Monday, February 09, 2009

A Philosophical Question


If Alex Rodriguez hit a home run off Roger Clemens, and both were taking steroids, who had the advantage? And if Clemens struck out A-Rod, then what?


I don't know how to begin sussing out the news that A-Rod can now be called A-Roid. It is now apparent that, 'round about 2003, as many as 7% of major leaguers tested positive for steroids. Some were players who were hoping to hang on in a ruthless sport where even the slightest slip would send you away, never to return. But it is also clear that some supremely talented players were more Faust than Topps. The picture I've posted is A-Rod when he played for the Appleton Foxes back at the very beginning of his career. He was a big dude even then.


So how do you deal with this? There has been a great show of moral vanity regarding Mark McGwire, who is strongly suspected of being a steroid user. It is worth remembering that Cooperstown is already well-represented with reprobates, with Ty Cobb at the top of the list. It is a matter of public record that Babe Ruth used a corked bat. Do we kick him out of Cooperstown?


I really don't know what to think any more. What do you think?

8 comments:

Gino said...

why dont we just all accept that baseball is as ruthless a sport as could have been invented, and why the same nation that gave way to the likes of Carnegie/ Rockafellar/Kennedys would naturally be the same one who national sport brought forth Ruth/Cobb/ARod.

or, we could also bring back the dead ball era. when baseball was dirty, dishonest, and played the way it was invented.

prailbird said...

We will never more than likely be able to know who used and when for sure. The fact that ARod now has gone down means that we have to think that everyone did. He was one of the golden boys that few thought that he did anything wrong besides mess around with the Material Girl. I think that Frank Thomas, Tony Gwynn, John Kruk, and Curt Schilling were the only ones that were not on something. We have to guess that everyone was doing it. Bonds, Big Mac, Palmero, and Co. should all go to the Hall seeing as how they have the numbers. That goes for anyone that played with these guys that has come under question.

rickbrick said...

I have officially given up on baseball. Finding out that A-Rod was on steroids, Ruth used corked bats, and everyone else in between finding their own way to cheat, I've just given up on it. Here I come cricket...

Mark Heuring said...

Gino,

I agree with you. Hence the "moral vanity" reference in re McGwire.

Prailbird,

Kruk sure didn't take steroids. One look at him tells that tale. Ditto Gwynn.

Rickbrick,

Cricket? That's a bit of a sticky wicket, no?

Gino said...

well, cricket is kinda like baseball,aint it?


and while we're acknowleding the dirt of baseball, let put pete rose in the hall, where he belongs.

Anonymous said...

People who play baseball are human beings. We all know human beings are imperfect.

It may be time to let the past be the past. From what I've read, it wasn't specifically illegal to take steriods at the time A Rod has admitted taking them. Rather than wasting time going after athletes from that era, why not step up enhancement now and come down heavy on those who cheat?

The message should be the same. We have rules. All players must follow them. If you don't follow them, you will be punished.

Brad Carlson said...

The pitcher on steroids has a definite advantage over a hitter on 'roids. An extra 2-3 MPH on a fastball can make all the difference in the world (See Dan Naulty). However, if you can't get the bat through the strike zone fast enough, steroids ain't gonna help that. But it can make great hitters (i.e. Bonds, A-Rod) that much better, ala turning 400-foot outs into 450-foot home runs.

BonnieClyde said...

Not sure if you realized this or not, but you linked to The History Bluff when talking about Babe Ruth. They're like TheOnion.com of history.