It's hard for me to fault any Major-Leaguer for doing steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs in 2003, given their apparent wide availability and obvious effectiveness, combined with the resulting monetary benefits. From an financial point of view, one would have been stupid not to.
I can fault any of them for using steroids in 2003. It was specifically prohibited by MLB. True, there was not a penalty for being caught and the testing methods were suspicious to say the least, but I have no problem with calling them out for both the unethical and disingenuous aspects of these stories. In particular, the blatant lying that went on as the stories of the steroid era began to come out circa McGwire, Sosa, Bonds.
It's true that steroids, HGH, etc. were and are banned by MLB, but so what? These players simply decided that the "positives" associated with using them outweighed the negatives. Do you disagree with their logic?
Whether the fact that many of them later lied about it (which also isn't too surprising) has any lasting repercussions remains to be seen. But I bet A-Rod gets to keep his $27M salary this year in spite of being a liar.
3 comments:
It's hard for me to fault any Major-Leaguer for doing steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs in 2003, given their apparent wide availability and obvious effectiveness, combined with the resulting monetary benefits. From an financial point of view, one would have been stupid not to.
I can fault any of them for using steroids in 2003. It was specifically prohibited by MLB. True, there was not a penalty for being caught and the testing methods were suspicious to say the least, but I have no problem with calling them out for both the unethical and disingenuous aspects of these stories. In particular, the blatant lying that went on as the stories of the steroid era began to come out circa McGwire, Sosa, Bonds.
It's true that steroids, HGH, etc. were and are banned by MLB, but so what? These players simply decided that the "positives" associated with using them outweighed the negatives. Do you disagree with their logic?
Whether the fact that many of them later lied about it (which also isn't too surprising) has any lasting repercussions remains to be seen. But I bet A-Rod gets to keep his $27M salary this year in spite of being a liar.
Post a Comment