he did, and demand a thank you from the owners for lining their pockets, and an apology from the media for all they’ve put him through.  The whole issue is a big load of BS.  McGwire’s apology is just going to make those on their high horse more righteous, and it makes me sick.

Where does the 50% figure come from?

Agreed, we know that the rate from “anonymous” testing was about 7%.  Sure, some of the remaining 93% may have taken undetectable stuff or stuff that flushed from their systems fast.  (Ordinarily, as I understand it, steroids would be detectable for 2 years or longer).

On the other hand, it was also widely reported at the time that some players *wanted* to skip the anonymous test or do whatever it took to trigger a positive result to force MLB to start real testing.

It seems to me that if someone chooses to completely dismiss the 7% figure and instead choose a figure that’s seven times as large, then the burden of evidence should fall on the person making such a claim.

That said, anecdotally, we could all readily observe the dramatic changes in the size and physiques of McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, et. al.  If truly 50% of the players were involved in this (or at least were taking similar drugs in similar doses), wouldn’t you expect to see a dramatic increase in average player weight in the years prior to testing?  And a substantial drop-off since testing began?  Have we seen either?

"Why is it such a big deal that baseball players did it, but not football players? “

Straight from the SAT(*):

Father’s view of his teenage son whoring around : steroids,NFL

as

Father’s view of his teenage girl whoring around : steroids,MLB

(*) Not true.

Think like a Field of Dreamer, and life makes sense.

At Paul Scott, in response to your post about it being illegal in baseball for a man to have sex with another man in texas prior to romer v. evans, I do not think it would be.  That would be four balls.  The guy would get to take first base.

"That said, anecdotally, we could all readily observe the dramatic changes in the size and physiques”

This assumption really bothers me.  Do you know who the first player that was suspended for PED’s was?  Alex Sanchez, and he was one of the skinniest baseball players I’ve ever seen.  Being small doesn’t preclude you from taking PED’s in the least bit, nor does getting bigger/stronger suggest you did take PED’s.  If you’re making that assumption, it’s on you to first establish that there is a large correlation between physical attributes like weight/muscles and PED use.  This really seems to me like one of those things that’s simply been repeated often enough, it’s accepted as fact.

Wally,

[quote: “There is also reason to believe steroids have pretty minimal side effects for adult men.” ]

Is sterility (even if it’s not permanent) a minimal side effect?

I suppose your point is to minimize the cardiovascular, kidney, and liver function risks.  Sure, _most_ people may not have serious short term vital organ problems and the extent of long term problems has not been super-well quantified. 

Does that mean it’s okay if athletes have to choose between these symptoms/risks and their livelihood?

Michael

“Is sterility (even if it’s not permanent) a minimal side effect? “

Yes.  Women are constantly trying to make themselves temporarily sterile.  Heck I could go in a hot tub for too long/too frequently and become temporarily sterile.  So, I just don’t see how this is a big deal.  And what rate of users actually become sterile vs. just less fertile? 

“I suppose your point is to minimize the cardiovascular, kidney, and liver function risks.”

Well you can sure name some important organs, but can you actually list what the risks are?  You know, the rates at which we see these more sever side effects.  We could look at Advil or caffeine and name many of the same problems, notice I even avoided cortisone shots?

Does anyone else think that the FBI could have used its resources on more important tasks than an undercover investigation of MLB’s steroid problem?

Jon/55: that’s crazy talk.

Don’t you understand that any publicity is good publicity?  By having its name in the paper, the FBI gets free publicity.  It’s like the naming rights on stadiums.  FBI is very lucky to get the exposure it gets on the media and Congress.  Most organizations would love to have that kind of exposure. 

Until this, their brand-name exposure was limited to the very smart marketing: ten most wanted.

"There is [sic] just no teeth to anything you say on this matter.”

Paul, I suspect you are projecting onto me all kinds of anti-steroid views I don’t hold, and which are the real target of your anger, so I won’t respond in kind.  As it happens, that’s not where I’m coming from (e.g. I’d vote for both Bonds and Clemens for HOF). 

My argument is simply that we should consider players to be cheating when they commit acts that are both 1) illegal and 2) confer a competitive advantage in baseball, whether or not the official rulebook proscribes that behavior.  (I’m not totally convinced of this view myself, but I think this is certainly a reasonable position.) I certainly don’t want players who are willing to break the law to hold an advantage over those not willing to break the law (which, among other things, would disadvantage players who are fathers and husbands, since their costs of getting caught are far higher). 

I’m not troubled by the speeding-to-get-to-game example, but even if I were forced to concede this is “cheating” under my principle, then I would say it’s a trivial form of cheating and the penalty should be a $200 fine.

McGwire did not take the PEDs in a lawful manner—for these purposes, it doesn’t matter if the lack of Rx or the drugs themselves were illegal. He broke the law, and in doing so gained an advantage—that’s what matters.

I don’t think there can be any doubt that many, many fans and players—not just a few “blowhards”—believe that taking PEDs was cheating.  Selig accepted McGwire’s apology—clearly that means McGwire did something wrong. 
Whether or not the CBA would have permitted Selig to punish a player who confessed PED use before 2004, I think he would have said the behavior was wrong—and that viewpoint would have been supported by most players and most fans.  Indeed, has any player (other than perhaps Canseco) ever said publicly that he doesn’t feel PED use was cheating, and that it did not give an unfair edge to some players?  If that is in fact the view of nearly all players, wouldn’t we have heard it said by someone? 

*

Since Patriot could not quite bring himself to say that poisoning an opposing player is “not cheating,” and no one else weighed in, I’m going to conclude we all agree that there are some actions that are in fact “cheating” despite not being a violation of baseball’s formal written rules.  The question is whether any action that is illegal under state or federal law should be included in this category.  Tentatively, I would say yes.

Wally,

Since you asked, sterility is reportedly close to 100%. 

You can google the warning labels for the various steroids that are sometimes prescribed for legitimate medical purposes.  These are presumably for smaller doses than an athlete would take illicitly.

Do you know of any reputable medical professionals who care to argue that these risks are similar to caffeine or over the counter pain medications?

Is your argument that if we can’t precisely quantify the risks, and the vast majority of users don’t suffer any life threatening effects in the short term, then it’s no big deal?

Would you like to be put in a position where you had to choose between your career and being a (sterile) guinea pig?  If you don’t see a problem with that then we’ll just have to disagree…

"I don’t think there can be any doubt that many, many fans and players—not just a few “blowhards”—believe that taking PEDs was cheating. “

As long as you make the punishment akin to Perry scuffing a ball, or Belle corking a bat, then I’m fine.  Because that’s how readers of this site voted.

Absent, of course, any workplace rules that the selfish cowards eventually put into place.

Michael,

Nice that’s close to 100%, I’m pretty sure that’s the case with birth control too.  So, this is basically, meh.  In fact, we better keep this from my wife, she might want me to get on steroids so she can stop using the pill.

“You can google the warning labels for the various steroids that are sometimes prescribed for legitimate medical purposes. “

Or we could actually stick with the evidence against/for the drug we’re talking about.  Since we’re on the googling machine, take a look at this simple explanation of the risks, which actually cites its sources and discusses the degree to which these side effects actually occur and there severity in stead of just making a list of possible problems: http://www.steroid.com/side.php

“Is your argument that if we can’t precisely quantify the risks, and the vast majority of users don’t suffer any life threatening effects in the short term, then it’s no big deal?”

First, we do know a fair amount about the side effects and they are less than life threatening, and generally not what I would even considered serious.  Second, most every side effect is temporary.  So given that, I could hardly careless if steroids where regulated or not.  We allow players to take similarly dangerous drugs purely for enhancing (or enabling) their performance, such as cortisone.  And we hardly care about drugs that quite obviously more dangerous, such as alcohol.  So if danger is the real issue behind this, we aren’t being very consistent.

“Would you like to be put in a position where you had to choose between your career and being a (sterile) guinea pig?”

If MLB chooses not to regulate steroid use, then no I would have no problem.  These guys play a game to make millions for entertainment.  They can easily find a real career.  Or, to put it another way, your career is your choice.  Every career has its pros and cons.  For instance, I love flying, and would love to fly F-14s, but to do that I’d have to join the military and put my life on the line.  That caused me to go in a different career path.  Now if MLB, as they finally did, chooses to make steroid use against the rules.  Then fine, its against the rules and that’s just the way it is.  Its a game for entertainment.  The rules are arbitrary.

Wally,
You included a link to A COMMERCIAL SITE THAT SELLS STEROIDS(!) And even there, many of the the warning label risks are acknowledged even as they are minimized with very selective and carefully chosen wording.  You make my own point for me:

Itchy, painful nipples, high blood pressure, cholesterol balance problems, dark urine, kidney strain, liver enzyme changes, prostate enlargement, premature baldness, immunosuppression....  these are child’s play and not a serious collection of side effects? 

You compare this with alcohol, caffeine, and over the counter painkillers?  Again, can you find a reputable medical professional who stands behind such a conclusion?