Gman
01-12-2010, 10:18 AM
After McGwire's coming out party the analysts on MLB Network spent a ton of time dwelling on the affects on his performance and how his records should be disregarded because of the PED influence.
What if tomorrow:
1. science comes out with an injected drug that alleviates the need for Lasix surgery? One of the benefits of the new drug is it doesn't just restore the poorest vision to 20-20 it takes it beyond that to a Ted Williams-like 20-15.
2. Scientists working on osteoporosis come up with a new drug to eradicate the disease. They discover that the side affects make it good for all of us because it not only strengthens bone mass but it also improves the strength of our tendons and ligaments.
3. Scientists discover a drug that fights obesity. You take it and it improves your metabolism. A side affect is that it also improves muscle mass and it's safe for everyone.
These are utopian extremes but science is definitely marching down this path. There's too much to be gained from improving the human condition. So are we going to deny baseball players (or any athletes) the benefits of these new advancements because they will taint the old records? You can say, "if it's not cheating then it will be legitimate". But it's still performance enhancing so hallowed records will be broken.
Remember that before around 2003-2004 steroids were very loosely dealt with in baseball rules. I believe it fell under the ancient "foreign substance" rule which was really weak. The line between steroids being cheating-or-not cheating was even fuzzier than the obvious things it was designed for like a spitball thrown by HOF Gaylord Perry (he was even caught at it!) or mudballs thrown by HOF Whitey Ford. And I'm pretty sure US Law at the time only dealt with steroid "distribution". No one was putting a microscope on this and screaming foul until one of the greatest players baseball has ever seen Barry Bonds, went from Babe Ruth to God-with-a-bat. That was a full 4-5 years after the McGwire/Sosa debacle.
It's clearer to us now that it was cheating. And we can look at the loose wording of the rule then and manipulate into being cheating. But, it wasn't that clear before around 2002-2003. If it was you wouldn't have had so many players doing them. There will always be some percentage of cheats but this went way too far beyond that percentage. So, the cheating-line was definitely not clear in my mind. And the fact that steroids helped heal injuries for players made it that much more easily justifiable if they were unsure on which side of the cheating line steroids resided.
I don't know what the answers to this are but I think it'll all be moot in the years to come. We're going to have drugs to make us better physically. Those drugs may help batters more than pitchers or vice-versa. It'll be very hard to deny athletes the right to those improvements. Maybe they should just put a new wing on the HOF for the "scientifically enhanced" generations.
What if tomorrow:
1. science comes out with an injected drug that alleviates the need for Lasix surgery? One of the benefits of the new drug is it doesn't just restore the poorest vision to 20-20 it takes it beyond that to a Ted Williams-like 20-15.
2. Scientists working on osteoporosis come up with a new drug to eradicate the disease. They discover that the side affects make it good for all of us because it not only strengthens bone mass but it also improves the strength of our tendons and ligaments.
3. Scientists discover a drug that fights obesity. You take it and it improves your metabolism. A side affect is that it also improves muscle mass and it's safe for everyone.
These are utopian extremes but science is definitely marching down this path. There's too much to be gained from improving the human condition. So are we going to deny baseball players (or any athletes) the benefits of these new advancements because they will taint the old records? You can say, "if it's not cheating then it will be legitimate". But it's still performance enhancing so hallowed records will be broken.
Remember that before around 2003-2004 steroids were very loosely dealt with in baseball rules. I believe it fell under the ancient "foreign substance" rule which was really weak. The line between steroids being cheating-or-not cheating was even fuzzier than the obvious things it was designed for like a spitball thrown by HOF Gaylord Perry (he was even caught at it!) or mudballs thrown by HOF Whitey Ford. And I'm pretty sure US Law at the time only dealt with steroid "distribution". No one was putting a microscope on this and screaming foul until one of the greatest players baseball has ever seen Barry Bonds, went from Babe Ruth to God-with-a-bat. That was a full 4-5 years after the McGwire/Sosa debacle.
It's clearer to us now that it was cheating. And we can look at the loose wording of the rule then and manipulate into being cheating. But, it wasn't that clear before around 2002-2003. If it was you wouldn't have had so many players doing them. There will always be some percentage of cheats but this went way too far beyond that percentage. So, the cheating-line was definitely not clear in my mind. And the fact that steroids helped heal injuries for players made it that much more easily justifiable if they were unsure on which side of the cheating line steroids resided.
I don't know what the answers to this are but I think it'll all be moot in the years to come. We're going to have drugs to make us better physically. Those drugs may help batters more than pitchers or vice-versa. It'll be very hard to deny athletes the right to those improvements. Maybe they should just put a new wing on the HOF for the "scientifically enhanced" generations.