Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Blake Griffin Slam Dunks: NBA Jam Style

Gary Matthews Jr. probably uses steroids, and I don't care

A Jeff Passan column at Yahoo! lets me in on the inside scoop that I, as a sports fan, have a moral dilemma on my hands, because now I'm so troubled by the state of it all -- all this cheating, all this lying, all these non-heroes! -- that I don't know if I even like sports anymore.

Whatever, dude. The history of organized sports is littered with cheaters and con artists and scams. I don't know why the last three years or so of all of this still strikes sportswriters in such a way that they have to jump up on the soapbox every time another athlete sauces up for the benefit of his career. But frankly I've never understood hero worship of athletes, or hoping that they're better than the average human being. The whole thing for me is similar to Deadspin and its readers going bananas every time there's a photo capturing an athlete drinking and having fun like millions of other adults. I don't get what's so amazing about that, and I don't get what's so horrifying about steroids.

It's cheating, and it's illegal, and it's a crime. And of course it should not be allowed. No one argues that. But this is the era we live in, and we can't change what has happened, or even what is happening in the present and likely the near future. Eventually, testing will catch up to what's on the market now. But it goes with what Passan is saying now, and what others have said. Testing will be hard-pressed to become as advanced as the drugs. This is a market that has been five steps ahead of the law at every turn. You can only test for what you have knowledge of, and the performance-enhancing drug industry gets that knowledge faster than its opponents do.

I do think, though, that there will come a day when the long arm of the law has its way. I don't know how long it'll last, and I don't see it being all that long, but there will be major justice at some point, and a lot of heads will roll.

Until then, I'm going to, I don't know, watch sports the same way I always have, if that's alright with everyone. In the meantime, it'd be nice if we wouldn't appoint Ryan Howard or anyone else as the savior of all that is good. Why is Ryan Howard's word better than anyone else's? I completely agree with Passan on one point: You have to suspect everyone, or no one.

But I don't agree that anyone unwilling to think that way is "living in a cocoon" where "sports are good and righteous and fair." Anyone that has ever thought that sports are good and righteous and fair probably needs to look elsewhere for people to champion. I don't expect Gary Matthews Jr. or Rafael Palmeiro or Evander Holyfield or the Pittsburgh Steelers or Barry Bonds to be any more or less perfect than my neighbor. At least Evander Holyfield's kids don't run up and down the hallway screaming bloody murder.

Comment 14 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

who cares
I think he did it to get paid. That's the problem with these contracts now a days, the better you perform the bigger bucks you get.

So why not for one year to get the big check then cut back(besides it's cheating and morally wrong).

I think players should get paid based on years in the league, then years on the same team( a little dedication here), then Stats. This takes the pressure off Stats alone.

OR just start banning players for 10 years as they get busted. That will not it off faster the shit on a greasy day.

by merdon1332000 on Feb 28, 2007 1:28 AM EST reply actions  

Yeah
Damn those contracts that are based on actual performance rather than perceived value. Damn them straight to hell!
www.beltwaysportsbeat.com

by CStoneNo37 on Feb 28, 2007 9:32 AM EST up reply actions  

Eeeeek...
Baseball is a business.  People should not get paid more for working as...say...a mechanic for 50 years than 3 years.  UNLESS, they are better at their job.  While a lot of times with experience comes skill that is NOT a given.  Sometimes the game passes you by, you shouldn't be rewarded for that.

Plus you're going to have guys playing for as many years as they can, teams keeping young and booting vets to keep costs down...and general bad business.  "Dedication" ain't a one-way street brother, teams are just as responsible as the players.

I'm not saying I want players on "the juice," but rather that it makes no sense to NOT reward a player for his performance.

You're also confusing loyalty as being a thing of the past.  The United States of Baseball blog has one of my favorite takes on this myth.

David Vincent of the Society for American Baseball Research might have been thinking over all those curious free agent moves when he conducted a recent survey on overall player mobility. Vincent found 51 players played for a single team for at least nine years in the 1951 to 1975 era. In the 1976 to 2002 era, according to the SABR numbers, 48 players showed that kind of single-team longevity.

Another study, done by ESPN.com, took a look at the longest tenured players of the different Major League teams in 1975, the last full year of the old reserve clause era. Back in `75, signature players averaged 11.2 seasons with their teams. The survey found that the number stayed at virtually the exact same level (11.1 seasons) in 2004.

Consider those studies. In the historic transition from reserve-clause feudalism to free agency's capitalism, the drop off in long-term, single-team stars went from 51 all the way down to . . . 48. In the longest club tenures, the drop was from 11.2 all the way down to . . . 11.1.

Read the post here if you're interested.

by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 1, 2007 11:40 AM EST up reply actions  

re:
David Vincent presents pretty much a bunch of hot air. It's not clear he measures player loyalty.
1951-1975 51 players played for a single team. This era is when owners got to treat players "as property". So isn't this more of a reflection of the owners loyalty rather than players?
1975-2004: 48 players showed the longevity. So now we have flipped to player loyalty?
Anyhow, for a player to stay that long on a single team there has to be a mutual agreement between parties. So the numbers do reflect ownership loyalty. Also, what is the sample size? There are about 10 more teams and hundreds more players difference between the two eras. Should we expect to see an increase from 51 just to say things have remained the same? If so, what percentage increase? Is there a correlation to longevity and staying on a team? Teams have certainly kept favorite players past their prime for reasons that extend beyond their play on the field.

ESPN chose to look at the longest tenured players. So what? I would not be surprised if there is a strong correlation between longevity and playing on a single team. So perhaps the study is saying signature players remained with their teams about 11 years because both parties benefited. Not solely because of player loyalty. A solid analysis shouldn't cherry pick the exceptional cases to make general statements.

by drj on Mar 1, 2007 1:18 PM EST up reply actions  

again...
the whole debate is misguided b/c the messengers (ie sportswriters) haven't done their homework.  why no talk of pitchers?  

i know of no substance that makes a dude better.  think of 99.9% of the cats that have gotten caught: no-namers.  drugs really improved their ability?  

as was mentioned earlier, owners/gms bear a big burden for the state of things.  matthews' numbers last year, while definitely career bests, no way warrant the salary bump he got.  

by jq higgins on Feb 28, 2007 7:54 AM EST reply actions  

Hey...
I'll bet you wouldn't have mentioned Deadspin if I hadn't brought it up yesterday.

Jeff Passan probably worships all those players from the 1960's hopped up like maniacs on greenies. Somebody should ask him if we need a moral outrage crusade for that shit.

by Tony on Feb 28, 2007 9:39 AM EST reply actions  

re:
I'm really surprised to see a football team somehow implicated in this steroids mess.

Murders, felons, misdemeanors are no longer a surprise with football. General thuggery seems to be the norm for the teflon sport. But steroids? Now I'm morally outraged!

by drj on Feb 28, 2007 9:59 AM EST reply actions  

Deadspin
I agree that mostly those stories of drunken quarterbacks and David Eckstein drinking tequila and all that shit straight are pretty dumb.

However, athletes who go out and get drunk beore gameday, if caught, deserve ridicule. Jamie Walker and Kevin Millar having a couple of beers after a game? not so much. Rex Grossman going out the night before the superbowl (if its true, kinda doubt it is)? not so much.

Then again, if some dude wants to jeopardize his career what do I care. But then again that's kinda the point. The internets and digital cameras change things.

by pipkin on Feb 28, 2007 10:40 AM EST reply actions  

Sportswriters Generally Creep Me Out
Knowing what I know about sportswriters and the fact they will say and do anything to get their copy noticed or get a free meal in the clubhouse. Is it any wonder our top athletes,(take any sport) who are competing for million dollar contracts, will say and do anything to have a career years and earn a contract that will set them and their families up for a lifetime?
That brings me to the juiced up stats and/or record books that we all place so much value on when we attempt to gauge a contemporary players worth. Beyond winning a bar bet, any Owner, General Manager, coach or causal fan that does not remove the best and worst seasons from a player's lifetime stats when evaluating the player's body of work, is just plain ignorant of todays facts of life.
It may be unfair to tar some of the righteous players with the same brush, but it seems the only fair approach todays question of;"did he or didn't he?"
I thought it happier to be dead / to die for a World Series victory, than live for mediocerity.

by chalkdust on Feb 28, 2007 3:47 PM EST reply actions  

re:
what if the player's worst season is his most recent. Especially if the dude is old, I'd be kind of leary of possible dropoff.

The perils of his walk year being his best are amply demonstrated by Beltre and Erstad, to think of the first two that pop into my head.

by pipkin on Feb 28, 2007 8:04 PM EST up reply actions  

Javy Lopez
"I don't want any credit. I'm not looking for credit. You know what? I don't want any blame if we're horse shit, either." -- Jim Leyland

by Scott Christ on Mar 1, 2007 12:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah...
...because you've met a representative sample of sportswriters in your life. Give me a break.
--- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

by EmbassyRow on Mar 2, 2007 4:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The SB Nation blog covering the Baltimore Orioles.

Please read our Community Guidelines

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Dscn6381_small
Oriole Birthday Mantra.
Small
On Being an Oriole Fan in Israel
Wieters_small
The O's and Early Bullpen Usage
Mlb_orioles_wieters_240_small
O-R-I-O-L-E-S! *NOT* Day-O!
Cc_small
Awesome Stuff

Recent FanPosts

Imagescalwmbnw_small
Brian Roberts story continues to unfold
Small
Okay, okay, I give! I'm sucked in!
4fgfgjfxe30x64uwibpb59rg9_small
Help with Baseball Statistics
Small
I have to ask...
091_small
Rooting for the Red Sox
4fgfgjfxe30x64uwibpb59rg9_small
Can we get a broadcasting coach or trainer for Mike Bordick?
Pbr_12_pack_small
Literary Lounge

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads

Tankeray_medium
Tankeray provided by dayzd toe


Bowser

Cc_small Stacey

Koopa Troopas

Baltimore_oriole_avatar_small zknower

P1030831_small 2632

Rainbowsmall_small duck

Esskay_small Eat More Esskay

Youppi-192_small Andrew_G

Goombas

Birdman_small birdman

Thumbnail_small j.q. higgins

Img_0927_small dfa

4840750964_54cdc24eef_small James F

091_small WestcoastO'sFan

2009_june22_philliekid3_small twistedlogic

Yoshi_small PaulFolk