keep your laws off Jason Giambi's body
steroids - where to start? first of all none of it is surprising. not that they used them, not that Bonds claimed to have done so "unknowingly" (and for a very short period of time), not that the grand jury testimony was leaked, not the outcry from sports radio blatherers and their feckless listeners, not the Yankees attempts to void Giambi's contract (which they almost assuredly can not do), not that everyone has already forgotten about Gary Sheffield and his lack of punishment and not that i've only heard Roger Clemens' name once so far only to have it quickly brushed aside.
so to fan the flames of the indignant, some assertions:
1. steroids don't help you hit. they can help you lift more weight but they don't help you make contact and there's not a clear connection that they help you hit home runs (Steve Finley's odd career stat trajectory aside). if we believe Giambi when he testifies that he started taking steroids in 2001, then look at his career numbers - they actually get worse once he started taking them as his OPS+ has plummeted from 202 to 174 to 151 to 91. certainly some players are going to have better numbers that coincide with their use of steroids and human growth hormone and horse tranquilizers. but almost as certainly there are an equal number of players whose performance declines while they are using.
2. the Players Association has no obligation whatsoever to negotiate a tougher drug testing process than what they and the owners agreed to in 2002. just like an owner is not obligated to renegotiate a contract with a player who is a perennial all-star yet is under contract for only $1.5M.
3. if Barry Bonds only used steroids unknowingly in 2003 (which is what his supposedly truthful testimony asserts - there's no proof of anything else), then i challenge anyone to tell me how that should affect the way we look at his career numbers.
4. it's total hypocrisy for fans to wring their collective hands over this when there has been no outcry for all the amphetamines ("greenies" etc.) that baseball players take on a regular - in some cases everyday - basis. these drugs are most definitely performance enhancers on some level, i.e. curing hangovers and jetlag, boosting energy and confidence etc. this has been common knowledge at least since "Ball Four" came out, yet there's no testing for them and no one is calling talk radio shows to bemoan the games won or records set under their influence and very few consider the vast numbers of players who take them to be cheaters.
here's a very interesting article about the use of supplements (legal and illegal) in baseball, which includes this hilarious quote from Mo Vaughn:
Vaughn and other Major League Baseball players say ephedra and other stimulants -- often referred to as "greenies" -- are essentially a part of baseball tradition, routinely and sometimes blindly consumed to withstand the grind of baseball's marathon season.
Players "use them for energy," Vaughn said this past week in Port St. Lucie, Fla. "We don't think anything about weight loss."
Comments
I like how you accept Bonds at his word. He's been truthful about the whole thing so far, so why shouldn't we accept that he only used roids in 2003 and only unknowingly? Because his head seems to grow every year and is now the size of a beach ball.
Of course, I shouldn't be surprised that you blindly support the players and the players association. It's as dependable as the writers' despair over Bonds tainting the record books, although your thoughts are much more authentic.
Posted by: jake | December 3, 2004 03:47 PM
actually if you re-read it you'll see that i don't take Bonds at his word at all - there's just no proof of anything but what he told the grand jury. do i think he's taken steroids longer than just what he said? yes i do. i also believe Giambi probably started before 2001. but the thing is, i don't care. i don't care if Bonds has been injecting since he was 5. it doesn't really matter to me (and i'm still not convinced it matters all that much in baseball). pretty much the same goes with the Olympics, although i do draw a line somehwere before the East German athlete factories pre-1989 which were more like the Tuskegee Experiments than consenting adults willing to risk their health in the pursuit of $$$ and athletic glory. but in the Olympics the rules are clear. in baseball pre-2003, there was no drug testing and no penalty for taking steroids.
but you are correct in that i am going to support the players about 99.99% of the time from Maurice Clarett to the NHL to MLB. it's a knee jerk reaction born of the fact that the arguments of owners rarely hold water and the arguments of the average fan are emotional at best and ill-informed and illogical at worst.
Posted by: jamie | December 3, 2004 04:16 PM
Hank Aaron's comments were great. Henry isn't afraid to tell it like it is. Wouldn't it be great if Scott Boras actually did run something similar to the East Germans, forcing his clients to dope so that his fees will rise with their contracts? I'm pretty sure the man's psychotic, so I could buy it somewhat.
Posted by: jake | December 6, 2004 03:48 PM