Word just came out that Roger Clemens will be in the report for taking Steriods. A 45 year old man that got stronger....what a shock.
It wouldn't surprise me that there could be just as many pitchers as position players who used them. One thing about pitching is that it takes a toll on your legs and arm for relievers and starters alike. They may not have used them to get big, but instead to recover quickly to make it through 163+ games.
IMO, I think a blanket ban from the Hall of Fame for anybody who played during the steriod era. This morning on First Take, they debated whether Clemens and Bonds deserve to be there. The arguments for both of them were that they were both HOF material before we have evidence of them taking drugs. That is such a weak argument.
1) So what. You don't reward cheaters.
2) There will not be any punishment for the cheating, allowing them into the HOF only adds to the complete lack of punishment for cheaters.
3) The process of determining who was a HOF candidate before we think they took drugs is so completely subjective as to render that argument completely meritless.
The most likely response to my opinion is that it is unfair to those who did not take the steroids but might otherwise be HOF material. To that I respond:
1) Only a handful of players have come out and been honest about their own use or what they know about other players. Honesty is completely lacking in baseball. People who've said they never did, turn around and fail a test. Others refuse to answer questions, taking the 5th or just refuse to talk about it. Even this "study" will not reveal everyone who cheated.
2) Those who did not take them likely knew who did and sat idly by and did nothing about it. I know Wham didn't like this quote from me: "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." The "good players" (non-cheaters) did nothing, now they live with the consequences.
3) It's the players' union that bears a good bit of the fault for allowing this culture to exist. The union protects cheaters by refusing to agree to any kind of drug testing (until recently). The non-cheaters allowed the union to do so and went along with it. Therefore the non-cheaters are just as guilty by agreeing to allow the union to protect the cheaters and stifle any efforts to root out drugs in baseball. The non-cheaters should have insisted on drug testing, because they were more likely to lose money, possibly lose a career because they couldn't compete with enhanced players. That leads me to believe that a majority (meaning more than 50%) of the players used them. If less than a majority used them, the the non-cheating majority could have easily out-voted the minority cheaters and agreed to a drug testing policy
There may also be those who argue: "who cares, players should be allowed to ingest whatever they want so long as they accept the consequences. Afterall, it's just entertainment."
1) The entertainment argument is weak. If we're not interested in legitimate competition, why not just have the games scripted. Before the game, the teams will decide who gets to hit homeruns, how many runs are scored, how many strikeouts, etc. That would ensure you're entertainment is maximized. "But then it's fake, no longer a game." Exactly, but that's what entertainment is: fake. Baseball is a competition, not entertainment, at least is should be. The fact that it might be entertaining does not change the basic premise: players compete on a level playing field with the objective to score more runs than the opponent.
2) The ripple effect of allowing the players to take the drugs is that it requires minor leaguers and college players to do so, and on down the competition chain. If I'm a minor leaguer or college player and one day I am going to have to compete with steroid enhanced players, no scout is going to look at me unless I appear that I can compete at that level. But I will never make the minor leagues or college unless I start now. "I need an edge. I should start taking the steroids now, so that I can compete with them sooner."
Ok, I'm done. Don't feel the need to respond. Just venting.