The continuous talk about performance enhancing drugs in baseball has gotten nauseating. While it makes sense to clean up the game and the use of PEDs are not morally right, there is no proof that these substances are no longer being abused in the game today. The penalties are tough enough, but in some cases are worth the risk of getting caught. See, if a player gets themselves a good contract, then it was worth every second of the use of the drugs and the amount of money made could be justified to the player.
Fans and the media hold this game to such high standards. Because of this, they want to rid themselves of the so called "cheats" and create this pure game where everybody is playing on the same playing field. The problem is, and has been, that the chemists are always ahead of the curve. They are always working on, if not creating, a product that can enhance the performance of a player even more. And hold your ears... a lot of the substances cannot be detected in various tests given by the league. How quickly we forget that doctors are usually smart. Some use their natural intelligence to come up with better and more undetectable drugs. Like it or not, the opportunity to make money in some cases trumps moral values.
Fans and the media are so eager to see players take their punishment, and rightly so, to some extent. I agree that if a player tests positive for a banned substance, they need to be suspended accordingly. However, through no fault of anybody, this is a situation where not everybody is getting caught. Being human nature, the players that get caught are deemed a low form of life while a player who is using who does not get caught is a hero. If a player is using PEDs and gets away with it, they are given more than royalty treatment and their numbers are more valued because they performed "clean" in a "dirty" time.
I can deal with the system if it was held just to that. But it is not. The problem is fans and people in the media refuse to keep their thoughts to the facts that are presented. If that was the case, only the players who have failed drug tests, admitted using PEDs or are proven to have purchased PEDs would be given such scrutiny. But that is not the case.
What makes the whole thing about PEDs in baseball difficult to digest is the fact that there never was a testing policy in place until recently. It would be more than naive to think that players did not abuse these substances until around the time the policies were put into place. It is also makes sense for many of the players to stop using so they would not fail a drug test. And while it is a predicament that Major League Baseball and it players put themselves in, a fan or a member of the media has no right to declare who used and who did not based on hearsay. But it is done all the time. My question is... Who made John Q public the law, jury and judge in regards to whether a player used or did not? Last time I checked, a person can commit the most heinous crime and still have the right to the due processes of the law. How come that does not apply to baseball?
Random people who have background in everything but what relates to PEDs and the law decide to choose what players used and which did not. Sometimes it is a popularity contest. For instance, Albert Belle is assumed to have used PEDs because he was not the nicest guy. Many players are put in the category of steroids abusers because of the time they played. Some are judged by their size, such as Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell. What makes Frank Thomas any different? The problem is your average and ordinary guy wanted to make an assumption over who HE thinks used PEDs. This average and ordinary guy has no proof to back up his argument. It becomes the "whisper" that turns nothing into a story. If it had any base, it would be more than a hearsay statement. Where has there been any evidence that can link all of the "assumed users" to the banned substance? All it is... is what some have "whispered."
The general public has become the jury, judge and executioner when it comes alleged PED use in baseball. What qualifies them for that job. Imagine being in a country where you had no right to a trial or representation and were assumed guilty once you were accused of a crime. Major League Baseball is the only place where you are assumed guilty until proven innocent. And even if a "suspected" PED proves they did not use, they will still be held out of the Hall of Fame by a group of Baseball Writers who think they are above the Supreme Court. But if somebody commits a mass murder, make sure they get proper representation. And be sure to micromanage the police department and the families of those deceased. But God forbid a player hit a lot of home runs in the 1990s or early 2000s. They are automatically guilty with no right to even try to defend themselves. Sounds prey backwards to me.
Fans and the media hold this game to such high standards. Because of this, they want to rid themselves of the so called "cheats" and create this pure game where everybody is playing on the same playing field. The problem is, and has been, that the chemists are always ahead of the curve. They are always working on, if not creating, a product that can enhance the performance of a player even more. And hold your ears... a lot of the substances cannot be detected in various tests given by the league. How quickly we forget that doctors are usually smart. Some use their natural intelligence to come up with better and more undetectable drugs. Like it or not, the opportunity to make money in some cases trumps moral values.
Fans and the media are so eager to see players take their punishment, and rightly so, to some extent. I agree that if a player tests positive for a banned substance, they need to be suspended accordingly. However, through no fault of anybody, this is a situation where not everybody is getting caught. Being human nature, the players that get caught are deemed a low form of life while a player who is using who does not get caught is a hero. If a player is using PEDs and gets away with it, they are given more than royalty treatment and their numbers are more valued because they performed "clean" in a "dirty" time.
I can deal with the system if it was held just to that. But it is not. The problem is fans and people in the media refuse to keep their thoughts to the facts that are presented. If that was the case, only the players who have failed drug tests, admitted using PEDs or are proven to have purchased PEDs would be given such scrutiny. But that is not the case.
What makes the whole thing about PEDs in baseball difficult to digest is the fact that there never was a testing policy in place until recently. It would be more than naive to think that players did not abuse these substances until around the time the policies were put into place. It is also makes sense for many of the players to stop using so they would not fail a drug test. And while it is a predicament that Major League Baseball and it players put themselves in, a fan or a member of the media has no right to declare who used and who did not based on hearsay. But it is done all the time. My question is... Who made John Q public the law, jury and judge in regards to whether a player used or did not? Last time I checked, a person can commit the most heinous crime and still have the right to the due processes of the law. How come that does not apply to baseball?
Random people who have background in everything but what relates to PEDs and the law decide to choose what players used and which did not. Sometimes it is a popularity contest. For instance, Albert Belle is assumed to have used PEDs because he was not the nicest guy. Many players are put in the category of steroids abusers because of the time they played. Some are judged by their size, such as Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell. What makes Frank Thomas any different? The problem is your average and ordinary guy wanted to make an assumption over who HE thinks used PEDs. This average and ordinary guy has no proof to back up his argument. It becomes the "whisper" that turns nothing into a story. If it had any base, it would be more than a hearsay statement. Where has there been any evidence that can link all of the "assumed users" to the banned substance? All it is... is what some have "whispered."
The general public has become the jury, judge and executioner when it comes alleged PED use in baseball. What qualifies them for that job. Imagine being in a country where you had no right to a trial or representation and were assumed guilty once you were accused of a crime. Major League Baseball is the only place where you are assumed guilty until proven innocent. And even if a "suspected" PED proves they did not use, they will still be held out of the Hall of Fame by a group of Baseball Writers who think they are above the Supreme Court. But if somebody commits a mass murder, make sure they get proper representation. And be sure to micromanage the police department and the families of those deceased. But God forbid a player hit a lot of home runs in the 1990s or early 2000s. They are automatically guilty with no right to even try to defend themselves. Sounds prey backwards to me.
RSS Feed
