Sunday, May 14, 2006
BONDS AND STEROIDS
By Stockton
I've been meaning to write about this issue for awhile. Now, on the eve of Bonds becoming the number two all-time homerun hitter, it seems appropriate.
There are a lot of arguments for and against steroids and the players that use(d) them. Some are practical: competitive athletes look for any edge. Some are technical: Baseball only recently banned the use of steroids. All arguments ring hollow.
That baseball only recently banned the use of steroids is all well and good in defending Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and the rest. Fans have always been enamored of the long ball and it puts people in the seats. But, why didn't they openly discuss the use of steroids before the drug was banned? If there was nothing wrong with it, if it was no different than taking cortisone injections, why the secrecy?
I understand the competitive edge argument. Professional athletes live in a competitive world. They compete with other teams and older athletes compete with younger athletes for a spot on the team. When a ball player turns thirty-five or forty, they start to slow down. Injuries become more prevalent. There's always a blue-chip prospect being talked up, waiting to take over. A DiMaggio hearing about a Mantle. For the older player, seeking any advantage must be tempting.
Still, age and injuries are a natural part of the game. It's part of the natural make-up of talent. Eric Davis was not a great player (I think he was very good when he played) because he might have been great if he wasn't so innury prone.
Steroid use has damaged the game in the same way that the 1919 Black Sox scandal damaged the game. I no longer know if what I watch is real.
I don't know if Bonds would have hit the same number of homeruns without steroids. Perhaps he would have. Perhaps he would be on homerun 622 right now, instead of 713. Maybe steroids add 10% to homerun totals, maybe 25%, maybe 3% I don't know.
This should be an exciting time for true baseball fans. A player is closing in on 'The Record'. The Grand Daddy of all sports records. Yet, I'm underwhelmed and could care less. I don't know what Bonds has achieved through pure athletic training and talent as opposed to drugs. Make all the excuses you want (there are apologists aplenty for Bonds) but there's a gut feeling among many fans that Bonds achievement feels false.
Bonds is a great talent. He was a legitimate five-category player. If he stopped playing baseball in the year he began taking steroids, he's a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate. Everything after that? I just don't know. And you know what? That's his problem, not mine. I'm under no obligation to prove that steroids have positively impacted Bonds' numbers.
Steroids and baseball. Forget the technical arguments for or against their use. Just ask yourself, does it feel right? For me, the answer is no.
I've been meaning to write about this issue for awhile. Now, on the eve of Bonds becoming the number two all-time homerun hitter, it seems appropriate.
There are a lot of arguments for and against steroids and the players that use(d) them. Some are practical: competitive athletes look for any edge. Some are technical: Baseball only recently banned the use of steroids. All arguments ring hollow.
That baseball only recently banned the use of steroids is all well and good in defending Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and the rest. Fans have always been enamored of the long ball and it puts people in the seats. But, why didn't they openly discuss the use of steroids before the drug was banned? If there was nothing wrong with it, if it was no different than taking cortisone injections, why the secrecy?
I understand the competitive edge argument. Professional athletes live in a competitive world. They compete with other teams and older athletes compete with younger athletes for a spot on the team. When a ball player turns thirty-five or forty, they start to slow down. Injuries become more prevalent. There's always a blue-chip prospect being talked up, waiting to take over. A DiMaggio hearing about a Mantle. For the older player, seeking any advantage must be tempting.
Still, age and injuries are a natural part of the game. It's part of the natural make-up of talent. Eric Davis was not a great player (I think he was very good when he played) because he might have been great if he wasn't so innury prone.
Steroid use has damaged the game in the same way that the 1919 Black Sox scandal damaged the game. I no longer know if what I watch is real.
I don't know if Bonds would have hit the same number of homeruns without steroids. Perhaps he would have. Perhaps he would be on homerun 622 right now, instead of 713. Maybe steroids add 10% to homerun totals, maybe 25%, maybe 3% I don't know.
This should be an exciting time for true baseball fans. A player is closing in on 'The Record'. The Grand Daddy of all sports records. Yet, I'm underwhelmed and could care less. I don't know what Bonds has achieved through pure athletic training and talent as opposed to drugs. Make all the excuses you want (there are apologists aplenty for Bonds) but there's a gut feeling among many fans that Bonds achievement feels false.
Bonds is a great talent. He was a legitimate five-category player. If he stopped playing baseball in the year he began taking steroids, he's a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate. Everything after that? I just don't know. And you know what? That's his problem, not mine. I'm under no obligation to prove that steroids have positively impacted Bonds' numbers.
Steroids and baseball. Forget the technical arguments for or against their use. Just ask yourself, does it feel right? For me, the answer is no.
