Yet if we believe La Russa, he was ignorant of any performance-enhancing substance use in both Oakland and St. Louis. This man—George Will’s example of brilliance in the book, “Men at Work,” a baseball manager with a law degree, the subject of the book, “Three Nights in August,” by Buzz Bissinger, a book that, according to Publisher’s Weekly, “reveals La Russa’s history and personality, conveying the manager’s intensity and his compulsive need to be prepared for any situation that might arise during ” ‘the war’ of each at-bat”—didn’t know the stars of his teams were using steroids.
Of all the absurdities of the steroid era, this might be the most absurd.
La Russa’s claim of ignorance smacks of arrogance, the very arrogance that has motivated him to bring McGwire, who had been a hermit since his embarrassing appearance before Congress in 2005, back into the game as the Cardinals hitting coach. The last thing baseball needs is one of the biggest remainders of one of its most shameful eras back in the game and in uniform. It is not good for the game, and certainly not good for the Cardinals franchise, which has become divided over McGwire’s presence.
...It won’t. La Russa’s role in the steroid era is as large and loathsome as McGwire’s, Barry Bonds, or any of the high-profile cheaters. He is the management figure most associated with steroid use—in two leagues—and like those cheaters, should not honored for his contributions.
La Russa is third on the all-time wins list by managers, with 2,552. He has won two World Series, five pennants and four Manager of the Year honors. But in those categories that very much exist among the criteria for election of baseball’s Hall of Fame—“integrity, sportsmanship, character”—Tony La Russa belongs with Mark McGwire, on the outside looking in.
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.
Again, not necessarily.
It still seems obvious to me that you totally contradicted yourself between posts 37 and 97, which isn't any great sin. But whatever. I know you'd never admit it.
BS, Assclown. There are plenty of people with whom I have reasonable disagreements.
But a troll is a troll is a troll, like Tommy and RossCW, and a clown is a clown. And I wasn't the first to call this guy a clown. His article is nonsense. But since he is hard core steroids warrior like you, everything he says must be golden.
Bite me, jerk.
Actually this isn't true. One of these could very easily be guilty of willful blindness without the others being guilty of it. Just because they were in similar situations doesn't mean one's guilty necessarily implies the others'.
I still don't see how these points are related. You're doing what you accuse Srul of doing -- asserting that Loverro should be taken seriously because he's a professional rather than defending his article on the merits.
Ok, I take it back: Francona knew nothing.
Whatever. The point is that people are assuming LaRussa's guilt without having the foggiest clue what he actually knew. Yes, LaRussa could be guilty of willful blindness without Torre being guilty of it. But we have nothing to distinguish one manager from the other on this score.
this is one of the dumbest arguments ever on the internet.
I agree with you about the presumption of guilt before innocence, but at the sametime common sense has to apply, and to honestly think that TLR, Torre, or Francona didn't have a clue is just silly, at the very least you have to think that a job profession that requires intelligence like being a manager, means you can't use the ignorance argument as a defense... Your job is predicated by the fact that you supposedly know more than everyone else.
I don't think I asserted that they didn't have a clue. My position is that I haven't the foggiest notion whether they knew. I don't have enough information with which to form a reasonable conclusion one way or the other.
With McGwire and LaRussa, for example, each man has said that LaRussa didn't know - but I don't weight that evidence very heavily. (Has Canseco said that LaRussa knew something either about Canseco's or McGwire's use? I'm not aware that Canseco has said anything like that. And he's supposed to be The Truth Teller in all of this. Why do people take Canseco's word in this area as gospel sometimes but not other times?)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main