balco-rama
the steroid truffle hunt has finally turned up some players long suspected of juicing themselves: Barry Bonds, Jeremy Giambi and Gary Sheffield (not to mention lesser lights like Randy Velarde and Marvin Benard). while i still stand by my earlier comments that i'm not sure that steroids have had much of an impact on the power numbers of the game, i got to thinking about the subject a bit more today while reading George Vecsey's horribly sanctimonious column in today's NYTimes.
and what it came down to for me was: so what?
why do we care so much? why is what other people put into their bodies so dazzlingly interesting to so many people? i laugh in the face of anyone who tries to use some ridiculous "unfair advantage" argument to justify their outrage over "performance enhancing" drugs. we exist at the intersection of biology, chemistry and physics. the whole concept of natural selection is based on the fact that certain beings have innate advantages over others. caffeine might give one student an advantage over another on an exam. marathoners "carbo load" before a race because it will help their performance. i'm a much better pool player after 2 beers. where do you draw the line? a 6'5" gentleman who weighs 335 pounds is more likely to be employed as an offensive lineman than one who weighs only 240, depsite the fact that the weight gain is likely unhealthy. they both have the choice of what they want to do, and are hopefully armed with the information to make an informed choice regarding the possible consequences both short-term and long-term (which would be more likely if we didn't constantly try to sweep all this stuff under the rug).
barry bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001. if your enjoyment of that fact is diminshed because he may have used steroids, then you're watching for the wrong reasons - it's about pitcher vs. hitter, the crack of the bat and the beauty of a ball arcing through the air. steroids didn't let Bonds hit all of those home runs, hard work and a lot of natural ability did. look at Benard or Velarde - alleged steroid use didn't boost their power numbers as a look at their year-to-year SLG% can show you. hell, look at Bonds' numbers and try to figure out when the steroids kicked in. or Sheffield - his progression looks pretty normal for player with his talents. so enough of the hand-wringing and the brow-furrowing - let's talk about baseball.
Comments
I think you have some very good and valid points here, particularly the media's hysterical, sky is falling approach to it all. But to dismiss steroid abuse as inconsequential to players startles me.
I think there are health risks and likely competitive advantages. And the fact that you are such an MLB players association butt kisser pisses me off. Let the players get cancer as long as they're well compensated!
By the way, since you make fun of Randy Velarde and Marvin Benard, what year was their peak salary and how much was it? I bet they were on the juice the year they put up numbers to warrant multi-million dollar contracts.
Posted by: jake | March 2, 2004 04:32 PM
i don't think it's inconsequential to the players, and in fact it's somewhat saddening that so many of them are willing to subject themselves to it in order to "compete". but it's up to them to make that decision because you're never going to completely rid the game of it. nor should that be the goal. surely there are some advantages but i think they are overblown. and i don't wish any harm on anyone, but you have to live with the consequences of your decisions - look at Earl Campbell.
velarde's big year (1999) was also the year he got 630 ABs. it did lead to two years of a $3M salary. benard's salary jumped from 1.1M in 2000 to 2.7M in 2001 to 4.2M in 2002 and 2003. again, his "big" years simply correspond to more playing time for the most part. (source: baseball-reference.com)
Posted by: jamie | March 2, 2004 05:16 PM
Jeez, I should have read Vecsey's piece before I posted. What a tool. I like to think I'm only sanctimonious, not "horribly" sanctimonious like our boy Amish George.
Posted by: jake | March 2, 2004 05:22 PM
You're like Donald Fehr and Gene Orza's love child.
Posted by: jake | March 2, 2004 05:23 PM
All I ask is that you give me a head's up when you're getting ready to ban me from this list.
Posted by: jake | March 2, 2004 05:25 PM
i was actually called "sanctimonious" over the weekend. "strident" and "preachy" are also fairly accurate i think.
Posted by: jamie | March 2, 2004 06:06 PM