But first, let’s take you out to San Diego where Manny Ramirez is just back from a 50-game suspension. For cheating. For cutting corners. For breaking rules. For lying. For deception. For letting down his teammates. For contributing to suspicions against every honest player. For raising a giant middle finger to sportsmanship. For abusing the fans. For risking that for which Lou Gehrig would’ve given anything - his own health.
Ramirez, of course, homered today in his first at bat. And some people cheered. As if he were just back from an injury, or a death in the family. As if he were a hero. As if he were an honest man. As if he were somehow worthy of sharing the meaningfulness of this day with Lou Gehrig.
Credit to Fox’s Tim McCarver - who has never gotten enough of it for this one quality he has shown, often at such great risk to his own security and even employment - for his honesty in pointing out the inappropriateness of the reaction to Ramirez’s return. He is not making a comeback. He is out on parole and it will be years - if ever - before many of us will believe he did not do something illegal, improper, or immoral, this morning.
...This is Lou Gehrig’s day. The rest of the juicers may come back and play tomorrow and there will not be boycotts. The Dodgers will probably go to the World Series, carried in part by a great flaming fraud like Ramirez. And judging by the brainless response of fans who would cheer anybody if they hit the ball 425 feet for their team, and boo anybody if they hit the ball 425 feet for their opponents, there will not even be significant repercussions.
But today, there should have been. Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez and the others of the PED era did not belong in baseball today, and that they did not show the requisite awareness of their own shame, only makes it worse. Lord, send us a ‘roider who has the presence of mind to say: “On this day I do my penance; I don’t yet belong on the field even with just the memory of this man, I hope you’ll forgive me and I can again earn your trust.”
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
True enough, but as soon as Olbermann turns to those topics he'll get ragged on for that, and told to stick to sports. It's not as if he has any safe havens from his critics.
Which of those things does not apply to taking amphetamines?
Seriously, Keith, which one?
I have...sorbet.
And can we stop talking about Manny Ramirez so much? He took a PED, got penalized, and is back from his penalty. He's probably going to hit a lot more HRs this season, and the Dodgers are the overwhelming favorites to go to the World Series from the NL this year...where they'll get drilled by whatever AL East team wins the AL pennant. Move along...
I try to restrict myself to lurking on 'steroids threads', or even avoid them altogether; but I don't get the point Dial is making here. Maybe Olbermann in a previous column ignored the matter of amphetamines, and celebrated some speeded-up hero. But if he didn't, then why bring it up?
Saying a person can't complain about steroids in baseball if he or she doesn't complain about amphetamines is very historically minded, and is to me akin to the kind of 'catechetal rhetoric' one sees among the revolutionary left in Britain. Each speech has to be peppered with remarks about Rupert Murdoch, posh 'Ooray 'Enry's and Tony Blair's Thatcherite tendencies. (Usually the European Union gets thrown in, too. Nobody on the further reaches of the spectrum likes the European Union any more, right or left.)
So it's too late to moan about amphetamines nowadays. It would be like lambasting the Confederacy for defending slavery. We all accept Negro slavery is bad, but all exploitation is bad and we should focus our attacks on the exploitation of our own day.
Olbermann can do something to show users like Manny Ramirez his disapproval. He can't do much about ballplayers from the 1960s.
Seems like he's always been all about himself. This isn't a new development.
Manager: Bart you've got to go on!
Bart: Slag off!
Milhouse: You've changed man, It used to be about the music.
Bart: I said slag off!
Yet, I agree with him on this. I'm certainly in the minority here, and wonder if that is also true for baseball fans "in general". At the same time, the sway of public opinion doesn't matter. I like baseball less than I used to. The Manny thing is one reason why.
I'm sure baseball and baseball fandom will somehow overcome my personal reduction in following the game.
Do you have a business card?
Since ALL HE KNOWS is baseball played "cutting corners", and it's something he's always loved, he is certainly FOS on this point. To suggest Olbermann, and all media, and for that matter every fan, doesn't laud players that use(d) illegal PEDs, is utterly laughable. OLbermann (without googling) has certainly lauded praise on many, many, many PED users, so singling out Manny as "giving the finger" to people is just crap.
When you can produced some "fair-and-balanced" portrayal of the cheating from 1955-2005 in the media, then I won't mention it again, but the people writing these pieces know absolutely nothing about baseball that didn't involve taking PEDs (there are a few exceptions, but Olbermann Costas and McCarver aren't any).
I mean MCCARVER!!!!! When did you hear McCarver saying we did a lot of PEDs and they were wrong. Am I supposed to believe that Timmy knew nothing about it? He never did it? Players nowadays won't even admit *that*.
So, for all the "OH TEH STERIODS!", I'd like to see Keith include in this some admission that he worshipped PED using players hius whole life.
Yes, it has some of that you refer to, but your example is terribly weak, IMO, because there are countless books and articles on the evils of slavery. Produce those for amphetamines.
I still like Keith, because I have completely ignored him since he left ESPN. I knew that he'd be likely to piss me off, and I didn't want to ruin the memories of the guy (I think slightly over DP) who did Sportscenter the way it should be done. Someone was quoting the other day, and it applies for me here, I wish I could remember the thread or the author, but it was essentially "Nothing upsets me more than bad arguments from those who share my position." I'm more liberal than Keith in many ways, and while he's better than most of those he attacks, it's not productive by any stretch.
As for what I quoted up there? That's just blatant hackery. That is so ####### strawman/heart strings/hiding behind the virtuous, for zero reason. There is literally no reason to bring it up, and while Keith may have a certitude, it isn't clear anywhere other than his own mind that Gehrig wouldn't have done steroids to stay in the lineup. I highly doubt it, but I'm not the one using his image to shame others. This is just as bad as Limbaugh railing about something and leaving out key facts or O'Reilly chastising people for "the negative culture of name-calling" and then calling the entire Democratic party worse things than just about anyone else. It's not just bad, it's ####### sad. You used to be better than this, Keith.
Um, according to the players, close to 90% of players used amphetamines. ACCORDING TO SEVERAL PLAYERS. So who are "the honest players"? It's no more too late to moan about amphetamines than it is to rail on McGwire or Bonds. Or any pre-testing player. Amphetamines aren't the drug of the 60s, they are also the drug of the 00's.
Um.
Yeah, amphetamines have been a constant in baseball since at least the 1960's. Willie Mays and Mike Schmidt are two notables who have admitted to using them.
What's funny is that Olbermann has very likely used marijuana, or some other recreational drug. Absolutely no one who has smoked marijuana or used anything else in that "family" of drugs has any right to begrudge others for using illicit substances.
The anti-steroids crowd continues to move the goalposts. First it's, "Well, they used." So they implement testing to punish players for using. But then they noticed the players came back a bit too soon for their tastes, so the punishments were increased. Careers weren't axed (except for Barry Bonds'), so now they want quiet disappearance or pomp-and-circumstance apologetic retribution.
It would probably get to the point where PED-users are executed, and the anti-PED crowd whines about the execution not being violent enough.
There is truth in this though execution seems a bit harsh. My preference would be a lifetime ban but I'd settle for a year. But yes 50 games is far too lenient. Oh and the rest of you can take your libertarian amoralism and stuff it. Winning is only meaningful if it takes place within an ethical world.
Just like last year...
Hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while...
There is truth in this though execution seems a bit harsh. My preference would be a lifetime ban but I'd settle for a year. But yes 50 games is far too lenient. Oh and the rest of you can take your libertarian amoralism and stuff it. Winning is only meaningful if it takes place within an ethical world.
They can be banned for life, when you personally take an oath to quit your job if they found you have taken steroids.
In fact, I think they will be the better for it.
This makes no sense at all. But sure I'll take an oath not to take steroids.
How is taking steroids morally worse than those things, enough to advocate a lifetime ban?
Well, it should be any performance-enhancing substance such as coffee or any illicit substance such as marijuana; not just steroids.
A little moral consistency would be nice to see from the anti-PED crowd.
Not at all. Winning in baseball has been meaningful since its inception, and baseball is riddled with unethical activity.
coughinnocentuntilprovenguiltycough
fancy that
manny done the crime and he done his time. every day of it. he didn't "get paroled" - that means let out early. ain't HIS fault his return coincided with Lou Gehrig Worship Day
i sure nuff don't see olberman getting on mota/franklin/romero's ass
mickey mantle was the greatest role model EVAH because he was an irresponsible drunken whoremonger who refused to keep himself in top notch playing condition by keeping himself as healthy as possible, by refusing to even think of getting counseling for his obvious mental health issues because counseling is for pu$$ies and weaklings and he eagerly endangered his health by taking amphetamines by mouth and also injections. (oooooooh shooting up!!!! but it was probably in the arm instead of the ass, so that makes it ok because only queers like mcgwire and manny would take it in the ass you know what i'm sayin)
and amphetamines are just the exact same as coffee. but back then you couldn't get coffee shots or pills so then if you didn't like the taste, you could get a "hangover restoration" pill because amphetamines have no effect whatsoever on normal people who had plenty of sleep and NO hangover and even if it did, so what because it didn't give them larger muscles.
and that is why mickey and the rest of the GOB amphetamine users are this great role model and heroes and manny should be removed from baseball immediately. unlike romero.
Finally- a statement that all people of proper character can agree with.
The part where Mantle, Aaron, et al, never were suspended for doing those things, whereas Manny broke a specific rule and served a penalty he knew existed. I can understood equating amphetamine use with the pre-testing PED use of Bonds and others, and in fact agree with that position, but Manny really is in a different boat than either sets of guys.*
In other words, if Olbermann's outrage at PED use has only existed since testing was implemented, it would excuse the absence of outrage for previous amp use (but to be consistent, there would have to be no outrage for pre-testing steroid use as well).
* Please don't take this as being in agreement with Olbermann's position. To me, Manny served his penalty, and now it's over. I just don't think it's inherently contradictory.
The part where Mantle, Aaron, et al, never were suspended for doing those things, whereas Manny broke a specific rule and served a penalty he knew existed. I can understood equating amphetamine use with the pre-testing PED use of Bonds and others, and in fact agree with that position, but Manny really is in a different boat than either sets of guys.
Are we just talking about the same argument we've had many times before about "it wasn't against the rules" vs. "that doesn't matter"? Or are you saying that because Manny got caught and served his time, that makes it different than Aaron/Mantle or Canseco/McGwire?
That's what I'm saying. Manny used PEDs when they were specifically banned by baseball, whereas Aaron/Mantle and Canseco/McGwire used PEDs when they were not. Therefore, one's response to Manny's usage can be (though it doesn't have to be) different than one's response to Aaron/Mantle or Canseco/McGwire's usage without being inconsistent.
He is arguing that the return of Manny shouldn't be celebrated, and that 'convicted' PED users should at least have a sense of shame to take themselves out of the lineup on 'Lou Gehrig Day'.
I can wholly agree with the first point. Manny's 'done his time', and he's back, and his return should be quietly noted by those who need to note it for playing purposes. He shouldn't be given a parade or applauded or be the focus for national TV coverage.
The second is more controversial, and I don't really care one way or another. It's up to individual consciences how to treat the unfortunate coincidence of 'cheaters' and commemorations. I certainly wouldn't want to hold them up to public shame on any given day, and I would hope that people would have the good sense to excuse themselves where their presence might be unseemly. But I'm an old-fashioned character in that way, in expecting people to police themselves.
I agree with Dial up to a point — you can't celebrate old-time PED users while at the same time denouncing today's versions. But one is entitled to argue that using illicit drugs to gain competitive advantage is wrong; that we shouldn't encourage such behaviour; and that where we know people cheat, or where matters are sub-judice, we are entitled to discount some of their achievements to a greater or lesser degree.
Olbermann's screed goes further than I'd care to, but that's a reflection of modern-day journalistic culture, which is itself a reflection of society's values. If you want to see a load of sanctimoniousness, look around you.
Fra,
I agree, but "regular" steroid use in baseball is more than 20 years old, and if the players felt that it was terrible (as some collective majority) they would have policed themselves. They didn't. Wally Joyner took them. Andy Pettitte. These are/were MLB's "stand-up" guys. They CLEARLY didn't think it was cheating until they were told to think that. The Kirk Radomski links are lots of players. Joyner says "everyone" knew where to get the stuff. That means use wasn't hidden (within the clubhouse). Just like amphetamine usage. Now there were absolutely plenty of players who felt it "wasn't for them" or even "too far" pharmaceutically, but that's just as true for amphetamine use. Some players felt about greenies as others felt about steroids.
Lift your lantern - look for an honest man.
Greenies do equal steroids in the context these are being used.
I mean, it's also against the rules to throw one's glove at a batted ball, or to throw a spitball. But there's a consensus -- as reflected in the penalty for doing these things -- that banishment is not appropriate. Ditto here.
To be clear, I'm not saying that that's necessarily all there is to the story. But this claim of yours strikes me as absurd on its face.
I must have missed the parade. When did it happen?
As for the national TV coverage -- he doesn't really have any control over that.
As to whether he should be applauded or booed -- If I was a Dodger fan, I would boo him for being stupid or careless enough to miss 1/3 of the season, and then get on with cheering him as a Dodger.
Of course, since the Dodgers are the epitome of all that is evil in the world, I don't understand why everybody isn't booing them continually. I blame Joe Torre for giving them a veneer of avuncular bonhomie, or some such thing.
Andy,
Greenies do equal steroids in the context these are being used.
And don't bother discussing this with Andy. Since he has convinced himself there are no salient differences between the physiological effects of a cup of coffee and methamphetamine, there is no point in attempting further rational discourse on the subject. Then again, since he seems to think that Barry Bonds did steroids, when we all know this to be impossible, I'm not sure he is capable of being rational on any subject. Probably smoked too much reefer in his bebop days, if you ask me.
SOSH never suggested it was. As he stated in his earlier post:
So, taking illegal drugs to improve your playing is cheating in 2000.
But taking illegal drugs to improve your playing is not cheating in 1970.
Makes sense to me.
Amphetamine was in use in baseball before it was illegal.
Who?
Actually, this is just Krazy Keith being Krazy Keith.
and after.
Why are you pushing to portray me as being in favor of both legal and illegal amphetamine use in baseball?
Exactly why?
Why are you pushing to portray me as being in favor of both legal and illegal amphetamine use in baseball?
Ask yourself; you're the one that said using amphetamines aren't cheating.
There's no baseball rule that ever made steroid use cheating at the same time amphetamines are not.
If one goes by the laws of society as part of what determines cheating, there is also no point where steroids would be cheating and amphetamines not.
That just leaves tea leaves. Srul was being polite and assuming that, as there was no baseball-rule basis, that you were going by the basis of law rather than some foggy, vague, arbitrary determination of what is cheating and what is not.
Oh, get a ####### grip. It's baseball.
I was responding to someone who claimed that you cannot celebrate old-time PED use while denouncing modern PED use.
I responded that of course you can; one was cheating and the other was not.
What, in that, led you to believe that I was saying that one can celebrate old-time PED use whether legal or illegal, and whether within the rules or not, while decrying modern PED use whether legal or illegal, and whether within the rules or not?
Do you still believe that that's what I'm saying?
Do you honestly believe that it's what I meant?
I give up. I'm oh-so-sorry that I wasn't strict, exact, and ponderously lawyerly in my wording of what I thought was an obvious point on a casual internet thread. Goodbye.
And don't bother discussing this with Andy.
Fine by me, bro. Is that a promise on your part?
Since he has convinced himself there are no salient differences between the physiological effects of a cup of coffee and methamphetamine, there is no point in attempting further rational discourse on the subject. Then again, since he seems to think that Barry Bonds did steroids, when we all know this to be impossible, I'm not sure he is capable of being rational on any subject. Probably smoked too much reefer in his bebop days, if you ask me.
Well, I suppose if you can believe the second of those three propositions, you're fully capable of believing the other two, and who am I to throw a wrench into your impressive imagination?
Wha'?
Now he's being vilified for not benching himself when his manager and teammates presumably wanted him to play. How would taking himself out of the lineup to appease Olbermann not also be "letting down his teammates"?
Also, why stop with the Gehrig anniversary? Today was the 7th anniversary of Ted Williams's death. Manny plainly disrespected the memory of the Splendid Splinter when he agreed to PH in the 11th inning today. I'm sure Olbermann could get himself worked into a state of high moral dudgeon about just about any day this summer if he set his mind to it.
Yes, for most of us the audit would be merely irritating and inconvenient but it is something a non-athlete can relate to -- and I'd be willing to bet a certain number of people who've taken a public stand on Manny would fall afoul of the audit (at roughly the same rate as the people who aren't outraged by Manny et al)
Just like last year...
Hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while...
Sure, if he enhances his natural nut-finding ability with LASIK surgery, thereby forcing the other squirrels to do the same in order to compete for acorns.
I'm guessing this a paid holiday for government workers east of the Hudson, no?
Probably the wrong time of day to respond to Hawai'ian Srul, but...
...I restate my point that there's a distinction being made here between what to do about Manny and what to do to Manny.
It's not Manny's fault national TV made an issue of his suspension ending, but I never said it was. Nor, for that matter, did Olbermann in this article. My target is the muddle. MLB probably didn't welcome the coincidence of Manny's return and Lou Gehrig Day once they'd realized that this would happen. Fox really should have shut up about it, and made a point of not pointing the cameras at him. But they couldn't resist. It's 'news'. And thus floods out a lot more sanctimoniousness from the four corners of journalism. Fox are the cause of the trouble here, because their 'news values' trumped their 'polite society values'. Because Fox is without any of the latter, generally, they are a blight on the landscape of civility. And more evidence that television simply has no moral compass any more, if it ever did.
As for what to do to Manny, opponents' fans should boo him mercilessly for the cheater he is. Dodger fans can decide for themselves whether to cheer a cheater wildly, or simply applaud politely when he does well and boo mercilessly when he boots a ball.
The answer to that is yes.
Nice use of the 'okina!
Fox are the cause of the trouble here
there, and everywhere.
IOW it was expressed in the form of a question, the answer to which depends on your definition of "enhancement." We both have had plenty more to say about that, and if you want to rehash the whole conversation, it's all out there for you to copy.
The answer to that is yes.
That's your answer, not mine. But you knew this already. Just as I've known your take on this question for the last 4 or 5 years, which is why I don't feel the need to go back and forth again for yet another round. I'm not quite sure what your point of all this is, anyway, since 99% of the people who now populate these threads already agree with your take to begin with, now that Kevin's been banned, Retardo's a gentleman farmer, and Backlasher and JC have gone on to less repetitive topics. You're totally preaching to the BTF Mass Choir on this subject.
And your willingness to ignore reams of medical evidence.
And your willingness to ignore reams of medical evidence.
And your willingness to remain indifferent to how everyone viewed greenies at the time (the reaction to Bouton's book was a great big yawn***, other than a perfunctory reaction from Bowie Kuhn, with zero followup), as opposed to how the majority of writers and a majority of non-juicing players view steroids today.
Not that this matters to you, since you apparently think that all questions of ethics and morality can be settled in a laboratory, rather than by trying to determine a consensus of those who actually play the game. You'd be much better off trying to influence that consensus rather than wasting your breath here.
***although his revelations about his teammates' skirtchasing did cause Bouton a lot of grief
During the height of the "steroids era" -- a decade ago -- the majority of writers viewed steroids as "a great big yawn." The only thing they got excited about was when a reporter reported that McGwire had Andro in his locker -- and their ire was directed at the reporter.
And you have absolutely no idea how "a majority of non-juicing players" view steroids today.
During the height of the "steroids era" -- a decade ago -- the majority of writers viewed steroids as "a great big yawn." The only thing they got excited about was when a reporter reported that McGwire had Andro in his locker -- and their ire was directed at the reporter.
But if they truly didn't care about steroids then, why should it be any different today? You've always said that the public didn't care then and doesn't care now. You've always said that the players knew about it all along but didn't care. You've always said that Selig and the owners were complicit, whether knowingly or not. So how did we get from "McGwire saved baseball" to McGwire gets 22% of the HoF vote? What was the diabolus ex machina that caused this sea change among the writers, in the face of all this indifference you keep citing? Is Henry Waxman all that powerful?
Or is it possible, just possible, that the BTF orthodoxy of lumping all PEDs together in one big undifferentiated mass, wasn't actually shared by most of the outside world, once it finally (and belatedly) sunk in what steroids might be doing to the game? Has that admittedly far-fetched thought even once entered that small part of your brain which you reserve for heresy and superstition?
And you have absolutely no idea how "a majority of non-juicing players" view steroids today.
Not in the sense of being able to cite a poll, no. But if there were any great outcry on the part of many current players as to the injustice of the most prominent eligible juicer being blackballed by the Hall of Fame, it sure hasn't been making many headlines.
You are arguing the equivalent that aspirin doesn't relieve pain because you once heard an old pool player (or Jim Bouton) say aspirin didn't do anything for him but upset his stomach.
You want to argue opinion, whereas I want to argue fact. I don't care about opinion, and it appears you don't care about fact.
No, it's not. Amphetamines, taken in certain doses, have shown some improvements over baseline performance, I think we'd all agree. Whether ballplayers were taking greenies in those doses, or under supervision as many clearly are taking PED steroids and HGH, is another question. Whether they were enhanced or harmed or just returned momentarily to a non-staggering stage, we can only surmise.
the problem is we DO NOT all agree. That's the entire argument. Andy says you are dead wrong about that.
In reponse to:
Greenies enhance performance. That's just a medical fact.
JC wrote:
The part that Chris quotes:
And the part that Chris leaves out:
He's pulled this kind of crap on me so many times I've lost count, but I guess it's nice to see that he's an equal opportunity distorter and cherry picker.
they weren't taking doses under supervision in a manner that can demonstrate performance enhancement on the field.
Just to be clear and as non-provocative as possible, Chris, I do accept that amps can "enhance" certain skills people have, like possibly concentration and focus (even eyesight, for the sake of argument). But whether any player was using them in that way, in the ways shown in controlled studies to bring about those benefits, is not clear from the evidence.
Now, w/regard to PEDs over the past two decades (at least) we have evidence that players were pursuing these things precisely to attain certain benefits: hit the ball harder, hit the ball farther, throw the ball faster, and so on. They consulted state of the art doctors and technicians and researchers, all for those aims. In one case, you had guys reaching for a handful of speed much as I reach for my coffee (which doesn't make it wrong or right): it makes me feel ready to do what I think I need to do. In some cases, they may have been getting even much more from the speed than a hangover cure or a wiping away of the morning cobwebs. I just don't know. But in the other case, they seemed to be getting exactly what they sought: abnormal abilities to hit the ball hard and far and to throw it fast.
I'll concede that there is other "noise" making the isolation of the PED variable tricky: smaller parks, thinner bat handles, and so on. But, there seems to have been a kind of odd moment historically in baseball when guys like McGwire and Sosa and Bonds and so on blew past old HR records. For whatever reasons, and I think they're good ones, you obviously disagree, many of us distinguish between the one case and the other.
Sosa, AFAIK, is still just a poorly accused one. And then there is the matter of pitchers that have been busted. How does that offset the HRs? And the myriad of players that took (the Radomski files) where there was no real supervision (and certainly not by doctors). I think there are 8 BALCO customers? And McGwire and Sosa weren't ones, so they weren't doing it under supervision (unless Dr. Canseco counts).
They basically got a "take this much", and I am pretty sure that greenies were doled out in a similar fashion - take one and see how you feel. Then take two..etc. With pills that have an instant effect, it's not much trial and error before you know how much to take to hit your groove. So, I think your point is noted, but the clubhouse men that have been making the stronger coffee for the last 30 years know what they are doing and how to advise ballplayers.
So, back to the things you said were being misrepresented above: you HAVEN'T changed on this, so I'm happy to point it out in every thread you want to discuss PEDs that you simply don't think PEDs are PEDs, except the ones you want to believe are PEDs. then people can properly evaluate your opinion on what a PED is.
To be clear: I have no qualms with yours or anyone else's interpretations that steroids may enhance differently (and you can hold the opinion "more", though I disagree), but I won't brook the advancement of the idea that greenies do not enhance performance above baseline.
Who is the first known steroid user, and when did they do it?
Tom House claims to have used back when he was playing, which would probably make him the first (assuming his claims are true).
The first known "modern" steroid user is probably Jose Canseco, although there was some speculation around Brian Downing.
I remember whispers about Lance Parrish back in the mid-80s as well, he was pretty buff for the era.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main