Steroids: Should I Care?

When I read that Floyd Landis failed a drug test during a major event that I care very little about, I was absolutely shocked. Shocked, I tell you. He's a cyclist. They're the biggest dopers in the world. There's no way Landis should have let himself get caught. These guys are the experts at beating the drug tests. Most of the guys who get suspended or kicked out of races didn't fail tests. They were implicated by association with drug supplying doctors or their team cars were found to have more drugs than a Tijuana pharmacy. To be honest, I was surprised he was busted for testosterone, because testosterone is good for building up during training, but wouldn't be that swift for a one day boost. And as a member of a sport awash in performance enhancers, he should know that. I would expect that he used steroids or something like them (HGH) while training. Nothing against him personally, but I find it very hard to believe that so many cyclists get caught doping, and they couldn't win the Tour de France. I just can't see someone riding completely clean beating out a whole lot of guys who aren't clean, but not getting caught. Yes, I am saying that I think Lance Armstrong probably used steroids.

That's the bad thing about steroids in a lot of these sports. If you don't want to take performance enhancing drugs, you will have trouble competing when so many others are. I'm not naive. I know Barry Bonds is the tip of the iceberg in baseball, especially when a lousy pitcher was using an undetectable item like Human Growth Hormone. As much as I love football, I know the league can't keep up with science when it comes to steroids. At times I'm ambivalent. If people want to mess with their long term health by taking that stuff, should I really argue with that? Besides, we don't think anything of players getting very high tech surgeries or using painkillers to get on the field. Of course, those are just getting players back to their natural level, and I still think you need to fight it simply because there are players who probably don't want to resort to steroids just to stay in the leagues. Why make it harder for them?

Testosterone has popped up in the case of Justin Gatlin, but that's another sport I don't really care about. Actually, I don't care too much about baseball either, but I find their latest steroid controversy fascinating. Baseball Hall of Fame voting is getting ready to begin this fall or winter (I don't really care), and Mark McGwire is eligible. Rob Neyer polled several baseball writers (it was ESPN insider so I can't link it) and found there wasn't much support for McGwire to be elected to the HOF. The main reason was his suspected steroid use, and more specifically, his testimony before Congress where he didn't admit or deny anything. Actually, I was really surprised by how sanctimonious the writers who responded were. I probably shouldn't have been. These are the same dorks who stuck their head in the sand for years when it was obvious something was going on a long time ago. If Brady Anderson hitting 50 home runs in 1996 wasn't an indication that junk was being used, I don't know what they were waiting for. Oh, I do know. It took a federal investigation and raid on BALCO for most of these morons to admit what was right in front of them.

Yet, I would still vote McGwire into the HOF. One reason is that I can't hold his Congressional testimony against him for the simple fact that there were too many players I think used steroids (Roger Clemens, for example) who got (and still get) a pass from Congress (and the press). Plus, while I think McGwire did steroids, I don't know. I might disqualify Jose Conseco, because he admitted to using them, but what if McGwire was able to get freakishly big on his own (he did hit 49 home runs his first full season in the majors)? As much as I dislike him, I would give Barry Bonds the same benefit, except a federal grand jury might make that moot if they indict him for perjury for lying about his steroid use. The philosophical argument can also be made whether or not they should be held accountable to steroid use when it wasn't really banned by baseball until 2003. I would probably say yes since it was still an ethical issue.

However, I would still vote him in because the Baseball Hall of Fame is a joke to begin with, and it starts with the location. They put the HOF in Cooperstown because some old fart said Abner Doubleday (who should be better known for his military service) organized the first game there. Modern history has shown he didn't. In fact, Cooperstown doesn't even have a baseball team as they once refused a minor league club because they weren't "a baseball town". Of course, they also induct people for stupid reasons. Candy Cummings is in the HOF for inventing the curveball even though he didn't. Hell, Bruce Sutter just made it in, and the only reason he got in and Goose Gossage didn't is because Sutter popularized (didn't invent) the splitter. Cheating isn't even a problem for HOF voters in baseball. Gaylord Perry admitted while he was still playing that he used an illegal pitch, the spitball, extensively. Didn't matter. He still made it.

To be honest, the main reason I wouldn't hold it against McGwire if he used roids is that I believe pitchers at the time (and now) were also doped up. I've said before, and I'll say it again, how does Roger Clemens not get the speculation others do? A power pitcher whose stats slumped in his 30s but somehow he became better in his 40s? Am I the only one suspicious about this? I do think hitting statistics during the steroid era were inflated, but it's tough to say how much when you consider they may be facing a juiced up pitcher.