And Another One
Ortiz, positive test in '03. Wasn't I expressing doubt just a few months ago as to the idea that his precipitous decline might be linked to same? What do I know, I guess.
July 30, 2009
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Trade Possibilites Disappearing
- ValleyFair Punch
- RTS Makes Aquisition
- Favre to Stay Retired - can we exhale now?
- Slowey+ Surgery = no more pitches in 2009
- The Summer Bulletin, Such a Guilty Pleasure
- Mid-Summer College Hockey Update
- The Collapse
- From .389 to .358
- Need TV Advice
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
4 Comments:
I hope he wasn't juicing when he was on the Twins, that would have been just pathetic. Yes, you were and I posted the article that pointed to his age vs other sluggers. I guess I am the sucker.
July 31, 2009 at 8:25 AM
If I still read Bill Simmons I would be curious as to what that Boston-apologist-ass has to say about this. I loved Ortiz's quote: "Based on the way I have lived my life, I am surprised to learn I tested positive," - after Sosa going before Congress and pulling the "me no speak-a da In-glish" card, I can only assume that Ortiz didn't know what he was saying.
Here is baseball's shame - they had a chance to rip off the band aid and take care of this 5 years ago and Selig was/is too small of a man to take care of it so we have this mess. Honestly, the record books should not record any of these tainted achievements whether for an individual or the team he played on. Should Barry Bonds' numbers sit next to those of Hank Aaron? No. Did the Red Sox World Series titles come with the same effort as the Twins? No.
Those people are cheaters.
July 31, 2009 at 8:57 AM
I completely disagree with Jan, surprisingly enough (except the part about MLB should have just dealt with this in one fell swoop instead of letting it all drip, drip, drip away in this continuous stream of bad public relations news). We've not had the larger "Steroids Talk" on this blog, so maybe now's a good time while I've got nothing to do at work and it's Friday afternoon.
Ortiz's usage from 2003 not "cheating," except in some grand karmic sense. To have cheating, you need an actual, enforceable (and enforced) rule with the imposition of a penalty. No such thing existed in MLB until much more recently. I'll defer to a much greater authority than me, Bill James, on this one. http://www.actapublications.com/images/small/PressReleases/Cooperstownandthe%27Roids_F2.pdf For what it's worth, Rob Neyer agrees, too. If over half the players in the league were "cheating," then no one was really cheating, as far as I'm concerned.
As for the record books and asterisks and all that, I again disagree. The game evolves. Would Bonds have hit 750 homeruns without the assistance of PEDs allowing him to bash even beyond age 40? Probably not. On the other hand, would Cy Young have won 500+ games if there were more than 25 guys in the league who could actually play in his day? Probably not. Would Babe Ruth have dominated as much as he did in a league that allowed black players, significantly increasing the overall talent level in the game? Undoubtedly not. The game evolves.
On that same point, let's not overstate the effectiveness of those PEDs as compared to other modern factors and evolutions: workout regimen and diet changes leading to increased general strength and conditioning levels in all players, live ball, bandbox new stadiums built for homeruns and offense, lower pitcher's mound, smaller strike zone, protective equipment allowing for plate crowding, etc., etc., etc.
Let's also not miss the fact that pitchers are just as guilty of usage and benefitting from the drugs. Bond hit plenty of homers off guys who could throw 100 95-mph fastballs every five days without blowing their arms out because of the cocktails they were using. He also hit plenty of homeruns off specialist relievers, LOOGY's and 100 mph flamethrowers whose sole purpose on their team was to get guys like him out. Not to take anything at all away from Hank Aaron, or Babe Ruth, or Willie Mays, or Ted Williams, but none of them had to deal with things like that. The game evolves.
The entire era will have an implied asterisk attached to it with the perspective of distance. Fans will naturally mentally discount Bonds' achievements and those of every big leaguer whose bulk of stat collection came between 1990 and 2005 or so. That's enough, as far as I'm concerned. The record books will be fine. For those outraged at the steroid era, it'll be a good teachable moment for their kids.
As for not recording the achievements of teams, such as the 2004 Red Sox, because it's documented they had PED users, well, so did every other team they beat to reach and win the World Series. What level of team production has to come from so-called tainted players to rise above the line of our collective anger? How can we possibly draw that line?
The Red Sox World Series titles came with less effort than those of the Twins, to my mind, simply because those Red Sox teams manifestly had so much more talent than the '87 and '91 Twins did.
Anyway, there's just my opinion. I certainly understand Jan's frustration and indignance about the subject. I guess I'm just more cynical (which is usually hard to do in comparison to Jan, I should note), despite my still sometimes childlike love and quasireligious reverance for baseball over all other sports.
July 31, 2009 at 1:37 PM
MCA - You ignorant slut (sorry, always wanted to say that.)
Few thoughts:
1. You got me over the barrel on the legalese and definition of "cheating" (this is what lawyers salivate over - the concept of 'intent.') I'm just a simple caveman lawyer, I don't understand your flying machines. But what I do know is that there is no doubt among players/MLB/fans that using steroids significantly enhanced performance that players could not naturally achieve with their God/Muhammed/Vishnu-given talents. In my mind, I call it cheating. Is it cheating if I bring Kavya Shivashankar (Scripps 2009 National Spelling Bee Champion) into a spelling test if directions don't explicitly state "no Kavya Shivashankar's allowed?"
2. You didn't really mean "If over half the players in the league were "cheating," then no one was really cheating, as far as I'm concerned" did you?
3. The game evolves. I agree, it evolves: strength, conditioning yada, yada, yada. I guess evolution includes mutation but for a baseball purist like yourself to include steroid use, that's blasphemy, no?
4. "For those outraged at the steroid era, it'll be a good teachable moment for their kids." Thanks, Dr. Spock.
Anyway, I get your argument. You're right,
August 2, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home