Steroids and Baseball and Football

[CraigSca]

While I don't want to get side-tracked by this, I feel that the public and sportwriter's response to steroids in baseball as opposed to football is oddly askew. People constantly want to lynch baseball for possible steroid use, yet elect an admitted steroid user to the Pro Bowl (see: Merriman). Anyway...

While listening to sports radio in the New York area, of course there was mention of Giambi and his impending conversations with George Mitchell (yawn). But there was also talk about the Mets clubhouse attendant and the people he's named as steroids users and if this were to ever go public, it would rock baseball. Apparently there's talk of names on the list that would surprise everyone. The names they threw out (speculatively, of course) were Ripken, Jeter and Gwynn as names that would surprise everyone.

Thinking about it more, it wouldn't surprise me if these guys were on the list.

I really think steroid and GH use is much higher in both leagues than we ALL want to believe. Baseball is in a tenuous position because they have to make up for lost time, do a thorough investigation and yet balance that with not destroying the sport. Can you imagine if it was proven to be true that names like the above were users?! That would be like hearing Joe Montana, Emmitt Smith and Peyton Manning were using.

[MikeVic]

I know it's wrong, but I don't want to know if people like that used steroids. It would diminish the stature of heroes to so many people. I really hope no one big like that is ever found to be using.

[Anthony]

as has been mentioned often, the records in baseball mean a lot more than they do in other sports, hence the outcry when we find our beloved baseball stars have been using. the Career Rushing Title isn't the same as Aaron's HR record.

[Ksyrup]

Hearst Corp. is currently suing to have the appriximately 36 names blacked out in the Mets attendant case released. The argument - and it's a good one - is that the government turned over the list to Mitchell, and Mitchell is simply a private citizen (albeit one hired by MLB to investigate the issue). By doing that, the government effectively lost its argument that the names should remain confidential.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/sp...304137&ei=5070

Of course, by the time this is resolved, Mitchell's investigation will probably be complete and/or a sufficiently reliable list of names will have leaked, but it would be great if this got wrapped up quickly and the court ordered the names released.

[TroyF]

Baseball gets killed on this for two reasons:

1) As said above, the history and records of the game are sacred.

2) They didn't act quickly on it. The NFL at least has the impression that they tried to control the problem. They were on this issue before baseball would even admit it MIGHT be a problem.

This doesn't mean the NFL system is perfect or that there aren't a large majority of NFL players using the juice, but at least they have the PR win by saying "we tried, the players and owners got tothether and tried"

[Ajaxab]

This might be a bit far-fetched, but I wonder if the disconnect is partially due to the traditional and historical perception of baseball being associated with the natural. You know the green grass, the dirt of the infield, wooden bats and the fact that the game has continued to be comparatively unchanged from its beginnings.

By contrast, football is more associated with the technological. Sure the field is still grass and the ball is still leather, but the players are supplemented by a variety of technologies like pads, helmets and in helmet ear pieces. Not to mention the coaches who are connected via their own communication equipment to a variety of coaches. As new technologies become available, football has been more than willing to adopt them (instant replay comes to mind).

It's simply hard to imagine a football version of Field of Dreams with its highly pastoral scenes.

So maybe there's some subtle subconscious indictment of baseball players who use steroids because it taints something apparently natural whereas there isn't the same outrage with football players because they and the game they play are already being supplemented by so many technologies.

[cougarfreak]

IMO it's got everything to do with the fact that most people feel that baseball is for "us", meaning anyone who works hard enough, and has a little bit of natural skill can play it, and play it well. We relate with baseball players. Football is for freakishly (and part of it I think is performance drug use started much earlier, making them seem that way) large or fast athletes that most people can't even begin to imagine they are good enough to have a legitimate shot at playing with, or relating to.

[rowech]

Agreed Cougar. An average joe could play baseball...not football or basketball.

[rkmsuf]

I think it's simple...the homerun is the factor people get worked up over.

Who hit how many and are they legit. Everything else is secondary. There's very little outrage over pitchers or guys that suddenly have a great opb. It's just the homerun. Not even average really matters.

Football there's nothing like the homerun to generate anger. It's hard to connect say 4,500 yards passing to steroid use much like it's hard to connect a good era to it. Homerun to steriods is perceived as a straight line.

[Ksyrup]

Looks like Hearst and the AP are double-teaming the Feds. The AP is going after the Grimsley names. Frankly, my guess is that Grimsley's list is all rumors and guesses, while Radomski's list would definitely have more credibility:



AP requests to make names in steroids case public
Associated Press

Updated: June 22, 2007, 10:42 AM ET


NEW YORK -- The Associated Press asked a federal judge to make public the names of baseball players a government agent said were implicated in drug use by former major league pitcher Jason Grimsley.

In an application filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Phoenix, the AP said a sworn statement signed in May 2006 to obtain a search warrant for Grimsley's home in Arizona should be released in its entirety based on legal precedent and public interest.

When the affidavit, signed by IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky, was made public in June 2006, names of the players Novitzky said Grimsley accused of using performance-enhancing drugs were blacked out.

"Any privacy interests of individuals named in the affidavit are insufficient to overcome the public's right to access," the AP said in its court filing.

The AP also said that if prosecutors provided the complete affidavit to baseball steroids investigator George Mitchell, "then they should not be allowed to invoke the privacy interests of third parties as a shield to prevent disclosure to others."

David Segui told ESPN in June 2006 that he was one of the blacked-out names, and the Los Angeles Times reported in October that Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and Miguel Tejada were also named, along with Brian Roberts and Jay Gibbons.

Players in the Times report denied using steroids, and Randy Hendricks, the agent for Clemens and Pettitte, said he was told Grimsley denied making the statements attributed to him by Novitzky. Grimsley has not commented publicly and a federal prosecutor said the report contained "significant inaccuracies."

Natalya LaBauve, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco, and Wyn Hornbuckle, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix, declined comment.

The investigation of Grimsley is being run by prosecutors and authorities in San Francisco, where five Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative defendants pleaded guilty to distributing or developing steroids, some of which were undetectable in drug tests.

Earlier this month, Hearst Corp. asked a federal judge in New York to make public a December 2005 sworn statement by Novitzky used to obtain a search warrant for the home of former New York Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski. The government said 36 current and former players were supplied drugs by Radomski but the names of the players were blacked out when the search warrant was unsealed this April.

Hearst said that if the names had been provided to Mitchell, they must be made public. Its motion is pending.

[CraigSca]

But go after the union if you're miffed that baseball didn't go after steroids quick enough. It kills me when unions do this - they protect the player but ultimately it's hurting that particular player, the rest of the players and the sport.

I'm sick of people giving Selig lip about the McGwire/Sosa homerun race and the revisionist history surrounding it. They make it sound as if the reporters and public were clamoring for steroids testing of these two individuals while baseball ignored it. The fact is, all of us were watching along with the race and couldn't see the forest through the trees.

Only after the fact (and the andro) did we start to question what was going on...

[Bearcat729]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

The names they threw out (speculatively, of course) were Ripken, Jeter and Gwynn as names that would surprise everyone.

Why would anyone think that Tony Gwynn used steroids?

[Ksyrup]

That's why the name would surprise everyone.

[spleen1015]

I want to know who it was just because I'm curious like that. If it turned out that Ripken used steroids, I think it will bother me a great deal. He is my childhood hero.

I wonder why there are so many Orioles listed on these released lists.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Bearcat729

Why would anyone think that Tony Gwynn used steroids?

Why would anyone eliminate Tony Gwynn from the discussion? Let me state right up front, I don't believe that Tony Gwynn used steriods. However no player can be eliminated from the discussion. If the subsequent suspensions are any indication, steroid uses was not limited to guys who hit 50+ HRs. It was not limited to guys who had 40 inch arms. It was not limited to guys who wagged their fingers at Congress. Unfortunately, every one who played (plays?) during that era now is cast under some shadow of possible steriod use.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I wonder why there are so many Orioles listed on these released lists.

I think these things are like NFL coaching branches. You have the Bill Walsh branch, the Parcells branch, the Schottenheimer branch, the Jimmy Johnson twig, etc. With steroids, you have the Canseco branch, which includes Oakland and Texas, and then from Texas because of the Palmeiro and Grimsley connections, includes Baltimore. And with the Mets guy who recently sang, you will have a Mets branch that will fill in the connection between Lenny Dykstra and the 90s Phillies. It's like a 6 degrees of separation game.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I think it's simple...the homerun is the factor people get worked up over.

Who hit how many and are they legit. Everything else is secondary. There's very little outrage over pitchers or guys that suddenly have a great opb. It's just the homerun. Not even average really matters.

Football there's nothing like the homerun to generate anger. It's hard to connect say 4,500 yards passing to steroid use much like it's hard to connect a good era to it. Homerun to steriods is perceived as a straight line.

Agreed! The problem is not steriod use in baseball for too many people. It is steriod use that affects the home run ball.

[Young Drachma]

I could care less who uses, used or will use steroids. It doesn't change the games for me at all.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I could care less who uses, used or will use steroids. It doesn't change the games for me at all.

I wish players didn't feel compelled to use steroids and other PED's (to the extent that use of those PED's constitutes a health risk), but I pretty much feel the same way. As medicine and technology continue to advance, the line between "fair" and "cheating" is only going to get more and more fuzzy.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by TroyF

2) They didn't act quickly on it. The NFL at least has the impression that they tried to control the problem. They were on this issue before baseball would even admit it MIGHT be a problem.

To be honest, I think this is exactly the reason. Astute comment.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I wish players didn't feel compelled to use steroids and other PED's (to the extent that use of those PED's constitutes a health risk), but I pretty much feel the same way. As medicine and technology continue to advance, the line between "fair" and "cheating" is only going to get more and more fuzzy.

Sports has always been about cheating as much as possible without getting caught. No reason chemicals shouldn't be as common as sandpaper on the mound or cork in a bat.

[bulletsponge]

recorded history shows that even the original olympics in greece was full of cheaters.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Baseball gets killed on this for two reasons:

2) They didn't act quickly on it. The NFL at least has the impression that they tried to control the problem. They were on this issue before baseball would even admit it MIGHT be a problem.

Of course, that's a bum rap on baseball, too. The NFL took just as long to do something about it after it became a known problem as baseball did. It's just that it became a problem in baseball much later.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

IMO it's got everything to do with the fact that most people feel that baseball is for "us", meaning anyone who works hard enough, and has a little bit of natural skill can play it, and play it well. We relate with baseball players. Football is for freakishly (and part of it I think is performance drug use started much earlier, making them seem that way) large or fast athletes that most people can't even begin to imagine they are good enough to have a legitimate shot at playing with, or relating to.

I think this is big part. In my mind, its fairly stupid - I think of all the major sports in the US, baseball is the one where steroids probably help the least (side note - it always amazes me that people complain about corked bats - they actually "hurt" a hitter more than they help them) Furthermore, baseball is held to higher standards than football.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I wish players didn't feel compelled to use steroids and other PED's (to the extent that use of those PED's constitutes a health risk), but I pretty much feel the same way. As medicine and technology continue to advance, the line between "fair" and "cheating" is only going to get more and more fuzzy.

I'll echo this. I don't care for the brow-beating of self-appointed moral arbitrators, and the "won't somebody think of the children" bullshit.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I want to know who it was just because I'm curious like that. If it turned out that Ripken used steroids, I think it will bother me a great deal. He is my childhood hero.

I wonder why there are so many Orioles listed on these released lists.

The 1993 Rangers take the cake though...

Ivan Rodriguez
Juan Gonzalez
Jose Canseco
Julio Franco?
Kenny Rogers (I'll put him in as a cheater)

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by clintl

Of course, that's a bum rap on baseball, too. The NFL took just as long to do something about it after it became a known problem as baseball did. It's just that it became a problem in baseball much later.

Perception is reality when you are in the world of PR. The NFL crushes MLB in the world of PR.

Did it take as long? Maybe. Were they holding congressional hearings with Jerry Rice and Walter Payton waving fingers and saying "I have never taken steroids"??? Or how about a public pissing match between the commish and the NFLPA? Was there a public "we'll take the tests and if over 20% are positive we'll actually do something about it" approach?

All of those things are PR disasters football never had to deal with because "took care" of the issue with their testing policy. A policy that started in 1987. Think about that for a second. During what many call the steroid era in baseball, '87-'06, the NFL was testing during the entire time.

I'll say it again: Perception.

[Buccaneer]

I brought up the same question earlier.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...ad.php?t=51828

It still saddens me that baseball gets slammed for steroids (and rightly so) but the roid-rage infested sport of football gets a free pass. From that thread, it seems that it is too much of a sacred cow for fans want to admit and that is why I am slowly getting turned off by it.

[Atocep]

Troy and Rkmsuf have summed it up.

The biggest factor is the homeruns. If 500, 714, and 755 didn't mean anything then MLB would be in the same position as the NFL right now and BALCO would have long been forgotten.

The NFL handled the PR side of things much better than baseball and a reason for that is the NFLPA actually works with the commissioner in the NFL. Selig had to battle Donald Fehr to get the pathetic 5 strikes and you're possibly out but not really and 3 strikes before you even get suspended policy. While baseball was just begining to admit that there may have been a steroid problem, the NFL was suspending players for use.

Fehr should have been removed from his position after the hearings in front of congress. It was clear that he didn't have the player's nor the sport's best interest in mind when they asked him about making changes to the current steroid policy and he gave them a spiel about collective bargaining.

If a finger has to be pointed somewhere for baseball's bad steroid PR, it goes right at the player's union.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Perception is reality when you are in the world of PR. The NFL crushes MLB in the world of PR.

Did it take as long? Maybe. Were they holding congressional hearings with Jerry Rice and Walter Payton waving fingers and saying "I have never taken steroids"??? Or how about a public pissing match between the commish and the NFLPA? Was there a public "we'll take the tests and if over 20% are positive we'll actually do something about it" approach?

All of those things are PR disasters football never had to deal with because "took care" of the issue with their testing policy. A policy that started in 1987. Think about that for a second. During what many call the steroid era in baseball, '87-'06, the NFL was testing during the entire time.

I'll say it again: Perception.

And that's what wrong - perception is not based on the reality. And I think you're placing the steroid era in baseball way too early - there might have been a few guys taking steroids as early as '87, but if they were, the effects certainly wasn't showing up in the stats until much later - at least not until around '93 or '94. There was no reason for baseball to be testing for steroids in '87. Nobody was even talking about steroids as a possible reason for inflated offense until around 2001.

Yeah, the NFL has better PR than MLB. It doesn't mean that it is any cleaner than baseball, and my suspicion is that the NFL's testing program probably isn't looking very hard for steroids. If it were, we would not have seen this explosion in the size, speed, and agility of NFL players (especially linemen) in the 20 years that the NFL has had a testing program. Twenty years ago, a 300 lb. lineman was a behemoth. Now, it's considered undersized by many. There is no way that these physical changes are natural.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Atocep

While baseball was just begining to admit that there may have been a steroid problem, the NFL was suspending players for use.

How many NFL players have actually been suspended for steroid use? Very, very few.

How many known NFL steroid users have been vilified as cheaters, whether the use was before or after the NFL implemented its testing program? Zero. In fact, some of them (Lyle Alzado, for example) are almost glorified for their renegade reputations.