2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

Oh, I don't think that's necessary. I don't think anyone is saying the players are not culpable at all (let alone not culpable strictly because they were ordered/encouraged/rewarded from baseball's leadership by taking PEDs.)

But baseball did, in fact, implicitly — and maybe explicitly, who knows — condone the use of PEDs. That's a fact. And if we are to "blame" anyone for the Steroid Era, the players don't deserve all of that blame. Lots of people profited from what they did.

 

Has anyone adequately explained how players were supposed to understand that taking steroids constituted cheating while eating amphetamines made them gamers?

 

The distinction would seem to be this: Presuming steroids are riskier to health, both short-term and, in particular, long-term, steroid use forced fellow players into a difficult decision - your health or your paycheck - that amphetamines did not, to the same degree.

 

Steroids are worse for you than speed?

 

I don't know that anyone was making that presumption in the '80s and '90s, nor do I think the presumption is necessarily true.

 

I don't know. I presumed so just for the sake of argument. Because that has to be the basis of distinction, right? Otherwise, it's tough to see any difference at all.

 

I guess we have to define "dangerous," right?

More likely to kill you today? Greenies. But anecdotally, the chances seem negligible.

More likely to cause gross side effects that we might want to protect players from having to deal with? Steroids. And, anecdotally, the chances are pretty high.

 

That's because there is no difference. It's just people trying to stake the moral high ground on behalf of the old guys who Played The Right Way.

I don't think anyone can honestly say they think Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle would have said "no thanks" if they had the opportunity to take magic pills and hit 65 home runs.

 

There is no way in hell I'll believe that "they all" did it. Literally, all? No way. Some who didn't never surfaced in the big leagues. Some who didn't missed out on big stats and big pay days. Thus, those who did it cheated those who didn't, along with the game and those from the past who didn't use PEDs, in terms of shoving them aside in the record books.

Selig, Fehr and their assorted bunglers and henchmen should have handled it all differently. But what, we're all now supposed to surrender to and endorse that bad behavior?

Voting now (like getting through this thread) is like trying to step through a leftover-but-live minefield well after the war is over. I'm stepping lightly and slowly.

 

You know what I think the big difference is?

We still associate steroids with East Germans and Russians in the '60s and '70s.

There's this phenomenon in behavioral economics known as "anchoring." In other words, even if gasoline is a bargain at $3.40/gallon compared to the world market at large, it still feels like a lot to us because we are committed to a price of about $1/gallon that we got used to for so many years. That's our "anchor."

When East Germans and Russians used steroids in the Olympics, we developed this notion that they were something used by cheating communists. The bad guys. And I think that's the psychological hurdle right now - how deeply ingrained this view of PEDs is. Even though there may be no rational difference.

 

Interesting argument to be had about the nature of the enhancement. Greenies create a perceptual advantage (ie, alertness). Steroids and HGH and EPO, etc., can create a structural advantage (ie., strength).

Both increase player confidence.

 

My favorite SI issue ever was from Anderson's big year. There were steroids on the cover, and a big blowout about their prevalance.

Then a story right beside it about Brady Anderson and how stupendous it was that he was having this breakout season.

Complete lack of self-awareness by the magazine.