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.
14 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
who cares
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.
Yeah
Eeeeek...
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.
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.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 1, 2007 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
re:
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...
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...
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:
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!
Deadspin
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.
Sportswriters Generally Creep Me Out
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?"
re:
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.
Javy Lopez
by Scott Christ on Mar 1, 2007 12:53 AM EST up reply actions

by 


















