There's something I must admit about steroids: I've not read the Mitchell Report. I've downloaded it, but it's 409 pages long, and I simply haven't had the time to devote to it yet.
But I've read several news stories, including this one about the Todd Hundley and David Segui connections to the former Mets clubhouse guy, Kirk Radomski, who was dealing the drugs. As a baseball fan, I'm pretty pissed off that so many players -- and you know that it wasn't only the ninety or so that are list -- were using human growth hormone or a variety of steroids. Lots of people talk about how this is a victimless crime; "No one got hurt." Personally, I think they have no idea what they're talking about.
If I were the last cut for my position and didn't make the team because the guy above me was cheating, I'd be furious. It might even be enough for me to stoop to the same level. That's one argument about why Barry Bonds started taking the clear and the cream; he was so jealous of the accolades that Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire received that he said, "Just wait to see the numbers I put up if I took that stuff."
I used to be in the camp that would argue for including Bonds in the Hall of Fame because he played like one of the all-time greats before using. But my sentiments are changing. With Roger Clemens too. I've never liked either of these players, but I had respect for their abilities. Clemens was always the guy who worked harder than everyone else. I don't doubt that he retained that work ethic; the problem is he took advantage of a substance he had no legal right to use. Who wouldn't want to heal faster than usual and gain strength when your career depends on it? Before Clemens left Boston, he was a fading great; then he went to Toronto, won a couple of Cy Young Awards, and placed him on the path toward more than 350 wins. Better than Greg Maddux? No. Maddux, Glavine, these guys were (and are) true ball players, not bullshitters. I think it's telling that a group of Little League coaches in Texas may disinvite Clemens for a speaking engagement.
One of the articles that I read recently that surprised me was by Murray Chass of the New York Times. He pointed out that sixteen years ago Commissioner Fay Vincent issued a memo to teams. The following is from that article:
Mitchell, however, cites one development in his report that may be its most overlooked element. Mitchell mentions a June 7, 1991, memo Vincent wrote to clubs when he was commissioner in which he added steroids to baseball’s list of banned substances.
After the enactment of a federal law, Mitchell wrote, Vincent advised clubs that baseball’s drug policy prohibited the use of “all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual” doesn’t have a prescription.
The memo should have gotten the clubs’ attention, but it didn’t.
“My memo was totally ignored by all,” Vincent wrote in an e-mail message Sunday. He added: “The point was to alert the baseball world to the recent inclusion of steroids as illegal prohibited substances under federal law. But the union did nothing to underscore my memo and I think the clubs ignored it as irrelevant.”
I don't know what effect this will have to counter the argument that "no one knew" what was going on. If nothing else, it should shut up the stupid fans who say "they weren't doing anything illegal." Yes, they were. Steroids were -- and are -- illegal to possess without a prescription. Perhaps some players received legally prescribed steroid kits, but if they're acquiring it through guys like Radomski, then it's still illegally obtained.
Perhaps my anger will be assuaged with time, but this is not a story that will be quieted by spring training. This is a cloud over the game for the forseeable future. For at least five years and probably more. Rafael Palmeiro will never be elected to the Hall of Fame. Neither will Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa, and even Bonds and Clemens will probably miss out on being elected in their first year of eligibility.
One last note for now: The Mitchell Report is effectively an argument; the players basically kept their mouths shut, so the court of public opinion is decidedly against the quiet ones. But the Mitchell Report can't be taken as the definite truth -- not yet. But I think all of the named players will have a difficult time proving that Mitchell was wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment