Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Good
I don't really disagree except that they weren't banned at that time to my knowledge. I don't like steroid use. I just don't think it should matter because it doesn't alter the nature of the game. What's more is that everyone just assumes that everyone else is cheating, and that hurts the integrity of the game more than allowing players to help themselves get bigger, faster, and stronger.
Doctoring a ball changes the nature of the game. Using a non-conforming bat changes the nature of the game. Being stronger, less injured, etc. when arriving at the ballpark does not.
If players were dropping dead, that would be one thing. They aren't, though. They are healing faster and having longer careers. There is something inherently wrong with telling players "yes you're injured...yes you're going to have to retire at 36 because your body is breaking down...yes you could be healthy, pain-free, and at your peak for another decade by taking steroids under the supervision of your doctor...but we're going to make you sit there and deal with it as your body breaks down and forces you into retirement at age 35...you know...for your own good". Then, we pat ourselves on the backs before going to watch the NFL where 250 pound Linebackers running 4.5 40s smash people into oblivion...and bitch that the league has become pussified because they can't target heads.
How hypocritical can we get?
|
I guess the argument would be that it changed the nature of the record books. It's obviously subjective, so how important that is is up to the voter.
Baseball's HOF is a little different in that respect because it specifically says that character should be considered, so a voter wouldn't be unreasonable to say that Sosa or Bonds corrupted the record books and that's a character issue. Or a voter could say, "I considered it and decided I don't care."