In recent years since steroids have become such a hot topic in sports and especially in baseball I’ve heard many sports writers say or write that they wouldn’t vote for the accused users on the first ballot for the Hall of Fame (HOF) but would vote for them thereafter. Or, some people have predicted that Mark McGuire, who was snubbed in his first year of eligibility in the summer of 2007, will make it.

If you’ve read my blog in the past you may already know that I am firm in my stance that no steroid user should ever make the HOF. I’m going to challenge the seemingly popular public opinion that getting into the HOF after waiting umpteen years is somehow less satisfying than getting in on the first ballot.

Sure, it might be somewhat anguishing waiting all that time, but if you won the lottery at age 45 does it mean any less than if you had won it with the very first ticket you purchased on your 18th birthday? Who cares? You’re still a millionaire.

Using steroids is not on the same moral plane as murder, but what if it was? What if a judge reduced a life sentence down to 5 years because he thought the guy really learned his lesson? That prisoner is saying “hey, that wasn’t so bad, my crimes were well worth it.”

We live in a society that does not reward the bad guys. Baseball should be no exception.


Cheaters don't win, in any sport, or in life.

Using steroids is cheating, and cheaters aren’t supposed to win. Major League Baseball should, by any means necessary, see to it that anybody ever suspected—that’s right, I said suspected, not proven—of using performance enhancing drugs never even sees his name on the ballot.

There is too much left open to subjectivity in this debate, and this is the only way I see that works. You were indicted by a grand jury on charges of perjury, Mr. Bonds? Bye bye Cooperstown. You failed a steroid test, Mr. Palmeiro? No HOF for you. Your name appeared on the now notorious Mitchell Report, Mr. Clemens and Mr. Pettitte? Sorry, no can do.

While in previous posts I have argued that baseball should retroactively pull post-season awards (MVPs, Cy Youngs, etc) from users and erase their stats from the record books, I have now come to the conclusion that even if it did so—a nearly impossible slippery slope to maneuver around in and of itself—not every sports publication would acknowledge such a move. Would ESPN.com actually remove all references to Barry Bonds from its website? No, but the one thing that is constant is that name on a plaque in the halls of baseball glory in Cooperstown, New York.

There are several reasons why I believe that proof of steroid usage is not necessary in enacting this baseball law. The first, and the most obvious, is that baseball law is not synonymous with and is not governed by the court of law. In this regard, users are not “innocent until proven guilty” because they are not being sent to prison. Rare it is that a player actually fails a Major League steroid test for several reasons. First, the Player’s Association has not approved a test involving blood, which would be necessary to detect certain drugs, including Human Growth Hormone (HGH). Other drugs, like erythropoietin (EPO) and insulin, are difficult to detect using any means. Also, many cheaters were able to successfully cover up their usage with other drugs. Norbolethone (aka “The Clear”) is a drug that balances the levels of natural testosterone and epitestosterone, which means, according to Bonds’ currently imprisoned former trainer Greg Anderson in the book Game of Shadows “You can take [the steroids] the day of [a drug test], pee, and it comes up clear.”


Anderson explained how easy it was to beat
the steroid tests.

This is all very important because, for most of the past decade, there has either been no steroid testing in baseball, not a strict enough test, or too many subsidiary drugs to conceal drugs that were being tested for.

There is also precedence for banning cheaters in spite of there being no criminal evidence or intent. The first commissioner of baseball, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, banned all 8 members of the Chicago “Black Sox” even after they were all acquitted of charges by the judicial system. Landis was a real commissioner who ruled baseball with tough love. The current commissioner, Bud Selig, is a cowardly pud who apparently feels no action is obligatory to restore the sanctity of the game.

Many have stated that it is hypocritical for voters to keep Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa out of the HOF when they are same people who voted for these guys to win the Cy Young and MVP. This logic is not valid. Just because they were wrong then doesn’t mean they have to be wrong for the rest of their lives. In the same way, it is asinine to make any argument that says “Player X (Ty Cobb, ####lord Perry) is in the HOF, so Player Y (Bonds, Clemens) should also be.” In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to put Perry, an admitted ball doctor, into the HOF, but that doesn’t mean we have to make the same mistake over and over and over again forever. Times have changed. It’s time to raise the bar. This is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Pretty Darned Good or the Hall of Spectacular, but I Cheated.

In 2005, two Chicago based radio personalities read an all-inclusive list of baseball HOFers. They then spent approximately 45 minutes “kicking guys out” who didn’t deserve to be there, thus reducing the list by at least 40%. Though this was done just for fun, it is something I keep in mind when deciding who should go and who should not. The HOF is too watered down anyway. Phil Rizutto? Bill Mazerowski? Puh-leeze.

(Oh yes, and before you spout off the “Rizutto was a key member of a Yankees dynasty winning many World Series’” argument, you may want to read this July 2006 post stating that Individuals Don't Win Championships, Teams Do).

If baseball has stood firm this long with the decision to ban Pete Rose, there isn’t much in the way of taking it one step further with steroid cheats. What these guys have done; bulking up and hitting jaw-dropping, tale-of-the-tape home runs in awe inspiring quantity, is far worse than gambling. Betting on a game doesn’t affect the outcome.

Just because everyone else was cheating doesn’t mean it was ok for Player X to cheat too. To quote myself when I wrote in August of 2007 in The Difference Between Ruth, Aaron, Maris and Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, “So if 20 guys all get busted robbing a bank does the police let them go because they had strength in numbers? More importantly, and more realistically, if the CEO of a tax firm turns a blind eye to his accountants fudging numbers on purpose would the public brush the incident off its collective shoulders and chock it up to an oversight? Hell no! They’d all be punished, all arrested, all fired. Selig is just as much to blame as the McGuires and Sosas of the world.”

Putting cheats in the HOF is a slap in the face to people who actually deserve to be there. This feeling is equivalent to an injured U.S. soldier going down to the corner Wal-Mart and seeing Purple Hearts on sale for $19.99 plus tax. That act of heroism during battle doesn’t seem all that heroic now that everybody has the medal.

And making a guy wait X number of years before finally letting him in is not punishment enough, either. I wouldn’t let a murderer out of prison early, just as I wouldn’t allow my toddler to have the cookie 10 minutes after saying “no” the first time. Not only should steroid cheats never be voted into the HOF, but their names should never even appear on a ballot.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of today’s superstars of Major League Baseball took performance enhancing steroids to aid their quests of breaking some of the game’s most cherished records.  But this post isn’t about the evidence for steroid usage amongst today’s players, because as far as I’m concerned, it’s a forgone conclusion that Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, and Sammy Sosa did in fact use steroids.  Instead this post is a rebuttal to some of the common arguments given to support these players in the wake of their steroid implications.

In recent weeks even some of Bonds’ biggest supporters have admitted to me or in public that they believe Bonds cheated his way past Hank Aaron’s career homerun record.  These Bonds cohorts (and other non-believers for that matter) have given a few reasons why an asterisk is unnecessary or even riposte that Babe Ruth should have an asterisk next to his 714.  Here are some of these arguments and my two fundamental differences between the so called “cheating” from players of the past and the cheating from players of today and the very recent past.

One of the points I’ve heard thrown around is that Ruth never faced black or Latin players, and that the competition of his time was far inferior to what Barry Bonds might face today.  I’ve also heard the notion that since a ball that bounced in the outfield and went over the fence in Ruth’s day was ruled a homerun (today that is a ground rule double), that Ruth’s total would have been less if he played today.  Some of baseball’s most strict statisticians placed an asterisk next to the 61 homers hit by Roger Maris in 1961.  The reason?  The season was longer in those days compared to when Ruth hit 60, so Maris had the advantage of playing in more games.

This is asinine.  Players of the past cannot have held against them rules of their time.  Ruth had no control over the quality of the pitchers he faced.  Maris had no control over the number of games the league made his team play.  This is Fundamental Difference #1: Barry Bonds made a conscious decision to ingest performance enhancing drugs.  Players of the pre-steroid era did not have a say in the number of games they played, the quality of their competition, or the rules governing the difference between a homer and a double.  Players of today had every option to not take steroids, but did so at their own peril.

Defenders of Jose Canseco and other juicers claim that since MLB had no steroid policy in place during that time, the bulked up hacks who did drugs did not break any rules.  Au contraire.  In 1990 the federal government passed legislation that made possession of steroids without a prescription a punishable crime in all 50 states.  Therefore, every single one of baseball’s juicers were breaking the law.  Fundamental Difference #2:  Barry Bonds committed a felony when he used The Cream and The Clear. 

I don’t care if Bonds never goes to prison for his acts of selfishness and stupidity.  I only submit that all stats from baseball’s most notorious steroid sluggers be marked with an asterisk or erased completely, all of their post-season awards (Most Valuable Players, Rookies of the Year, Silver Sluggers, etc) be stripped and given to the player next in line, and that none of them ever see their busts enshrined in Cooperstown, New York.  That’s not asking too much, is it?

Here are two other common arguments I’ve heard in defense of the steroid users and my rebuttals:

There were so many players cheating and Bud Selig knew what was going on, so you can give no punishment to them.
So if 20 guys all get busted robbing a bank does the police let them go because they had strength in numbers?  More importantly, and more realistically, if the CEO of a tax firm turns a blind eye to his accountants fudging numbers on purpose would the public brush the incident off its collective shoulders and chock it up to an oversight?  Hell no!  They’d all be punished, all arrested, all fired.  Selig is just as much to blame as the McGuires and Sosas of the world.

Barry Bonds never tested positive for steroids so you cannot punish him without proof.
Again, I am not asking for Bonds to be imprisoned, just banned from the Hall of Fame.  The first commissioner of baseball, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, banned all 8 members of the Chicago “Black Sox” even after they were all acquitted of charges by the judicial system.  Selig should do the same to today’s players.  Then, the powers that be should fire Bud Selig for not doing something 10 years ago.

Folks, no matter how you try spinning it, cheating is cheating is cheating.  Bonds and all the other steroid cheats should never under any circumstances be observed in the same company as Aaron and the rest of baseball’s prized Hall of Famers.

I am a big proponent of interleague play for several reasons.  One of the few things Bud Selig, MLB’s often detested commissioner, did right was adding interleague play to the schedule in the mid-90’s following the highly unpopular player’s strike.  Several changes have been made since then and just about all of them are for the better, but interleaue play is still a work-in-progress.  Here are some changes that need to be made:

Scatter Interleague games throughout the entire schedule
The interleague games have been around long enough that there is no longer any point to scheduling every team in the league to play them all at the same time.  Scatter them randomly throughout the whole season (much like the NBA and NHL would do) and make it more convenient for scheduling road trips (The Red Sox could stay in town for 3 more games against the Giants while they are playing the A’s, thus saving a long flight back later in the year).

Make up your mind with the DH
It really doesn’t matter which way baseball goes, but either add the DH to the National League or remove it from the American League.  Different rules for different venues is unconditionally ludicrous.  The rules need to be the same for every single team in both leagues.  If I’m going to suggest changes then I might as well suggest which change to make, so as a fan who mostly watches American League games I’m going to add the DH all around.  I have always backed the argument that it adds several years to the careers of players who otherwise couldn’t play the field, such as Frank Thomas, Harold Baines, Eddie Murray, Edgar Martinez, and the most recent example, Mike Piazza.  Watching a pitcher bat is like watching the handicapped kid try to play in the YMCA with everybody else.  Fans pay money to see homeruns (or least base hits).  I no longer want to watch a pitcher bunt a guy over from second to third with 1 out or, just as bad, strike out swinging on three straight pitches.


Without a DH rule, his career may have ended in 2001

Play one 3-game series with every team in the opposite league
The first step in this rule change is actually getting rid of the awkward “Rivalry Weekend,” which seemingly forces rivals upon some fans who don’t necessarily see it that way (the Blue Jays and the Rockies, anybody?).  Every team in both leagues should then play one 3-game series against every team in the opposite league every single season, and the series would alternate home-and-away with each new season.

Move the Brewers back to the American League Central, and the Royals to A.L. West
I’ll never understand why Selig pushed so hard to move Milwaukee to the National League, thus having 14 A.L. teams and 16 N.L. teams, including only four in the A.L. West and six in the N.L. Central.  Playing a balanced schedule and making it fair for all parties involved is going to require having the same number of teams in every division.

Go back to the balanced schedule
As a fan who watches and/or attends upwards of 140-150 White Sox games every season, I’m sick of playing the Indians, Tigers, Twins, and Royals almost every week.  Well, actually, my proposal would still be unbalanced, but yet, more balanced than what it is now.  Based on the above rule changes, if my White Sox played every National League team for one 3-game series, they would play 42 interleague games.  They could then play 80 combined games vs the A.L. West and East (this equals out to two 4-game home-and-away series against each of the 10 teams).  This leaves enough room on the schedule to play each team within the division nine times each.  These changes cut the interdivisional games down from 19 to 9, add a little bit more pizzazz to an otherwise predictable and lackluster schedule of baseball.

 

I realized just today that Major League Baseball does not punish its players for using non-performance enhancing drugs, even if they are illegal outside of baseball. White Sox SP Freddy Garcia tested positive for marijuana while playing for Venezuela in the World Baseball Classic. According to International Baseball rules, it is illegal to use marijuana, a cannabis plant containing the psychoactive compound THC, but MLB has no rules against it.

Commissioner Bud Selig says he wants to abolish steroids in baseball, in part, because he wants to let the public know that they are bad for kids. Well…

The NFL has one of the toughest drug testing policies in all of sports. Miami Dolphins RB Ricky Williams was suspended for 4 weeks in 2005 for his second positive test of marijuana, and is officially ineligible for the entire 2006 season after losing his appeal last week regarding a third failed test. It was confirmed that Williams’ latest setback was not for marijuana, and speculation is that it was cocaine.

If the MLB Player’s Association is willing to accept a full one year suspension for a second positive steroids test, they should at least be willing to listen to a rule change involving all drugs. After taking criticism for being reactive instead of proactive involving the steroids investigation (the United States Congress was involved, threatening to take its own action if Selig did not start testing and suspending players), Selig is in a position to show baseball fans he can instigate his own action.

I don’t know of any employers who would allow me to work for them if they knew I was using marijuana or cocaine. MLB should mimic the NFL and suspend a player who gets caught using any drug that one cannot legally use at home.