Fair play and fair competition.

Armstrong traduced it so much that he's shunned by essentially everyone who cares about sport qua sport. Amp users in baseball didn't really traduce it at all; if they did, it was merely marginally.

Simple fair play is perfectly fine for private, amateur sporting ventures. If you want to take loads of illegal PEDs in your backyard home-run derby, then so be it, as long as the participants are agreed and join freely.

I have a problem with it in professional sports, though. I'd like to be able to watch a game of baseball without feeling like a damned Roman at the coliseum, cheering on as a bunch of athletes risk destroying their long-term health for my entertainment. If I wanted that, I'd watch football.

Further, what right do spectators and writers have to declare something against "fair play and fair competition", exactly?

What right don't they have to make that declaration? Is pro wrestling "fair competition"? Is Globetrotters v. Washington Generals "fair competition"?

Simple fair play is perfectly fine for private, amateur sporting ventures. If you want to take loads of illegal PEDs in your backyard home-run derby, then so be it, as long as the participants are agreed and join freely.

I have a problem with it in professional sports, though. I'd like to be able to watch a game of baseball without feeling like a damned Roman at the coliseum, cheering on as a bunch of athletes risk destroying their long-term health for my entertainment. If I wanted that, I'd watch football.

Not to be nasty about it, but that's your problem, not baseball's.

The owners and players are the only ones who get to decide what's fair and not. If you don't like it, watch something else.

Further, what right do spectators and writers have to declare something against "fair play and fair competition", exactly?

What right don't they have to make that declaration? Is pro wrestling "fair competition"? Is Globetrotters v. Washington Generals "fair competition"?

Of course not, but not because of anything "we" (the observers) have decided; it's not "fair competition" because it's not competition at all - it's scripted, with the outcome pre-determined.

I've answered your question - they have no right to decide because they hold no title to the outcome. Now answer mine.

Of course not, but not because of anything "we" (the observers) have decided; it's not "fair competition" because it's not competition at all - it's scripted, with the outcome pre-determined.

Do the promoters of pro wrestling tell us that before the matches?

Not to be nasty about it, but that's your problem, not baseball's.

The owners and players are the only ones who get to decide what's fair and not. If you don't like it, watch something else.

If the goal of the owners and the players is to make money, then their customers' problems are their problems.

Plus, you know, all those sneaky laws that the government has which make certain things illegal even if the leagues make no effort to police them.

I've answered your question - they have no right to decide because they hold no title to the outcome. Now answer mine.

"Title to the outcome" isn't a prerequisite to valid criticism of matters of interest and public import -- on grounds of fairness or purity of competition, or otherwise.

Of course not, but not because of anything "we" (the observers) have decided; it's not "fair competition" because it's not competition at all - it's scripted, with the outcome pre-determined.

Do the promoters of pro wrestling tell us that before the matches?

Were you equally up in arms when the writers of Dallas didn't tell you ahead of time who shot JR?

I've answered your question - they have no right to decide because they hold no title to the outcome. Now answer mine.

"Title to the outcome" isn't a prerequisite to valid criticism of matters of interest and public import.

1. You can criticize all you want, but it doesn't mean you have a say in what the rules are.

2. I hate to break your bubble, but there is no "public import" in baseball.

EDIT: While I was typing, I see you added "on grounds of fairness or purity of competition, or otherwise." The only people who get to decide what's "fair" or "pure" are the titleholders, despite what you think. Sports, business, government, your family rules - unless you're personally and directly invested in the outcome, what you have to say is only opinion.

Oh, and

3. Even in "matters of interest and public import" unless you're a tile holder to the outcome, what you have to say is merely opinion. People in Canada can complain about the relationship between the US and Mexico, but until they're part of the US their opinion can help inform our dealings but don't determine them.

what you have to say is only opinion.

Of course.

2. I hate to break your bubble, but there is no "public import" in baseball.

Maybe not in Russia, eh comrade?

1. You can criticize all you want, but it doesn't mean you have the Barry Bonds Fan Club has a say in what the rules are who gets elected to the Hall of Fame.

Fair and balanced? The BBWAA decides!

I'd like to be able to watch a game of baseball without feeling like a damned Roman at the coliseum, cheering on as a bunch of athletes risk destroying their long-term health for my entertainment

I used to feel that way, so I can sympathize with the sentiment. But last I heard, Barry Bonds, who is five years younger than I am (ie getting on), was cycling a hundred miles a day up and down the hills of somewhere. And Willie Mays and Hank Aaron are old gentlemen in superb lifelong physical condition. There have been lifelong health effects of weird drug-and-drink regimens on many a player, most notably Mickey Mantle (though who knows? he didn't come from long-lived stock). Or Eddie Waitkus, as I often mention, who was eaten up by all kinds of substances. Or Caminiti. But clean, hard-working PED use does not seem to have destroyed its participants. That's an important fact, for me. And I guess the jury might still be out on whatever Bonds or Canseco or McGwire were taking. But whatever Mays and Aaron took, we should all take that.

But clean, hard-working PED use does not seem to have destroyed its participants. That's an important fact, for me.

Indeed it is, and a decidedly inconvenient one for the PED Warriors.

Indeed it is, and a decidedly inconvenient one for the PED Warriors.

Not really. The long-term effects of roids have nothing to do with whether they traduce the principles of fair play and fair competition, and that's the critical measure.

And I guess the jury might still be out on whatever Bonds or Canseco or McGwire were taking. But whatever Mays and Aaron took, we should all take that.

Well, one thing we can say is that notwithstanding their "rampant" use of potent and addictive amphetamines, none of them became pill addicts. Hmmmmm.

Not really. The long-term effects of roids have nothing to do with whether they traduce the principles of fair play and fair competition, and that's the critical measure.

The only justification for the anti-PED position is that the success of users puts pressure on others to use, which is supposedly unfair because using is supposedly harmful. If using isn't harmful, then it's not unfair for it to be necessary to use in order to have success. It's not unfair to have to eat right to avoid getting fat. It's not unfair to have to put gas in your car to make it go. And if steroids aren't harmful to your body, it's not unfair to have to use them to hold down a job in major league baseball.

The only justification for the anti-PED position is that the success of users puts pressure on others to use, which is supposedly unfair because using is supposedly harmful. If using isn't harmful, then it's not unfair for it to be necessary to use in order to have success. It's not unfair to have to eat right to avoid getting fat. It's not unfair to have to put gas in your car to make it go. And if steroids aren't harmful to your body, it's not unfair to have to use them to hold down a job in major league baseball.

Maybe, assuming full knowledge of the necessity, availability, and legality. If you had a league wherein a prerequisite to employment was roiding and roiding was legal, that wouldn't necessarily be an anticompetitive league, though the comparison with bygone eras wouldn't be fair without some adjustment.

I don't think our friend Wolf is a troll. It's fine to think people who cheat shouldn't go into the Hall, and it's fine not to think one is bound by what one sees as dismal precedents.

That most of us disagree with him, and that he feels strongly, doesn't make him a troll. He might want to further his argument, though, perhaps expanding his arguments in order to address the issue of precedent, if he wants to.

The magnitude issue is this: Bonds went from a 40+ homer hitter to a 70+ homer hitter in 2001. That's a ratio of something like 7/4. Do you really believe that steroids have anything like that magnitude of effect? Because if you do, then those clean years before 2001 make Barry out not to be Babe Ruth, not to be Ted Williams, but to be Superman. I mean, he won MVPs over roiders, when roids give the competition a 7/4 boost? That's not possible.

I don't have any comment on the rest of your argument, but this is thoroughly illogical. That Bonds might have gotten a "7/4" benefit has essentially no bearing on the benefit his competition got. The latter doesn't follow from the former. Bonds could have been the outlier (someone had to be), most people don't benefit from steroids, etc.

But whatever Mays and Aaron took, we should all take that.

Objection (on similar grounds). Citing two examples out of thousands does not a case make. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that this isn't an effective argument.

The long-term effects of roids have nothing to do with whether they traduce the principles of fair play and fair competition, and that's the critical measure.

For once, you're right.

Of course, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

The only justification for the anti-PED position is that the success of users puts pressure on others to use, which is supposedly unfair because using is supposedly harmful. If using isn't harmful, then it's not unfair for it to be necessary to use in order to have success. It's not unfair to have to eat right to avoid getting fat. It's not unfair to have to put gas in your car to make it go. And if steroids aren't harmful to your body, it's not unfair to have to use them to hold down a job in major league baseball.

If, if if. The problem with that reasoning is that you have to actually use the untested substance widely and for an extended period under something approaching controlled conditions before you can draw conclusions about its safety. Until then, you're just pressuring the other players to play Russian roulette with a gun that may or may not be loaded. There will always be someone willing to take an untested substance if the potential payoff is big enough.

The long-term effects of roids have nothing to do with whether they traduce the principles of fair play and fair competition, and that's the critical measure.

"the principles of fair play and fair competition" which I refuse to define or talk about in any specifics, so I get to apply them however I want.

And again I call BS.

Well, one thing we can say is that notwithstanding their "rampant" use of potent and addictive amphetamines, none of them became pill addicts. Hmmmmm.

Milt Pappas wrote that guys used to get hooked on greenies over the course of the season, then use the winter to try to break the habit. He specifically named Joe Pepitone as someone who did this every year.

Milt Pappas wrote that guys used to get hooked on greenies over the course of the season, then use the winter to try to break the habit. He specifically named Joe Pepitone as someone who did this every year.

Has any major leaguer or ex-major leaguer gone to rehab for greenie addiction? If they'd laid out lines of coke or heroin on the clubhouse table, you'd have addicts by the score, and guys still trying to clean up.

Has any major leaguer or ex major-leaguer shown the effects in retirement of excessive greenie use? Greenie use can lead to brain impact, memory loss, and loss of ccordination. Has any major leaguer or ex-major leaguer ever claimed disability or sought payment for such damage, since they used in the workplace?

Nothing that's happened since the "Greenie Era" is consistent with systematic use by major leaguers. The stories have taken on a life of their own at this point, and should be considered the functional equivalent of tall tales.

An honest question to the staunch anti-PED guys. Do you allow yourself to enjoy most popular music, or impressionist art? Almost all of these people took "performance enhancing drugs" in the form of marijuana, absinthe, LSD, opiates, etc.. Like steroids, at some point all of these things were illegal, in some part of the world. Would you campaign to keep a musician out of the Rock & Roll HOF because he used weed to boost his creativity, thereby giving him an unfair advantage over the rockers who respected western drug laws? I don't see how this isn't germane to the discussion.

"the principles of fair play and fair competition" which I refuse to define or talk about in any specifics, so I get to apply them however I want.

"The principles of fair play and fair competition" aren't something that can always be codified in any sort of a uniform manner. Corked bats, spitballs, and other on-field rules violations are enforced by umpires. Specific game-related but off-field violations like sign stealing from the bleachers are dealt with on an ad hoc basis by the Commissioner's office. And current PED use is detected by testing by outside groups hired by baseball, with penalties handed out by the Commissioner's office. And every single one of these rules is based on a subjective idea of what's "fair" and what isn't. Steroids are hardly unique in this respect.

And when it comes to past violations, this same subjectivity is bound to come into play. Whether some Primates like it or not, writers are going to view all these violations in the light of their subjective ideas of what constitutes "fair play and fair competition." Some writers to this day refuse to acknowledge Gaylord Perry as a legitimate Hall of Famer, just as some people here apparently see corked bats as a worse violation than repeated steroid usage.

And what else would you expect? I'll bet if someone were to list 20 or 30 "violations" that have been cited through the years, from spitballs to Polo Grounds sign stealing to a baserunner yelling "hey!" at a fielder to Eddie Stanky standing behind second waving his arms, you couldn't get two people here to rank those violations in the order of their affront to the spirit of "fair play and fair competition."

Bottom line is that we all have our subjective ideas as to what constitutes "fair play and fair competition," and as to what violations cross the line when it comes to disqualifying a player from the Hall of Fame. The HoF has a character clause, but it doesn't define it in any but the most general terms. I'm sorry** that up to now, the writers don't seem to agree with the consensus here about which side of that line that steroids fall on, but OTOH just think of all the page hits it's given Lucky Jim.

**Of course I'm not sorry when it comes to their evaluation of known steroids users, but I am sorry that their standard of proof seems to be so low. And therein lies yet another subjectively decided issue. Life sure is messy.

Bottom line is that we all have our subjective ideas as to what constitutes "fair play and fair competition," and as to what violations cross the line when it comes to disqualifying a player from the Hall of Fame.

Yes. That's why what was said was "'the principles of fair play and fair competition,' which I refuse to define or talk about in any specifics, so I get to apply them however I want."

You make it up as you go along. There are no actual principles at play. Amps players? Pshaw. Steroids players? Ban them!

(Well, I guess "boyhood idols" is a principle, but not a fair one or a logically consistent one.)

An honest question to the staunch anti-PED guys. Do you allow yourself to enjoy most popular music, or impressionist art? Almost all of these people took "performance enhancing drugs" in the form of marijuana, absinthe, LSD, opiates, etc..

Of course. None of those things are competitive activities; they're creative ones.

If you went to Giants' games in 2005 to see Barry Bonds hit, that's more akin to the impressionist artist. If you went, instead, to see the Giants compete against the Reds (and implicitly compete with their major league forerunners), you'd have a different perspective.

An honest question to the staunch anti-PED guys. Do you allow yourself to enjoy most popular music, or impressionist art? Almost all of these people took "performance enhancing drugs" in the form of marijuana, absinthe, LSD, opiates, etc.. Like steroids, at some point all of these things were illegal, in some part of the world. Would you campaign to keep a musician out of the Rock & Roll HOF because he used weed to boost his creativity, thereby giving him an unfair advantage over the rockers who respected western drug laws? I don't see how this isn't germane to the discussion.

Legality or illegality has little or nothing to do with my view of the relative seriousness of baseball code violations, and to even raise the comparison with other forms of entertainment is, to put it politely, mindless. We've got too damn many lawyers and would-be lawyers trying to play their game with baseball ethics questions as it is, without having someone try to get an injunction to close down the Rock and Roll Museum or the Boston Symphony Orchestra over the fact that many composers or musicians have broken their countries' drug laws.

EDIT: coke to SBB

Bottom line is that we all have our subjective ideas as to what constitutes "fair play and fair competition," and as to what violations cross the line when it comes to disqualifying a player from the Hall of Fame.

Yes. That's why what was said was "'the principles of fair play and fair competition,' which I refuse to define or talk about in any specifics, so I get to apply them however I want."

You make it up as you go along. There are no actual principles at play. Amps players? Pshaw. Steroids players? Ban them!

(Well, I guess "boyhood idols" is a principle, but not a fair one or a logically consistent one.)

You say all this as if your own particular standards aren't subjective. What a laugh. But then you've never been much for self-reflection, so this hardly comes as a shock.

An honest question to the staunch anti-PED guys. Do you allow yourself to enjoy most popular music, or impressionist art? Almost all of these people took "performance enhancing drugs" in the form of marijuana, absinthe, LSD, opiates, etc.. Like steroids, at some point all of these things were illegal, in some part of the world. Would you campaign to keep a musician out of the Rock & Roll HOF because he used weed to boost his creativity, thereby giving him an unfair advantage over the rockers who respected western drug laws? I don't see how this isn't germane to the discussion.

I'm not a staunch anti-PED guy, but I will address some of your points. First of all, for most people there is a distinction between creative and competitive things - the way to cheat for an artist is to steal someone else's music, and yes most people have problems with that. Also, in most cases for artists, the drugs are performance-retarding and not performance-enhancing. Also, people who care a lot about music do not treat induction into the R&R HOF as some huge important music topic - sadly the same can't be said about the baseball HOF and people on this site.

Nothing that's happened since the "Greenie Era" is consistent with systematic use by major leaguers. The stories have taken on a life of their own at this point, and should be considered the functional equivalent of tall tales.

So you think people who wrote about greenie use contemporaneously, like Jim Brosnan and Jim Bouton, were just making things up? When Pappas wrote that Braves pitcher Pat Jarvis used to take something called a Black Beauty, and his teammates would practically have to peel him off the backstop, he was just having a little fun? When a doctor was charged with writing 23 illicit amphetamine prescriptions for members of the Phillies organization, including seven major leaguers, back in 1980, that was all a lie?

Of course. None of those things are competitive activities; they're creative ones.

I'd disagree with that. Many artists strive to get rich and famous, and to do that you need to compete with other artists venues, radio play, etc.

Andy - I was only bringing this up to highlight the sillyness of most anti-PED arguments, not because I want drug-free rock music.

Also, people who care a lot about music do not treat induction into the R&R HOF as some huge important music topic - sadly the same can't be said about the baseball HOF and people on this site.

The baseball HOF is so hotly-debated around here because it exemplifies the writers' status as primary curators and interpreters of the sport and its mores. People are railing primarily at that, not so much the choices themselves.

This underlying battle is why you see all the hullabaloo about the baseball awards and HOF choices, and why you don't see it in any other sport or the R&R HOF.

You say all this as if your own particular standards aren't subjective. What a laugh.

Let's start with this: I treat both amps players and steroids players consistently, which is basically a prerequisite for being taken seriously on this issue. I know that sticks in your craw.

And as I've said, I can respect a position that says that BOTH amps players and steroids players should be banned from the Hall. I don't agree with it, but I respect it because it's logically consistent. But the idea that there is a meaningful distinction between steroids and amps for the purposes of the issue of the HOF is decidedly non-serious, and unworthy of respect.

I treat both amps players and steroids players consistently,

Because you subjectively believe they should be treated "consistently." There's no more to it than that.

But the idea that there is a meaningful distinction between steroids and amps for the purposes of the issue of the HOF is decidedly non-serious.


Another entirely subjective conclusion. You're getting good at this!!

The baseball HOF is so hotly-debated around here because it exemplifies the writers' status as primary curators and interpreters of the sport and its mores. People are railing primarily at that, not so much the choices themselves.

This underlying battle is why you see all the hullabaloo about the baseball awards and HOF choices, and why you don't see it in any other sport or the R&R HOF.

Who do you think vote for the pro-football Hall-of-Fame?

Who do you think vote for the pro-football Hall-of-Fame?

Writers. In football, there isn't a blabby faction attacking writers' place within the sport, and thus no one gives a crap about who gets picked for the HOF.

In baseball, there is an attack.

Isn't that what I said?

And what else would you expect?

I expect reasonableness, and I think your post was reasonable. But you and I (though we disagree on this) I think at least understand each others opinions. I hoped to get SBB's definition, because his seems much less reasonable than yours.

You say all this as if your own particular standards aren't subjective.

My standard (I know you were not replying to me) is I think fairly objective. Apply the enforced rules of MLB at the time (along with the standards and practices) when evaluating a player for inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

Since black players were not allowed in MLB for a time I don't try to evaluate MLB players from that era in the context of them and those that were excluded. Right or wrong (it is wrong by the way) the black players were not there and even though the white players should have been competing against them they were not, so you don't adjust the white players performance in some capricious way downward (or ban them all together) because of the circumstances. Those were the circumstances the competition happened in.

Similarly PEDs (Greenies, Steroids, HGH, whatever) have been present in baseball. When there is no enforced MLB ban on them then that is the context the game was played in and you take it for what it is. Now that the game is "clean" (take that for what it is worth) evaluate in that context.

Apply the enforced rules of MLB at the time (along with the standards and practices) when evaluating a player for inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

But if you do that, you aren't applying the correct standard, so it doesn't matter how "objective" it is.

Let's start with this: I treat both amps players and steroids players consistently, which is basically a prerequisite for being taken seriously on this issue. I know that sticks in your craw.

This just in: Ray takes himself seriously.

Because you subjectively believe they should be treated "consistently." There's no more to it than that.

heh. Under this standard there is almost nothing that can be said to be not subjective. Which is I guess an opinion, but one that sort of renders the distinction between subjective and objective meaningless.

Writers. In football, there isn't a blabby faction attacking writers' place within the sport, and thus no one gives a crap about who gets picked for the HOF.

There is most certainly an anaylst-type of football writer who thinks the mainstream and old school writers make bad HoF choices.

Edit: in both football and baseball, most of the people publically attacking the "writers" are writers themselves so being a writer isn't really the distinction you want to make.

But if you do that, you aren't applying the correct standard, so it doesn't matter how "objective" it is.

So what is the correct standard? Does it by chance involve the undefined phrase including the words "fair", "play", and "competition"? Do you have any posts on this subject that are not just assertion without any foundation?

There is most certainly an anaylst-type of football writer who thinks the mainstream and old school writers make bad HoF choices.

Of course. There's also a rump of people who thinks the basketball HOF makes bad choices. Those groups are nowhere near as big and loud and resolute as the baseball saberists.

The baseball HOF is so hotly-debated around here because it exemplifies the writers' status as primary curators and interpreters of the sport and its mores. People are railing primarily at that

Don't you see the contradiction here? Making HOF induction and the awards all-important topics that deserves constant discussion adds to the writers' status as curators and interpreters (which you are supposedly railing against).

Don't you see the contradiction here? Making HOF induction and the awards some all-important topic that deserves constant discussion adds to the writers' status as curators and interpreters (which you are supposedly railing against).

I do now. I'm not your audience, though. To me, Murray Chass is the guy who got Billy Martin to utter the immortal, "The two of them deserve each other; one's a born liar, the other's convicted," not the caricature you read about in these pages.

My standard (I know you were not replying to me) is I think fairly objective. Apply the enforced rules of MLB at the time (along with the standards and practices) when evaluating a player for inclusion in the Hall of Fame....

Similarly PEDs (Greenies, Steroids, HGH, whatever) have been present in baseball. When there is no enforced MLB ban on them then that is the context the game was played in and you take it for what it is. Now that the game is "clean" (take that for what it is worth) evaluate in that context.

That's an objective standard on paper, but as it doesn't allow for any evaluation of pre-testing steroid use as an unfair competitive advantage, I don't think it fully engages the underlying question of (as you put it) "fair play and fair competition". If you're either forgiving or agnostic about steroids, your position makes a lot more sense than if you're not, but if you're not forgiving of steroid use, it seems like little more than a quasi-legalistic way of avoiding the underlying issue.

Again, I make no claim to any "objectivity" about this, since like all opinions when it comes to steroids, one's own particular set of ethical standards are inevitably going to come into play, not to mention one's subjective opinion about the relative degree of ethical violations involved in those PEDs you listed above.

It's nice to know, though, given how many people here endorse cheating and support cheaters, that there used to be someone else who posted here once who was on the side of integrity.

Thanks--you've cleared up why this story is already at 150 comments.

but as it doesn't allow for any evaluation of pre-testing steroid use as an unfair competitive advantage, I don't think it fully engages the underlying question of (as you put it) "fair play and fair competition".

Well I think it does (subjectively). The premise is all participants in play at any given time participate in that context and should be evaluated in that context. If a player does something innovative that gives them an advantage then it happens.

Babe Ruth changed baseball by innovating the art of hitting. He gained a huge advantage, and the rest of MLB caught up. But you can't try to judge players before that innovation, during or after any way other than within the context of the times. How much was the Ruth change and how much was balls, playing fields and so on. How much do you discount those players before Ruth for not innovating (if at all)?

The second premise I use is you can't try to parse out every advantage each player seeks and how that impacts the competitive ecosystem. It is just not possible to do either objectively or subjectively, so don't bother. Fair play and fair competition have to be handled at the time in the context of the times by the participants, it can't be retroactively and subjectively applied.