"Daddy, What Does Asterisk Mean?"

(Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

After reading Richard Marsh’s article Enough with the Baseball Controversy: Let’s Play Ball (great article, Richard), I too felt that it was time to move on with all the performance-enhancing drug talk surrounding baseball and get on with the 2009 season. 

I want to eat a hot dog at Citi Field (even if it’s going to cost me close to $10). I want to frantically check fantasy updates, and I can’t wait to commence with daily arguments about the Mets and those other teams in the area.     

However, on Sunday, I was helping coach my daughter’s T-Ball team, and it hit me: After seeing so many A-Rod shirts on so many children, it really made me wonder whether all this performance-enhancing drug talk is so easy to forget. 

"Another steroid article?" Bear with me, folks.

As a Mets fan approaching the start of the 2009 season, I’m fortunate that there are no vicious rumors or allegations surrounding this year’s lineup. Even so, they would likely be silenced by the constant talk of two September collapses and a questionable rotation past Johan Santana.

Nice diversion.

So, is it just luck? Could you brush off the fact that your favorite player was linked to or admitted to the use of performance-enhancing drugs? I’m not sure that I could, especially if that player was so dearly loved and looked up to by kids and adults alike. 

But maybe I’m just naive, just like Little C in A Bronx Tale was prior to being told by Chaz Palminteri that Mickey Mantle didn’t care about him.  

How often do we hear that our favorite quarterback or [insert Hall of Famer] was linked to these substances? (Certainly, the NFL’s drug testing was in place far before MLB “woke up”).

Is it because these players couldn’t possibly have taken them? Now that’s naive.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?