Performance-enhancing thugs

[sen_no_ongaku]

I love baseball dearly, and have since I was 12 years old. How my fandom has manifested itself has changed over the years, of course, but the game has and always will mean a great deal to me. So it's a surprise to me that when I think about how I feel about the allegations of steroid use in baseball, my conclusion is:

I just don't care.

Well, that's an overstatement. I wish steroids were not a part of the game, and would do away with them if I could. But I can't really get angry about them.

So really, I suppose, this is a rant against the uproar and grandstanding.

No one has yet proved that taking steroids makes you a better baseball player. Yes, it's pretty damn likely. But likelihood is not exactly proof. Nor has anyone proved that certain prominent figures have been on the juice. Yes, it's pretty damn likely. But likelihood is not exactly proof, particularly in a country that prides itself on the axiom 'innocent until proved guilty'.

But let's assume that probability is fact. The next question I have to ask myself, then, is: why would I care? Perhaps more accurately, what do people seem to be most concerned about?

1. The integrity of the statistical record is compromised by cheaters

That's actually a two-fold statement. First, "The integrity of the statistical record".

Most folks seem to implicitly believe that baseball's statistical record is of particular note because players have played under (more or less) the same rules and the same conditions since 1920. Thus, you can compare a man who played in the '20s and a man who played in the '70s and have a clear sense of who was the better player. A little bit of detailed attention, though, puts the lie to this assumption. As a glaring example, until 1947, blacks were not allowed to play Major League Baseball, and it was not until 1961 that every team fielded a black player. Before then, baseball players were not facing the best possible competition. As a whole different kind of example, video allows modern-day players to fine-tune their technique and study their opposition to an unprecedented degree.

(Hell, who knows how many early ballplayers took Radium water because they thought it would improve their game?)

My point is that baseball statistics must always be examined in the context of the era in which they were produced. It seems obvious when stated, but my perception is that many baseball fans forget that the conditions under which baseball players have played are in constant flux, and that no statistic can be considered as a kind of Platonic ideal.

As regards cheaters...

I don't follow other sports, but baseball has actually had something of a history of celebrating its cheaters. Baseball mythology is full of stories about players who bent the rules in clever, ingenious, and sometimes egregiously stupid ways. Men in the Baseball Hall of Fame, some of them record-holders, have freely admitted (after their careers ended) to scuffing the ball, corking their bats, and so forth. I haven't heard any hue and cry for their Hall of Fame plaques to be removed, nor for their records to be marked with asterisks. How is stuffing your body with chemicals is different from hollowing out a piece of wood and filling it with Superballs? I'm not saying they're the same thing -- but can someone articulate the difference?

2. It jeopardizes the health of the players.

I don't think there's any doubt that steroids affect the human body extremely adversely in the long-term. But if a player is willing to risk his future health for immediate gain, doesn't he have the right? Consider:

* Shaving off part of your shoulder blade to allow greater freedom of movement for your arm

* Shredding a tendon in your right arm so badly from overuse that the corresponding tendon from your left arm is transplanted to replace it -- before you turn 25...or even 20

* Stapling a damaged ligament in your ankle out of position so you can continue pitching

* Ramming your head into big, armored men on a daily basis

* Never letting your three-year-old conceive of a life outside of playing tennis six out of seven days of the week (see How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart, DFW)

We ask star athletes to deform and disfigure themselves physiologically and psychologically. Why is steroids not an acceptable means for them to do this if it means they'll become better at what they do?
___

Some random thoughts:

Why is baseball singled out for criticism? Are there no drug cheaters in the NBA and NFL?

Pete Rose is an entirely different story, and deserves every bit of the shitstorm he's received.


I imagine there are other arguments, as well as criticisms of my own, and I'd be happy to hear and respond to them.

Have at me.

Comments

[sal-sal.livejournal.com]

I'm think (Correct me if I'm wrong) that the NBA and NFL already have fairly strict regulations against performance enhancing drugs. Part of the problem with the MLB is their seeming inability to create any kind of strict anti-steroid regulations when it's been possible for other professional leagues to do so without any kind of uproar. Although, if I'm wrong, that's moot.

I'd be curious to know if they had mandatory drug testing before the World Baseball Classic, ala the Olympics.

I'm not really sure where I come down on the steroid issue, but I do know that I loathe Barry Bonds. That's enough for me.

[sal-sal.livejournal.com]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/6744864

That column, while 3 years old, points out the differences in how the NFL handles steroids. A quote: The reason for this is to maintain the competitive balance in the league. If players were using steroids, there would be a temptation for non-users to try steroids in an effort to compete physically.

I think that's probably his best point. To compete in a professional league, you shouldn't have to pump yourself full of drugs that'll have a detrimental effect.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

Oh. I should read all the comments before responding.

Anything on the NBA?

[(Anonymous)]

Steroids are far less useful in the NBA - most of the advantage there is in speed, which bulking up tends to negate (not to mention vertical leap). They probably help in rehabilitating injuries, but I doubt it's worth it given their testing regimen, which does have some teeth.

So, they may have some steroid use, but for it to be widespread would be a surprise - those guys are tall, but they're just not that big.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

I simply have no idea what testing the NBA and NFL have in place. I'm curious as well...

[2h2o.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's any doubt that steroids affect the human body extremely adversely in the long-term.
You need to see this.

Why is baseball singled out for criticism? Are there no drug cheaters in the NBA and NFL?
My sense has been that the other major sports have been better about addressing the problem as it arose, while MLB has essentially ignored it. NBA players use all kinds of drugs, but I've yet to hear of one being performance "enhancing." The NFL has had its share of steroid-plagued players, but it maintains a testing program and has kicked players out for violations.

There also seems to be more focus on baseball among judges and legislators. I've read a number of decisions that make baseball references, but have yet to come across one that discussed football or basketball. Maybe the anti-trust exemption somehow makes Congress feel as it it has more responsibility for MLB, or baseball fans are more likely to be the sorts of nerds who ultimately wind up on the bench.

One look at the percentage of Olympic sprinters who are "asthmatic" (i.e., allowed to use inhalers without punishment) will illustrate how well substance bans work there; cheating with chemicals is rampant. But with steroids there are violations of criminal law going on, so it's more than a matter of fairness in sports. It does seem incumbent upon the sports franchises to insure that they aren't aiding or incentivizing violations of law. It's about the same as maintaining limited contacts with the gambling community and punishing players for gambling.

Your point about celebrating other instances of cheating resonates to a certain degree, but isn't quite on point. First, had those violations become public while those players were active, I doubt they would have been received the same way. Look at what happened to Sosa with his corked bat. Furtehr, if my hero cheats, I might think it's funny, cheeky, whatever; if his nemesis cheats, I'll be pissed. After fifty years, I'm more likely to forgive it. Second, I think there's a difference (if only in perception) between marginally clever methods of cheating, like scuffing a ball, and "brute force" cheating like injecting yourself with The Clear or paying off an umpire. In the first instance, there's an element of awe at having the guts to cheat like that (are you familiar with Maradonna's "Hand of God" goal?), but in the second the detection apparatus is clumsy and the act is done outside the scope of the "game." (This may be part of the reason that even if everyone's doing it, it's still looked at as cheating - if it's not done in public, are we really sure everyone's doing the same thing? There's still room for "unfair" advantages.)

Finally, I guess I agree that athletes should be allowed to treat their bodies as they will, but many athletes won't want to pay the price of destroying their bodies (as opposed to merely chancing the destruction of their bodies, which is part of what they get paid for). What do the players' unions have to say about steroids?

[haak0n.livejournal.com]

The union should absolutely be trying to eliminate the incentives to use steroids, as they put its membership in a position to choose between their health and the success of their careers. The MLBPA, however, has never given a damn about minor league players, focusing mostly on maximizing financial opportunities for the upper tier of players. While it's fair to say that owners were happy to reap the benefits of increased performance from steroid-enhanced athletes, the union, with greater reason to act, was actively against any meaningful steroid testing until the issue became too prominent to ignore.

[sen-no-ongaku.livejournal.com]

I guess my point about cheating -- and it may, indeed, be somewhat tangential -- is that MLB has a long history of looking the other way when its players have clearly flouted the rules, or of administering nothing but a slap on the wrist when they can't just ignore it. While there's certainly a social consequence to being caught -- you cite Sosa's corked bat, and the negative press he received for it -- I'd argue that it's a temporary one.

Some of the players to whom I'm referring came just short of admitting to cheating, while active. I recall watching (and being pretty entertained by) an old telecast in which the broadcasters kept saying stuff like, "Gaylord Perry misses with the spitball for ball two." There's another great story about Don Sutton leaving notes all over his uniform for umpires to find with such messages as, "Getting closer", "Hot!", and "Very cold".

Oddly enough, I consider paying off an umpire a whole different means of cheating than shooting up (I was talking about this with sigerson earlier). Somehow, the fact that the player still has to perform to the best of his ability makes that less reprehensible than bribing an offical, because the latter changes the rules that make the game possible. I don't know if that's rational.
___

What do the players' unions have to say about steroids?

That's a very good question. Obviously, on their public face, they decry its use. But they've so far been unwilling to take the obvious step of agreeing to unconditional and global testing, and what restrictions are now in place were (as I recall) bitterly and surprisingly contested.

(Note that the players' union pertains only to affairs of Major League Baseball players. Minor leaguers have no clout.)

[haak0n.livejournal.com]

I hate all the whining - though I'm equally annoyed at BP's predictable equal and opposite reaction - because it doesn't change what I remember about the game from the last ten years.

Barry Bonds sacrificing years of his life to hit an additional 5-10 home runs a season doesn't really concern me. And it's not about the temptation to juice for a bigger payday - my sympathy for wealthy athletes ruining their bodies for an extra million bucks is minimal. But I think that steroid use by some creates distortionary, pernicious incentives for other players to follow suit. For one thing, baseball players measure themselves against each other, and Bonds' use of steroids has redefined what constitutes a "star." So while I don't really care that steroids might cause more money to flow Bonds' way than Brian Giles', I do kind of care that Giles is less likely to get the national recognition that he deserves because other players are enjoying inflated home run totals.

But I care a lot more about two other effects of steroid use. One is that I'm uncomfortable with my own relationship with the situation; as a consumer of the entertainment product that MLB sells, if MLB just let everyone use steroids or not at their own discretion, to what degree am I responsible for a player's decision to mortgage their health to improve their performance? I think that there's a categorical difference between the risks that are inherent in the game (such as those faced by any pitcher) and those that are entirely distinct from the game, such as steroids.

More important, though, I have a problem with steroids because of people like Brian Daubach and Roberto Petagine. The financial and fame based incentives that steroids create for established or star caliber players are one thing, but the incentives that they create for marginal players, for whom juicing could be the difference between a job in the majors and a career scuffling around in Rochester or Pawtucket, are another.

In fact, I think I'd be far more comfortable with legalizing steroids in general than I would with allowing them in baseball.

[2h2o.livejournal.com]

Whoa! What the hell are you doing on LJ?

[anacrucis.livejournal.com]

I don't think I could make a fair claim to baseball fandom in the present company, but you've pretty much hit the key point of the steroids issue in general as I see it: the tradeoff between health and performance may reasonably seem to fall within the realm of personal choice, but if this choice is tolerated, it forces all athletes in the league to make the same choice if they want to compete. And I agree that this is a different issue from facing the normal risks of the game.

When last year's version of this debate was going on, I heard a commentator suggest on the radio that we solve the problem by forming a juicer league and a juice-free league, and intimated that he knew which one he would be watching. I don't know if the guy was serious though the tone of his arguments did not suggest his tongue was in his cheek, but I found the proposal pretty disturbing, envisioning a resulting scenario similar to the one you bring up - where the steroid-free league becomes a minor league and the marginal players have to juice up to compete with the majors and make the big bucks.

And then there's the whole role-model question, but that's another can of worms completely.

[cybersattva.livejournal.com]

I can't really speak in depth about the topic except that sal_sal's point struck home with me, and the thuggery of modern pro-sports players in general is why I haven't gotten into any sports since leaving home. To haak0n's point, personally I'd rather just avoid sports entirely than support thugish celebrities.