Sorry I haven't posted in a while. No good excuse other than the holidays and a busy work schedule. Anyhoo...I must say, after the Steroid Report To End All Steroid Reports came out, I felt like I didn't really know what my opinion was, so I didn't want to write anything about it until the dust had settled somewhat and until I had some time to reflect. So now that a month has passed, here's my assessment, for what it's worth.
First, I guess my main problem with the SRTEASR is that it is merely a snapshot of the problem. George Mitchell openly admits that players weren't at all helpful during this and that the players mentioned were the only ones he felt confident "outing." Plus, as several ESPN Radio talk show hosts pointed out, if Kirk Radomski hadn't landed squarely in Mitchel's lap, the SRTEASR would have been a leaflet rather than a 400-page novel. So my question is, how is it fair to guys like Andy Pettitte and Brian Roberts that there are likely hundreds of other players out there who are just as guilty, or perhaps even more guilty (i.e. juiced for longer stretches of time), but somehow get a pass because they weren't associated with Radomski or Brian McNamee?
Second, I still find myself dealing with somewhat of a moral dilemma when it comes to the similarities (and differences) between Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Allegations aside, they are hands-down the two best players in the last 20 years, having padded already remarkable stats significantly in their late 30s and early 40s. Allegations aside, these are also two of the greatest players ever. Allegations aside, if you were to make a team of the best statistical performers of all time, you'd better believe these two are on the roster. But now, there are allegations and the slam-dunk-first-ballot-Hall-of-Fame-credentials of these two men are being scrutinized. I wondered why I wasn't instantly feeling the same animosity towards Clemens that I often do with Bonds. I thought Jayson Stark's article about these two was a total bull's eye, but after seeing Clemens on 60 Minutes, and seeing his press conference with the taped phone call with McNamee, I still wasn't as convinced of his innocence as I would have liked, and I hate that. Clearly there is much more evidence linking Bonds to PEDs as compared to Clemens, but I think Mike Wallace's question hits home- "what did McNamee gain by lying?" I know this much. You can't lie to the federal government. You can lie to yourself, to fans, to the media, and to George Mitchell. But you can't lie to the federal government. If you do, they're going to get you. I think it will be very interesting to see what Clemens says when he meets with lawmakers next month and if he adamantly maintains his innocence then, it could help his case significantly. But if he goes all "Mark McGwire" on them, it will do the exact opposite.
And third, I wonder if the general frustration I feel towards the whole steroids scandal is something a lot of baseball fans feel. I kind of miss the days when I'd click on ESPN.com's MLB link and the top stories were about offseason moves, not about who's saying what about which former or current player and whether that former or current player is admitting or denying it. I'm sick of it. And it's not going to go away any time soon, until all the players implicated in this thing are done playing.
But now that Erik Bedard may be headed to Seattle, and now that the Twins may still deal Johan Santana, perhaps we can get back to what's good about baseball, and away from what's so wrong with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment