I am constantly hearing the debate from sports writers and reporters on whether or not baseball players from the last 20 years should be lumped together due to the steroid controversy. What they mean is that if there was no steroids testing during this time period and some players were known to use steroids than how can you know any player was clean. It is a valid point and argument. I want to steer away from that argument, though, and focus on who is really to blame for the rampant steroid problem that happened in Major League Baseball.
As I see it, there are only three places where blame can be put, the owners, the players and the commissioner. What I am going to attempt to do is to show you that the owners and the commissioner are the real culprits in this whole scandal and the players are just the cyringe they used to shoot the steroids.
In the late 80' and the early 90's baseball was struggling with their normal fan base. Players were beginning to sign enormous contracts paying them exorbitant amounts of money and the NFL was on the the verge of taking away MLB's place as "America's Pastime". After the strike of '94 baseball was no longer the most important sport in the mind's of the American public. The owners were not making the money they expected to make and the commissioner was fearful of losing his job. Steroids were already an issue in the league and after other sports leagues (mainly the NFL) implemented harsh penalties for steroid use, MLB turned its head the other direction. What the owners and the commissioner knew was that the draw of the long ball would bring back the lure of baseball, it would resurrect it from the grave. They had ever opportunity to institute a steroid policy but they failed to do so and because of that reason baseball is now in the state it is today.
People who read my argument will be shocked, the players are the ones who took the steroids, not the owners and not the commissioner (as far as we know but Bud Selig's head doesn't look much bigger). For those people I want to pose a question. If there was something you could take, a pill or a shot, that would not only improve the way you feel and look but would also make you better at your job, would you take it? Not only would it make you better at your job, it would also increase your salary and we aren't talking about the 3% raise you normally get at the end of every year, we are talking very large sums of money. You could go from making $50,000 per year to maybe $300,000 a year. Your company has no policy in place that makes taking it wrong and, in fact, some of your colleagues are taking it and are making that much money. Now, would you take it? There are no repercussions, if your company finds out there is nothing they can do and they might even encourage it. Your family would live more comfortably and other companies might even want to offer you a job for even more money and you might even win awards for being the best at what you do. If you don't take it, there is a small chance you might achieve those results in time but there is also a chance everyone else will pass you by and you will LOSE your job.
Everyone is so quick to fault the players but you have to put yourself in their shoes. Owners were willing to pay upwards of 15 to 20 million a year to the best players in the game. The commissioner wanted baseball to revive and flourish. They both knew of the steroids problem that was everywhere around them. Yet they did nothing to stop it, they allowed it to go on and although this is just a theory, it wouldn't surprise me if they encouraged it. As we all know, baseball is a business and the owners of these teams aren't in business to lose money. Before you go to a game this year and boo a player who supposedly took steroids because they were mentioned in the Mitchell Report, remember there are more people to blame then just the players.
