When it comes to future Hall of Fame debates, steroid users seem to be getting a pass, in that they'll actually be allowed to be voted on. Unlike Pete Rose, who is stuck in some "there's nothing worse than gambling!!!" purgatory that "purists" love to pound their chests about.
Yet I cannot imagine where gambling in any way affects the outcome of games as much as steroids has. Even worse case scenario, Rose betting on or against his own team, how whackshit a move can he possibly do without being noticed? Inserting himself as pitcher? Giving a reckless hotfoot in the dugout?
Meanwhile, juiced ballplayers affect ACTUAL PLAY ON THE FIELD - do you really think more games have been decided by Pete Rose gambling, or by steroid users cranking dingers throughout every game?
Fucking nonsense. MLB has to quit trying to make itself feel good by patting itself on the back re: how tough they are on Pete and the "sanctity of the game" and either immediately disqualify steroid users from even being able to be voted upon, or let Pete the fuck in. Either way.
3 comments:
Disqualify.
...I cannot imagine where gambling in any way affects the outcome of games as much as steroids has. Even worse case scenario, Rose betting on or against his own team, how whackshit a move can he possibly do without being noticed? Inserting himself as pitcher? Giving a reckless hotfoot in the dugout?
One example: 1919 World Series.
Here's a hypothetical scenario that occurs numerous times on a daily basis throughout baseball: Joe Girardi inexplicably inserts the non-hitting, non-fielding Cody Ransom repeatedly into the lineup, instead of the WAY more productive Eric Hinske. Add 2 or 3 more similarly boneheaded moves at the same time and in a repetitive manner (known to be destructive pitcher/hitter matchups; pointless bunt attempts/squeeze plays; etc etc etc). Stir in piling losses and serve when ready.
Now, no one thinks Joe G is betting against his team, but if he were suspected of it, the above would be construed as evidence of that particular kind of malfeasance. (It would, at the very least, be highly suspicious.) But the catch is, that kinda nonsense goes on ALL THE TIME all across the MLB, by mgrs w/good intentions. No one questions the integrity of these men. And rightfully so.
Steroid users want to win, be it for themselves and/or their teams, but no one takes steroids to bring their teams or their own personal stats down.
Is it right? Of course not. But, regardless, when it comes to the W/L columns steroid use might be more detrimental to the purity of the sport but it can't possibly exceed the damage from gambling against your own team.
As for Pete Rose...I sincerely don't know if his ban should be lifted. I haven't given it much thought one way or another, except that to agree that he should be banned but I'm not sure for how long. One thing is certain, the ban will eventually be lifted but probably not in his lifetime. And for his readmission into the sport he may then have the transgressions of the juiced players of this era to thank for.
I agree with the above.
The other issue with banning particular guys who got busted for steroids is that it overlooks the fact that PED use was an epidemic -- it wasn't necessarily something done to cheat the other players but to keep up with them.
Pitchers used because hitters used; major leaguers used because minor leaguers who would take their jobs used; minor leaguers used to become major leaguers. There was no advantage to not using, particularly when some substances weren't specifically banned, front offices and the union looked the other way, and there was $$$ to be made.
It was how the game was played. And everyone is a suspect.
In the future we should look back at this period and make the same mental adjustments you do for the dead-ball era or the pre-integration era or the high-mound, big-stadium era and move on.
Post a Comment