I did a cardio only work out at the Fremont YMCA Wellness Center yesterday. I walked 45 minutes on the treadmill and added five minutes on the hand petal bike. I burned 464 calories and walked 2.31 miles on the treadmill, a 3.08 miles per hour pace.
However mediocre my accomplishments are, they are definitely not enhanced by steroids or any other chemicals. Apparently Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz are on the famous Major League Baseball tested positive for steroids in 2003 list. Yes, the same Ortiz and Ramirez who were important cogs in the Boston Red Sox overcoming the Bambino Curse to win the 2004 World Series.
Now, I do not think the Red Sox need to give back the Series trophy. I assume that many of their opponents had players that also showed up as testing positive in 2003. I am ambivalent as far as should players named as testing positive have asterisks beside their names in record books. I think baseball purists want to be able to compare 2009 to 1909 and say it is a level playing field, when steroids or not it certainly isn’t. If you want to talk about performance enhancement, simply compare the equipment of 2009 with that of 1909-balls, bats, gloves, and playing fields.
I know I have posted about this in the past, but many games are now played at night, and there were no night games when the likes of Cobb and Ruth played. Of course that was to the old-timers advantage. Air travel vs. train travel should cause for asterisks in comparing different eras. So should nutrition and exercise and salaries that allow players to focus on baseball year round, not having to find another job in the off season. In 1909 it was assumed that a pitcher would pitch a complete game, even if the game went into extra innings. In 2009 it is assumed that a pitcher will not pitch a complete game. Different eras, different circumstances, different styles of play can’t be logically compared. Compare Barry Bonds with Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, not Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth. Don’t compare Roger Clemens with Bob Feller or Christy Mathewson. And A-Rod shouldn’t be compared with an Ernie Banks or Brooks Robinson.
Should players who tested positive for drugs be banned from the Baseball Hall of Fame? Given my argument about other performance enhancers, I don’t think that should be used as an argument, though it most definitely is by hall of fame voters. Perhaps this is a black mark when it comes to character, but if character was really a serious issue, how was Ty Cobb ever selected? To me, if Cobb is enshrined, Shoeless Joe Jackson should be too. And no, Jackson and Pete Rose did not commit the same sin. Jackson was guilty of poor judgment, and Rose was guilty of gambling on baseball games. Neither is guilty of being a racist psychopath like Cobb. Anyway, there are already plenty of shady characters in the hall, so what difference would a few more make.
That the substances are banned means the players using them are cheaters. That is a good point, but to say that the steroid users are the only players in sports who cheat is more than laughable. So cheating shouldn’t bring asterisks or bans to the juicers. And here is where you might want to call me a hypocrite, because I do believe in stiff penalties for users and abusers, I do believe in the asterisks by records, and I do believe that players who test positive for steroids should never even see their name on a hall of fame ballot-in any sport.
Why? Because there are terrible health risks involved in the use of steroids, and major league players are role models for our youth.
Of course than the issue that would need to be addressed is why players felt the need to take the banned substances to begin with. High salaries? TV? Fans expectations? Owner expectations? It seems like this is a house of cards built on a sandy low tide beach.
Comments