McGwire comes clean

[STL FANATIC]

I think one of the big things people hang onto with the Steroid Era is the "what about the guys who didn't use?" question. I don't think that's so different than the questions you get from the other eras, but that seems to be an overwhelming concern with a lot of the recent talk.

Now, Charles Barkley brought up an interesting point in an interview he did in the last day or two. It doesn't address the HOF issue, but it does address the issue of how screwed (or more aptly not screwed) were the players who didn't use. He noted that while the steroid users by and large secured the biggest contracts, they raised baseball's revenue and the salary bar in general thereby raising the salaries of nearly every player in the bigs. Now, there's the players who maybe got trapped in the minors because they didn't use, so...

[Saintsfan]

I would be very troubled by the notion of McGwire, or any other player that admitted to drug use, specifically steroid use, getting into the Hall of Fame with Pete Rose not getting some kind of rapprochement from MLB. I think its a pretty big double standard that McGwire doesn't get banished for life if Rose's ban continues. I think it sends a bad message to kids, and shows a level of hypocrisy in the game, that in fairness may always have been there.

McGwire may not think his steroid usage affected his numbers. But it plainly did. Yes what Rose did was bad, but how is it worse than taking steroids? (Incidentally I think its a bit ridiculous to not take the health benefits of steroid use as a level of 'performance enhancing'.)

But the real worry for me, is that somehow it is saying that drug use is ok. And I think as a social message that is very troubling. It shows the level of hypocrisy in certain sections of American society, whereby you can have a 'War on Drugs' and yet continue to consider a guy like McGwire a hero.

But I wonder if the truth is that drugs have always, always, been Baseball dark, naughty secret? I wonder if there haven't always been things that players take to recover more quickly from injury, or to get extra muscles or whatever else. I wonder if in a way steroids aren't just an extension of that. I also wonder if the MLB hasn't been turning a blind eye to drug use for a long long time.

And isn't it interesting that Costas was the guy doing the interview? Hasn't Costas been fairly vocal deploring Barry Bonds for potential drug use? And yet he is the guy sitting opposite McGwire? Very interesting and kind of ironic. (Also raises questions about the MLB and the softball nature of the interview. Surely left to his own devices Costas would have been more searching in his questions?)

But anyways my point, either have McGwire AND Rose in the Hall, or neither.

[BBTV]

Rose's actions actually affected the way games were managed and played. Whether he's betting for or against his team, it still impacts how he uses (or over uses) players, because say he has a lot on his team in a certain game, then he's likely to over use some guys in order to try too hard to win, when guys may be a little hurt, or need a rest, etc. Obviously, if he's betting against his team, that has an impact too. With steroids, at least you know that they're playing to win, and whatever decisions they make (players have decisions to make during games too) are based on the desire to perform well and win. The two "crimes" are totally different, and should be treated as such.

That being said, I've already made my point about why Rose should be in the hall, so I won't beat that dead horse again here.

[Saintsfan]

Rose's actions actually affected the way games were managed and played. Whether he's betting for or against his team, it still impacts how he uses (or over uses) players, because say he has a lot on his team in a certain game, then he's likely to over use some guys in order to try too hard to win, when guys may be a little hurt, or need a rest, etc. Obviously, if he's betting against his team, that has an impact too. With steroids, at least you know that they're playing to win, and whatever decisions they make (players have decisions to make during games too) are based on the desire to perform well and win. The two "crimes" are totally different, and should be treated as such.

That being said, I've already made my point about why Rose should be in the hall, so I won't beat that dead horse again here.

I am not trying to say that the two are the same. I do get what your saying, and I guess that is what the MLB would say to cover there a s if they want to get McGwire into the Hall.

BUT it just feels very off kilter to me to have one banished from the game forever, and the other as a hitting coach on an Major League team and possibly entering the HOF.

If it were me, I would simply say that both were products of their era and let them both in, I think to do otherwise is to be unfaithful to the history of the game. I would also find someway of noting the players of the Black Sox. They didn't get to play out a full career so probably entry into the HOF would be too much, but at least some sort of acknowledgement that some of those guys were top quality players would seen worthwhile to me.

[BBTV]

Rose's actions actually affected the way games were managed and played. Whether he's betting for or against his team, it still impacts how he uses (or over uses) players, because say he has a lot on his team in a certain game, then he's likely to over use some guys in order to try too hard to win, when guys may be a little hurt, or need a rest, etc. Obviously, if he's betting against his team, that has an impact too. With steroids, at least you know that they're playing to win, and whatever decisions they make (players have decisions to make during games too) are based on the desire to perform well and win. The two "crimes" are totally different, and should be treated as such.

That being said, I've already made my point about why Rose should be in the hall, so I won't beat that dead horse again here.

I am not trying to say that the two are the same. I do get what your saying, and I guess that is what the MLB would say to cover there a s if they want to get McGwire into the Hall.

BUT it just feels very off kilter to me to have one banished from the game forever, and the other as a hitting coach on an Major League team and possibly entering the HOF.

If it were me, I would simply say that both were products of their era and let them both in, I think to do otherwise is to be unfaithful to the history of the game. I would also find someway of noting the players of the Black Sox. They didn't get to play out a full career so probably entry into the HOF would be too much, but at least some sort of acknowledgement that some of those guys were top quality players would seen worthwhile to me.

It's impossible to make the argument that Rose was a "product of his era". If you want to ban the guys like McGwire for life (like Rose), I won't argue that. I don't feel that way, but I woudn't really care if it happened. Put 'em all in the hall, just explain what they did.

[Saintsfan]

It's impossible to make the argument that Rose was a "product of his era". If you want to ban the guys like McGwire for life (like Rose), I won't argue that. I don't feel that way, but I woudn't really care if it happened. Put 'em all in the hall, just explain what they did.

I don't think its impossible to say that Rose was a product of his era. I think that its reasonably well documented that baseball players in the 60s and 70s were not immune from gambling. Perhaps they hid any gambling on baseball better than Rose was able to do, but I find it very difficult to believe that Rose was the only Baseball player of his era to have bet on baseball.

But that is a relatively minor point in this thread, and I would agree entirely with your last sentence.

[Gothamite]

Until all players have to take the field by passing a sign saying "Steriod use will get you banned from baseball forever", there's simply no comparison between McGwire and Pete Rose.

McGwire took advantage of a loophole in the CBA, if not outright violating baseball's rules, and Pete Rose repeatedly and knowingly broke baseball's First Commandment. Big difference.

[pcgd]

Re: LaRussa should have known what was going in his clubhouse:

I don't know if anyone here has been a part of a MLB team (I doubt it) so realistically we have no idea the amount of interaction that happens in the locker room between the players and the coaches. My understanding is generally the coach goes to his office and the players are in the locker room. I don't know that for fact of course. I do know in my time as a player at lower levels (HS and College) the coaches rarely interacted with players in the clubhouse/locker room. We could have literally done anything before, after, during games in that setting without coach ever seeing it. I could have shot up steroids right in front of my locker and as long as a player didn't turn me in, the coach would have had no clue. I'd imagine that gap gets bigger in the pros as the players are now more on their own.

Now would there be some knowledge of things that happened going up to the coach? Maybe, but if nobody was willing to snitch, realistically the coach never would realized.

I'm not justifying LaRussa's cluelessness and his sometimes "loyal to a fault" attitude (See Chris Duncan), I'm just offering some food for thought.

[JayJaxon]

That's a good point about the Babe, but I think the numbers would not have changed much he was just that good.

Though it would have been awesome to see Satchel Paige face the Babe.

Paige actually did face Ruth several times on barnstorming tours. Ruth was told he shouldn't but he did anyway.

[The_Admiral]

I don't know if anyone here has been a part of a MLB team (I doubt it) so realistically we have no idea the amount of interaction that happens in the locker room between the players and the coaches. My understanding is generally the coach goes to his office and the players are in the locker room.

Some certainly do. Earl Weaver is the textbook example of a skipper who placed a premium on keeping proper distance between himself and players so that it was strictly business when he had to bench them, option them, or cut them. You have Ozzie Guillen who liked to slap backs and pull pranks and sit around playing cards with the old farts like Thome and Dye. Ned Yost defended Rickie Weeks like a Little League dad till both of them found their ways out of the Brewers clubhouse, Lou Piniella took a swing at Rob Dibble once. It's been too long since I read Three Nights in August to remember exactly where TLR falls on the intensity/involvement continua (actually this would make a neat little Cartesian breakdown), but you know what? We're talking about the abuse of illegal drugs happening right under his nose. There's aloofness, and there's negligence, and turning a blind eye to federally banned substances in your clubhouse is negligence. Just as we're questioning McGwire's Hall of Fame credentials, we need to question La Russa's as well, because the cloud is all around him through his Oakland and St. Louis tenures.

[Gothamite]

That's a good point - it wasn't just one incident in Tony's clubhouse. Much of the worst of this mess happened under La Russa's very nose.

[STL FANATIC]

As far as the Pete Rose needs to be let in before they let steroid users in? Eh.

Pete Rose SHOULD be in the HOF. I believe that very strongly.

But the "crimes" aren't close to the same in action or in principle. The way one is handled in no way needs to affect the other.

[STL FANATIC]

That's a good point - it wasn't just one incident in Tony's clubhouse. Much of the worst of this mess happened under La Russa's very nose.

Then they need to consider EVERYONE'S case for the HOF in this era. How about the non-users who let it happen but benefited from hitting ahead/behind a steroid user?

It's one thing to decide to punish those who used. But if you decide you're going to punish anybody who benefitted from other players using, then you're opening a whole new debate.

[The_Admiral]

They are considering everyone's cases. That's part of why Andre Dawson's finally in this year and Roberto Alomar isn't. I'm not sure about punishing players based on lineup slots, but managers do need to be held accountable for the sins of their players in some capacity, because they willfully let players commit crimes on their premises. They're not mere teammates, they're in a position of authority. If Dusty Baker had a Hall of Fame career as a manager (he doesn't), I'd vote against him for standing idly by as Barry Bonds's head turned into a pumpkin, all the while essentially asking "what is this thing you call a steroid?" and doing everything to obstruct and obfuscate.

[STL FANATIC]

Well I can't entirely judge on that anyways. I'd put McGwire, Bonds, Sosa etc. all in the HOF. To me it's about what happened on the field, not how it happened. Can't change the fact that they were some of the greatest home run hitters of all time while they played baseball. Which is what I thought mattered.

I just don't think it's fair for the managers to be the only people punished (outside of the users) for not speaking up. They may have had the "authority" but which guys were the owners paying boatloads of dollars? They'd be every bit as likely to be blackballed by the owners as the players.

Plus I really do think PCGD has a point. There's a big difference between suspecting and knowing for sure. If the manager didn't see it, and a lot of if not most managers probably didn't, he can't even know for sure it's happening at the ballpark. It could be happening anywhere.

It's not the managers job to be a parent to the players. If they were doing things on their own, they were doing things on their own.

[Saintsfan]

Until all players have to take the field by passing a sign saying "Steriod use will get you banned from baseball forever", there's simply no comparison between McGwire and Pete Rose.

McGwire took advantage of a loophole in the CBA, if not outright violating baseball's rules, and Pete Rose repeatedly and knowingly broke baseball's First Commandment. Big difference.

I just can't agree with that sentiment. It was pretty clear to anyone taking steroids that they were cheating the game, otherwise why was it so clandestine. But even allowing for the moral truth in your statement, perhaps a better contrast would be between steroid use and the black sox scandal or the guy who got banned before them. But I personally think it's rubbish to say that they didn't know the punishment so they can't receive the worst punishment.

I think they are different crimes, but to my mind the crimes of McGwire and ARod and any other steroid user are worse than Rose's crime, whatever the MLB or anyone else says. My argument is not that the MLB should banish McGwire, more that this should lead them to a rapprochement with Rose.

[infrared41]

I think they are different crimes, but to my mind the crimes of McGwire and ARod and any other steroid user are worse than Rose's crime, whatever the MLB or anyone else says. My argument is not that the MLB should banish McGwire, more that this should lead them to a rapprochement with Rose.

Not even close. McGwire and A-Rod did steroids to help improve their performances. Pete Rose may have hindered performances to influence the outcome of a game to his liking. It's entirely possible that Pete Rose used a pitcher he knew had a lousy record against a hitter or a team. Or he may have sent up a pinch hitter who he knew couldn't hit the guy on the mound. And so on. All with the hopes of determining the outcome of the game in order to win a bet. If you can find me a steroid user who took steroids so they could play worse to maybe win a bet then you've got an argument. Until then, it's ridiculous to say steroid use is worse than betting on a game over which you have influence.

I can't wait to see how you rationalize this one.

[The_Admiral]

It was pretty clear to anyone taking steroids that they were cheating the game, otherwise why was it so clandestine.

Because they were procuring and using federally banned substances.

When the manager of a team is betting on (or more importantly, habitually refraining from betting on) the outcomes of games, which he can directly affect, the legitimacy of the games is thrown into question. Performance-enhancing drugs are a crime against the game (and a crime in general) too, but this is paramount for a reason. Baseball is held to lofty standards (one could argue unfairly so but I wouldn't) by its fans and the government that holds the antitrust exemption Sword of Damocles above it. They can't let there be any doubt that the games are honest contests. Pete knew it was the one thing you cannot do in baseball and he did it anyway. He made his bed. It makes for a tragic story, that here one of baseball's finest hitters is barred from the Hall of Fame, but you have to make "no gambling whatsoever" stick for good, and that means keeping him out. You have to make "no steroids" stick too.

[rangerfan94]

Back when the "chase for *61" was on, no one had a problem with Mac and Sosa belting balls out at record numbers.

Any one without common sense could tell these guys were juiced. But, all the focus was on who would reach that magic number. All was good in the baseball world that September. The ESPN countdown, Fans were coming back to the game that had lost a World Series due to Greed, or whatever. The MLB world went nuts the night Mac hit that HR. I watched it, and saw a very genuine man talk about it after the game. I have an opinion, and I think BASEBALL LET THEM CHEAT, as some former players are calling them cheaters. The game needed an uplifting at the time,and these players WRONG as they were did just that.

[infrared41]

Back when the "chase for *61" was on, no one had a problem with Mac and Sosa belting balls out at record numbers.

Any one without common sense could tell these guys were juiced. But, all the focus was on who would reach that magic number. All was good in the baseball world that September. The ESPN countdown, Fans were coming back to the game that had lost a World Series due to Greed, or whatever. The MLB world went nuts the night Mac hit that HR. I watched it, and saw a very genuine man talk about it after the game. I have an opinion, and I think BASEBALL LET THEM CHEAT, as some former players are calling them cheaters. The game needed an uplifting at the time,and these players WRONG as they were did just that.

Others have already pointed this out but I'd like to say it again. I'm just using rangerfan94's post as a jumping off point.

McGwire, Sosa, and the home run race of 1998 did not "save" baseball. They did not "uplift" baseball etc. Here's why, by 1998 Cal Ripken had already happened. The Cleveland Indians were in year 4 of a 6 year consecutive sell-out streak. There may have still been pockets of "resistance" and Sosa and McGwire may have helped bring some of those fans back but the revival was well under way by the time 1998 rolled around. Let's also not forget the fact that two new teams were added in 1998 which increased overall attendance as well. Here are the numbers...

Baseball attendance in 1993. (last full season before strike) 70,257,938 (also an expansion year)

Baseball attendance in 1995 (the first season after the strike) 50,469,236.

Baseball attendance in 1997 (pre-chase for 62) 62,899,062

Baseball attendance in 1998 70,601,147. (also an expansion year)

Baseball attendance in 1999 70,103,204.

From 1992 to an expansion year in 1993 attendance jumped by 15 million. (55,643,062 to 70,257,938) Wouldn't it be safe to say that the jump in 1998 had as much to do with expansion as it did with the home run chase?

McGwire and Sosa didn't "save" baseball. Looking at the attendance jump from 1992 to 1993, it could even be argued that their home run race didn't do much of anything. The increase in attendance could just as easily be attributed to expansion.

Just saying...