08-14-2009, 10:01 AM
My opinion of PEDs has evolved quite a bit. At first I took the traditionalist view and thought that Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds were monsters for cheating the game and history of baseball. I've thought a lot about this issue over the years and my view point has changed dramatically. I believe baseball players did what nearly all people would do in a immensely competitive environment that offered little consequence (at the time), and actually encouraged the use of PEDs. If there was a drug that was easily attainable, and would increase your performance, and offered the opportunity to dramatically increase your salary, would you take it? I would have to answer YES, emphatically. How can I judge those baseball players, many of whom have little to fall back on, that take PEDs if I would do the same? I can't. They did what people have done since the beginning of time. They took advantage of the things that were available to them to help them succeed.
If you have some time, take a look at Joe Poznanski's comparison of PEDs and Viagra. He makes some excellent points.
Joe Poz
Here's a quick cut, but try to read the whole thing if you can. As usual, I think he makes a lot of sense.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->As far as steroids being demonstrably against the rules … well, of course, that’s a pretty new thing. Before the recent outrage, the rules against performance enhancing drugs were nebulous at best and emboldening at worst.
Sure, it was always cheating — everyone knew that, which is why steroids were taken in dark rooms and injected by sleazy trainers — but the problem is: Cheating who? Cheating the other players? Well, damn, a lot of them were already doing it. Cheating the fans? Maybe, but you sure didn’t hear too many people complaining about seeing longer home runs and watching 95 mph fastballs. Cheating your team? You think your teammates or manager cared what you were doing as long as you got people out in the eighth inning or drove 10 more home runs out of the yard? Cheating baseball? Well, hell, if those baseball people cared so much they would have started testing 20 years earlier.
So … cheating who? Well, people would say: Cheating history. That’s what they were doing. And baseball is the one game that relies deeply on history. Tennis, golf … there’s a titanium and graphite wall between those games and their history. Oh, everyone likes golf history. But it’s only that: History. After all, what would a golfer using today’s equipment shoot on the 1986 version of Augusta National? Every Par 5 would be laughably easy. Every Par 4 would be a drive and a pitch. Would 25-under be possible? Thirty-under? You better believe it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you have some time, take a look at Joe Poznanski's comparison of PEDs and Viagra. He makes some excellent points.
Joe Poz
Here's a quick cut, but try to read the whole thing if you can. As usual, I think he makes a lot of sense.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->As far as steroids being demonstrably against the rules … well, of course, that’s a pretty new thing. Before the recent outrage, the rules against performance enhancing drugs were nebulous at best and emboldening at worst.
Sure, it was always cheating — everyone knew that, which is why steroids were taken in dark rooms and injected by sleazy trainers — but the problem is: Cheating who? Cheating the other players? Well, damn, a lot of them were already doing it. Cheating the fans? Maybe, but you sure didn’t hear too many people complaining about seeing longer home runs and watching 95 mph fastballs. Cheating your team? You think your teammates or manager cared what you were doing as long as you got people out in the eighth inning or drove 10 more home runs out of the yard? Cheating baseball? Well, hell, if those baseball people cared so much they would have started testing 20 years earlier.
So … cheating who? Well, people would say: Cheating history. That’s what they were doing. And baseball is the one game that relies deeply on history. Tennis, golf … there’s a titanium and graphite wall between those games and their history. Oh, everyone likes golf history. But it’s only that: History. After all, what would a golfer using today’s equipment shoot on the 1986 version of Augusta National? Every Par 5 would be laughably easy. Every Par 4 would be a drive and a pitch. Would 25-under be possible? Thirty-under? You better believe it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->