No Steroid Era in baseball

Suppose Major League Baseball is more proactive and stricter about illegal drug and steroid use back in the 70's and 80's, at least to the point where the punishments are severe enough to deter steroid use. How would baseball be different today?
 
How is the Steroid Era to be nipped in the bud?

It began in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that forced Major League Baseball to recognize the MLBPA and accept unlimited free agency. If you reverse that decision and the players stay indentured servants, there will be no real reason for the owners to sign those big television deals and Ted Turner's bid for the Atlanta Braves will probably be blocked by the owners and commissioner. This lack of promotion of the players themselves as larger than life characters (save when records are broken, a-la-Hank Aaron) will accelerate baseball's decline as America's #1 pro sport relative to basketball and football.

Today, instead of duking it out with the NBA for the #2 position, Major League Baseball could have fallen below the NHL, and be fighting for the #5 position against the Arena Football League, Major League Soccer, National Lacrosse League, and American Rugby Superleague and/or SuperUnion.

On the other hand, it would have probably lengthened the careers of Darryl Strawberry and Wade Boggs...
 
Baseball (as well as football, basketball, hell any other competitive sport) has always had people that skirt the edge of the rules looking for an advantage. Finding new and creative ways to outdo your opponent is an American trait. Players have always tried different things from scuffed balls, spitballs, corked bats, you name it and it has probably been tried by someone at some point.

I don't think there should be any penalty against known or unknown steroid users. The players all had the opportunity to use or not use so they all had the "chance" to have the same competitive edge. Now I'm not saying I condone it, and many may suffer medical problems in the future because of it, but at the end of the day it was each individuals choice.

The laughable part of all this is the ownership group pretending they didn't know what was going on. They saw the record profits coming in and I guarantee every baseball fan remembers the McGwire - Sosa race against the Maris home run record. At that time baseball captured back the nation. That was the epiphany that came to the owners, home runs sell TV - which sells advertisements - which generates money! So they had no problem with players using as long they were successful.

The steroid argument is made up issue by sportswriters that cumulatively have no more moral standing then Pete Rose!
 
. . . Players have always tried different things from scuffed balls, spitballs, corked bats, you name it and it has probably been tried by someone at some point.

I don't think there should be any penalty against known or unknown steroid users. The players all had the opportunity to use or not use so they all had the "chance" to have the same competitive edge. Now I'm not saying I condone it, and many may suffer medical problems in the future because of it, but at the end of the day it was each individuals choice. . .
No, I don't know if it's entirely individual choice if I have to do something unhealthy in order to maintain the same competitive advantage as fellow players. If I'm a pitcher, for example, an extra 3 miles an hour on my fastball makes a big difference. If other players are gaining this advantage and I'm not, I'd have to think long and hard about continuing to opt not to use steroids.

I think this is something properly termed a prisoner's dilemma.
 
It was one of the really thoughtful students of baseball, someone like Bob Costas, if not Bob himself, who said,

Look, if the owner's control the testing as part of some agreement, the owners might cheat and see if a particular player has the precursors to early-onset diabetes or any of a range of other health issues, which are my own damn business thank you very much. The owners might also look at marijuana use, which if anything is an anti-performance enhancement drug!

No, clearly the way to do it is for the owners and players to both pay the same money to some third-party lab. This has the best chance where the lab plays it right down the middle, and test only for what has been decided upon and nothing else.
 
Baseball (as well as football, basketball, hell any other competitive sport) has always had people that skirt the edge of the rules looking for an advantage. Finding new and creative ways to outdo your opponent is an American trait. Players have always tried different things from scuffed balls, spitballs, corked bats, you name it and it has probably been tried by someone at some point.

I don't think there should be any penalty against known or unknown steroid users. The players all had the opportunity to use or not use so they all had the "chance" to have the same competitive edge. Now I'm not saying I condone it, and many may suffer medical problems in the future because of it, but at the end of the day it was each individuals choice.

The laughable part of all this is the ownership group pretending they didn't know what was going on. They saw the record profits coming in and I guarantee every baseball fan remembers the McGwire - Sosa race against the Maris home run record. At that time baseball captured back the nation. That was the epiphany that came to the owners, home runs sell TV - which sells advertisements - which generates money! So they had no problem with players using as long they were successful.

The steroid argument is made up issue by sportswriters that cumulatively have no more moral standing then Pete Rose!
I think the problem is the impact it could have, and already does have, on youth development. Legalizing roids at the pro level is only going to further encourage high school players to use it, and most of them are incapable of properly weighing the risks involved in steroid use.
 
I think the problem is the impact it could have, and already does have, on youth development. Legalizing roids at the pro level is only going to further encourage high school players to use it, and most of them are incapable of properly weighing the risks involved in steroid use.

I agree whole heartedly. Again I never said I approved, just said I don't think the players should be penalized.

The issue you bring up is a whole different branch which is part of the "social" responsibility piece that the owners placed below profits. I'll also throw the media/journalists in that mix again. There has always been a "selective" way journalists covered ballplayers and they didn't highlight the bad traits as they knew their stuff was read by kids, and kids idealized ballplayers. Now, in today's world the dirtier stuff is the more rewarded the journalist becomes. They salivate at the bad things. (I'm really not this jaded but I don't care for journalists)

You can't tell me the current drug use in today's game (PED's) is any worse then the drug use in the 60's and 70's (Amphetamines and alcohol). Nothing was made about the earlier wave and I would tend to say nothing would have been done about this except for the issue you brought up - the kids.

I think the only way forward is through education and making sure kids understand the risks. But when you wave millions of dollars in front of people (parents included) things change. Unfortunately I don't think we can get the toothpaste back in the tube...sigh.
 
Top