Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
February 12, 2009
Steroid Poll

Sky Kalkman is running a poll measuring disappointment in various entities revolving around the steroid issue. Help him get a decent sample size by voting. If you want to be unbiased, vote first and then come back and read why I voted the way I did.

I voted for the union. The best argument I've heard against steroid use is that a few players using pushes clean players to cheat to keep pace. The fans get to see better baseball, the owners make more money, as do the cheaters. The people hurt the most are the clean players. It's players hurting players. That strikes me as a problem for the union.

One reason the union agreed to open the CBA was that players who felt the pressure to cheat pushed for it. The MLBPA could have instituted their own testing, with the players deciding on penalties (loss of pension, loss of licensing revenue, eventual publicity), and even peer pressure against the users. Instead, the owners, media and government are trying to clean up the problem.


Posted by David Pinto at 11:17 AM | Cheating | TrackBack (0)
Comments

You make a good argument, though I think it unrealistic to expect a union to set up a process pitting one group of its members against another, with testing, inquiries and punishments (for anything other than purposes of striking or enforcing union membership). That's why God invented management.

I would have voted first and ssecond for two choices that didn't: 1) The Lords of Baseball (by which I mean the Selig and the Owners + the MLBPA); 2) Washington Politicians (those in Congress conducting public hearings + George W. Bush, who though steroids in baseball a problem worth addressing in the State of the Unoin address and beyond). The Lords are No. 1, because both the Owners and the Union have purposefully turned a blind eye to steroid use while protesting otherwise.

Posted by: Capybara at February 12, 2009 12:02 PM

I agree Capybara, the issue comes back to the owners and Bud Selig. Ultimately the buck stops with them. I'd add the media second, as they are meant to be a watchdog not just stenographers, and they didn't dig deep enough during the height of the steroid era. Sort of like the media in the run up to the Iraq war. I don't blame the players that much, as peer pressure is a very powerful force.

Posted by: Yaramah at February 12, 2009 12:21 PM

The results so far match the results from our chat: there's plenty of disappointment for the actions of Bud, the MLBPA, and the media, but the players themselves actually lag behind all three of those groups. And while ARod and other big names create the big story, there's been ONE vote out of more than a 100 for "ARod or other superstars". We seem to be pissed at the organizers, not the people who the stories are about.

Posted by: Sky at February 12, 2009 12:23 PM

There needs to be another option: All of the Above. I can't single any one group out.

Posted by: rbj at February 12, 2009 12:23 PM

There needs to be another option: All of the Above. I can't single any one group out.

Posted by: rbj at February 12, 2009 12:27 PM

Well, I voted for the media mainly because of the sanctimony of some. (I'm looking at you Jon Heyman) When some consider the fact that they know more than others because of their presence in the clubhouse, but they wholly missed or intentionally ignored the rampant abuse of PEDs, they are no longer worth listening to. Now that the cat is out of the bag, they are at the front refusing to vote for players for the Hall, enticing others to break the law so names can be revealed, and entirely neglecting their own complicity. The players did it for money, the owners did it for money, what did the media do it for?

Posted by: Nick at February 12, 2009 01:00 PM

I'm with David. The owners aren't clean but at least they proposed testing. The union wouldn't budge. They held off to the bitter end, only agreeing after initial testing demonstrated substantial usage--and then only agreeing to an inadequate penalty scheme. I don't thing Congress belongs in the baseball/steroids regulation business but without their pressure the union never would have agreed to the current penalties.

Posted by: Mark at February 12, 2009 01:43 PM

I voted for the media. I am convinced most in the media knew the scope of the problem in the 90's and just kept quiet. Media pressure might have caused MLB and the PA to act sooner than they did. Today the hypocrites claim outrage.

If I were a player in that environment before 2004 I would use. Nobody is going to call an unemployed player a hero because he did not use, since nobody would say other players were using. Risking your job and financial security (more money) by not using when other players are, and with there being little risk of getting caught because there was no testing, seems stupid.

The biggest risk to MLB would be if A-Rod got nailed using in 2007. This would expose the fact the testing process is flawed, most likely by design. Looking at his stats, A-Rod either obtained no benefit from using in 2001-2003, or he used before and after these periods, in at least some years. The latter seems more likely to me.

Posted by: Paul at February 13, 2009 03:16 AM

I voted for the media. What I wrote long ago was that the writers had access and the responsibility to report news. To suggest that they didn't know is to imply they are not competent. To say they kept it quiet to continue to have access to players explicitly states they were complicit in the cover up. The media have a responsibility to keep the other parties honest. Players cheat, owners look the other way, superstars push for any edge they can get and the union keeps misdeeds quiet so as to not damage the overall collective bargaining power of the whole. That's part of baseball, it's up to the press to keep them all honest and they failed.

Now consider the Scott Van pelt suspension for calling out Bud's big salary and Peter Gammons softball interview with A-Rod. Is it a coincidence that E$PN has a $trategic partner$hip with MLB? Nope, and that suggests the relationship creates a conflict of interest that destroys their credibility. Just my (not so) humble opinion

Posted by: Joe at February 13, 2009 07:30 AM

I voted for the people who brought us the 1994 World Series, then spent 15 years shaking down American cities (well, except for San Francisco) for taxpayer funded stadiums, and who winked at the steroid era that was raking in all that cash for MLB, and now want to throw the players under the bus.

Posted by: Sabertooth at February 13, 2009 08:58 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?