Batgirl enjoyed this AP picture of a certain story Batgirl's intrepid reporter Art broke a few days ago:
Fans duck for cover as a shattered bat flies into the crowd on a single by Minnesota Twins (news) designated hitter Michael Restovich (news) in the fourth inning against the Florida Marlins (news) in Fort Myers, Fla., Monday March 14, 2005. No one was seriously injured in the incident. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
Meanwhile, in the comments Yankee Fan points our eye to this story from ESPN
Coming off knee surgery and caught up in baseball's steroids scandal, Barry Bonds said he may not play at all this season -- despite standing on the doorstep of the sport's most hallowed record.The San Francisco Giants slugger also said he was physically and mentally "done," and blamed the media for at least part of his troubles.
"I'm tired of my kids crying. You wanted me to jump off a bridge, I finally did," Bonds told reporters Tuesday, shortly after returning to training camp. "You finally brought me and my family down. ... So now go pick a different person."
That's right. Barry Bonds is going to take his steroids and go home. So there.
Meanwhile, it seems the biggest story from the steroid hearings, beyond putting the fear of God (if God is an anti-trust exemption) in Selig and learning that Dennis Kucinich speaks espanol muy excellente, is the massive PR hit taken by Mark McGwire and his comically engorged head. I mean, all he did was say, "The past is a lie that memory has no return." No, wait, that's Gabriel Garcia Marquez. But anyway, his performance didn't go over very well with, you know, anyone as Newsweek reports. And SI columnist Stephen Canella opines that McGwire is a lunkhead, Jose Canseco may not be such a boob after all, and—gasp!--baseball needs new leadership.
The message of the day was that Congress doesn't trust baseball to clean up its own act, and Waxman brought the hammer down near the end of the hearing when he suggested Selig and Fehr should step down. Selig tried valiantly to portray himself as a steroids hard-liner -- he trumpeted his harsher minor-league policy and quietly accused the players' union of stonewalling his attempts to institute stricter penalties in the 2002 labor agreement. The strategy backfired. Selig, never the most authoritative figure to begin with, was made to look like a weak negotiator who was castrated in the collective bargaining process. (It might help if he made sure subpoenaed documents were free of "drafting errors" before handing them over.) In a room full of power brokers, Congress did little to hide its contempt for someone who didn't fight very hard for what he thought was right.Can Selig and Fehr mop up the steroid fallout to Congress' liking? I doubt it, especially since the commissioner's sellout of the union Thursday isn't likely to put Fehr in a compromising mood. McGwire tried to close the book on The Steroid Era by reminding us again and again that he's retired. This story may not end until Selig and Fehr do the same.
The players are, of course, responsible for what they inject in their own butts, but Selig and Fehr are utterly complicit in the freakish swelling of every cranium in the game. Because the rewards for superstardom are so great, it was incumbant on Major League Baseball to take firm and clear measures to keep ballplayers from artificially inducing greatness. Instead, Fehr fought valiantly to protect the right of players to ingest this crap while Selig happily sat back and watched all the Pepsi commercials those same guys were starring in. As a result they both deserve to be shriveled like one of Jason Giambi's testicles.
Posted by Batgirl at March 23, 2005 12:36 AMI wonder what the inventor of Bobbin' Head dolls thinks of all this?
In addition to a bum knee and his large steroid noggin, Bonds has got a "9-year" ex-girlfriend --or "mistress" as ESPN's Dan Patrick calls her --shopping a tell-all book around.
I think this girlfriend story is the thing making him so bitter now. The advice he supposedly gave her on structuring the $80,000 'gift' to avoid the IRS is classic.
Note to dudes with nine-year girlfriends . . . be careful.
Posted by: funoka at March 23, 2005 07:31 AMThe SI writer says "Congress doesn't trust baseball to clean up its own act." Problem is, congress doesn't seem to trust anybody, preferring instead to investigate, dictate, jawbone, hijack, and generally mess up just about any issue or problem you can name (unless said problem would in any way challenge that guy down there on Pennsylvania Ave.) I like what George Will wrote about congress's grandstanding (and I don't like much of what he says except when it comes to baseball).
How come it was comic for the Babe to drink and fool around; tragic for the Mick to drink and fool around; but somehow morally abhorrent for Bonds and McGuire to use a legal substance and fool around? Where was congress when Billy Martin was being such a buffoon and killing himself?
Whew. I'm done.
Jim H.
Posted by: Jim H. at March 23, 2005 08:16 AMJim,
All excellent points and questions. I think the difference here is drawn between alcohol and steroids. Whether we agree with it or not, drinking alcohol is legal in this country and not prohibited by the rules of many sporting commissions (I have no knowledge as to whether the IOC bans alcohol, but my gut reaction is that they do not). Use of steroids without a perscription is illegal according to various state laws (and transportation for illegal sale or distribution is most likely a violation of federal laws) and the use of steroids has been prohibited by many sporting commissions (and is steadily incresing).
I think the generality that "baseball player harms self, cheats on wife" cannot be applied to steroids as it is, say, to alcohol. A more poignant quesiton might be why marijuana use by atheletes is not viewed as "morally abhorrent" in the same way that steroids is being viewed.
Either way, I think that the fact that steroids have an performance enhancing (to coin a new phrase nobody has ever heard before) effect on players. Simply put, steroids make players bigger, faster and stronger, while marijuana and alcohol have (presumably) the opposite effects. So the question is whether we want the game to be decided by natural abilities and talents, or whether we want to allow unnatural enhancements to improve players' natural abilities. (See, e.g., the Tommy John surgery argument which causes the most problems for me).
If we answer the question in the affirmative, the first step would be to legalize the recreational consumption of steroids for people over the age of 18 (mimicking tobacco) or 21 (alcohol). The slippery-slopists will then argue that Koskie's bionic parts should be legal and you could end up seeing robotic players developed over the next 50 years. (Yes, I think that is rubbish too, but I can't imagine that owners wouldn't rather spend $40 million to make a Santana Model SP-KK that will be under a "lifetime contract.")
If we answer the question in the negative (which I believe we should), then the appropriate penalties should be distributed. If an 18 year old kid is found with marijuana, he gets community service, jail time, fine, whatever. If 18 year old Carmelo Anthony gets caught with marijuana, he should get the same penalties. In addition, those caught selling, distributing, transporting or consuming illegal substances like HGH or THG or other illegal steroids should face the appropriate consequences. Jeremy Giambi should spend 30 or so days behind bars for admitting to a crime. He can share a cell with Jason if he'd like.
The point I wanted to make was the distinction between alcohol and steroids from the point of view of how they are treated (read: morally or legally, since in large part laws are designed to be an extension of accepted morality, for better or worse) in society. I got a little off course, but I think there is more in there. Alas, since I actually hold down a job (I know, I can't believe it either) I should stop there unless people really want to continue to discuss it.
I will end on a lifting note though. This will be familiar to talldrinkowater, whose encouraging emails inspired these words (thanks talldrink):
"Is it a coincidence that every day without baseball gets colder and darker, and then when baseball returns, the days get sunnier and warmer? I think not."
Here's wishing you all sunnier and warmer days. :)
YankeeFan
Simply put, what baseball needs is a truly indeendent commissioner. Not a stooge for the owners like they have now. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid rich people can be.
Posted by: Me at March 23, 2005 09:10 AMI love the talldrink quote as it certainly seems to describe my life exactly. Thanks talldrink and thanks YankeeFan for using it where you did since this whole steriods issues had me in the dark thoughts zone.
And, in response to Me's request. I hereby offer my services as the new commissioner of MLB. I would be completely independent (even indeendent if necessary), I am not now, nor have I ever been labeled a stooge and, most importantly, I am neither rich nor stupid. I think I fit all the qualifications.
Further, if elected I promise to take at least three Batlings to every game I get tickets to.
If the Commisioner of Baseball position is opened to popular election, I'll vote for SDave. I liked what Jim Bouton said about it, something along the lines of: the title Commissioner of Baseball is very misleading. It causes an exaggerated sense of importance in the person holding the title. This person should instead be called the Commissioner of Team Owners of Major League Baseball Teams.
Posted by: Pepper at March 23, 2005 10:08 AMSDave,
If you should happen to become commissioner of Baseball, can I be your personal assistant?
Posted by: talldrinkowater at March 23, 2005 11:43 AMSDave,
Funny you should mention it, as I was reading your post I wsa thinking "How can I scam free tickets out of him on this deal?" and low and behold you brought it up yourself.
My lucky day. You've got my vote, even though it doesn't count as I to have an I.Q. over the spped limit and am not a millionaire (but I am a thousandaire).
Posted by: Me at March 23, 2005 11:52 AMSDave,
Here's the real question. Can you hook me up with Mauer when you become the commissioner? lol
Posted by: Stacy at March 23, 2005 02:57 PMAh, a real use of power. Hooking your friends up with hotties.
Posted by: Me at March 23, 2005 03:52 PMYF, you've got it right. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, we can skip the moral/ethical arguments, and simply think about it in terms of a level playing field: Everyone gets to play with what they've got (and if one damages that voluntarily with illegal substances that's his own problem--Darryl Strawberry, anyone?). No one gets to enhance his abilities artificially. I'm just fine with the purchase of a new body part that functions like the last one, though. I don't think anyone would argue that someone emerges from Tommy John surgery with enhanced abilities compared to pre-injury status.
twink,
Actually, many of those who come off Tommy John surgery end up with enhanced abilities (primarily velocity). I recall reading the following article in Wired as the basis for a portion of my above statement:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/start.html?pg=2
I think that when a pitcher that has been pitching for a while has wear-and-tear on the elbow ligament, Tommy John surgery effectively restores that ligament to "brand-new" status. So a pitcher that can only hit 85 on the radar gun gets a brand new ligament, and can hit 95 (see, e.g., Mariano Rivera, I think).
Of course, the arguments get tricky. Would anyone argue against laser eye surgery for players with bad vision? Probably not. In my opinion, people are (in general) more morally outraged if they can't see themselves doing a particular act. Any of us would consider having corrective laser-eye surgery (or wear contact lenses to make the argument broad enough to border ridiculousness) or ligament surgery if we tore an ACL, (p.s. not fun), etc. Therefore, we don't see these as morally objectionable. Generally, people can't see taking THG and other steroids (say, compared with marijuana which has become an acceptable drug in many circles) for recreational purposes. So we as a people are morally outraged.
I can't see a clear distinction and I would be hard pressed to draw a bright-line rule. I feel (warning: the following are my opinions) that steroids should be outlawed, while corrective lenses, medication for illness (a strep diagnosis requires the perscription of some steroids) and laser-eye surgery are ok. Surgery to repair broken parts - good, elective surgery to enhance performance, bad. Then again, where do you draw the line there? Barry Bonds' knees are falling apart. Through repeated surgeries, he could prolong his career even further than he already has. His body has told him to stop, but he continues, with the help of modern science (the degree of which is yet unknown/unproven).
I guess what I am trying to say, twink, is that I agree with your "everyone gets to play with what they've got" mentality, but it just is not that easy practically. There is a wide spectrum of different ailments and treatments that face all individuals... those would need to be taken into account on a case-by-case (or ailment-by-ailment) basis (see, Casey Martin).
I would love to hear some of the thoughts of some other intelligent people about this. If you don't feel like it is Bat-worthy, please feel free to email me off list.
YankeeFan
P.S. Freealonzo brought the fact that during much of Babe Ruth's career, sale, distributiona dn consumption of alcohol was prohibited by law by the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). So it is not simply a legal/illegal analysis, but perhaps more of a "what I would/would not do" analysis. Just thought that Freealonzo's tidbit would be interesting to some people.
Posted by: YankeeFan at March 24, 2005 08:29 AMHmm, good points, YF. But, where does the fact that Lasik, Tommy John, and contact lenses are legal but taking steroids without a prescription is not legal fit in?
Posted by: mmmarkiep at March 24, 2005 10:12 AMmmmarkiep,
That's part of the issue. You could ask the same about why marijuana use isn't as "morally objectionable" as steroids...
I posted something this morning on another thread that kind of touches on this... I know enough to know I don't have an answer, but also know enough to know that there needs to be an answer.
YF
Posted by: YankeeFan at March 24, 2005 10:53 AMMaybe there's some kind of equation...
Legal + Performance Enhancing = OK
Legal + Performance Inhibiting = Dumb but not bad
Illegal + Performance Inhibiting = Dumb and kinda bad
Illegal + Performance Enhancing = Dumb and Bad. Like, Congressional lynch mob bad.
Here is some info on Steroid use.
http://www.4-men.org/testosterone/side-effects-of-steroids.html