Let me put this out there. I don't care if athletes use steroids. Let me repeat that. (Clearing throat). I don't care if athletes use steroids. Now, this statement usually illicits booming yawps of rage and confusion. Cries about the 'purity of the game' are slung in all directions. A baby-boomer from the back of the bar spits out stories about 'the game back in his day'...yada, yada, yada. Logic is replaced with the sentimental flood of emotions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I don't think most people really care about steroids. I think most people have convinced themselves to be outraged because it's fashionable and the media discusses it so much it permeates the mind. The arguments most people make concerning the issue are weak and unsubstantial.
The Moral Argument: This mode of thought goes something like this.
Using steroids is a form of cheating. Cheating is wrong. Therefore, the player that uses steroids is a bad person and their career should be seen as tainted.
Not a bad a+b=c equation. The problem with this argument does not really lie with the argument itself but with the individuals using the argument. The inherent difficulty with taking the moral superiority approach (and thus displaying outrage for anothers moral insufficiency) is it requires the individual making the argument to have an unblemished moral stature. This is nearly impossible. If Mother Teresa's ghost shows up at my door, that spectre can make this case all she wants. As for the rest of us, moral superiority is a dead end street.
I've heard friends and strangers chastise A-Rod, Bonds and Clemens for their steroid use. However, these same folks have shown similar moral weakness in aspects of their lives. I think most people have cheated, stole or swindled at some point of their journey and yet they conveniently forget those instances when it comes time to whip someone else for their misdeeds.
Occassionally there is an amendment to the 'moral argument' that goes something like this:
"We'll I'm not being paid millions of dollars to do my job and live my life. They should know better because they took all that money."
This sub-argument is down right laughable. When in the course of human events has there ever been a correlation between accumulated wealth and an increase in moral standing? If anything, the exact opposite is true. More money breeds the idea that one is above standard ethical systems. Just ask Enron, O.J, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
So, here's the deal. Does the moral argument hold up at its core? Sure it does. The rub? Unless your Jesus of Nazareth you don't get to make it.
The Purity of the Game Argument:
Okay. Say, it's not about such lofty ideals as morals and ethics. Let's say you're one of those that likes to speak of 'the good old days'. Back when 'the game was a game' and 'hitters were hitters' and 'pitchers were pitchers' and there was no need for illegal substances to make the players great.
Uh, newsflash. Those times never existed. The reason players didn't take steroids back in the day is because steroids were not readily available back in the day. I'm not saying that I can prove that Ted Williams or Reggie Jackson would have juiced up, but I can surmise with accuracy that if the temptation was there alot of players would have succumb. It's human nature to want an edge. Not the best aspect of our evolution but it's there and it's there to stay.
As far as other aspects of 'purity'. We're talking about a sport that didn't allow some of the best athletes in the game to play until the more than half way through the century. We're talking about a sport where the best team in the game (some think of all time) successfully threw the World Series. Babe Ruth and Micky Mantle were womanizing drunks. Ty Cobb was a bigot who actively tried to injure players in games. Where is this purity you speak of?
Nostalgia is a dangerous weapon.
There are players over the years that have been shining examples of what it means to be a true athlete. I do want my kids one day to look at these players and emulate them. I will teach them the dangers of steroid use, and I will never believe that athletes that took performance enhancers did so because they were cajoled or manipulated. They made their choices and now they must live with them.
However, the great players, the shining examples are worth our praise because they are the exception not the rule. Athletes are human beings. Having your likeness immortalized outside a stadium does not encase your soul in bronze.
I love this game. I really do. But we must all keep things in perspective. At the end of the day, these men are hitting a small ball with a short stick very far. Our anger is ignited because they are taking substances that allow them to hit a small ball with a short stick more often...
...there are so many more concerns in the world deserving of your outrage.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Steriods have tarnished the sport, but did not ruin it. A bad player can become an average player, average to good, good to great, and great to legendary. You're really going to tell your kids to emulate athletes who used 'roids. So in essence you would be telling your kids, don't work harder just take steroids.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of issues in the world that more pertinent but when it comes to baseball, this is the most important. Baseball more than any other sport emphasizes its stats. Now the stats mean close to nothing. How do you know Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle were great? Word of mouth?..maybe. You look up their records, their career statistics. Now you look at the atheletes who have been linked to steroids during this era. Can you really say these guys are good, great, legendary? They put up great numbers but they CHEATED!! Cheaters are not necessarily bad people. They just didn't believe in their natural ability.
If you really love baseball, sports in general, how can you say F*** steroids?