The Ol' Ballfield

You or I Could Be A Sportswriter

...because sportswriters are no smarter than you or me. I'm serious about this. Sportswriters are people that happened to major in journalism or something, and mouth off in an entertaining enough way to be published. That's the only explanation for how awful they are at their own jobs.

A columnist in my hometown paper has been mouthing off recently about how much we need to punish Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa for their steroid use. As those who read this know, I have a very specific opinion about steroid use, which I outlined in this e-mail to said columnist this morning (you don't have to read the whole thing, skimming will suffice):

Dear [sportswriter]-

I have wanted to write in for a long time about a lot of things, but the steroids issue is finally what brought it on. I believe an entire nation of sportswriters is taking an illogical and hypocritical stance on Mark McGwire's Hall of Fame eligibility, which they are using to write a myriad of self-important columns that fall all over themselves to proclaim how proud they are not to vote for McGwire, or for that matter Sammy Sosa. Now I am certainly not accusing you of the latter, but readers in most papers, including ours, do not get both sides of this issue.

There are a few facts here:

1) Mark McGwire has never been proven to have taken steroids.
2) At the time of McGwire's career, steroids were not banned by Major League Baseball.

So I'll start with the basics: until we have proof otherwise, Mr. McGwire is innocent on the counts both of breaking the law and breaking the rules. Now, I think he took steroids. That messy tap dance in front of congress was certainly indicitave of something, but it was not proof. In the United States, this is a seminal aspect of our justice system. Why is this principle being abandoned by so many writers? Until it is proven, the writers should not let it affect their ballots.

This morning you mentioned that Bud Selig and Donald Fehr may be feeling guilty that they did not address the problem sooner. I believe it is the writers who should be feeling guilty. It is their job to report. I believe that the reason writers are so quick to persecute McGwire is that they HAVE proof. They were in the locker rooms in the late 90s, they saw the acne, the swelling, the andro, hell probably even the needles. The reason the proof writers have now is not coming out is that they know THEY will have to face the public on why they didn't report on it when it was happening. Selig and Fehr may be the baseball brass, but they do not spend time in locker rooms, faced with all the evidence.
The writers do, and could have brought all of this up, but for the "magical summer of 98" that changed baseball that wasn't to be interfered with. And now they are writing that McGwire and Sosa should be punished for being dishonest to baseball.

There are a number of other points I'd like to make beyond these, and these points are valid even if it is assumed that McGwire was a steroid user.

First, the National Baseball Hall of Fame is not owned by nor affiliated with Major League Baseball. It is by no means under any obligation to honor only MLB players, or honor MLB rules. But, all the best players play in MLB, and they are the only ones the Hall would honor anyway. Even if McGwire had broken a MLB rule (which he didn't), that should have no bearing on his enshrinement in the hall. Whitey Ford is in the hall, as is Gaylord Perry. Perry goes around bragging about how he cheated, which I believe is and always has been a slap in the face of MLB, and no one pays him a second thought. This is, I believe, also the main argument for putting Pete Rose in the hall. It is perfectly acceptable, as has been proposed, to include on these players' plaques their career shames. But the Hall exists to honor baseball achievements, whether or not it has MLB's blessing. Baseball as a sport owes a lot to McGwire and Sosa, plus they both had Hall of Fame careers.

You also mentioned in this morning's column that it is not drug use we are concerned with, but performance-enhancing drug use. Mr. [sportswriter], I am surprised at the naïvete you display with this comment. Surely a sportswriter of your stature has been aroud long enough to remember the epidemic use of amphetamines in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Even if you hadn't been around then, you must have read "Ball Four", Jim Bouton's game-changing book that contains scores of mentions of just how prevalent "greenies" were in the game. Dozens of players from this era have been voted in without a second thought. Steroids are more powerful and more dangerous, to be sure, but the idea that performance-enhancing drugs are okay "to an extent" is a hypocritical and dangerous idea.

I return to the fact that McGwire broke no rules while in Major League Baseball, as steroids were not banned by the organization. Yes, they were and are illegal in the United States for these purposes, but as I am sure you know, breaking the law is NOT the same as breaking the rules. Just ask Darryl Strawberry, Paul Molitor, Steve Howe, or Ruben Rivera about that. These are all players that were given second chances after law-breaking problems (Molitor was voted into the Hall of Fame, mind you).

To summarize, cheating has been around, law-breaking has been around, performance-enhancing drugs have been around, long before this debate ever took hold. You'll some from each column with bright bronze faces in the Hall, and none are in danger of getting the boot. THe final, most important argument is the subject of what a bad example these steroid-users are setting for the young people of America. I would respond to this in two ways. The first is that the steroid problem is, in the Majors, under control. Guillermo Mota has just been suspended for 50 games, and the public and officials of baseball have never been more aware or privy to the situation as they are now. Examples do not need to be made of McGwire and Sosa; it will accomplish nothing. The kids you are worried about endangering are not old enough to have been following the summer of 98; the current steps being taken are enough. Secondly, as you know, if you walk into a room of pro athletes and spit, you will hit three or four bad examples for kids. Ben Wallace's gun problem, Ray Lewis' murder trial, Dominik Hasek's assault trial, Juan Uribe's arrest; off the top of my head, there's an example from each of the four major sports. People romanticize sports to such an extent that crimes "against the game" as McGwire has supposedly commited are worse than crimes against humanity. This, right here, is the real problem.

I know a lot of these arguments are based on "this is okay because of all these precedents" kind of thinking, and that's not the idea I'm trying to get across. I just think that McGwire is an unfair scapegoat of an era that is only getting this treatment because he was THAT good, Hall-of-Fame good, and therefore that much more in the public eye. Sportswriters throw around lines that "he cheated" so much without looking into what really connotates cheating, as well as what connotates cheating that is "okay". (I notice Kenny Rogers hasn't been banned from baseball recently.) Your column is based on short opinions without the space to get into it in depth, this I understand. But I think that means you should think more carefully about the issues you spearhead within it.

Thank you for your time, and best wishes for the Holiday season,

Carnival Matleuse

Here is his response. I have edited nothing, it contained no salutation or farewell, and I'm going to try to get it to show up in the lovely blue text it came to me in:

Are you wearing blinders? There is lots of evidence that McGwire used steroids and probably heavily for most of his career. Start with Canseco's book. If Canseco made it up, why hasn't McGwire sued for libel or slander? McGwire's name was prominent in a federal steroids investigation in the 1990s. If McGwire didn't cheat, why didn't he deny it at the steroid hearings? For your information, in 1991, Commissioner Fay Vincent issued baseball's Drug Policy and Prevention Program, prohibiting the use of all illegals drugs -- INCLUDING steroids (without a doctor's prescription). Baseball writers aren't assigned to investigate the use of performance-enhancing drugs. There are other people who do that sort of work. It wasn't the responsibility of the baseball writers to blow the whistle on McGwire, Bonds, Giambi, etc. They reported what happened on the field. When they are asked to vote for the Hall of Fame, character and sportsmanship are supposed to be considered. If they believed a candidate cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs, it is reasonable to consider that a negative. Bonds was a Hall of Fame calibre player before he began using steroids in 1999 (in my opinion), but he never would've hit 73 HRs in a season or won his last four of seven MVP awards without a BIG boost from steroids. Amphetamines don't help turn decent sluggers into super sluggers. Steroids and human growth hormone do. The Hall of Fame voters aren't sending McGwire to prison. They are likely to keep him out of the Hall of Fame -- at least for now. The Hall of Fame vote in an individual thing. If a writer believes cheating turned a very good player into a Hall of Famer, it is reasonable for that voter to reject McGwire as a legitimate Hall of Famer. The only diffrerence between McGwire and Ragael Palmeiro is that Palmeiro got caught.

You see what I mean? Blow-by-blow:

-His first six sentences are a waste, because I admit in my letter that I BELIEVE McGwire took steroids. I just said there isn't any proof, which there isn't. "McGwire won't sue Canseco" is not proof.

-The next sentence puts me in my place a little. Didn't know that about Faye Vincent. But I still contend that the rules were ambiguous enough to merit question. And he STILL doesn't rebut my "cheaters" argument.

-We then have these six sentences, which make me throw up:

Baseball writers aren't assigned to investigate the use of performance-enhancing drugs. There are other people who do that sort of work. It wasn't the responsibility of the baseball writers to blow the whistle on McGwire, Bonds, Giambi, etc. They reported what happened on the field. When they are asked to vote for the Hall of Fame, character and sportsmanship are supposed to be considered. If they believed a candidate cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs, it is reasonable to consider that a negative.

"BASEBALL WRITERS AREN'T ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE THE USE OF PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS"??? "THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO DO THAT SORT OF WORK"??? What the hell are you talking about? Journalists investigate! That's the freakin' point! And it's okay if journalists ignore the shit during a player's career, but then it's okay afterwards to come out and bash the guy when he can no longer sever your ties with the organization? JOURNALISTS ARE SPINELESS ROBOTS THAT DO WHATEVER THEIR BOSS TELLS THEM TO, AND YOU ARE RIGHT NOW SAYING YOU'RE PROUD OF THAT, AS A JOURNALIST.

-The next sentence about Barry Bonds is weird. Is saying he would still vote for Bonds? Wouldn't? I honestly can't tell.

-Remember in my letter when I mentioned that a really good justification is needed for a "some performance-enhancing drugs are okay" argument? Well, the next two sentences provide that argument, with no justification. Thanks for reading my letter, asshole.

-The following four sentences are a conclusion in which he basically states the points I am arguing against, without arguing for them. "If a writer believes cheating turned a very good player into a Hall of Famer, it is reasonable for that voter to reject McGwire as a legitimate Hall of Famer." That is actually a good sentence. But he still fails to address the hypocrisy of letting SOME cheaters into the hall, but not the BAD ones.

-I think my favorite part of his whole response is the out-of-the-blue last line: "The only diffrerence between McGwire and Ragael Palmeiro is that Palmeiro got caught." Rafael Palmeiro? What?! Who brought that up? Did I say I thought Palmeiro shouldn't be in the hall because of steroids? No, I didn't. Where did this come from?

So, we have 21 total sentences, two of which are worth anything. This guy has a coveted job in a metropolitan newspaper. It's not in a major-league market, but it's no cow town. (It is in a AAA market.) This is a lesson for everyone: Don't take crap from writers just because of their position. They are, honestly, no smarter than you or me, no better at writing, and no more knowledgable about sports or, apparently, ethics.

---

And now for an undeserved attack on Bill Simmons:

Bill Simmons has said that bloggers are just wannabe sportswriters. Well, I think I could say the same thing about Bill Simmons. The only difference is that he gets paid. And he doesn't talk about sports.

posted by Carnival @ 12/12/2006