Such a horrible history... American people were really shocked.... But I have heard that A-Rod revealed to ESPN that he used banned performance-enhancing substances to justify his 10-year, $252 million contract with the Texas Rangers.

Let's not forget the players union. Threatening strikes, which they did, if the league actually wants to test players for steroids isn't exactly the transparent way to go.

Baseball owners decided that the game needed increased home runs in order to increase corporate profits. The ways in which this was accomplished goes far beyond steroids. Balls and bats have been altered. Parks with shorter fences have been built at tax-payers' expense. The strike zone has been shortened, and umpires' union has been forced to go along. (Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Palmer said, "The loss of the high strike has changed the game more than any pill.")

"Alex Rodriguez is set to be the next former slugger torn to pieces by columnists, fans and the sports radio blabbocracy. They all need to crack open some Michael Phelps medicinal magic and relax. Rodriguez may not deserve your pity, but he hardly deserves your scorn. Reserve that for the owners, political leaders and Bud the commissioner--who robbed our cities blind and distracted us with dingers so we wouldn't notice." (Dave Zirin, A-Rod, Anabolic Agonist)

There was the double ownership of many teams during the end of the 19th century that threatened Baseball. The Black Sox was another scandal. I wouls also add those polyester, multi-colored uniforms of the 70's. Yet Baseball survived.

Remember the book "Ball Four"? The 'secrets' in that are tame now, but then was about the same as shocking as the steroids we hear about now.

In the end, purity will always win out in Baseball. Yes, this will haunt baseball for decades, but they said the same thing about the Black Sox Scandal, among other small indescretions over the decades.

Pitches and Catchers report soon to Florida and Arizona. Spring is coming...

The union fought tooth and nail against drug testing, and held onto the 2003 samples in hopes of getting them overturned. Unfortunately, they held onto them long enough for the FBI to issue a subpoena for them.

Frankly, I think the names should be released. A-Rod, Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Palmiero, Giambi, Pettitte, et al - all have a stain on their records now. For some, Hall of Fame admission is seriously in doubt due to their choices. So I think we ought to know the other 103 players names if for no other reason than for HOF voters to make informed decisions. Not saying they should be excluded from the HOF, but it should be considered.

I had the opportunity to sit with a retired defensive end on a very long cross country flight. After some chatting about football in general I asked him about roids. He said during his tenure in the early 90's it wasn't who was doing them but who wasn't doing them. He said it really felt like it was a requirement just to keep up with everyone else. Steroids isn't just a baseball problem. It's a professional sports problem. Until the powers that be in all of the different sports leagues enact real solutions including mandatory and random testing and immediate no tolerance consequences these "scandals" will just keep happening over and over.

Re: the Sox. Big Papi is "big" for a reason, you know. ;)

Go Yanks!

4 days? And they say the feds can't act quickly...

Honesty isn't just a baseball or American football problem. Check out this great little piece of life in the 21st century, out today. Since sport turned pro in the late 19th century, it hasn't been sporting.

I stand vindicated about everything I've claimed in the past about Thierrey Henry, referred to in the piece, affectionately, as "cheating bastard". Umpire civility. I could never say anything that nice about him. You want to study everything you're talking about in absolute pure distillation? There 'ya go!

I run a charitable org dedicated to the proposition that "Cricket is Religion". You cannot imagine how painful these kind of stories are to us. Cricket isn't immune either.

The weird thing about baseball is that it has a long tradition of "acceptable cheating". Acceptable, that is, as long as you don't get caught.

Both Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry are widely believed to have cheated in juicing balls, but they're both in the Hall of Fame. Why is that cheating okay, but A-Rod's and Barry Bonds' cheating not okay?

How about the players in the past who used amphetamines? That's also widely acknowledged as occurring in the past. Are records from the "speed era" also suspect? Should those players be ineligible for the Hall of Fame?

But I have heard that A-Rod revealed to ESPN that he used banned performance-enhancing substances to justify his 10-year, $252 million contract with the Texas Rangers.

...who needed that kind of firepower because they had a new stadium, built with taxpayer money to the benefit of the new owner, Mr. George W. (Shrub) Bush! He's very generous with other peoples' money; A-Rod need not have worried. Honestly, there is not one negative thing in this country, from WWII onward, that doesn't relate pretty directly to the Bush crime family.

How about the players in the past who used amphetamines?

You mean "Charlie Hussle" was...on the Reds?

With both the league and union agreeing that blood testing is off limits, I'd say it's pretty clear neither pretty is really very interested in cleaning up the game.

Baseball is where cycling was 10 years ago. Owners turned a blind eye to a culture of doping, and the governing body is not really interested in busting anybody, bad for the image you know.

Harry Kershner:

Baseball owners decided that the game needed increased home runs in order to increase corporate profits. The ways in which this was accomplished goes far beyond steroids. Balls and bats have been altered.

Bob T:

Pretty much true--Jeff is correct to point out that it goes beyond the players. But in the end the individual player makes the decision to use steroids, and is thus ultimately responsible. No one "made" him do it. Many of them are more interested in their personal records than in the profits of their owners, and thus weren't above doing it the easy way instead of just keeping in shape and/or relying on natural talent. Ruth, Mays and Aaron look better all the time.

Harry Kershner:

Parks with shorter fences have been built at tax-payers' expense.

Bob T:

Excuse me, but using our tax dollars has absolutely nothing to do with the where these fences are located. Or are you saying that no stadium with, say, fences 380 feet or more from home plate was built using tax dollars?

Speaking of which, sit back and watch progressive Portland voters look the other way while progressive politicians (like Sam Adams) push though a corporate welfare stadium deal.

Anyway, I haven't watched a major league game in over 20 years for many of the reasons hinted at (re: making the game "more interesting"). I hate inter-league play and the DH, for example. I've been told I'm no longer a baseball fan, but I don't have to watch major league baseball to be a fan. Baseball is kids playing in the park and so on.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co.

Torrid Joe:

Not this progressive. I think it's ridiculous to finance an enormously wealthy family like the Paulsons.

Bob T:

I know a few of you will object with more than an, "Aw shucks, Sam, you disappoint me a little". But anyway, the Paulson's own wealth is irrelevant. This anti-free market idea shouldn't take place even if the person asking for the money has none of his own. The Paulsons can do whatever they want provided they use their own money and do not get privileges such as preventing the people from taking him to court for something of substance, such as noise or other pollution.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co

The weird thing about baseball is that it has a long tradition of "acceptable cheating". Acceptable, that is, as long as you don't get caught.

Both Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry are widely believed to have cheated in juicing balls, but they're both in the Hall of Fame. Why is that cheating okay, but A-Rod's and Barry Bonds' cheating not okay?

How about the players in the past who used amphetamines? That's also widely acknowledged as occurring in the past. Are records from the "speed era" also suspect? Should those players be ineligible for the Hall of Fame?

Those are good questions. In regards to throwing a spitter, I'd say that the punishment fits the crime. You get caught doctoring a baseball, you get tossed and suspended for X # of games. But you don't throw it on every pitch; it's more of a situational thing. And, there's a bit of a risk because it's somewhat out in the open. The opposition - if they're watching - can pick up on clues that the ball is being doctored or cut. So there's a bit of a self-policing element involved with throwing a spitter or any other kind of on-field cheating.

Drugs, OTOH, are hidden. Unless someone sees you taking them, there's no visual evidence that you're cheating. Plus, they can seriously destroy the human body. Finally, there are federal laws regulating their use.

So, while throwing a spitter is against the rules of baseball, steroid use is at a much greater level of severity and should be dealt with accordingly.

Society is still in a medieval mindset with "drugs". It was a sacrilege to dissect or experiment with the body. We got over that. We still feel that way with the mind. Recently, in a similar discussion, someone had to rush to proclaim that "Darwin was using his brain, is what he was on". Grow up. Some illegal drugs are performance enhancing and can be taken responsibly. A smart society internalizes them as tools, where useful, and uses product liability laws to deal with the unsafe ones. That's why you make it legal. Auto racing deals with this every day. You add qualifications to the gear/drivers to level the field and that's the competition. If you break those rules, you're cheating. Cheating is an issue for sport. It is just like throwing a spit ball. If this country could get real, the NFL should start a league for everyone that's been barred, and I bet they would whup some booty. Which is the better example to send to youth? "I'm drug free", or "I follow the rules"? The former is meaningless, by itself, and that's how it's used.

Smart people experiment with thought, and as some drugs can enhance that, many that we venerate as great in our culture took advantage of those tools. That doesn't lessen their accomplishment, it's part of their greatness. Our drug laws are racist and are used to implement the police state. How many times during the odious Patriot Act I debate- and boy, was that an act- did we hear, "we're just asking for powers that we already have against drug dealers"? It is the template for every State abuse and usually a part of it. When you were proud that we went into the Balkans as a part of an UN force, did you know that we went into 15th century monasteries, where weed has been cultivated for 500 years, and tore up the place, took prisoners, shot the unwilling, under UN mandate? We violate the International Law of the Seas every day using it as an excuse. Drugs in sport has been made a big, public issue so that no one ever forgets that it is driving the show. It's more important to sell the "use drugs, lose anything, including a glorious career" message out than to have a good game of whatever. Obviously, everyone needs to play by the same rules, but those rules should be designed to promote the game, not promote some police state message.

If Americans cared about the issues, as opposed for a chance to do some enforcement against some rich guys (usually of color)...well, they don't so I won't go on. Rush was prosecuted because enforcement is so good, and Palin's in-laws just happened to lose their liberty over crack the day after she returned to AK from the campaign trail. Jocelyn Elders son probably really was a major drug dealer. Man, this society does have a drug problem. To date, the ONLY person I've read on this blog, in four years, that can talk rationally about the issue, get the facts right, AND make sense, is Pat Ryan. I feel for 'ya mate! Sorry, I'm sure the sentiment ain't particularly welcome...

Bob, I'm getting tired of reposting this. The hard core progressives on this blog- not the Dem ops- said it was unacceptable and considered him finished, gone, before BO posted the first article! Again, for reference: Posted by: Zarathustra | Jan 31, 2009 11:53:05 AM

Posted by: david | Jan 31, 2009 6:02:26 AM

So now a friend of Breedlove has come forward, saying there was sex between Adams & Breedlove while he was still 17.

Can we just say a 'stick a fork in him' (Adams), 'he's done.'?

Read this blog much? That was the first comment on the affair that made it up here. Note the "why no coverage of Sam" bit? Pretty early days. And what was that very first comment?

Posted by: Mike | Jan 19, 2009 6:25:50 PM

why is blue orgeon ignoring the sam adams story?

Posted by: Andy from Beaverton | Jan 19, 2009 6:46:10 PM

Mike,

Because liberals do not eat their own.

Sam's up here. And the stalwart progressives have stuck a fork in him and called him done. He would go well with chile on a day like today. Good, hoppy, pol!

Surely you don't need the "ignore the word lecture"...

Zara's take on drug use as an excuse for the police state is dead on.

Bob T: I'm glad to see that we apparently agree about the use of tax-payer money for privatized profit, in this case baseball stadiums. Sam Adams' position on this is far more important to me than his sex life (or his lying about it), and I wish we would have long threads on it instead.

However, the homer-friendly confines of tax-payer-funded boondoggles is, as Zirin says, a distracting factor that allows the boondoggles to continue to occur. Furthermore, the Casablanca-like "shock" by team owners and management about drug use is bullshit.

Drug-using players are responsible for what they do, just as war-crime-committing soldiers are responsible for what they do, but there is a context for the actions of both that needs to be carefully examined.

jiang--though the A-Rod years in Texas were under a different owner, Thomas Hicks, you're correct that the new stadium (and hence new revenues and expenses for the team) came along under George W. Bush's "ownership". (He actually owned about 1% but was the managing partner, which allowed him to go from a $600K investment to a $15M payout when Hicks bought the team. At one point a Dallas reporter asked Rusty Rose, who put in the most money, of Bush, "He knows he doesn't own the team, does he?" Rusty Rose: "No, no, no, and don't you dare tell him.")

The appalling part is that Bush's group may well have been the most successful ownership the Rangers have ever had, which isn't a testament to his competence as much as that the other owners have been pretty consistently bad. Having one playoff win in 48 years of existence is pretty solid proof.

You're right, noplot. I was there off and on until '97, so got a bit confused. Have to agree with the Z man too (can someone unset the archive flag). Leveraging "criminality" is how the State gains compliance.

"How about the players in the past who used amphetamines?

You mean "Charlie Hussle" was...on the Reds?"--Jiang

Actually, the amphetamines Rose was taking were known as greens. Fear not with your joke--the Reds were the first team to sport green logos on their uniforms for their March 17th exhibition games.

the Reds were the first team to sport green logos on their uniforms for their March 17th exhibition games.

A gem! I love sports trivia.

I reserve special contempt for the Selig regime, which coincides nicely with the steroid era and also the failure of baseball to deal with wealth disparities among teams. Under Selig, MLB has become a laughable spectacle

It's cool to flame a bad Bud.

We need a sport that is plaid nude, with no equipment. That would eliminate wealth disparities, probs with on-field streakers, ridiculous ad-on sales of team logo'd pariphernalia (or had 13 year old boys in Little Rock actually become hockey fans, and San Jose hockey fans, at that?), get kids interested in PE again, wouldn't have to pay much to get people spending a career on it, unprofessionalism would be cool. and performance enhancing drugs would be legal, saturating the airwaves with ad-on sales. Hey, that's what's on today. How's that work? I mean, if you want a drug scandal in sports, it's that old men are getting off on Viagra and harassing their spouses with new-found meaning to their existence. Fraud? How much less fraud is involved in advertising that if you go around with an obvious boner that you'll gain the respect of your neighbors? That's illegal in Alabama; I think it's the whole state; maybe just a municipality.

Love of money is the disease. It leads to steroid use, betting, and, in the terminal phases, advertising sub-prime mortgages.

TorridJoe:

Bob T, you're right that it's not dispositive how much money he and his dad have, on the principle of public funding. But don't you agree that it's made more ridiculous beyond the principle, when they literally could afford to build it on their own?

Bob T:

Yes. But the principle is the same no matter who is asking for the subsidy (and no matter what the politics of the elected officials pushing this and even making the first move).

By the way, a good reply to this part of the issue was uttered by Sen Arnie Vinnik in the great series "The West Wing" who replied that he could not see giving tax dollars to an owner who was already shelling out mega-millions in player contracts.

The thing to remember, again, is that it's the government that needs to be reined in on this one, not the owners. After all, the owners can't send you a bill or seize your property, but the government can and does on behalf of the owners (or on behalf of their own desire to feel more important being city concil members of a "real" city). Strip away the power of the government to subsidize sports, and the owners get no where and build their own arenas and stadiums the way Safeway builds their own stores.

Call up Cascade Policy Inst and ask about their material on sports subsidies. You sound like you have the brains and integrity to admit when you and Cascade are on the same side, while too many others will oppose them just because.

Bob Tiernan Mult Co

As I recall, those meth tabs were called "greenies". Once, according to Jim Bouton, Rose raced in from right field to narrowly miss a line drive. "One more milligram and he would have made the catch," said one of the team's relievers.

There is no way to sanitize our society by policing drug use. The best we can do is educate.

Posted by: Harry Kershner | Feb 12, 2009 2:43:51 PM

As I recall, those meth tabs were called "greenies".

I only knew what Nixon taught me. That's the funny thing. As a Catholic grade school student, I wouldn't have known jack about the drug culture if Nixon hadn't started his War on Drugs. I responded dutifully, and procured samples of all the major players for a poster. I almost got busted when I went to the local feed store and asked for birdseed, with all but the hemp seeds removed. Fortunately, the feed store owner was the father of my science teacher. A phone call assured him that it was for the WOD. Advantage of a small town. Mind you, distilling LSD-25 from ergot is not a trivial task for a 6th grader!

And people say gov propaganda on the WOD doesn't motivate the youth.

Speaking of cricket having scandals too, it looks like the man that was going to introduce cricket to the US, is a Madoff . How many others?

Nixon, the last liberal president, pushed many of us into drugs far more dangerous than hemp. Within two weeks of Tricky Dick's closing of the Mexican pipeline, many of my friends in Boston were trying heroin.

Which brings us to the question: Will Obama end the idiotic criminalization of pot smoking? (See: OBAMA'S MANY VIEWS ON MARIJUANA)