OT: Steroids- admitting or getting caught?
In lieu of the news that David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez tested positive for steroids in 2003 and earlier this year seeing Alex Rodriguez admitting to taking steroids, which would you as a fan prefer to see?
A player admitting to his use of illegal drugs or it being brought up by a third party, in this case the list from 2003?
(getting caught is perhaps the wrong term to use for the title, but it is included in the third party argument)
Both bring negative press, but I would prefer that a player take accountability for his actions. I can understand where a player might think he can get away with it, but there's still a good chance he'll get caught and then it would be out of his power to determine if the subject is brought to the public.
Always better to admit that kind of thing yourself. Since people are being leaked fairly steadily here, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few players come clean on their own terms rather than getting smeared. It also helps that many of the big name players have been outed, so people are less likely to care as much about some of the lower profile players.
Since steroids are medically indicated in many cases, such as getting injuries to heal, and they weren't specifically against the rules until a few years ago, and all of baseball, including the owners and management, ignored them even while balls were flying out of MLB parks on a regular basis, I would like to see MLB institute a steroid amnesty program.
Basically, those who admit their steroid use within whatever window was negotiated would get full amnesty for their actions. They would never have to worry about an asterisk, any fine, suspension, or any of their stats being wiped clean. In addition, MLB could make a statement that steroids should not be considered when voting for the Hall of Fame. Since pretty much everyone was getting some kind of chemical enhancement, it should be assumed that the entire era was played on a level playing field, even if it does offend the sensibilities of some purists.
I am guessing that many of those "purists," who love to accuse athletes of cheating, weren't ever good enough to play any sport and are basically frustrated atheltes looking for a chance to tear down those who did "make it."
Also, a new testing program could be announced, whereby each specimen is kept for a period of about ten years, and can be retested as new substances are discovered. That way, a substance that is untraceable now isn't "safe," because it may be detected later. Then, if something is found later, the players involved can be forced to vacate their stats for a negotiated-upon period, and would be suspended from MLB and all of its functions.
This isn't perfect by any means, but I do think it would be a great way for baseball to move on from this and stop it from being an ongoing controversy any longer.
It's refreshing to read something like this from a player: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4368436
Bronson Arroyo kicks ass.
I'd be happy if players merely started to Admit that they got Caught. I'm sick of the "I'm surprised I was on the list... I need to see what substance it was before I respond" (As Ortiz said).
If not for all the baseball reporters in their 50s and 60s who still hold on to baseball as the national past time and ESPN, baseball would be dead. Steroids was the "shot in the arm" that baseball needed in the 90s. 162 games a year, thats just idiotic! Who realy gives a shit about steroids and baseball!? Seriously... tingling in my left arm, deep breaths, where's my nitroglicer
I'm in agreement with Colin Cowherd who says that probably sooner than we think, steroids and the like will be in common usage as people try more avenues and science finds more ways to combat the ravages of aging and many other ills that affect us. I mean, it's probably not good for Mother Earth that 7 billion people (who will pretty much all multiply exponentially) find ways to live longer, but it will happen, and society in the nrear future will look back on all the hypocritical hubbub of today and wonder why the hell we were so jumpy about it.
We expect super-human effort out of our athletes, and they can take some pharmaceutical aids to get to a plateau where they will make enough money to teake care of their entire posses, most of their illegitimate children, and STILL have enough left over to squander $43 Million in bad investments that they never check up on.
I'd do 'em in a heartbeat if I was sstaring at that kind of caysh, shriveled up penis and balls be damned!
and I think many fans other than your 50 and 60 year old reports do as well. Just because some people might be of an age where they have never seen Babe Ruth play or weren't raised in an era where baseball players DIDN'T take steroids doesn't mean they can't appreciate as equal a playing field as possible. I am not merely talking amongst players today, but players of the past as well.
Babe Ruth hit an astounding homerun per 8.5 at bats without steroids. To compare modern day players to him that could potentially be taking steroids is a mockery of baseballs history (but in case you do....none still come close, even using steroids). I can live with the "juiced" balls, better bats and smaller fields but the steroids is another matter entirely.
In my opinion any player that tests positiove for steroids should a) be given a suspension b) be stripped of stats accumulated during time of use c) have any records stripped from the record books and d) never be considered for induction to the hall of fame. This sounds harsh but I don't see the problem being erased any other way.
I should also say that for a long time I sat on the other side of this fence. I thought: You still need the hand eye coordination to hit the ball, so what difference do the steroids make? I see now that it makes a big difference and has helped players extend their career by numerous years.