Bill James speaks on PED's and the Hall of Fame

[Honus Wagner Rules]

An interesting take on PED's and the Hall of Fame.

http://www.actapublications.com/images/small/PressReleases/Cooperstownandthe%27Roids_F2.pdf

[stuarthouse]

An interesting take on PED's and the Hall of Fame.

http://www.actapublications.com/images/small/PressReleases/Cooperstownandthe%27Roids_F2.pdf
I view James' take as rather grim. In other words, the steroid users are too numerous, so who's in and who's out is impossible to determine; and besides it was only against a vaguely understood ethic and not a RULE of the game; and maybe most players used such substances, so those that didn't were suckers and deserve to be left out; and time heals all wounds and the collective memory of baseball will only remember the good and not the bad and forgive misconduct that has no contemporary gravity. This may all be true.....and what a shame it is.

Here's my take, which I believe I have stated before. Look at the candidate's record in the non-steroid era and in the steroid era. It should be easy to determine users from non-users. Then determine whether his numbers in the steroid era were the determining factor in his Hall of Fame credentials. If that is the case, tell him to go get a plaque from his pusher and stay away from Cooperstown.

[Paul Wendt]

Look at the candidate's record in the non-steroid era and in the steroid era. It should be easy to determine users from non-users.
:lightbulb: There's an idea.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I view James' take as rather grim. In other words, the steroid users are too numerous, so who's in and who's out is impossible to determine; and besides it was only against a vaguely understood ethic and not a RULE of the game; and maybe most players used such substances, so those that didn't were suckers and deserve to be left out; and time heals all wounds and the collective memory of baseball will only remember the good and not the bad and forgive misconduct that has no contemporary gravity. This may all be true.....and what a shame it is.
It will be interesting to see how the PED era is looked upon in the year 2030.


Here's my take, which I believe I have stated before. Look at the candidate's record in the non-steroid era and in the steroid era. It should be easy to determine users from non-users. Then determine whether his numbers in the steroid era were the determining factor in his Hall of Fame credentials. If that is the case, tell him to go get a plaque from his pusher and stay away from Cooperstown.

This may only apply to a few ballpayers. How about ballplayers that used PED's for their entire career and had a HoF career?

[mwiggins]

Here's my take, which I believe I have stated before. Look at the candidate's record in the non-steroid era and in the steroid era. It should be easy to determine users from non-users. Then determine whether his numbers in the steroid era were the determining factor in his Hall of Fame credentials. If that is the case, tell him to go get a plaque from his pusher and stay away from Cooperstown.

When did the steriod era start?

[west coast orange and black]

stuarthouse: Look at the candidate's record in the non-steroid era and in the steroid era. It should be easy to determine users from non-users.

it's not.
it's impossible, actually.

[538280]

I don't understand why people view possible real breakthroughs as grim....what people don't understand about steroids and drugs in general is that they aren't necessarily such evil, terrible things. The problem with steroids and other performance enhancing drugs now is that they almost always to the best of our knowledge pose health risks, and these health risks often outweigh the benefits of using (though this obviously is different for everyone). However, I think that it is entirely possible that in the future the health risks of these drugs will not be nearly as serious as they are now. Science advances, human knowledge advances, and it helps to advance society. Legitimate non-health risking drugs that help to keep people healthy and happy and as James says keep you feeling young are not something bad, they can help people feel better and increase productivity in so many fields.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think everybody should be on steroids or that it is a good thing for the game, however just because something helps performance it shouldn't be looked at as something so terrible, I am glad MLB got a testing policy but as for the HOF and as for the way I think about players, I really don't care about steroids.

[Senor Octobre]

I don't understand why people view possible real breakthroughs as grim....what people don't understand about steroids and drugs in general is that they aren't necessarily such evil, terrible things. The problem with steroids and other performance enhancing drugs now is that they almost always to the best of our knowledge pose health risks, and these health risks often outweigh the benefits of using (though this obviously is different for everyone). However, I think that it is entirely possible that in the future the health risks of these drugs will not be nearly as serious as they are now. Science advances, human knowledge advances, and it helps to advance society. Legitimate non-health risking drugs that help to keep people healthy and happy and as James says keep you feeling young are not something bad, they can help people feel better and increase productivity in so many fields.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think everybody should be on steroids or that it is a good thing for the game, however just because something helps performance it shouldn't be looked at as something so terrible, I am glad MLB got a testing policy but as for the HOF and as for the way I think about players, I really don't care about steroids.

Pretty much my sentiments as well.

[SABR Matt]

And mine. Well said Chris.

I agree with James as well. Baseball is about joy...entertainment...simulated warfare to keep men from killing each other in tribal feuds (speaking hyperbolously of course). It should not be taken so seriously by even its deepest admirers. So there are players who did the smart thing and took the drugs that would prolong their careers and give them a better chance in the majors. So what? They still had to go out and perform and their achievements were still very real. Most of the steroid users did so before any rules came out anyway, so...this being AMERICA (screw you, Toronto...LOL), we do not convict people for violating laws that entered the books after the offenses began.

An objective analyst looks at this situation and realizes that steroids probably DOMINATED clubhouses from coast to coast...and don't kid yourself...they were in the minor leagues, in the colleges, in the high school training rooms...EVERYWHERE...so if you could dominate over a drugged-up population, why shouldn't that be looked upon as a great achievement? An objective analyst views the steroid era with the same eye that he views the rabbit ball of 1930, the deadball era, the live-foot (late 1880s-early 1890s) era...you adjust for it...you try to factor out the steroids for the guys who've been "outed" by comparng them to similar players (before the unnatural steroid arc began) as best you can and you move on.

It's not the end of the game....those games were still played honestly...you still have to swing the bat, get your hits, make your pitches...it's not even like league average home run per at bat rates were that much higher than the 1950s...so a little perspective is required here.

[Windy City Fan]

If everyone in baseball was on steriods, then it wouldn't be an issue. It would be a level playing field, and theoretically no one would gain a relative advantage over the competition. But that was not the case. Steriod use was rampant and widespread, but it was 100%. Probably not even close. Maybe I'm an optimist, but my gut still says 50% is the high end for the percentage of players on the juice at the height of the steriod era. Those 50% had a grossly unfair advantage over the other 50%. Look at James' comparison between the theoretically clean Clark and the known to be dirty Palmerio. Clark was clearly the better player early on, but when Palmerio got on the juice (probably sometime after Canseco came to Texas) he surged passed Clark. Without steriods, Palmerio is a poor man's Clark.

And think of Clark. Imagine how much better he'd look if he wasn't regularly facing roided up pitchers and competing with roided up batters.

Steriods distort the field. Its no longer about simply who's the best player, but now its about who has the best team of chemists working for him and who is willing to gamble their long term health. We see players who showed no sign of being HOF caliber players suddenly rewriting the record books (Sosa). Or great players suddenly turn into immortals in their mid 30's and beyond (Bonds, Clemens).

Again, if everyone was on steriods, I'd view it as a none issue. But despite what some folks try to say, EVERYONE was not on roids. Its like if half the league was allowed to use aluminum bats and the other half had to stick with wood. Are we supposed to ignore the unfair advantage that the aluminum bat guys got? No, it has to be accounted for.

I still rank Bonds as a great player, but I'm not foolish enough to take his numbers at face value. As for the Hall, if Bonds got in I wouldn't object. He was a HOF player before he got on roids. But if he never is elected, I won't be championing his cause. I feel no obligation to honor his career or any of the other players we know had an unfair advantage.

[SABR Matt]

Why was it an unfair advantage?

It was not illegal in the game and I fail to see the moral distinction between the steroid users (willing to take a risk to improve their career) and the amphetamine poppers, dozens of whom are in the hall without so much as a second thought.

[Brad Harris]

Its no longer about simply who's the best player, but now its about who has the best team of chemists working for him...
Considering what these guys are paid, from the minimum wage on up, it's not as if PEDs were inaccessible to any of them. They all had equal access/opportunity to use if they chose to. It's not as if one "chemist" wasn't - or couldn't have been - working for multiple clients simultaneously. I've seen this particular line stated before and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean other than its utility as hyperbole. Come on...some individual had an unfair advantage because he had "the best team of chemists working for him"? :laugh

[KCGHOST]

One of the great problems of the PED's era is the hypocrisy of the fans. If a guy gets caught and can still perform (Bonds, Arod, Manny, etc.) then he is welcomed back into the fold as you would an erring child. But, if he gets caught but is no longer productive (Palmeiro, Sosa, McGwire) he is shunned.

And, yes, I know Bonds, Sosa and McGwire haven't officially failed a test.

[Captain Cold Nose]

One of the great problems of the PED's era is the hypocrisy of the fans. If a guy gets caught and can still perform (Bonds, Arod, Manny, etc.) then he is welcomed back into the fold as you would an erring child. But, if he gets caught but is no longer productive (Palmeiro, Sosa, McGwire) he is shunned.

And, yes, I know Bonds, Sosa and McGwire haven't officially failed a test.

I thought Sosa's name was just leaked from the 2003 anonymous list.

Like that really matters.

[538280]

My biggest problem with how people villify steroid users is what Matt has stated here, that it wasn't something that was illegal in baseball and in fact it wasn't something that was even necessarily bad, in any way. Why not try something that as a player is going to give you a great advantage? If you're a minor league player, you've been there for years, you want to get into the majors and get that big contract that will set you for life, is there anything wrong with trying something that isn't even illegal in baseball and will probably make you a better player? It's trying to live out the dream, it's trying to improve, trying to get an advantage. I have no problem with players who are willing to work harder than anyone (and believe me, for the steroids to have worked the way they did for many players, especially Barry Bonds, they had to work harder than anyone) to achieve their goals, and no one else should either. Great players are those who accomplished great things in the game, they still had to get their hits, still had to hit their HRs, still had to work harder than anyone to get what they did, it's wrong to not give them the recognition they deserve. If Bonds doesn't make the HOF....the HOF has lost all credibility to me.

[J W]

James' thoughts on steroids in baseball are exactly what I thought they were going to be. Which in my opinion is terrific, because we need those theories coming from a person that so many people respect.

What I took from the article is much more chilling than anything regarding our national pastime. He is saying that once the drug companies maximize the benefits of growth hormones, etc. while minimizing the health risk... taking anti-aging pills will become the norm in our society!

So we're going to start living to be 200 years old? 500? seriously? Well, first off I think it's a little more complicated than that. Youth =/= lifespan. Since our bodies' cells have a set number of times they can divide, depending on their function... steroids, etc basically exchange lifespan for youth. So I don't see how they'll develop into "anti-aging pills" that let you live twice as long.

Suppose James is right though. The issue then becomes abundantly clear: overpopulation. If we're living longer and longer (which we are anyway), we need to reproduce less and less. If we're living for 500 years, we need to practically stop having babies alltogether. So then what? We won't stop having sex. Do we institute standardized vasectomies and tube-tying? Do we resort to producing child strictly in lab enviroments? What happens when people break the rules?

That's it, I'm off to read a Science Fiction book... :lookitup

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Suppose James is right though. The issue then becomes abundantly clear: overpopulation. If we're living longer and longer (which we are anyway), we need to reproduce less and less. If we're living for 500 years, we need to practically stop having babies alltogether. So then what? We won't stop having sex. Do we institute standardized vasectomies and tube-tying? Do we resort to producing child strictly in lab enviroments? What happens when people break the rules?

That's it, I'm off to read a Science Fiction book... :lookitup
Not to get too off tangent from baseball but I don't think there will ever be an overpopulation problem. For decades all the overpopulation naysayers have been 100% wrong. They have predicted vast famines time and time again and time and time again they have been wrong. What the Malthusian doomsayers never, never understand is one simple fact. People are just not consumers. They are also creators and producers. Modern economies allow people to specialize in terms of jobs which helps increase the quality of life. Modern technologies allow for the production of food at unprecedented levels. And technology will continue to increase. Today much work is being done with "urban farming". This technology will revolution food production in the not so distant future.

Also, I have my doubts that a biological organism like a human being can live to 500 years. I believe the human genome has a natural limit in terms of aging. The increase in human life expectancy over the past century is entirely due to better sanitation and modern medicine. Basically, far fewer people die of childhood diseases today than say the 1880's. This has a major effect on the human life expectancy.

As for medicine that may extend life to 500 years I suspect even is such medicine existed it would be very expensive and only accessed by the wealthy and powerful. Does anyone really thing that the common man or people in the ghettos and barrios will have access to such medicine? :think:

Or we could just start making Soylent Green. ;)

Anyway, back to baseball.

[leecemark]

--I am glad to see some calmer commentary on steroids starting to come out. I think we all have to accept that they were VERY prevelant in the last 2 generations and that we can never know exactly how much nor everyone who used or did not use. That being the case it makes little sense to villify inidvidual players fro having used - or worse being suspected of using with no proof. That doesn't mean you can't make some adjustments for players who you may think gained more from steroids than most, but we should be past gettign all emotional about it or totally discounting the achievments of users.
--That said saying they "weren't illegal in the game" is as totally out of touch with reality as well. It many, if not most, cases they were illegal in society. That makes them defacto illegal in the game as well. Baseball is not above the laws of the land.
--Further players knew they were doing something not quite above board. Was there a single player who took them openly? Did anyone ever come out and say "these new drugs I'm taking have really helped my game" the way they might with an improved diet or exercise program? No, they were always taken in secret and almost every player continues to deny using them even long after the fact. Even the guys who have been caught haven't been willing to admit that they used them knowing and regualrly to improve their performance. No player has yet come out and defended them as a positive in the game (unless you count Canseco's attempts to cash in on his promotign the steroid culture once he was out of the game0.

[Cougar]

I suggest Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, which pretty much predicts precisely what you describe.

And it is pretty scarily dehumanizing.

James' thoughts on steroids in baseball are exactly what I thought they were going to be. Which in my opinion is terrific, because we need those theories coming from a person that so many people respect.

What I took from the article is much more chilling than anything regarding our national pastime. He is saying that once the drug companies maximize the benefits of growth hormones, etc. while minimizing the health risk... taking anti-aging pills will become the norm in our society!

So we're going to start living to be 200 years old? 500? seriously? Well, first off I think it's a little more complicated than that. Youth =/= lifespan. Since our bodies' cells have a set number of times they can divide, depending on their function... steroids, etc basically exchange lifespan for youth. So I don't see how they'll develop into "anti-aging pills" that let you live twice as long.

Suppose James is right though. The issue then becomes abundantly clear: overpopulation. If we're living longer and longer (which we are anyway), we need to reproduce less and less. If we're living for 500 years, we need to practically stop having babies alltogether. So then what? We won't stop having sex. Do we institute standardized vasectomies and tube-tying? Do we resort to producing child strictly in lab enviroments? What happens when people break the rules?

That's it, I'm off to read a Science Fiction book... :lookitup

[abolishthedh]

Two major points:

1. The Hall was created, IMHO, as a way for the powers-that-be behind the business of baseball in the 1930s to create acceptable role models for a nation which needed that. It was hero-worship, plain and simple, and it has progessed as such. This is as it should be.

2. The view James is expressing may be the correct view over time, and I am not surprised in reading his article. However, let these developments occur gradually. Between now and 2030/2040/2050 or whatever, let us continue to hold on to the past... in the name of kids. I say this with point #1 in mind. If ballplayers want to turn themselves into human pincushions, then let them. Let the ballplayers poke themselves and prick each other as much as they please. And, let them play the role of guinea pigs as they do that. Ballplayers as guinea pigs is a much better deal than having our local high school players doing that. On the other hand, our local stars will be guinea pigs if we allow steroid use to become acceptable in the short-term.

Let James be correct... over time.

[nerfan]

Not to get too off tangent from baseball but I don't think there will ever be an overpopulation problem. For decades all the overpopulation naysayers have been 100% wrong. They have predicted vast famines time and time again and time and time again they have been wrong. What the Malthusian doomsayers never, never understand is one simple fact. People are just not consumers. They are also creators and producers. Modern economies allow people to specialize in terms of jobs which helps increase the quality of life. Modern technologies allow for the production of food at unprecedented levels. And technology will continue to increase. Today much work is being done with "urban farming". This technology will revolution food production in the not so distant future.

Also, I have my doubts that a biological organism like a human being can live to 500 years. I believe the human genome has a natural limit in terms of aging. The increase in human life expectancy over the past century is entirely due to better sanitation and modern medicine. Basically, far fewer people die of childhood diseases today than say the 1880's. This has a major effect on the human life expectancy.

As for medicine that may extend life to 500 years I suspect even is such medicine existed it would be very expensive and only accessed by the wealthy and powerful. Does anyone really thing that the common man or people in the ghettos and barrios will have access to such medicine? :think:

Or we could just start making Soylent Green. ;)

Anyway, back to baseball.

Great post. However, the Mayans said the world would end in 2012, and I'm inclined to believe them right now. The destruction will occur right after Jamie Moyer's 300th win.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Great post. However, the Mayans said the world would end in 2012, and I'm inclined to believe them right now. The destruction will occur right after Jamie Moyer's 300th win.

No HOF for Moyer, then.

[nerfan]

No HOF for Moyer, then.

Oh, but the Hall will survive the apocalypse. The more members it has, the stronger it becomes. Sadly, the only person who realized this was Frankie Frisch.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Two major points:

1. The Hall was created, IMHO, as a way for the powers-that-be behind the business of baseball in the 1930s to create acceptable role models for a nation which needed that. It was hero-worship, plain and simple, and it has progessed as such. This is as it should be.


Lee Ferrick Clark and Stephen C. Clark were the key people in establishing the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Lee Ferrick Clark was the grandson of Edward Clark, founder of the Singer Sewing Machine Company. They established the Baseball Hall of Fame as a tourist attraction and museum to help the local economy of Cooperstown, NY that was hit hard by the Great Depression. MLB had no involvement at all. The election of players as "Hall of Famers" was considered an afterthought by the Clark family and was not well thought out. Oh and they had the expectation that they would get perhaps "hundreds of visitors a year". :laugh

[leecemark]

Two major points:

1. The Hall was created, IMHO, as a way for the powers-that-be behind the business of baseball in the 1930s to create acceptable role models for a nation which needed that. It was hero-worship, plain and simple, and it has progessed as such. This is as it should be.



--The Hall of Fame was created to attract tourist to Cooperstown. Anyone looking to basball players as role models is headed for disappointment. Other than their skill at baseball they are not better than anyone else - and in many cases worse. Making phyically gifted young men rich and famous often has a negative affect in their developing into the kind of men you'd want your children to emulate.

[BC227]

I also have a problem with the "villifying" of any player that is caused using steroids. A guy like Bonds I have trouble forgiving because he had already established himself among the greats (and the fact that he is just naturally a jerk), but I have trouble blaming the players and hate how fans/media make them out as the enemy.

Think about it - you are 20-23 (maybe younger, maybe a little older) and you see an opportunity to compete at a higher level in the sport you have been living and dying with since your childhood. Yeah, some people around have pointed out that it may be wrong (some have called it ‘cheating’), but you've heard some great success stories and its becoming more common. Plus, no one has really gotten in trouble yet. You could say "No" and think you are somehow morally superior to everyone else, but you know this might provide a chance to make big money and guarantee you a chance to be an everyday guy, maybe even a star, in the big leagues. And there is the issue that more and more guys are using, so if you don’t, you’re at a disadvantage. With all that context, is it really that easy to turn down?

Making these players out as villains and so many people “hating” them is just too much in my opinion. It was what Bob Gibson told Mike&Mike a few weeks ago – that he can’t say he wouldn’t have used if he was playing now (citing the need to compete with the guys who already juiced) – that really hit home the point that most of these players are just regular guys trying to succeed at the thing they love to do most. Whether it is to work hard and develop another reliable pitch for their repertoire, or start taking steroids in order to keep up with competition, these guys first and foremost are trying to compete.

They are not "bad" or "horrible" people, in fact, I'm sure many of the guys who have been caught juicing are known as nice guys by family/friends and work really hard at what they do. Yes, being a “role-model” comes with the territory, but so many of these guys start playing when they are still relatively young (19-23 years old) and I think it’s unrealistic to expect them to be pristine figures.

[Senor Octobre]

--The Hall of Fame was created to attract tourist to Cooperstown. Anyone looking to basball players as role models is headed for disappointment. Other than their skill at baseball they are not better than anyone else - and in many cases worse. Making phyically gifted young men rich and famous often has a negative affect in their developing into the kind of men you'd want your children to emulate.

Great Post. Truer words have never been spoken.

[abolishthedh]

At the risk of hijacking the conversation, I believe that the Hall could not have been created with the intent of tourism to Cooperstown. The town of Cooperstown was not a tourist attraction before it was the home for the HoF. The powers that be may have used the local legend of Abner Doubleday as it existed at the time in the name of tourism.

I'll grant one point over selling baseball. IMHO, the grandparents of baby boomers like myself created the Hall with the intent of selling baseball in general, but they wanted to influence the American public and kids in particular in doing so. The founders had the idea of glossing over the faults of The Babe, Cobb and any future inductee's faults and instead spinning retired legends' reputations as role models. Our grandparents were very concerned about the future of things at the time.

The country needed this at the time, in 1936. The Hall was a package of marketing for baseball as well as education for youth.

However, back to the real issue over PED's. Tomorrow's ballplayers will develop, hopefully, naturally and then experiment once they make the majors. I am not naive. PED use is most probably rampant at the college level and in the minors, and use also occurs at the high school level. Giving the okay to all interested parties that PED use is acceptable sends the wrong signal at this juncture in time. If lower levels use at will in the future, so be it.

Two percentages have come to mind. First, Jose Canseco was probably correct in guessing that 85% of players were using PEDs, but what about the makeup of this 85%? How many players were experimenting, and then declined future use when their wives chewed their husbands out for the ramifications over children, or for the general inconvenience of becoming guinea pigs?

Second, I believe the better estimate of PED use is somewhere around 50%, in that half of the players were repeated users. Let's see how the long term health of this group holds up. I'll be open to hearing more on that either way.

[Brad Harris]

At the risk of hijacking the conversation, I believe that the Hall could not have been created with the intent of tourism to Cooperstown. The town of Cooperstown was not a tourist attraction before it was the home for the HoF. The powers that be may have used the local legend of Abner Doubleday as it existed at the time in the name of tourism.

I'll grant one point over selling baseball. IMHO, the grandparents of baby boomers like myself created the Hall with the intent of selling baseball in general, but they wanted to influence the American public and kids in particular in doing so. The founders had the idea of glossing over the faults of The Babe, Cobb and any future inductee's faults and instead spinning retired legends' reputations as role models. Our grandparents were very concerned about the future of things at the time.

The country needed this at the time, in 1936. The Hall was a package of marketing for baseball as well as education for youth.
The historical record is exactly the opposite. Cooperstown had been a profitable local tourist attraction in upstate New York just a decade before. Both Cooperstown and MLB were primarily interested in attracting fans to the museum. Virtually no thought was given toward the long-term future of the Hall as an institution. Its creation was solely attributable to the parties' immediate financial interests. The piecemeal way in which both the museum and the election process developed in the Hall's early years should be sufficient proof.

With all due respect, the above version of events, is simply not true.

[J W]

Well, I for one am interested in Cooperstown because I'm interested in the history of baseball, especially as it relates to the modern-day player. I'm also interested in the statistical environment that baseball has produced and comparing/contrasting those statistics to popular opinion.

...and I'm sure a number of us share my interest. But we the enthusiasts aren't who Clark & Clark were targeting I guess.

[Ace Venom]

Look at how forgiving people have been with Pete Rose and Joe Jackson despite their permanent banishment. The outrage won't last forever.

[538280]

Look at how forgiving people have been with Pete Rose and Joe Jackson despite their permanent banishment. The outrage won't last forever.

I hope. Maybe one day we'll have a Field of Dreams esque movie with Barry Bonds. That may seem ridiculous to many of you, but really Joe Jackson's "crime" against the game was something far more serious.

[brett]

While I have stopped believing that Bonds did not take any "steroids" or was not at all responsible, I do have to state that I knew athletes who were told (by someone) that BALCO's cream and clear stack were a "technically legal steroid alternative that would not produce a false positive on a drug test."

In fact, being in the sports medicine field at the time, I thought that they sold technically legal steroid alternatives.

Someone who tests positive today should be dealt with much more harshley than Bonds (who never tested positive).

Also, even if Bonds HAD been given the technically legal steroid "alternatives" he would be in a tough position in hearnings because those substances have since been classified as steroids by law. That means that when they ask him if he discussed steroids, and he said "no" he could get in trouble because they ARE steroids even though legally they weren't at the time.

[Cougar]

I hope. Maybe one day we'll have a Field of Dreams esque movie with Barry Bonds. That may seem ridiculous to many of you, but really Joe Jackson's "crime" against the game was something far more serious.

The Voice:

"If you build it, he will come...though he'll probably be standoffish if not outright rude."

"Ease his pain...flaxseed oil usually does the trick"

"Go the distance...pay the hefty appearance fee"

[Ace Venom]

Also, even if Bonds HAD been given the technically legal steroid "alternatives" he would be in a tough position in hearnings because those substances have since been classified as steroids by law. That means that when they ask him if he discussed steroids, and he said "no" he could get in trouble because they ARE steroids even though legally they weren't at the time.

We have a strange sense of retroactive consideration. McGwire and Bonds have interesting cases in the fact that what is know about what they did wasn't classified as steroids. We know that Canseco, A. Rodriguez and Sosa did anabolic steroids, which were definitely illegal in the United States beginning in the 1990's. What Canseco did prior to the illegality of anabolic steroids doesn't change the fact that he did anabolic steroids. What McGwire and Bonds did shouldn't be ignored for what it was either.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

--I am glad to see some calmer commentary on steroids starting to come out. I think we all have to accept that they were VERY prevelant in the last 2 generations and that we can never know exactly how much nor everyone who used or did not use. That being the case it makes little sense to villify inidvidual players fro having used - or worse being suspected of using with no proof. That doesn't mean you can't make some adjustments for players who you may think gained more from steroids than most, but we should be past gettign all emotional about it or totally discounting the achievments of users.
--That said saying they "weren't illegal in the game" is as totally out of touch with reality as well. It many, if not most, cases they were illegal in society. That makes them defacto illegal in the game as well. Baseball is not above the laws of the land.
--Further players knew they were doing something not quite above board. Was there a single player who took them openly? Did anyone ever come out and say "these new drugs I'm taking have really helped my game" the way they might with an improved diet or exercise program? No, they were always taken in secret and almost every player continues to deny using them even long after the fact. Even the guys who have been caught haven't been willing to admit that they used them knowing and regualrly to improve their performance. No player has yet come out and defended them as a positive in the game (unless you count Canseco's attempts to cash in on his promotign the steroid culture once he was out of the game0.

Windy City Fan and yourself hit the nail EXACTLY on the head. The problem with steroids as it relates to the HOF in this generation is that although available to assumingly any player, many stayed away because of their illegality to the general public, health concerns and so forth. Therefore, this generations playing field was not fair in term of statistical performance. While I'm not saying those players caught should be exempt from the HOF, there will be an asterisk in my own mind of what their 'true' performance really was. Unfortunately this anaysis will all be subjective.

Going forward, it's quite probable that performance from future players will be impossible to judge with players from yesteryear since technology will advance the strength & conditioning, length of career and other performance metrics. I don't have a problem with that; it's called evolution. I just hope baseball doesn't turn SOMEWHAT (not entirely but somewhat) into race car driving, where performance is based on who has the better engine and not necessarily the driver. As it relates to the previous example, I hope the Yankees players won't have unfair advantage over Pirates players because they are able to hire better nutritionist 'engineers'. Like it or not, Bill James acenario is likely to happen in 20+ years.

We've now hit the age where technological advances are developing exponentially; not just in baseball but in life, and we must move forward. Baseball's brave new world is almost visible on the horizon.

[Paul Wendt]

Windy City Fan and yourself hit the nail EXACTLY on the head. The problem with steroids as it relates to the HOF in this generation is that although available to assumingly any player, many stayed away because of their illegality to the general public, health concerns and so forth.
That is one argument why it is a proper matter of collective bargaining.

Some students and some workers would rather not compete with others who take a lot of Adderall (a prescription drug for concentration). Some would rather not compete with others who drink a lot of coffee.

there will be an asterisk in my own mind of what their 'true' performance really was. Unfortunately this anaysis will all be subjective.
as for all students and workers. Right?

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

That is one argument why it is a proper matter of collective bargaining.

Some students and some workers would rather not compete with others who take a lot of Adderall (a prescription drug for concentration). Some would rather not compete with others who drink a lot of coffee.


as for all students and workers. Right?

There's no evidence as far as I know that Adderall boosts mental performance. It's perscribed many for hyperactivity.

As well, I'm not aware there was a student's Hall Of Fame where we are making historical comparisons of credentials and accomplishments. I'll go check the MENSA website.

[Steven Gallanter]

Palmeiro's career went skyward when he moved to Texas, after Arlington County was enclosed, and later Baltimore.

Furthermore, Palmeiro worked the pitch count and this became more of an advantage every year.

Palmeiro's stats are puffy but he is leagues above Will Clark.

[CircleChange11]

What I took from the article is much more chilling than anything regarding our national pastime. He is saying that once the drug companies maximize the benefits of growth hormones, etc. while minimizing the health risk... taking anti-aging pills will become the norm in our society!

It already is, if you have the funds. Stallone has spoken about this in regards to his personal use, and despite his 'rep', IMO, Canseco is correct in his assessment of light to moderate use for the aging male to hold onto some musclemass and keep testonsterone levels within a certain range.

A lot of the "side effects" of steroids actually pertain to the abuse (large amounts and/or no 'off' periods), and not to actual light to moderate use (which, based on my experience occurs in a few more 'regular guys' than might acknowledge).

I don't necessarily think that it will extend the lifespan of people, but perhaps keep them more active/durable through the process.

In some regards, I view it as analogous with the marijuana issue. If it/they were readily available, and we had a moderate outlook on it, there might be quite a few people using them for small personal goals.

The problem is discussion often illogically jumps from light/moderate use to abuse in one giant slip, or slippery slope ... as if extremism was the norm.

If I were a competitive athlete, rather than turning to unregulated supplements, I'd prefer to just "get the good stuff" if performance was my only objective (it's not). I also cannot pretend to know what I'd do as a professional athlete, knowing that many others were doing th same with benefits. I think people might often find that in reality they may act differently in situations than they would suspect (war, intruder, PEDs, etc). I know we'd all like to think what we'd do, and often state it as such in the form of "what I wish I would do", but we often don;t know until we've been there. So, in that regard I'm hesitant to evaluate from that perspective.

[CircleChange11]

There's no evidence as far as I know that Adderall boosts mental performance. It's perscribed many for hyperactivity.

As well, I'm not aware there was a student's Hall Of Fame where we are making historical comparisons of credentials and accomplishments. I'll go check the MENSA website.


ADD medicine is a stimulant. When given to a non-ADD brain, it acts like 'speed', which is why you need a prescription to get it.

An ADD brain's "contol mechanicsm" operate slower than the thought process. ADD medicine increase the speed of the control mechanicsm, allowing thoughts to be more 'managed' to put it simply.

In short, if the brain's activities were viewed as a lantern (with light going in all directions), stimulants help the ADD brain behave more like a 'flashlight'.

We have had situations where parents of medicated kids have been suspected of taking/selling their child's medication, as well as, kids distributing it to their friends. It's a serius issue because it is a conrtolled substance.

A non-ADD person taking ADD meds would most certainly get a 'spike' in alterness. The thing is that if one is actually ADD the same dosage will manage the brain for a long period of time, whereas the non-ADD brain/person will need continually higher does for the same effect, just like nicotine and caffeine (also stimulants).

--------------------------

Another interesting aspect of 'enhancement' can be 'laser eye surgery'. Since vision is paramount in baseball, it's an interesting aspect. I am unsure of the limitation of the improves it can make, but it greatly iproved my life (dealing with contacts on a windy/dusty field wa a pain in the arse), but what I am referring to is if laser eye surgery can get to the point, where it just doesn;t get vision to 20/20, but to well above normal levels of 20/15 or 20/10, then you've have people/athletes (even pilots, soldiers, etc) that have 'perfect' vision electing for the surgery to reach the 'superhuman' level. Not sure if this is even a possibility or how far into the future we're talking, but it does come up now and again in the 'enhancement' discussion.