In case you spent today under a rock, erstwhile Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire is finally ready to talk about the past:
“I used steroids during my playing career and I apologize,” McGwire said in the statement released by the Cardinals to media outlets around the country.
Commence slow clap. This “revelation” comes about five years too late, but I’m happy that he finally acknowledged what everyone with a functioning brain believed anyway. I recall the morning of St. Patrick’s Day 2005, before the grandstanding on Capitol Hill began, ready to believe and accept (and forgive if necessary, although he owes me nothing) what he said, one way or another.
After McGwire’s cowardly testimony, though, I came away feeling let down and a little bit disgusted and embittered toward him. At my previous Cardinals blog, I climbed on my Burwellian high horse once or twice.
But the passage of time has a way of softening stances (to coin a phrase), and eventually I (only recently, though) came to accept that PED usage was Part of the Game™. Just as racism was until the 1940s. Just as amphetamine usage was in the 1960s and ’70s. I’m not endorsing any of that behavior by any means, but humans are imperfect creatures.
Surely, a steroid-fueled Big Mac hit some dingers off some equally steroid-fueled pitcher during his time. It’s impossible to know how many players were juicing, and it’s impossible to know to what extent the PEDs bolstered the numbers of players who used them.
In essence, now that he’s acknowledged it, we all kind of have to get over it.
Very well written post. As much as I kinda hate to admit it, it is right on.
I hate- HATE- the fact that the PED era ever existed, but I am smart enough to know that all my hate is not going to change anything. Many guys did it- as you said, we’ll never know just how many actually did it, nor to what extent- or even IF- it helped their numbers. But while I do have to accept it, I am under absolutely no obligation to embrace it.
In fact, I think what irritates me more than the juicers themselves are the fans that turn a blind eye to it or, even worse, actually support the juicers. “Hey, baseball’s more exciting now with all those homeruns; who cares how they’re hitting them?” Yet so many [of those same] people are so vehemently anti-Pete Rose for betting on Reds games when he played and managed them.
I took the liberty of reading the Graham Womack article you emailed me ( http://baseballpastandpresent.com/2010/01/11/seeing-mcgwire-through-rose-colored-glasses/ , for those of you interested that haven’t seen it) before reading your post above, and I have to say that the article very nicely states what I haven’t been eloquent enough to say all these years.
Baseball’s past and present- and the Hall of Fame specifically- are filled with men of questionable moral character. As the article said, Ty Cobb supposedly admitted that he killed a man in 1912. Rogers Hornsby, Tris Speaker, and Gabby Hartnett were said to be members of the KKK. There are/were boozehounds, womanizers, wife-beaters, potheads, geeks, dweebs, sportos, dickheads, crackheads, cokeheads… and now steroid users.
So with many of those unsavory types enshrined in Cooperstown, how can the PED-era superstars really be “banned” from enshrinement, or from being considered among the best of baseball’s history? As much as I cringe at this, they can’t. I’m not getting into the discussion of criteria of consideration for enshrinement- that’s a whole other kettle of corn- but MY belief is that the HoF should be filled with baseball’s greatest players as per what they accomplished on the field, between the lines, period.
Now, with THAT being said, and to reference Mr. Womack’s article, Pete Rose’s offense of gambling, while going against “everything baseball stands for”, was an antiquated rule that came from the Black Sox scandal. Yet he was banned from baseball for life? Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT condoning players and managers betting on baseball- especially their own games- and as I’ve always preached, a rule, no matter how outdated or stupid, still must be followed, but that punishment was just the slightest bit extreme. How can you ban Rose, the all-time hits leader and one of the most exciting players to watch (like him or not), for life, yet give the PED-era players a pass simply because “everyone was doing it”? In the grand scheme, I see neither as any better or worse than the other on the Heinous Offenses Against The Game™ scale, although to be fair, with Rose’s gambling it was one man (of which we’re aware, admittedly), and there is no evidence that any games on which Rose wagered were ever actually thrown. Yet PEDs were so widespread that MLB and its fans almost seem to give it the “no harm, no foul” brush-off– not to mention the records that have fallen in that era. Baseball adores its statistics- one of your ongoing lessons to me- yet the fact that some of its most revered records were broken by players that blatantly cheated (yes, I said the C-word) seems to have upset nobody. Except me, apparently.
It’s a double standard, AC, and to say that it isn’t is, in my opinion, as ignorant and totally incorrect as someone saying racism no longer exists in this country.
My refusal to embrace the McGwires, the A-Rods, et al for their “courage” in coming forward (though they likely came forward only because they’d been caught) is in no way equivalent to an inability to accept the era and to move on. I realize, right or wrong, that it is what it is. But until Rose gets his rightful spot in Cooperstown, I will never be able to “forgive” the juicers for their part in fucking up what at least used to be the best sport in the world.
But getting back on point, finally, this was a terrific post. I miss your writing, dog, not just here but at AnonComDOTcom as well.
(Just remember- you asked for my “unvarnished opinion”…)
Great post, AC, and an equally well done response, Johann.
Ever since McGwire’s ill-fated congressional (non)-testimony, in my heart I knew chances were 99% that he did use PED’s during his career. But as a Cardinal fan I had still held out on that 1% chance that he was clean (other than the “Andro” Dietary Supplement which he admitted to using during his active career…which by law was a legal OTC substance, and was not banned by MLB at the time).
Although I was not surprised by the announcement, it saddened me when he finally came clean to using PED’s. At the same time I am glad that he finally owned up to it, albeit 5 years later, if for no other reason than to get the monkey of his back. I hope McGwire can become a successful coach for the Cardinals in the years to come.
However, it does bother me as being hypocritical in my own mind that I can forgive McGwire for his transgressions and still hold other cheaters in contempt for basically the same thing…can you say Barry Bonds?
Johann: You forgot the bloods.
Nobody’s saying you have to embrace the Steroid Era. I sure don’t.
The key difference, though, between what Pete Rose did and what the juicers did is that in Pete’s case, a baseball rule was broken. That’s not the case with the juicers. And I’m talking strictly within the context of the game.
So I’m afraid I don’t see it as a double standard. You’re not cheating if what you’re doing is not against the rules. Again, I mean only between the lines. Believe me, I understand all this in the Grand Scheme.
And you certainly were not varnished. Thanks. ;^)
Zebra: Yes, it is difficult not to consider Bonds in all this. We sort of have to let it go with everyone from that era. But we can still think he’s a jerk.
ToMAYto, toMAHto. It’s a double standard.
AND it’s still cheating.
Context, man. The fact that taking steroids is against the law is not relevant here.
I’m talking strictly about MLB’s rule structure back then. Steroids and other PEDs were not explicitly banned. Ergo, taking them is not cheating (again, within the MLB), as no MLB rule was broken during said act’s commission.
I’m not talking about against the law either. It’s CHEATING. But then, I don’t expect you to understand– you believe in the validity of the retaliatory HBP.
Look, I get what you’re saying and, unfortunately, I know you’re right, whether it’s arguing the context or the semantics. But it’s still just wrong. Just because PEDs were “not explicitly banned” doesn’t make it right. Justify it all you want, it’s wrong and it’s cheating. Call me whatever you wish to call me- rose-colored glasses wearer, idealistic, an idiot, whatever- I will never concede that taking PEDs was ever “okay” just because no rule was broken.