The NYT reports that Sammy Sosa tested positive for a banned substance (which is not reported) in 2003, one of the 104 positive results which resulted in the current MLB stringent testing rules.
We now know two of those 104 -- Sammy Sosa and Alex Rodriguez. Who are the remaining 102? We don't yet know, but, I'm fairly certain that other "big names" will slowly leak out.
Anyone surprised?
Anyone?
Nah.
What does this do to the Hall of Fame prospects of not only Sammy Sosa but of anyone in the "Steroid Era?"
It's hard to tell at this point. Mark McGwire has received less than 25% of the required 75% of Hall of Fame voters in each of his three years of eligibility. And, there's no "smoking gun" in McGwire's case, just what we saw on the field and his refusal to answer questions about his drug use when testifying in front of Congress.
Ivan Rodriguez will soon pass Carlton Fisk for most games by a catcher, probably today. He's won ten golden gloves. He, Bench, and Berra are said to have the best arms behind the plate in the history of the game. He has a .300 lifetime batting average with 300 home runs. He was the AL MVP in 1999. Offensively and defensively, he clearly is one of the top five catchers of all time. Yet, he likely won't go into the Hall of Fame.
Why?
Because he was named in Jose Canseco's book.
That's all. And, apparently, in this steroid era, it's enough.
But...
What if most of the current crop of potential Hall of Famers ultimately are found on that list of those 104 who tested positive in 2003?
What do we do then?
The Hall of Fame is supposed to enshrine the most dominant players of a particular era. If all or most of the players in a particular era were "juiced up," then we will have only two choices: 1) Just black out the past 20 years or so and not enshrine anyone; or 2) Compare like to like and enshrine the best of the era regardless of whether they used drugs to enhance their performance or not (with a sad nod to those who played by the rules and came up just a bit short...).
I think that we should just assume that Canseco was right and accept that the vast majority of major league baseball players were "juiced" and simply enshrine the best of this era, but with an asterisk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
If MLB is actually serious about banning drug use the only action they can take is to make proven drug use an automatic ban from the HoF.
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with that. I don't want any of the cheating bastards in the HoF.
I tend to agree with anyone who breaks the current rules.
ReplyDeleteBut, it WASN'T a rule in 2003. The rule was a RESULT of that "anonymous" survey in 2003. So, according to the rules of the time, Alex Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa, and Mark McGwire (and possibly Barry Bonds -- and certainly Rafael Palmerio) were playing by the rules, i.e., "not cheating." (This is why there were no consequences issued by MLB when Alex Rodriguez admitted to pre-2004 steroid use.)
This "survey" was conducted when the players knew it was coming and knew when it was coming. Yet seven percent still tested positive!
This argues for a much higher number of "smarter" players and/or players with better "trainers" who were using but didn't test positive. (After all, Marion Jones never tested positive, she was caught otherwise and had to give her medals up -- even though she routinely underwent the world's most sophisticated anti-doping testing procedures. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire ... never tested positive.)
Seven percent of users got caught -- when they knew the test was coming. I would not have any problem accepting that up to SEVENTY PERCENT of MLB players were users, pre-2004. There simply was no downside to using and a significant competitive disadvantage to not use.
Further, we don't know how long this use has been going on. Such pervasive use doesn't happen overnight. We do have a pretty good idea that the use of steroids became highly popular in football in the 70's -- with the Steelers dominance pushing it. How likely is it that MLB was immune from common use in the 70's and 80's?