oblem with players using performance-enhancing drugs and it's a widespread issue, not just limited to the few sluggers (Barry Bonds, Rafeal Palmero, Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco) previously fingered. Indeed, the users ranged the positions, even the pitchers got in on it. It's like Curt Schilling once said, it's not like hitters are the only ones doping, wouldn't steroids help you throw harder too?I've written about it before, but now that George Mitchell's report has been made public, it is an issue that the sport of baseball and all those involved can no longer ignore or try to pin on a few people. Perhaps the most astounding aspect of Mitchell's investigation, is that his information is culled from so few cooperating (under threat of prosecution) sources, but seems so wide in its inclusiveness of players. This likely tells that anabolic steroid and human growth hormone use in baseball are much more prevalent than this report was able to identify. As the cliche goes, it's just the tip of the iceberg.
From the sources in the New York Yankees and New York Mets organizations and what was found through the Bay Area Laboratories Co-Operative (BALCO) cooperators, clubs and players from around the league were implicated, as were the player's union and commissioner's office and league owners (from what I've read in the report, economics always took precedence in trying to monitor and combat illegal drug use in the majors).
One interesting fact that the Mitchell Report revealed was that players who used didn't necessarily succeed. Sure, there were the big stars like Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and Miguel Tejada who were accused, but the majority of the 80 or so players mentioned were essentially non-impact players who spent only a few years in the Major Leagues.
Commissioner Bud Selig (disclosure time: I've never been a fan: he ruined the meaning of the All-Star game) has vowed to punish those active players who have "hurt the integrity of the game." What does that mean? How is that defined? How do you punish players who were named by a couple of people (many without corroboration) which basically come down to heresy? My guess is he will try to push more blame onto Bonds, who is facing legal trouble in a perjury and obstruction of justice case, and brush away the others as not damaging to baseball's integrity. Don't expect a lot to come of this report, it will be hard enough for the Commissioner's Office and Players Association to hammer get together in the same room, let alone hammer out an effective drug-testing policy. As long as the fans keep coming and don't demand it by withholding their Visa cards from merchandise and box offices, not much will happen.
Also, this report doesn't even touch baseball's dirty little secrete: the fact that amphetamines have been widely used in the major leagues since the long bus-trip days of the 1950's and 60's to keep player's stamina and alertness up.
The Morality of Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sports
The question that remains is: should the players, the owners and the fans care if players are using steroids or HGH or amphetamines? Obviously, none of us (including myself) has cared very much up until the past few years, if at all. Technically, everybody was winning while they were being used. We the fans got to enjoy dramatic races for home run records and top-notch pitching performances, the players (who used and succeeded) likely got more money through salaries and endorsements, as well as beefing their stats, while owners gained profit through attendance and merchandising revenues gained from the amazing performances of doped-up players.
But what morals are there to be had in sports? Should there be any at all? If the point of sports is to win (sure, playing the game is fun and all, but on a professional level, you win or lose, there is one champion and 20-plus losers every year), then why not gain every conceivable advantage one can to do so? Where do we draw the line in what is performance-enhancing and what is not?
So let's say that using steroids or HGH gives an athlete an unfair advantage over others. What about supplements and vitamins? Or access to trainers and equipment? Or altitude variance? Should the Olympics say that all competing athletes must train on the same equipment, have the same access to trainers in all countries so as not to gain unfair advantage, thus assuring that the very best athletic performance is rewarded, not the most well-funded programs?
I think there's a root problem in trying to lay down morals and ethics in sports, just as there is in war, because they are both about competition and victory. If the mindset is one of winning a gold medal or world championship, then when one has an opportunity to gain advantage in order to have a competitive edge, it must be taken. Why else would one be compe
ting if not to win? Is it unfair to attempt to put athletic competition into a box with morality and ethics? Are they compatible with each other?I'm honestly not sure. I like the idea of athletes competing and winning based on sheer skill and talent, but I can see why all the cheaters we've seen in sports lately did it, when all that is at stake and the mentality of competition is put into context. Sometimes I wonder if we should just do like the old Saturday Night Live "Drug Olympics" sketch and allow anything and everything to gain a competitive edge. Wouldn't the playing field be more even?
Until this all gets figured out, until testing becomes reliable and all of the parties involved make an honest and concerted effort to combat the drug problem in professional sports, I will still be a fan. I'll love baseball as long as I live, if not for its purity then also for its flaws.
