By now everyone has heard Mark McGwire's tearful-yet-perplexing confession to steroid use. I do have to take issue with his contention that PEDs didn't really help him hit--I will agree that it doesn't help your hand-eye coordination, but if a) the ball goes further when you DO make contact, and b) your improved strength translates to greater bat speed, helping you make contact by allowing you to sit on a pitch longer before beginning your swing, then yeah, I have to question your career numbers. So I don't buy that he didn't gain any advantage outside of rehabilitating from injuries.
But what's puzzled me even more is the chatter of sportswriters when it comes to discussion of McGwire's Hall of Fame merits (or lack thereof). I frequently see them (yes, Jayson Stark and Buster Olney, I mean you) make a statement that I just can't understand: "Since we don't know who was using steroids and who wasn't, you either have to let them all in or none of them in."
Baloney. That's like a policeman bringing in a criminal but then reasoning, "Well, I know this guy was selling crack, but there are a lot of guys right now selling crack who are running around free who I can't ever catch, so it's not fair to incarcerate just this one dude here. We should arrest them all or let them all go free, that's the only way to be fair."
I don't see what's wrong with using the metric, "If you got caught, no Hall of Fame for you." Yes, that means that some steroid users who didn't get caught might be elected to the Hall. But how is it better to have twenty cheaters in the Hall than ten? Isn't some societal good done when the police incarcerate the criminals they DO catch, even if they can't catch them all?
No comments:
Post a Comment