When Henry Chadwick started charting baseball games and baseball players, he did so, it seems, largely as a way of creating equity. No one could judge players without really knowing what they did. As baseball's "moral compass," Chadwick looked to stats "to encourage a value system he held desperately dear." Schwartz writes:
Chadwick insisted that only through statistics could the truly special player be recognized. "Many a dashing general player, who carries off a great deal of eclat in prominent matches has all the 'gilt taken off the gingerbread,' as the saying is, by these matter-of-fact figures....And we are perfectly surprised to find that the modest but efficient worker, who has played earnestly and steadily through the season, apparently unnoticed, has come in, at the close of the race, the real victor."
Chadwick's stats were designed to reward these humble, steady players, to find a real and accurate way of valuing each player and what he gives to the game, to reward virtue and skill. It hasn't always been easy; The Numbers Game covers any number of controversies in the history of baseball and its statistics, from a much disputed 1910 batting average title to the chase for the single-season home run record in 1961. But there's a controversy missing. Schwartz is lucky he wrote the book when he did, in twenty years a history of baseball and stats cannot help but cover the question of statistics and steroids.
Lets say, hypothetically, that there is a hitter now who is threatening to break every home run record in the book. And let us say that this hitter used to be quite scrawny. And let us say that, while the hitter is preternaturally gifted on his own and has a very sweet swing, he also owes his homers to an extremely large amount of muscle mass, and let us say that that hitter has been found to be using steroids.
How do we treat this player's numbers? It seems clear what baseball's moral compass would think. What do we do with single season home run records by players who are widely known to have used steroids? How can we evaluate greatness when greatness has sometimes been, well, injected in the ass? Is it fair to compare the numbers of someone who does something historic, aided by drugs, to someone who has not?
How do you think that book, twenty years down the line, will treat the issue? Where is the story of stats in baseball going in relation to steroids? What will the histories say?
For an excellent discussion of the recent history of steroids and baseball, ESPN: The Magazine has a article. Read it when you have a lot of time.
Posted by Batgirl at November 17, 2005 12:18 AMUnfortunately, if you start stripping records and other accomplishments from players known to have been using steroids (say, the hypothetical single-season HR record and maybe within a season or two the hypothetical all-time record, plus several consecutive hypothetical MVP awards, etc.), you're going to get into a standoff where steroid guy's pointing at amphetamine guy, who's pointing at cocaine guy, who's pointing at this one, who's pointing at that one and next thing you know, someone's trying to say that the Babe was under the influence of a dozen hot dogs and eight bottles of lemon soda and his records shouldn't count.
Seriously, though, substance usage is nothing new to the game (example, Dock Ellis' 1970 no-hitter thrown while he was on acid; click my name... heheh, I get to use this link on two threads in a row!), and sadly, there's no way you can fairly adjust the record books.
Let's look at poor Ken Caminiti- by his own admission, he started juicing in 1996. He won NL MVP that year- if you try taking that away, there's an argument for also taking away the Padres' NL West title, which means that the whole 1996 postseason would have to be replayed (only this time, someone needs to kick the shit out of Jeffrey Maier before he can get his grubby little hands on that fly ball).
That's just one player and one season and look at the chaos it would cause. My point is, what's done is done. All we can really do is clean the sport up and try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted by: let's go mets at November 16, 2005 10:55 PMThe homeruns should stand in the black and white of the record books, but should always be treated with the asterisk of skepticism in dialogue.
Unfortunately, there is just no way to accurately determine the parameters of guilt.
And you're right, everything is cause and effect and subject to convolution...Pete Rose can be banned for betting on baseball, but to even begin to call into question every decision he made as a manager, that may have increased his payoff odds, would be crazy.
And yeah, I DO believe he betted certain scenarios that somehow relied on his team's performance.
Posted by: BAT Bandwagoner at November 16, 2005 11:21 PMIt's all well and good to moralize and argue that steroid-aided players' records should be somehow identified as tarnished in the official record book, but where do you draw the line on records by cheaters? How do you define cheating?
Do you discount hits, BA, HR stats for players found to be using a corked bat because you assume they've done so regularly enough to have had an effect on their career stats?
What about cheating that wasn't cheating at the time of the "offense" (if you buy in to the logic that steroid use wasn't cheating all those years that MLB didnt test for it)? Does that mean that all those pitchers who threw spitballs before it was outlawed should have their stats erased? Certainly Gaylord Perry and Phil Niekro should have any records they own removed from the books.
Since we can't know exactly who has been juiced and who hasn't for the past 20 years, maybe we should wipe out all records that were broken in this tainted "era" so we won't have to tolerate HR records sent by McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc. But what about the consecutive game streak of Ripken? Don't tell me nobody noticed he put on a bit of bulk over his career and can you guarantee the quick-recovery benefits some steroids didn't help him minimize the effects of some injuries and keep him in the line-up?
Where does it start and where does it end?
What's in the book is in the book, as far as I'm concerned.
Don't forget that Babe Ruth didn't have to bat against black pitchers (or Venzuelans), and that mound height and season length has affected some things, too.
Records are records but only reflect their time in the game. Silva had the lowest BB/9 since 1880 when the rules were way different, but we didn't throw out those records or Silva's... they sit together, and when we look at such lists, we remember how the game has changed sublty from era to era.
In the future, the Career HR record will be:
1. Alex Rodriguez (clean-cut guy that we all hated, probably clean, never won nothin')
2. Barry Bonds (brash guy that half hated and half loved, almost certainly juiced)
3. Hank Aaron (had to deal with racism for challenging Ruth's record, also, the Brewers played in Milwaukee)
4. Babe Ruth (THE player back when pitchers could hit, has own candy bar).
A while back ESPN's page 2 did a "cleaning" of the record books for the season HR record. Harmon won.
(I wouldn't even know where to look for the link).
Posted by: amr at November 17, 2005 12:50 AMBaby Ruth was actually named after some US President's daughter... Teddy Roosevelt's, I think. Nope, it was Grover Cleveland... I always F that one up.
And whaddya mean you wouldn't know where to look? I googled "espn page 2 killebrew record book" and it took all of 3 seconds to find the article in question. See? The answer was within you all along ;-)
I'd post a link to it but it's now, along with damn near everything else, one of those INsider articles you have to pay for.
Fortunately, someone posted it on some message board, so here it is, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball (or anyone else, for that matter):
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=schoenfield/041207
Just Strike It
By David Schoenfield
Page 2
Sports columnists and fans are foaming at the mouth like a bunch of rabid
dogs fighting over a piece of raw meat.
Put an asterisk next to Bonds!
Put an asterisk next to all his records!!
Strike his totals completely from the record book!!!
Crown a new single-season home-run king!!!!
Trouble is, once you strike Bonds' 73 home runs from the "book" because you
think his steroid use taints their legitimacy, who would that leave as the
new single-season record-holder?
Let's find out:
Mark McGwire, 70 home runs, 1998: Used Andro, which raises the level of
testosterone in the body and is considered a pre-cursor to steroids. When
combined with weightlifting, this will help build muscle mass. Strike it!
Sammy Sosa, 66, 1998: Suspected performance-enhancer use. Received grooved
pitches from Jose Lima. Strike that one, too!
McGwire, 65, 1999: Andro, etc.
Sosa, 64, 2001: Caught cheating with corked bat. How often and when did he
do this? Nobody knows.
Sosa, 63, 1999: Strike!
Roger Maris, 61, 1961: Expansion year (Senators and Angels). All records
from all expansion seasons should be stricken since offensive totals always
increase due to the diluted pitching.
Babe Ruth, 60, 1927: With no black players allowed, Ruth wasn't even facing
the best pitchers. Stricken!
Ruth, 59, 1921: No black players.
Jimmie Foxx, 58, 1932: No black players.
Hank Greenberg, 58, 1938: No black players.
McGwire, 58, 1997: Andro, etc.
Luis Gonzalez, 57 2001: Was there something in that chewing gum? Has never
hit more than 31 home runs in any other season. Definitely suspicious.
Stricken!
Alex Rodriguez, 57, 2002: Nobody has accused A-Rod of taking steroids, but
any total in the juiced player era (1994-2003) is questionable. Guilt by
association.
Hack Wilson, 56, 1930: This was the notorious lively ball season, when the
National League hit over .300 as a league! And no black players, either.
Ken Griffey Jr., 56, 1997: Juiced player era. Plus, he played in the
Kingdome. Strike it!
Ruth, 54, 1920: No black players.
Ruth, 54, 1928: No black players.
Ralph Kiner, 54, 1949: Jackie Robinson had broken the color barrier, but
there were still very few black players. Sorry. Needs an asterisk.
Mickey Mantle, 54, 1961: Expansion season.
Griffey Jr., 54, 1998: Expansion season (Diamondbacks and Devil Rays).
Mantle, 52, 1956: This might be the winner, except ... well, there were lots
of problems in the AL at this time. Black players still weren't fully
integrated (the Yankees, for instance had only one, Elston Howard; and the
Red Sox had none). The Kansas City A's were essentially a Triple-A team for
the Yankees. If this record had been set in the NL, I think we could crown
the Mick the champ. But we can't.
Willie Mays, 52, 1965: During the famous Pittsburgh drug trials in 1985,
former Pirate John Milner testified that he took liquid amphetamine (which
he referred to as "red juice") out of Mays' locker. We don't know when --
or, frankly, if -- Willie started using, but it raises suspicions.
George Foster, 52, 1977: As a kid, I loved George Foster and his big black
bat and long menacing sideburns. I want this to be the single-season record.
But ... it was an expansion year in the AL (Mariners and Blue Jays) and the
first year of free agency. Basically, everything was all screwed up and the
average NL slugging percentage went up 36 points. Stricken!
McGwire, 52, 1996: Andro, etc.
Rodriguez, 52, 2001: Juiced player era.
Jim Thome, 52, 2002: Juiced player era.
Johnny Mize, 51, 1947: Robinson's first year, so baseball wasn't integrated
yet.
Ralph Kiner, 51, 1947: Robinson's first year.
Mays, 51, 1955: Mays surely wasn't using the red juice yet, but the Polo
Grounds was just 279 feet to left field and 258 feet to right field! No way
this should count as the record.
Cecil Fielder, 51, 1990: No designated hitters allowed. Stricken!
Foxx, 50, 1938: No black players.
Albert Belle (1995), Brady Anderson (1996), Greg Vaughn (1998), Sosa (2000),
all with 50: All stricken for one or more of the following reasons:
suspected steroids use, juiced player era, expansion year, possible corked
bat.
Then we get to a bunch of guys at 49. But most of them played in either the
pre-Jackie Robinson era, or in the notorious juiced-ball season of 1987, or
an expansion season, or the juiced player era or, worst of all, Coors Field.
Shouldn't the single-season HR champ have a nickname like "The Killer"?
However, that does leaves us with ... drum roll, please ... the following
co-record holders for home runs in a single season, with 49 each:
Ted Kluszewski, Cincinnati Reds, 1954.
Harmon Killebrew, Minnesota Twins, 1964
Frank Robinson, Baltimore Orioles, 1966
By all accounts, these guys played the game the way it was meant to be
played, against fair competition and without the use of any
performance-enhancing stimulants besides coffee and chewing tobacco. Big
Klu's arms were so mammoth he cut off the sleeves on his jersey. And he was
a real hitter -- he had more homers than strikeouts in '54. And Killebrew
grew strong not from illegal supplements but from eating lots of potatoes
growing up in Idaho. And Robby not only hit homers but would crush second
basemen and shortstops with his hard slides.
So let's congratulate them. They're the new single-season home-run
champions!
David Schoenfield has never used "the cream" or "the clear."
Posted by: let's go mets at November 17, 2005 05:56 AMWhat if they did something like what the NCAA does for basketball teams that cheated: they take away the team's Final Four (the FF the Gophers were played in in the 1990s only had 3 teams according to the record book, b/c the NCAA/Gophers had to pretend it didn't happen--samething w/ UMass in 1996)but the teams they beat don't get to move up (Gtown lost to UMass in the Elite 8, but don't get to count it as a FF trip).
So if Bonds passes Aaron, and Bonds is found to have been juicing (needs to be significant evidence of this), then he doesn't get to hold the record. Everyone knows that he hit 800 bombs, just like everyone knows the Gophers went to the Final Four. The Record books, however, say different. Because Bonds would have been caught cheating, so he's out.
So in the Caminiti case, there was no 1996 NL MVP. There just wasn't.
That being said, the teams shouldn't be punished, unless they have been found to be encouraging it. If it's just not punishing the players, that's not their fault since they couldn't under the CBA. So the Padres playoff run counts.
Posted by: TBird41 at November 17, 2005 06:23 AMClick my name for the truth about the Baby Ruth candy bar.
Posted by: Kurtis at November 17, 2005 06:37 AMTbird- Ken Caminiti in 1995 (pre-'roids): 26 HR, 94 RBI, .380 OBP. In 1996 (on the juice): 40 HR, 130 RBI, .408 OBP.
Let's be conservative and presume that without Caminiti's "enhanced performance", the 1996 Padres lose 5 more games than they actually had. Caminiti's involvement changed the entire season and therefore, the entire postseason as well, because the Padres' new record means that the Dodgers go from being the Wild Card team to being NL West champs and Montreal becomes the WC.
Even assuming that NOOOOOBODY in the entire Padres' organization knew that Caminiti was juicing, the team still benefitted. I mean, what do you want to do, award championship rings to the 1919 White Sox who weren't in on the fix because they *might* have won had those other 8 men not thrown the series?
The records stand, the sport gets cleaned up and we teach our kids things like "always run it out" and "don't use steroids" and "don't bet on baseball" and "don't be like Mickey Mantle and drink until your liver's the size of Ohio and needs to be replaced because you're just going to die soon after that anyway".
Posted by: let's go mets at November 17, 2005 07:30 AMNo messing with the history books, is what I say. While they shouldn't be written in the actual books, I think there should be that they "should always be treated with the asterisk of skepticism in dialogue" (as Bandwagoner said).
When we mention Sosa and Bonds and McGwire, we should mention there were suspicions of steroids (although at this point there's no confirmation of the fact). Like it or not, they hit that many home runs in a single season. Their breaking Maris's record does not change Maris's place in history, either; he may not hold the record any longer, but he still holds a spot in the history of the record.
In short--leave the record books alone, clean up the game, and move on. You can't change history. You can only learn from it, and try to make things better.
Posted by: Just Beth at November 17, 2005 08:02 AMI think the first major thing that tends to get overlooked in this steroids debate is that the clear effect of steroid usage on home run hitting and baseball skills in general is unknown.
Yes, Barry Bonds put on some muscle, and hit a record number of home runs. Was he definitely on steroids? We don't know because HE'S NEVER TESTED POSITIVE. We also don't know if steroids would have helped him hit all those home runs if he was on them. Without evidence that his swing got faster, translating to balls being hit further, I don't think we can say. The man is just a sick machine. He doesn't swing at bad pitches, and has refined his swing for maximum efficiency. Look at all the players who have been outed for steroids, it's not like they are hitting 65 HR a year. Matt Lawton? Alex Sanchez? Michael Morse? It's too tough to tell where Barry Bonds' natural skill starts, and where the chemical enhancement (if it exists) begins. And that's if we had proof he was taking them.
I'm not apologizing for Barry Bonds by any means, but the facts remain that he has never tested positive for steroids, steroids weren't routinely tested for in a meaningful way until just recently, we have no idea if being on the juice actually makes you better at a very specific skill, etc.
If asked for my opinion, I would say Barry definitely would have had a hard time getting that big on his own, but until something is proved with actual evidence I will reserve judgment on it, and say let the record stand.
Posted by: cubsfan36 at November 17, 2005 08:48 AMBarry Bonds was already a solid HR hitter. With steroids those occasional long outs become HRs, I don't see how that can be hard to understand.
And in his grand jury testimony he DID ADMIT to using what we all know is Balco steroids but he supposedly thought was flax seed oil.
Living in the Bay area I'm surrounded by Bonds fans that refuse to admit he could have even done anything wrong. I don't think you can go back and change the books, all of you have clearly shown why in my opinion but When it comes to Bonds, Big Mac, Sosa, and most definately Palmero you have to put a big * next to their numbers.
Posted by: caluofmn at November 17, 2005 10:30 AMI'm one of the people that thinks that Bonds is ridiculous, even with the help from steroids/HGH (which I don't think they test for, since it requires blood testing, which steroids doesn't--anyone know?). Bonds is probably on HGH and not steroids so much. HGH is what makes your head grow like 80 sizes, like Bonds' did. It could make LNP just NP. That being said, Bonds' eye for the plate and ability to swing at his pitch and only his pitch and then hit it solidly is ridiculous.
And I don't actually think that the records should be asteriked, as all the juicers were likely hitting against pitchers who were juicing--probably canceled each other out some. The new smaller parks helped with the home runs as well , and I don't remember who (Neyer?) but someone looked at the class of pitchers in their primes during the long ball/steroid era and it's pretty sparse talentwise in comparison with previous eras (and likely the current/upcoming era lead by El Presidente).
Posted by: TBird41 at November 17, 2005 10:59 AMI know this discussion is about statistics, but I still feel that the larger importance should be placed on championships and season outcomes than on records and individual achievements. Why has all the controversy centered around HR's? Its starting to seem that people enjoy baseball more for a chance to recite numbers and compare stats and less for the actual games. If that's you, play Strat-o-matic, you'll find it much more fun and convenient than the real thing. Me, I'll wonder things like what Tony LaRussa's manager rep. would be without juiced players, how many World Series were won with needles, and whether Pac Bell in SF would even exist without the Clear.
Posted by: MyGrover at November 17, 2005 11:11 AMI agree with TBird--we need to remember that many pitchers over the past few years are on the juice--starting with the rocket...I dont think statistics need to be changed...also they are not testing for HGH so we still wont have a totally clean game...but maybe closer.
One note--when Mark Mac took Andro it was legal in MLB.
Posted by: DC Twins Fan at November 17, 2005 11:34 AMFirst things first, Jeffrey Maier was an innocent bystander that caught a home run ball that Tony Tarasco was not going to catch.
The fact that the Babe played at a time when there were no black players, is not his fault and nothing he could have done about it, you can't hold the rules of the game against the players.
Pete Rose bet on baseball. Every player that has ever played in the MLB has signed a contract and one of the things written in that contract is that if you bet and you are caught you are out for good. He knew it and he thought he was more important then baseball let him rot in hell. No hall for the Hit King.
The hypothetical player has the record and may hypothetically get another one, but we the fans and the keepers of the game will always know how it was achieved and said player will never be at peace with the baseball community and hence it will be a hollow achievement that no one will ever say was earned. His choice. He could have gone down as a top 10 all timer, but he wanted to remove those that came before him and promote himself as the greatest and all he did was intensify baseballs love for these other players, and align people against him.
Enjoy the meaningless records Barry. You sold your true talent for 30 pieces of silver.
Posted by: mike at November 17, 2005 12:26 PMI though I’d have a contrarian’s view to add but I see it is almost unanimous that trying to recognize only “pure” statistical accomplishment would be an exercise in absurdity, requiring vast amounts of asterisking for all sorts of reasons. Rob Neyer had an interesting column where he noted that some forms are cheating are deemed condemnable while others, such as the spitball, evoke sly admiration. He speculated it is because doctoring the ball is cheating that requires skill, to get away with doing it in front of the umps, opposing players and the fans.
Posted by: Brande at November 17, 2005 12:26 PMI don't believe in asterisks. It's a record, or it's not. However.
I also think that any player *caught* (through testing, or video evidence, or other darn near irrefutable physical evidence) using a substance that is banned by baseball *at that time* should not get any records that season. Also, any stats they compile that season should be left out of that player's lifetime totals (and thus not contribute to any career records they may set).
Example:
Bob hits the most HRs in the AL with 52, but tests positive for a banned substance in September. Jim is second in the league with 49 homers. Jim goes into the record books as the AL HR leader for the season--no asterisks, just Jim with 49, end of story.
Meanwhile, when Bob retires, his career stats will not include his numbers for that season. The numbers for that year will either not be presented, or presented parenthetically and not included in his totals.
This, or something like it, strikes me as a fair compromise between the natural but competing desires to 1) keep the game's statistics and records "clean" and 2) allowing offending players to retain credit for accomplishments reached through their own skill.
P.S. Alas, I have no answer for other (non-chemical) forms of cheating such as spitballing. If you catch a player with steroids in his system, you can assume the benefits to his game have a fair chance of lasting for a while after the ingestion, but a spitball only has a chance of helping you on that one pitch.
Posted by: infield at November 17, 2005 01:00 PMBarry Bonds was the best player of my generation.
Like those that believed Rose until their noses were pushed into the carpet stain of reality, I believed (emphasis on the "ed") Bonds.
I still choose to believe that he only went that route after all the love heaped on the Sosa and Mac Show.
And the Andro-in-the-locker was a red herring.
Posted by: BAT bandwagoner at November 17, 2005 01:11 PMDear Mr Infield
But what do you do with team achievments of players caught juicing ? What if Bob's team wins the WS and he is the MVP ?
Because this is a team sport the impact of steriods is greater then just how many hrs. I mean if San Fran would have beat LAA of A in 2002 there would be alot of out cry that it should be stripped from SF.
mike
Posted by: mike at November 17, 2005 01:23 PMMike,
I don't think you can punish a team for what one player does. You have to assume the organization was innocent unless you can *prove* complicity. Just like you have to assume (for the purposes of records, statistics and awards) that a player is clean unless he's caught using--even if he *is* Barry Bonds and you really, really wish he'd get the smackdown he's had coming to him for years...ahem. I digress.
So team achievements and records have to stand. Tainted in the eyes of fans, perhaps, but stand nonetheless. That's only fair to the 24 guys who played it clean, after all.
>>What if Bob's team wins the WS and he is the MVP?
Well, my example assumed he was caught in September, so he would have been on suspension during the WS. But if, say, his results come back after the postseason, then he would be have to be stripped of his MVP award. It could then be awarded to someone else, if the commissioner so allowed, I expect.
And it's "Ms." Infield, by the way. :)
Posted by: infield at November 17, 2005 01:41 PMHey everybody!
Not to be a Bonds apologist. He is my least favorite person in my favorite sport. I am also not a McGwire apologist, Canseco, etc., etc.
HOWEVER.
Until very VERY recently, Steroids were NOT AGAINST THE RULES OR TESTED FOR IN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL.
Steroids are NOW against the rules. And we NOW have ways of dealing with those players. MLB just installed a new system to test and punish current players breaking the rules of the game. That is simply going to have to stand. You cannot take away records from people who were doing something that, though morally objectionable, WAS NOT ILLEGAL IN THE SPORT THEY WERE PLAYING.
I hate it. I wish there was another way around it. However, if we can't take away the wins that Pete Rose got when he was betting on games, we cannot take away home runs/MVP's/Titles that may have been tainted by steroids.
Even that's not even a fair comparison, for while Petey boy was betting away on his OWN TEAM, that action was VERY MUCH against the rules at the time. When Mark was taking his Andro and Barry was ballooning off of his "flax seed oil", there was no rules, testing, or punishment. It was not against the rules of the sport they were playing. Sad but true.
Most people wanting to "strip the records" of past players are doing what I did when I first heard about all this: Having a knee-jerk reaction to some people who, very literally, took advantage of and betrayed our childhood trust.
Posted by: Neil at November 17, 2005 02:34 PMDear Mr Neil
While steroids may not have been illegal in baseball, they were certainly illegal in the USA at that time, which makes it a crime. Cocaine wasn't against the rules by baseball in the 70s but still a crime to do it.
I don't think baseball has a rule against murder in the CBA, but that doesn't mean you can do it. Football is where you are allowed to murder.(see Simpson, O.J., see Lewis, Ray) :)
mike
Posted by: mike at November 17, 2005 03:10 PMMike,
You're comparing apples to oranges. If a player is arrested for getting into a bar fight or fudging his taxes, you don't take his records away. The court system will (presumably) deal with civil offenses if sufficient evidence is present to enable a prosecution.
You can only penalize a player within the game for breaking the rules of the game.
Posted by: infield at November 17, 2005 03:32 PMI'm with infield on this one, Mike. Immoral, yes. Against baseball's rules? No.
Am I saying that's right?? NO. I'm saying that's messed up.
But even if OJ killed someone, you can't take away his yards.
Posted by: Neil at November 17, 2005 03:36 PMI don't think I ever said that Bonds should lose his records, just the whole "hey it wasn't agaist the rules" thing I don't buy. Like I said before, it's his record, but you, me and anyone that knows baseball knows the record is a fraud. No *, no erasing it from the books, just a slanted view of it by history.
Posted by: mike at November 17, 2005 03:44 PMYou guys haven't read the ESPN article, have you?
On June 7, 1991, then-commissioner Fay Vincent's office issued a memo to every team that said, in part, "This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."
Steroids have been illegal in baseball since 1991. It just took them nearly fourteen years to actually start testing for it and punishing those caught.
Re: Big Mac- Here's what the FDA has to say about andro (emphasis mine):
"Q: What is an anabolic steroid precursor?
A: An anabolic steroid is a steroid, such as testosterone, that induces muscle growth. *An anabolic steroid precursor is a steroid* that does not itself cause muscle growth, but can be converted by the body into such a steroid. *Androstenedione is an anabolic steroid precursor* because it is converted to testosterone in the body." (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/androqa.html)
See that? If andro "is an anabolic steroid precursor" and "an anabolic steroid precursor is a steroid", then in can be logically inferred that "andro is a steroid" and therefore "andro has been illegal in baseball since 1991."
Re: That Meier twerp- "innocent bystanders" don't reach over the railing into the field of play and interfere with batted balls. Tarasco makes that catch if the kid playing hooky keeps his grubby mitts to himself.
And for the record, Mike, how do YOU feel about team accomplishments when a player's been found to be juicing?
Posted by: let's go mets at November 17, 2005 03:56 PMOh, and for what it's worth, it's illegal to buy, sell or possess cocaine but not illegal to actually *use* it. You can walk up to a cop and say, "I'm high as a kite," and the cop can't do anything.
Not saying the cop *won't* do anything...
Posted by: let's go mets at November 17, 2005 04:01 PMI think you can't rewrite history. If the league allowed the player in question to play then the results are offical. I just think that the people that are asking for the *s and stripping away of records fail to see that there is a greater effect then just how many hrs.
And Jeter's hr was just that a homerun. There was no way Tarasco makes a play on that ball. You have been to Yankee Stadium you can't reach that far into the playing field. I mean it's not like some fan tried to punch a player in the face while they were making a play on a ball. That's wrong :)
Posted by: mike at November 17, 2005 04:53 PMlet's go mets:
I would interpret that ruling by Vincent to not includ Andro--here's why:
Andro was, until 2005, not an illegal or controlled substance in the U.S. I don't think you need a prescription for it, but can instead buy it over the counter. So if it's not illegal or controlled and you don't need a prescription for it, then it was allowed.
Posted by: TBird41 at November 17, 2005 06:43 PMI will conced to you that it was against baseball's on-paper rules. That much is proven.
But by making something a rule, and then not enforcing it, it is the same as if there was no rule at all.
My big point is that major league baseball shot itself in the foot.
Posted by: Neil at November 17, 2005 10:14 PMMike- Sheffield's a choad but I do commend him for keeping his cool when that even bigger choad took a swipe at him while he was trying to make a play. Getting back to Maier, look at this picture and tell me again how that little turd couldn't reach that far onto the playing field and that he did not interfere with a ball that, in all likelihood would have been caught for an out, but would, at the very least, be playable:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f1/Jeffmaier.jpg
The kid is now a lettered outfielder for Wesleyan University and is "one of the best hitters on the team". One hopes he's learned how to hang on to a ball since 1996 (the only upside to that whole event was that he never got the ball in question).
This is what he looks like now:
http://condor.wesleyan.edu/openmedia/athletics/05baseballmugs/05baseballmugs-Pages/Image16.html
Tbird- You do make a valid point... even if andro is considered a steroid, if it did not require a script, it was still legal.
Neil- "My big point is that major league baseball shot itself in the foot." Fifty points to Gryffindor! That's ESPN's point, too. Ya know, I really wish the fans had a say in who the commissioner is. Then again, there'd probably be a bigger turnout at commissioner elections than there'd be at elections for public offices... like we need another reason to look like idiots to the rest of the world.
Back to Mike- you never said what you think about team accomplishments other than that you'd imagine there'd be a lot of outcry if SF had beaten then-Aneheim... what do you think they should do in a case like that?
Posted by: let's go mets at November 18, 2005 07:30 AMDear Mr. Neil and Mr. Mets,
I dare say a hundred for Gryffindor.
Sincerely,
The Headmistress
Mr Met
As I said above if the league allows the player to play then the results are offical. If it comes out tomorrow that someone on the white sox was juiced you can not take the title away from them, the same way if it turns out that if Bonds was juiced during the 73 hr season. If you disallow the hrs now that would change the scores in all of the games they were hit. I don't like it when the olmypics takes away a metal 3 months after the fact and I wouldn't like it if MLB did the same.
Take the test and have the results prior to the event.
I believe what happens to a team that is caught is that the court of public opinion will alway question the validity of what the team did, but it can not be stripped from them.
Posted by: mike at November 18, 2005 12:33 PMDear Headmistress BG:
I told that darned Sorting Hat that Slytherin wasn't for me. Henceforth I am redeemed.
Neil
Posted by: Neil at November 18, 2005 01:58 PMMike- well-played. Now for the follow-up: What do you think the court of public opinion should hold for the 2003 Yankees? Giambi testified that he had been juicing, and without his two solo shots in the 5th and 7th innings of game 7, Pedro-in-for-too-long and Aaron Boone become non-issues, the Yankees lose that game 5-3 and Boston goes on to face the Marlins.
"Take the test and have the results prior to the event."
I like your idea... as with the olympics, they should test every player on the postseason rosters. Anyone testing positive, no soup for you.
Posted by: let's go mets at November 18, 2005 04:20 PMIf we want drug testing to determine the validity of records, how long do we wait for records (and game results which would depend on them) to be validated? And how do we score games if a play is invalidated? With a process of collecting samples, getting them tested, possibly retesting if there's a positive result--it would take days to certify the results of a game.
I think "records" are a way of reporting, or recording, what happened. The ball was hit, (in or out of the park), there were x number of stolen bases, etc. But I'm all for discussion to encourage people to look deeper than the raw numbers. There's a lot published about baseball, and I think one of the strengths of cyberspace is that it's easy to get a discussion of baseball (or anything else) going. I'm certainly enjoying this one.
Posted by: JanetW at November 18, 2005 10:00 PMWhat about guys who take cortizone shots? If they couldn't play without it, isn't that a "performance enhancer"?
I agree with the others who said that Records are simply that: record-ings of what happened. It's important to understand the circumstances but it doesn't change what happened on the field.
Posted by: Dashiell at November 19, 2005 01:08 PMDashiell-
Aspirin and Ben-Gay can be performance-enhancing, if you want to see them as such. Gatorade, even. Cocaine is often used to treat nosebleeds (when it's not causing them ;-)). Shoot, I'll bet there are players who have asthma and take prednisone, which is a steroid.
The difference is that these substances are available over the counter or with a prescription and are therefore legal, in- and outside of baseball.
Posted by: let's go mets at November 20, 2005 01:45 AM