How did the Steroids Change the Game?

Now that we have gorged ourselves on the revelations of the Mitchell Report, we should step back and ask a few pertinent questions. Put aside the Joe McCarthy metaphor of "naming names." ("I have in my hand a list of known Communists in the State Department . . . oops, known steroid users in baseball.") Ignore the absence of a neutral decision maker and cross-examination, the abundance of hearsay and the posturing. Let's ask a basic question: how did these performance enhancing drugs change the game?

We certainly have a few examples: Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and the home run battle of 1998; Barry Bonds' explosion of round trippers in 2001; and Roger Clemens pitching so well into his fifth decade of life. But Mitchell's list contains oodles of nobodies who accomplished little or nothing in our National Pastime.

We do know that steroids and human growth hormone can have beneficial healing and restorative effects. Players with injuries - a part of every season - might be able to get back in the game more quickly using these substances for therapeutic purposes. Doctors prescribe steroids to normal, non-baseball-player persons just for that reason.

Senator Mitchell's claim, echoed by the Commissioner, that baseball needs a level playing field is absolutely correct. But even in a totally drug-free environment, all players will not be equal and all teams do not have the same chance to end up with a post-season parade. Do performance-enhancing drugs make a difference?

I have seen no evidence - and the Mitchell Report is silent on the issue - that performance-enhancing substances enhance the actual performance of players on the field. Do these drugs improve hand-eye coordination, the essential ingredient in making contact between bat and ball? Do these drugs allow pitchers to throw pitches in the upper 90s? It is possible that when Barry Bonds makes contact, "the clear" might increase the chances that his blast would clear the right field wall, but how many other users became bashers overnight?

None of this means that steroids were good for the game, but rather that perhaps they had little or no impact on the game. Those who have a fetish for the asterisk should put their guns away. In fact, the more widespread the use of the substances, the more level the playing field actually was!

Well, if steroids had no impact, why did so many players allegedly use them? Ballplayers, like all of us, want to capture the edge, especially when it might be worth millions of dineros. The fact that this stuff may corrode your body at some point in the future is something to think about tomorrow, not today. And it might work, maybe.

The Colorado Rockies just enjoyed a season to remember. Their September performance might have been the result of the well-known religiosity of the team. Prayer works, perhaps even better than steroids. As far as I know, prayer is not on the proscribed list under the parties' collective bargaining agreement, and we should not investigate evangelicals. Secularists in Congress should not conduct hearings into the prayer matter. Nothing, it appears, will deter our representatives from reconvening the steroid circus, however.

Comments

[pickleweedpete]

Professor, why not address your questions to the body builders and other athletes who can best answer them? Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ben Johnson, for example, or Jose Canseco?

[jjmac]

Of course it changed the game. Instead of being a nine inning battle of wits, gamesmanship, timely plays, 100% effort, and amazing athletic ability it's been turned into 3 hours of wondering who is on the juice and who isn't. Instead of looking up to these athletes as heroes, we look down on them as cheaters and drug users.

What ever happened to gentlemanly competition. Of course one does whatever it takes to win, WITHIN THE RULES OF COMPETITION. Whatever else these users are, they are cheaters. Cheaters shouldn't win and they shouldn't be awarded praise, they should be sent packing.

Look at the world we live in. A pill can make you thin, grow your hair, stop your leg from twitching, make you happy, relieve your stress, and now it can win you a place in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Great! Just what I want to teach future generations. Don't worry if your hard work and effort won't take you far enough, in fact, why work hard at all! Just take this little pill or this little shot and you'll be the greatest ever!

Maybe baseball is just a game, and maybe it's not all that important in the grand scheme of things, but teaching our children that it's OK to cheat is just wrong, and every article like this one reinforces that message.

[PaulMauriceMartin]

Perhaps using special bats or balls would make no difference. Perhaps spying on the opposing team's signals, to turn to a football example, makes no difference - the Patriots have continued doing great without that this season.

Perhaps in this season or that season, with this individual or that individual, cheating makes no difference.

Perhaps.

Paul - originalfaith.com

[anotherplayaguy]

"I have seen no evidence - and the Mitchell Report is silent on the issue - that performanc­e-enhancin­g substances enhance the actual performance of players on the field."

Huh? Anecdotally, the number of home runs tends to prove that SOMETHING changed in those years of 60+ home runs. Once scrutiny was applied to the drugs, those totals fell back to the "normal" range. It's possible that the healing and restorative properties of steroids allowed players to feel better (and play better) than their actual years would.

"None of this means that steroids were good for the game, but rather that perhaps they had little or no impact on the game. Those who have a fetish for the asterisk should put their guns away. In fact, the more widespread the use of the substances, the more level the playing field actually was!"

Huh? Maybe we should make them mandatory. Unfortunately, baseball competes not just in the present but also against the past so this wouldn't be altogether fair.

"Well, if steroids had no impact, why did so many players allegedly use them? Ballplayers, like all of us, want to capture the edge, especially when it might be worth millions of dineros. The fact that this stuff may corrode your body at some point in the future is something to think about tomorrow, not today. And it might work, maybe."

All one needs is a SLIGHT edge, and these drugs obviously supplied that.

"The Colorado Rockies just enjoyed a season to remember. Their September performance might have been the result of the well-known religiosity of the team. Prayer works, perhaps even better than steroids. As far as I know, prayer is not on the proscribed list under the parties' collective bargaining agreement, and we should not investigate evangelicals. Secularists in Congress should not conduct hearings into the prayer matter."

Yeah, the prayer worked wonders in the World Series. "Secularists in Congress!" The very idea invites ridicule.

[seawolf77]

I do not get it either. What's the big deal. Americans want to see super human performances, then when they get them, they arrest the performers for not doing it "fairly". What hogwash, what poppycock. Competition is competition. There is no fair, and you do what it takes to win. Anyone who has ever competed, really competed knows this and thta is why champions are so admired. So America, go back to your sissy wah wah ideals and let the men take the field.