As a frequent reader of ESPN.com, I usually find its content to be the best sports news on the web. I enjoy reading Jayson Stark and Peter Gammons for baseball, Al Morganti and Darren Pang for the NHL, David Aldridge for the NBA, John Clayton for the NFL, and Andy Katz for NCAA basketball (especially with his awesome name).
One of the new features that ESPN.com has instituted recently is called "Writers Bloc." In this segment, a pertinent issue in sports is put on the table and one writer starts writing on it, then another writer responds to the first, then a third responds to both of those, etc. While I have, for the most part, enjoyed their columns, one recent topic took me aback. The question read: "What's Worse for Baseball -- A-Rod to the Evil Empire or the Brewing Steroid Scandal?" I, for one, don't even understand how the two begin to equate.
If the question was to compare the A-Rod trade to the Yankees and Pete Rose betting on baseball, I think people would soundly answer that what Pete Rose did tarnished the reputation of baseball and was/is far worse. People cry out in disgust when people cork their bats, as they did with Sammy Sosa this past season. But what the Yankees do is within the confines of the rules of the game. And while Sammy Sosa and Pete Rose committed crimes against the games of baseball, their actions actually are legal in the real world.
According to SteroidLaw.com, "simple possession of any Schedule III substance [which includes anabolic steroids] is a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000. Simple possession by a person with a previous conviction for certain offenses, including any drug or narcotic crimes, must get imprisonment of at least 15 days and up to two years, and a minimum fine of $2,500. Individuals with two or more such previous convictions face imprisonment of not less than 90 days but not more than three years, and a minimum fine of $5,000, just for simply possessing." Yes folks, just possessing steroids is not only against baseball's rules, it's illegal. And players who have used repeatedly could actually be incarcerated.
Which poses the question: how can you compare something that's not only against baseball rules, but also a federal crime to something that's totally legal in both venues? In fact, if this was, let's say, the cell phone business instead of Major League Baseball, no one would criticize Verizon for spending all the money that they do to improve their company and make it profitable. But for some reason, the Yankees are criticized for making more money than everyone else. George Steinbrenner has not built a good team by being thrifty, but by spending money in order to build a winner. The last labor dispute involved the owners doing everything possible to bring down the Yankees. Although they were not able to set a salary cap-mostly because the player's union is one of the strongest unions in the world and would never stand for it-they created every one of their taxes with the sole purpose of limiting Yankee spending.
Yet on closer inspection, one would see that the Yankees paid almost $53 million into the revenue-sharing pot. They dumped another $11 million into Bud Selig's luxury-tax account. This year, their revenue sharing and tax dollars will be above $80 million. No one is complaining that this money is being distributed out to the small market teams, whose owners take the money and pocket it. No one is complaining that the Mets, Red Sox and Dodgers also play in huge baseball markets. Why don't Mets fans get on Fred Coupon (as Fred Wilpon has been dubbed by one WFAN 660 AM New York caller) or Red Sox fans get on John "The Scarecrow" Henry (as George Steinbrenner has called him) for not acquiring A-Rod when both could have easily done so?
And because of all the green in their eyes, people cannot see the real red light which should come from the rampant use of steroids in baseball. One player recently compared the press' search for steroid users to McCarthyism. Only there actually are players in baseball who are using or who have used steroids. Is it definite that Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Sammy Sosa, and Gary Sheffield are actually steroid users because of their recent link to the federal investigation into BALCO (Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative)? No, absolutely not. Many people who are totally innocent have had their names dragged through the mud in federal investigations.
Right now player testing is confidential: no one will ever actually know who tests positive or just how many do. Last year, the players were even told when they would be tested, allowing them to stop for a couple of months in order to test negative and then resume steroid use. Fans are getting sick of this constant "witch-hunt," as many have called it, and have tried to bring the argument back to A-Rod and the Yanks and the Red Sox, Cubs, Astros and all the other stories of the spring.
While I think it is important to look at all the great stories starting up in this spring training (exhibition games start this Friday), baseball fans should be more outraged by the steroid use in baseball. People watch with awe at Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa's home-runs, but how many fans would be upset by the fact their player hit all these home-runs because they had help from steroids.
I think that as long as Pete Rose and "Shoeless" Joe Jackson are banned from the game and the Hall of Fame for tarnishing baseball's image due to betting on baseball or throwing games, anyone found to be a steroid user should likewise be banned from the Hall and the game. But until this becomes a big public issue, steroids will not be viewed as a big deal by baseball fans. People need to stop worrying about people and teams who play within the rules, and start worrying about the rampant steroid issue in baseball, before it truly tarnishes the sanctity of America's Pastime.