Ever since the feds raided BALCO and we all learned that Barry Bonds was a cheater, there has been an ongoing debate over PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) in sports.
For the most part, the entire country has come to the following consensus: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Jose Canseco, and everyone who has either tested positive for or been caught up in any of the multiple government or independent investigations on PEDs are all cheaters.
They shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame.
Their records should be abolished.
They are the evilest of evil, the scummiest of scum, the ugliest of the ugly.
They cheated to gain an advantage and should be punished for it.
The part of me that wants to eliminate all cheating from sports, both pro and amateur, agrees with this. I want PEDs out of baseball, football, hockey, basketball, bowling, golf, NASCAR—hell, I even want it out of gymnastics, swimming, and curling.
The realistic part of me knows that the scientists who are making the PEDs will always be a step ahead of the scientists who are testing them. After all, who do you think made more money? The guy who invented the Cream and the Clear, or the guy who helped the government figure out how to test for it?
Given that, is it really fair to tarnish Barry Bonds for doing something we’re pretty sure a large percentage of the pitchers he was facing was also doing?
OK, maybe that statement isn’t fair. Maybe it wasn’t a large percentage. Maybe none of them were using. But, we don’t know. We can’t know.
I understand that there are tests that detect most types of steroids. It’s a no-brainer to include all of these types of PEDs on banned substance lists and to punish those who test positive for them. You can be relatively certain (as long as you’re testing often enough) that only the players who test positive are using them, so it’s perfectly fair to punish those who are caught.
But what about the PEDs you can’t test for?
Take HGH, for example.
Today, there is no test for HGH. The only way an athlete gets caught doing HGH is if the government happens to arrest the guy who sold it to him. Even if they catch your "doctor," they can’t prove you did HGH beyond any reasonable doubt unless you admit to it.
So, is it really fair to punish anyone for doing HGH when, for all you know, everyone is doing it? Is it really fair to punish players for taking a substance when you’ll never have a failed test to prove they took it? Is it really fair to punish only the players who can’t afford the "good stuff" that can’t be detected by the tests done by the MLB, the NFL, the NBA, or the NHL?
Isn’t the only fair way to deal with PEDs to take them off the banned substance list until or unless you can test for them?
Rodney Harrison was punished for taking HGH, even though he never failed a test. He was punished because his name came up in an investigation and he was later forced to admit to the NFL that he took the banned substance. Had his name not come up, he’d probably still be taking HGH today.
How many other athlete’s names haven’t come up? How many other athletes are still taking HGH today?
We don’t know. We can’t know. There is no test.
It could be everybody. It could be nobody.
The only fair thing to do is to take any substance you can’t test for off the banned substance list. You can’t police what you can’t catch.
And really, who’s going to care? The fans want to see bone-crunching hits, home-runs, power-dunks, and hat-tricks. We pretend we care, but we don’t. The only people you’re going to piss off by doing this are those in Congress.
And let’s be honest, if Congress were really serious about cleaning up sports, they’d make the laws against using these substances more stringent. We all know they’re not serious—they just like seeing their faces on ESPN. But if they were, that’s what they’d do.
If you catch someone using HGH, steroids, etc. illegally, throw them in jail. If an athlete is taking something illegal that can’t be tested for, the only way you’re catching him is if he’s involved in a criminal investigation anyway. Until someone develops a test, let the law deal with them.
You can’t hit home-runs from jail.
Anyway, the reason this argument keeps coming up is because Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will both be due for a Hall of Fame vote in five years (unless they come back to play again, which I don’t see happening). After much deliberation, I’ve come to the conclusion that I firmly believe both should be in the Hall of Fame.
They were the best of their generation. Yes, they both probably used PEDs. But then, as far as you know, so did everyone they played against.
I’ve heard some people ask how many home-runs Bonds would have had if he hadn’t used PEDs. Couldn’t you also ask how many home-runs he would have had if the opposing pitcher wasn’t using them as well? Or how many home-runs did Clemens give up because the opposing batter was using PEDs?
It all evens out, probably. Or maybe not. But we don’t know.
So, to sum this up: PEDs are cheating, players who use are scum and should be treated as such, but PEDs shouldn’t be banned if we can’t test for them.
And Barry and Roger should both be first ballot Hall-of-Famers, unless you have a way of proving to me that everyone else in baseball wasn’t using PEDs as well.
And, as always, Congress sucks.
Sean Crowe is a Senior Writer and an NFL Community Leader at Bleacher Report. You can email him at scrowe@gmail.com. His archive can be found here. You can find everything he writes, including articles for other publications, here.
comments (23) write a comment »
write a new comment
3 months ago
Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame, no question. He was the greatest in our generation - and yes, Sean's right, there are likely many pitchers/hitters out there who were on something. But they don't get nearly as much bad press because the media hates Bonds.
And why has Gary Sheffield avoided all the scrutiny? He reportedly gave the same excuse Bonds did, and he played in NY when this thing came out...
from 3 months ago
Amen to that.
What people fail to realize is that Willie Mays, Al Kaline, Mickey Mantle and others of the same era each admit to "greenies" being in a big bowl on the table in the training room.
As Lou Brock Said, "You couldn't make it through the season without them."
Would that then make them performance enhancers?
Besides, they were banned at the time.
Why then, do we hold out Bonds or Clemmens?
If Clemmons was found surprisingly guilty, why doesn't anyone suspect anything of Nolan Ryan?
3 months ago
All they will admit is that they used a substance that wasn't on the banned list at the time. Bonds was on his way to the hall of fame before he beefed up. Is it really cheating if it isn't on the banned list yet? What happens if certain herbal suppliments get banned...everyone in sports uses them you know. I can't agree with you more on this one Sean...Bonds and Clemens both belong in the hall of fame. Drugs have been availible longer than baseball has...So every player could have in some way cheated whether it was cocaine for extra energy back in the early 1900's or HGH for increased strength. Drugs will never go away just new ways of hiding the fact that you are doping.
3 months ago
No. No HOF for that scum ... not even life for them. They should be vilified like child rapists and imprisoned.
They should be hung and quartered, drug through the streets and displayed outside locker rooms around the league.
Their existence be erased from history as if they were never born , their children, grand children, any further family spawn should be used in experiments like lab rats.
I'm just sayin' is all.
3 months ago
Why is it when Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc. get called out on steroids it's an abomination of the game, it will never be the same, and these guys shouldn't be allowed in the Hall of Fame...according to most, but A-Rod gets called out by the same guys and then it's just hear say, not really a big deal, and he should be entered as soon as he's eligible? Why those guys have to suffer like Pete Rose, when A-Rod is still being called one of the greatest players of all time? I remember one commentator saying does this mean A-Rod is the only natural baseball player left...Wrong he isn't, he's just as dirty as the rest
from 3 months ago
People are skeptical of Canseco on A-Rod because we all know that he loves attention, why didn't he put A-Rod in his first book, he admitted he "knew" about it when he wrote the first book, but didn't put it in because the timing wasn't right. It's not a good excuse, but I'm skeptical of A-Rod. I've been that way ever since Bonds was caught, I'm very skeptical of most people that are doing amazing things now.
from 3 months ago
I think Canseco sat on a few names so when he needed more money he writes another book throwing more players on the fire.
3 months ago
If you're going to put Bonds and Clemens in the HOF, then you've got to put Pete Rose in there, too. Sure, he bet on the game but he didn't cheat like the PED-types did. Just my two cents.
from 3 months ago
The reason it's against the rules to bet on Baseball is because of the thought of throwing games. Rose bet on his team to win, how would that fall under throwing games? It was against the rules so he needed to be punished, but isn't enough, enough I mean he has been punished and he was truly one of the greats I think he has been made an example of, now he needs to get in...he deserves it.
3 months ago
Seeing the picture of Bonds in 1991 then in 2004 is no big deal. If I looked at pictures of me in 1991 and then in 2004 it would look similar...then again in 1991 I was 16 years old.
Anywho, I think they should be in the Hall as well, simply because last time I checked PED's don't make your hand-eye coordination better.
Plus there are some reports out there that have 70-80% of the players taking something, so if they are compared to their era, they were playing against a pretty even playing field.
I think there is no way that any decision will satisfy everyone.
from 3 months ago
it's not about the 75% that did PED's , it's about the 25% that didn't ... what about those guys?
how do you think they feel now? i guess they were stupid for NOT taking them?
actually PED's strengthen the smallest muscles first before they enhance the major muscles.
so PED's strengthen the eyesight by modifying the small muscles within the cranial orbit as well.
translates to pitch selection, therefore walks increase as well as batting average.
picked that up from a medical journal by one of the Dr.s that designed some PED's.
3 months ago
Bottom line, if you are kept out of the Hall for gambling even if you bet the same amount on your team every night, you should be out for steroids. Thus, I don't agree, but this is a good thing for us to all check our emotional responses on.
For instance, I am from the Milwaukee area and thus a big Hammerin' Hank fan. Before Barry became Barroid, he would have had no chance to top Aaron's record (just look at the homers per year before and after--he was on pace for MAYBE 600, and that's if he could have even lasted as long without them).
But to me, Barry belongs in the Hall (NOT on the first ballot, just as a protest): first, while the evidence is not just overwhelming (and obvious) but corroborated by his admissions he may have taken the Cream and the Clear, there has never been any PROOF he KNOWINGLY took anything. As much as I'd like us to, we cannot convict him on the obvious.
Secondly, he was putting up HOF numbers BEFORE he cheated. This is what seperates him from Clemons--if Clemons took steroids back in his early thirties and they are responsible for his numbers remaining high throughout those later years (they were tailing off a bit by the time McNamee claims it started), we do not know for sure that he would have been productive enough to be worthy. Moreover, there is a lot more of a smoking gun with Clemons (a witness WITH syringes, person after person backing McNamee and showing Clemons is a liar).
from 3 months ago
Here's my problem with Rose... without getting completely into it, because I have a half written article that I'm going to finish someday.
First, he said he didn't gamble on baseball. When it was financially advantageous to him, he changed his story. But, he said he didn't gamble on his own team.
Then, when he wanted to sell his book, he said he did gamble on his own team, but only better for them...not against them.
Are we going to find out the next time he needs cash and writes another book that he, in fact, did bet against his own team?
Even if he didn't, say he bet on his team on Tuesday, but didn't bet on them on Wednesday. Did he use his bullpen differently? Did he save his best players for the games that he did bet on? Did his not betting on his team tip off people that he had some inside info on why they probably weren't going to win.
What he did was far closer to what Tim Donaghey did than what Barry Bonds did....
All that said, it's his own fault he's not in the hall of fame. There was plenty of momentum to reinstate him, then he went and screwed it up by giving interviews and writing books, and he killed his own changes. Now there's no way Bud will reinstate him.
He's a moron. He deserves what he got.
from 3 months ago
I actually do not disagree with any of that. However, no one has changed his story as much as Clemens...I just noticed I spelled his name wrong every time, and as a Boston fan, shouldn't you have corrected me when I spoke about a former Sox great? Must not have cared since he played for the Yanks, huh?
3 months ago
I don't care about traitors who went to other teams to win championships...whether it be Clemons or Bourk... they're all dead to me. Or Clements or Borque...whatever.
3 months ago
We can't start putting restrictions on the Hall of Fame. If we do that then don't we have to remove a few guys from the hall, too? Aren't there multiple guys with questionable backgrounds and skeletons in their closet? It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Ethics and Good Intentions. Let's all be content with giving Roger and Barry the HOF nod (perhaps while banging our heads against a wall) and let our kids do the debating. I think the game of I-pretend-to-care-deeply-about-"cheating"-even-though-it's-cloudy needs to stop.
3 months ago
Couldn't agree with this article anymore. You can't keep Bonds and Clemens out of the HOF because they were the most popular players to get caught in the steroids mess. We don't know how many players were juicing so you can't make Bonds, or anyone else with a big name, the scapegoat for an entire era. Banishing the two from the hall of fame and pretending that they never existed is foolish. I heard Bob Costas say this once, and its a great idea in my opinion; put a disclaimer type of literature in the hall of fame describing the era for those in the future to see. Let them know that the era was one filled with investigations and allegations of steroid use. Let the fans of the future draw their own conclusions; not the writers and voters of today. Isn't that what the HOF is all about anyway?
3 months ago
These were the guys that were great in the 'Steroid Era'. Just dub it that, accept that there was a black mark on baseball at this time, and move on. I've written about this before, but to properly adjust the sport for all of the PEDs and such that happened during that time frame, you have to abolish all of the championships, statistics, broken records, and games played from that time—it's the only way to make it even, unless you mean to tell me that it's different to everyone out there against these guys getting into the Hall of Fame that someone who has their steroid use out in the open—be it voluntary or not—is wrong, when we could be inducting dozens of guys who used steroids and never said a thing.
Needless to say, they're still part of the game that needs to be acknowledged, and it wasn't just two or three players, it was an era. Baseball should enshrine good and bad memories, and no matter what happens people will still have to pass clemens on the all-time wins list, and bonds on the homers list.
Am I happy about the idea of them going in? No. But I can't realistically condone the idea of removing someones right for enshrinement for a practice that wasn't outlawed in the sport yet.
I also believe that Rose and Joe Jackson should be in too.
BT
3 months ago
Another outstanding article by Crowe.
Amen to that.
What people fail to realize is that Willie Mays, Al Kaline, Mickey Mantle and others of the same era each admit to "greenies" being in a big bowl on the table in the training room.
As Lou Brock Said, "You couldn't make it through the season without them."
Would that then make them performance enhancers?
Besides, they were banned at the time.
Why then, do we hold out Bonds or Clemmens?
3 months ago
Sean, just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your article and completely agree with you.
Anyone who knows anything about PEDs should know that you need to still work out extremely hard in order for them to work. It's not like you take them and all of a sudden you are so much stronger. You have to continue to work out, maintain a solid diet, and get adequate rest.
Plus, PEDs have never been found to enhance a player's hand-eye coordination, the most significant tool a player needs to succeed in baseball--agree or disagree? Until someone actually proves this to me, I don't see how anything of that nature can make one a better baseball player.
Hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do. Period. You need extreme skill to do this. It is not like you can take a guy off the street and say, Here, hit a ball thrown at you 90 MPH over that fence. He will whiff.
Pete Rose as well belongs in the Hall of Fame. I don't know why he is still banned...this man should be remembered for his legacy as a baseball player. Few people appreciate Charlie Hustle, and that upsets me because I really enjoyed watching old highlights of him, especially when he laid out the catcher in the All-Star Game.
Besides, putting an asterisk next to Bonds' record is not only embarassing, but disgracing the game of baseball. If you do that, you have to asterisk everything over the last 15-20 years, because we have no idea who really wasn't juicing. It's not fair to single out Bonds like he's the only one to ever take PEDs. And, especially if people start to use the racial card, that's a bunch of BS.
3 months ago
Baloney. The thing that separates Bonds, MacGuire and Clemens from the rest of the cheats is not that they got caught, but that they took all of their records, honors and awards, allthetime looking you straight in the eye as if they earned and deserved them. Okay, Big Mac saw the writing and bailed from the sport before they could nail him, but we knew. We knew way back when when Mac and Canseco, the Oakland Giants, were belting the shit out of AL pitching game in and game out. Sometimes it seemed as if you could see the embarrassment on Sammy Sosa's face in '98. But Bonds is a natural cheat and a liar. Maybe soon a felon. He doesn't know embarrassment. Nor does Roger Dodger, whose career for all practicle purposes was over the year he left the Sox. Do you think he earned those Cy Youngs to come? Because he was facing other juicers? What a crock. It's the era of cheats and excuses.
You want your boys in Cooperstown? Give 'em their own annex, just a short walk from the main building. An outhouse, so to speak. Have a giant asterisk cover the entire front facade, and dub it the "Home of the Roids, and Land of the Me." Give them statues that are 20% bigger than the average man. And yeah, if you really want to, give them a big round of applause. They'll love it.
2 months ago
If any player is put in that can be reliably be linked to PEDs after they were against the rules into the HOF, then Pete Rose should go in. All Rose did was break the rules... All Bonds or Clemens did was break the rules. If you want to say that Rose might have changed the outcome of games, then how does steroids no change the outcome of the game. I have no real problem with any of them going into the HOF actually. I think the best course of action is to make PEDs against the rules and discourage kids from taking them. Will there be new PEDs? Yes. Will test be designed for them? Most likely yes. You don't stop scanning for weapons just because one can get through a metal detector. What about players that don't use? Well, it might not be much, but they know they didn't, and to those players I'd like to say thanks. Still, I loved the article, and thank you for writing it.
2 months ago
you have to love this stuff, but really be able to not take it to heart. I think it is funny that Clemens in particualar is guilty before charged. Bond's is a little different, as I have read that he has failed drug tests. I think anyone who has ever used steroids or any other performance enhancing drug should be banned from their respective sport. I don't know about some of you all, but when I was busting my ass trying to get to the professional level, I knew guys I was competing against were on roids. I hated it, but it never got me to try steroids. The way I look at it, some roidhead probably is cashing my moster pro baseball paycheck. I personally give everyone the benefit of the doubt. My gut tells me Bond's took steroids and that Clemens did not. however, if bonds says he did not, and he is not found guilty of doing it, then according to my brain, he did not use steroids. Ditto for Clemens.
write a new comment