from Amazon
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
My dozens of PED threads, hundreds of posts + thousands of rambling comments summarized by one post
Not by me though, but by Walt Davis in a clear, coherent and logical progression. He says what we’ve been thinking and saying, but haven’t articulated as well:
The Palmeiro and general post-testing argument:
The use of steroids is now a violation of baseball rules. However it is only repeated use of steroids which draws a lifetime ban that, under current HoF voting rules, would presumably make you ineligible for the HoF. Palmeiro’s presence on the ballot makes it clear that he and others who test positive for steroids are eligible.
Now that it is against the rules, it is clearly “cheating.” So are the spitball, corked bats, etc. Now engaging in those activities is more likely to earn you something like a 5-game suspension not a 50-game suspension so clearly the use of steroids is a much worse form of cheating than those. It is also clear that it is not as serious a rule violation as gambling or throwing a game.
It is an act with a clear penalty and it doesn’t negate the achievements of the player. This is not necessarily inconsistent with other sports—records are not necessarily expunged (some have been in track I believe) but, more importantly, there is, for example, no rule preventing a runner from winning a future Olympic gold medal. Football writers have voted former steroid users MVP and, one would guess, will enshrine known steroid users (i.e. guys who tested positive after it was against the rules) in their HoF if they have not done so already.
Failing a steroid test could of course be considered under the HoF “integrity” and “character” clauses. This is also true of “convicted” spitballers, ball-scuffers, bat-corkers, umpire-spitters and guys who get into fights on the field. Again, given the more severe penalty, it is clearly a greater violation of the “spirit of the game.” As to “general character”, it presumably should not be considered as black a mark as, say, spousal abuse or, I would argue, drunk driving or, others might argue, recreational drug use.
By putting rules in place, MLB has provided us with at least some mechanism to judge the impact that steroid use should have on the evaluation of someone’s career. Palmeiro has a serious violation of the rules on his record but not a career-altering one. His team was not required to forfeit games prior to his positive test, his statistics are not altered, his career is not ended. With testing in place, future voters have little choice but to assume players are clean before and after any single positive test (give or take the time between the previous test and the positive one). If a player is not caught and suspended for use, the player has not violated any rule.
Let it be noted that, by putting rules in place, MLB has made it clear that while the use of amphetamines and other drugs is not as serious a violation of the rules as the use of anabolic steroids, it is a serious violation of the rules. Things are a bit muddier here since the first violation only brings a warning (suggesting it’s even less important than throwing at a batter after being warned) but the 2nd brings a 25-game suspension (if my memory is correct). Given there are known amphetamine users in the HoF, this certainly opens the door to any pre-testing steroid users even if the voters want to apply new ethical standards to pre-test players.
Some writers have said they’d like the HoF to provide guidance on how to handle the steroid issue. It’s not clear to me what they are waiting for—Palmeiro violated MLB’s steroid policy and Palmeiro is on the ballot. McGwire has confessed and he is on the ballot. It is clear that steroid use, in and of itself, is not disqualifying anymore than being suspended for a week for using a corked bat is. Meanwhile the violation of such a serious rule is clearly some mark against the player’s integrity and the HoF has decided to leave it up to the voters to decide if it is severe enough to warrant exclusion just as they always have. It would be a gargantuan stretch to think that wants to exclude players based on mere suspicion of steroid use.
The lawyers and philosophers in the crowd can put this all more formally and convincingly probably but if you want the pithy equivalent of “innocent until proven guilty” it is “Palmeiro served his time.”
I am assuming that Palmeiro holds the record for most suspended games in a career but, in theory, I see no reason why, say, a pitcher who had received 50 games worth of suspensions for foreign substances, emery boards, etc. should receive any larger HoF voting penalty than Palmeiro.
So, Ray, why do you require evidence he didn’t use intentionally? He violated a baseball rule and he was appropriately punished. MLB has made it clear that this violation doesn’t invalidate any of his on-field accomplishments.
Do you plan to apply this to all players who test positive in the future? If so, why? If a superstar player were to test clean for 5 years, have a single violation, then test clean for another 15 years, would he not receive your vote? Sosa was suspended 5 or so games for using a corked bat, does he receive 5 black marks compared to Palmeiro’s 50? Or is any suspension, regardless of length, disqualifying (under the integrity and character clauses presumably)? Mike Cameron’s not a serious HoF candidate but he had a 25-game suspension for greenies, is he off your list as well barring evidence he didn’t knowingly use them? Heck, I don’t even know if McGwire (post-confession) is on your ballot.
For those about to accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too ... well, yeah. That’s the way it works sometimes. There was no rule for McGwire to violate. There was a rule for Palmeiro to violate but, while clearly a violation that carries a severe penalty, it isn’t overly severe, MLB makes it clear that violators are welcome to return to the game, without prejudice, after they have served their suspension and the HoF has made it clear that Palmeiro is still eligible.
Rafael Palmeiro is a player suspended 50 games for violating baseball rules, nothing more, nothing less. He is not, by baseball’s own standards, unworthy of playing the game nor, similar to McGwire, banned from future participation in organized baseball. He is not, by the HoF’s standards, unworthy of being on the ballot.
For voters, the question is whether 50 games worth of suspension is sufficient evidence of a lack of integrity or character as to outweigh a player’s on-field accomplishments.
sounds right to me. i could understand writers wanting to use there own standards (as long as they do it consistently) even if i don’t agree with them, but to anyone who’s waiting for the HoF or MLB to tell them how to consider candidates, this is as good a rubric as i’ve read.