Today's HOF got me thinking about the trend that has been sweeping through baseball the last year or so. The Steroid Hunt is this era's Salem Witch Trials or Red Scare (except, obviously, much, much less serious).
Baseball writers, pundits, fans, and talking heads are condemning players for something that they have either a) not been convicted of, or b) wasn't illegal as outlined by baseball rules to begin with.
It should not be about what we believe happened. It should be about what evidence that we have to support what we believe happened. McGwire never tested positive (if he was even tested at all). Bonds has never tested positive. Clemens has never tested positive. Why is that not enough? I realize that sounds naive, but in a country whose legal system is based (supposedly) upon the fact that someone is innocent until a preponderance of evidence supports their guilt, it should be enough.
Big Mac did not get voted into the HOF simply based upon the fact that he looked as though he took steroids. Does anyone realize how ridiculous that sounds? He looked as though he broke the "rules" (which, again, did not exist at the time). His look will keep him out of the Hall. Crazy.
The worst part is, the people that turned a blind eye to the problem in the '90's and lauded these "homerun heroes" are leading the charge against them today. As though their demonizing of the players today will absolve them of their sin of shoddy journalism. As though destroying a player's reputation based on suspicion will make up for all of the tell-tale signs that they missed when the problem was at its zenith.
When does it stop? When do we, as fans, say enough is enough and stop questioning everyone who's numbers jump, or who gets into better shape, or who develops backne (okay, bad example)? When do we as fans place the blame at the foot of the baseball executives who benefited from the Summer of '98, who failed to stop the growing problem. When do we as fans stop suspecting every player who was unfortunate enough to play during the "steroid era" and accept the fact that we cannot rewrite history, and that we must move forward.
I am not naive enough to believe that McGwire, Bonds, et al did not use steroids. I simply believe that baseball did not care enough about the problem until 2003-2004 to do anything about, so neither should I. I am not going to keep guys out of a HOF simply because I suspect they cheated. That is, simply put, not fair. I will, however, keep guys out that I know did cheat, as laid out in the most recent rules, as proven through evidence (Palmeiro) or admission.
Baseball writers, pundits, fans, and talking heads are condemning players for something that they have either a) not been convicted of, or b) wasn't illegal as outlined by baseball rules to begin with.
It should not be about what we believe happened. It should be about what evidence that we have to support what we believe happened. McGwire never tested positive (if he was even tested at all). Bonds has never tested positive. Clemens has never tested positive. Why is that not enough? I realize that sounds naive, but in a country whose legal system is based (supposedly) upon the fact that someone is innocent until a preponderance of evidence supports their guilt, it should be enough.
Big Mac did not get voted into the HOF simply based upon the fact that he looked as though he took steroids. Does anyone realize how ridiculous that sounds? He looked as though he broke the "rules" (which, again, did not exist at the time). His look will keep him out of the Hall. Crazy.
The worst part is, the people that turned a blind eye to the problem in the '90's and lauded these "homerun heroes" are leading the charge against them today. As though their demonizing of the players today will absolve them of their sin of shoddy journalism. As though destroying a player's reputation based on suspicion will make up for all of the tell-tale signs that they missed when the problem was at its zenith.
When does it stop? When do we, as fans, say enough is enough and stop questioning everyone who's numbers jump, or who gets into better shape, or who develops backne (okay, bad example)? When do we as fans place the blame at the foot of the baseball executives who benefited from the Summer of '98, who failed to stop the growing problem. When do we as fans stop suspecting every player who was unfortunate enough to play during the "steroid era" and accept the fact that we cannot rewrite history, and that we must move forward.
I am not naive enough to believe that McGwire, Bonds, et al did not use steroids. I simply believe that baseball did not care enough about the problem until 2003-2004 to do anything about, so neither should I. I am not going to keep guys out of a HOF simply because I suspect they cheated. That is, simply put, not fair. I will, however, keep guys out that I know did cheat, as laid out in the most recent rules, as proven through evidence (Palmeiro) or admission.
Comment