12/21/24
December 22, 2007
Where Do We Go From Here?: A column on recent developments in MLB by Sportsfilter member Newbie1412.
Well put Hal! Newbie I liked the article, I just have one thing I disagree with. The reason that congress convened for those hearings in the first place. Your article insinuates it was to talk about past steroid usage in the league. I believe if you look at this clip from the Washington Post, you can find it in other papers too, you will find out that it was actually to discuss the drug testing policy in MLB and how steroids affect teenagers in this country. This article also has some other quotes from McGwire that are less famous than the, not here to speak about the past, and on advise of my lawyer, standards in every McGwire or steroid link. One that rings very true, and I am sure it has been said one way or another in here, it is actually the beginning to the on advise of my lawyer statement, here it is. "Asking me or any other player to answer questions about who took steroids in front of television cameras will not solve the problem." He was right, how was that going to solve a problem with a drug testing policy in MLB, it was going to do two things. One prove Jose Canseco, who was at the table also, correct in his book and help him sell more. Two put a bigger black eye on the sport and himself than there already was. Had he said yes I took steroids, do you actually think the treatment of him would be any different than it is today? The same sports writters that beat on him for his "non answers" would beat on him for his admission. It definately would not have made any difference in what is happening today other than the above. That congressional panel already had a player that admitted to steroid use, Jose Canseco, why did they need more? Were they out to ruin players' reputations? Were they trying to prove or disprove Canseco's book? After watching them question those players that day, it was the begining of the witch hunt, and nothing more. They had no intention of finding anything out to meet their stated goals in questioning those players.
posted by jojomfd1 at 09:12 AM on December 23, 2007
Hmmm, I would say that the committee "needed" to show how widespead this problem is. This was not just the bash brothers putting people in seats to get the fat cat owners rich, this was/is happening all across the sport. If it takes the use of PED's to even play MLB, then what are we doing to our kids that aspire to play? I think the country has to either accept PED's as a fact of life for those who wish to play the sport, or cut them out like a cancerous growth. Personally, if it takes a witch hunt to cut them out I'm for it.
posted by firecop at 09:04 AM on December 24, 2007
I agree with the "let's move on" aspect (also, well done on a newbie having an article up 6 days after joining!). However, I think a critical part of that is not to play divisive games of "who's accomplishments are legitimate"; the answer is "they all are"... Clemens Cy Young awards, Bonds homeruns and offensive achievements, etc. They're all as valid as any other record, and this asterisk nonsense is only going to force us to continue to live in the past about baseball. As newbie1412 says, everyone- the players, trainers, and coaches, and front offices all the way up to Selig- as well as the sportswriters and we the fans, was culpable and happy to see things the way they were. Casting stones now, as if any of us are really aghast about the whole 'roid issue when it simply doesn't affect us, is ridiculous. We aren't going to lose sleep or fret over what to tell "little Jimmy" about baseball anymore than we'll lose sleep over the thought that even clean football players will have a lifetime of spinal and neurological issues after they retire simply so we could enjoy a gridiron matchup 16 days out of the year.