Perjury

I have a question...

When Roger Clemens pitched to Barry Bonds, who had the unfair advantage?

Let me start by saying that I would never want my kids to do steroids. It's clear they are dangerous to one's long-term health. And no matter what side of the steroid debate you fall on, most are now illegal substances, and I would never want my children, or anyone else, for that matter, to be involved with anything illegal.

But I would gather that most, as am I, are tired of hearing about steroids in baseball, and that today's announcement that Roger Clemens will be charged with perjury for statements he made to congress regarding his involvement with steroids, was met with a great big ole yawn.

But here's what bothers me, and what most people now overlook as they become self-righteous everytime they hear about another user: Why is Barry Bonds, or Roger Clemens, or A-Rod, or any player who used considered such a big cheater? The problem I bring up is this: Major League Baseball had no rules in place banning the use of steroids prior to 2004. I know that most of the substances in question were already deemed illegal by that time. But baseball had no testing policy in place until then, and thus no discipline in place to deal with it if someone was caught using. And there were two primary reasons why: The Players Association (the most powerful labor union on the planet) wouldn't allow for it prior to then and the Major League Baseball brass loved, reveled in, and cashed in on the offense that steroid use had created in their sport. It wasn't until Congress got involved that Baseball even considered creating a testing and discipline policy.

What's the point? The point is that steroid use specifically, and drug use in general, has been ignored in baseball for decades. And one could make a case that steroid use was even encouraged -- certainly not discouraged -- as it's results became evident to all those who watched the game, and to those who ran it. Let's not forget, for what we know now, steroid use and it's positive results on the field for those who used it singlehandedly saved baseball in the summer of 1998. This is not my opinion: Sosa and McGwire have been given credit for saving baseball ever since, having redeemed even the most chided fans from the strike of 1994 and receiving honors from the President of the United States and the Commissioner of Baseball himself for doing so.

But drug use has been rampant in the game for years. Jim Bouton's Ball Four, the famous behind-the-scenes, tell-all baseball book of the early 1970's details the ready availability of "greenies" and other amphetimines in most clubhouses as far back as the early 1960's, and the use of said drugs was totally ignored by any authorities. I've heard Pete Rose make a great statement in several interviews in regards to his own banishment from baseball for gambling. He claimed that had he been a drug user, baseball would have paid for his rehab and he'd still be managing the Cincinnati Reds. He's probably right.

So before I give you the crux of my gripe, let me say that I'm not arguing the morality of the issue. I'm in no position to judge anyone's moral decision to break the rules or jeopardize their own health. I'm arguing the reality of the situation as it stood at the time. Given that baseball had no discipline in place to dissuade the use of peformance-enhancing drugs at the time, and moreover, that some of the PED's that are illegal now were not even illegal then, it is safe to assume that all players had equal access, opportunity and lack of fear of reprisal for using from baseball authorities.

So, my question is this: With the playing field being even for everyone, if one guy chose to use and another did not, why is it considered that the user had an "unfair" advantage? If everyone had the same opportunity to use, why are the ones who simply chose to considered "cheaters?" And that's not even taking into account that the reality is that most players probably chose to use at the time, most of whom we just don't know about.

Let me ask it another way by use of an analogy. Given that everyone has equal opportunity to strength-train in the gym without any fear of repercussion, if one player chooses to work out more than the next guy, does that mean he somehow has an "unfair" adavantage?

Remember, essentially, the use of PED's was simply not illegal according to Major League Baseball at the time. And some of the drugs being used -- specifically, McGwire's favorite, Andro -- was not illegal at all, despite the fact that some other pro sports organizations, most notably the NFL, had banned its use by that time.

The bottom line is that no player can be labeled a cheater if he is simply playing within the parameters in which he's allowed. It's oversimplifying to say, but the reason pitcher's don't doctor baseball's much anymore is because it isn't allowed and its policed. If it wasn't policed, even if it still wasn't "technically" allowed, most pitchers would still be doing it today. Worse, when a pitcher is caught today doctoring a ball, or a hitter is caught with a corked bat, most people laugh it off. Rarely is there some giant uproar about the guy being a "cheater" and having an "unfair" adavantage. I can't remember the last time Congress got involved over a corked bat.

And that raises even a dumber assertion by fans today regarding the use of steroids. There are many who claim that the likes of Hank Aaron, Roger Maris, and other sluggers of yesteryear did it "the right way." That is to say, drug free. Please. Ignoring for the moment that the Ty Cobbs, Babe Ruths and Mickey Mantles of their era were raging alcoholics, womanizers, tobacco users, and sometimes, crooks, the hitters of long ago didn't use PED's because they couldn't. They weren't available then. Now, I'm not claiming that Hank Aaron or Frank Robinson would have used if they had the chance. What I'm saying is that it is a moot point because they couldn't have used PED's if they'd wanted to. The truth is that there is loads of evidence now that many players did indeed use the drugs available to them in their day (the aforementioned "greenies" and the like,) and trying to lay some overall moral superiority over eras of long ago to now demonize the contemporaries of today is both misinformed and foolish. Hank Aaron is a great guy by all accounts. I have no beef with him. And given the opportunity, he may have chosen the high road. We also know he was a highly competitive individual, driven to be the best. But this much is sure: he was not a steroid user, because he never had the choice to be.

McGwire was a great guy. Remember? The whole country loved him. Did anybody believe then, and does anybody really believe now that he used Andro to "cheat" or gain an "unfair" advantage? That that alone was his motivation for using? Rather, McGwire did what he did then because he believed it was what he should do to stay at the top of his game. It is not unreasonable to think, as baseball, and indeed the whole country, climbed aboard his shoulders, that he might have even felt some sort of obligation to stay ahead of the curve, so to speak, and that juicing helped him do just that. I'm speculating, of course, but attempting to speculate some justification for McGwire's behavior now is no more far-fetched than trying to heap some assumed moral superiority on the players of decades past.

The real problem, as I see it, is that we really don't know who used in those days and who didn't, aside from those few who have admitted to it since. The sad truth is that with each new pad of evidence, more and more names are uncovered, leading to the assumption that far more players did it than will ever actually be revealed. I've heard numbers in various interviews upwards of 75%. We may never know for sure, but what poor schlep who used PED's but only managed to hit three home runs in some season is ever going to admit to as much? We assume that it was only the guys who overachieved who juiced, and that's just unrealistic.

Taking us all the way back to my original question. If some juiced-up pitcher faced some juiced-up hitter, who was the "cheater" and who had the "unfair" advantage? Are we to believe that all of Clemens's strikeouts came against guys who weren't juiced, or that all of Bonds's home runs came against pitchers who were on the level? Of course not. And if you assume that either was juiced most of the time, if you can't prove their opponent wasn't, then you can't nullify any accomplishments they reached. Even though the playing field of Maris and Aaron was vastly uneven and different to that of McGwire and Bonds, it's altogether possible that the playing field of the 90"s and early 2000's was far more level than we want to admit. An asterisk on any record now is pointless. Which brings me to my final subject:

Ken Griffey, Jr.

It's common knowledge now among baseball fans that there's absolutely no evidence suggesting that Junior ever took PED's. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary, given Junior's injury history over the last decade. If there's any player ever, now or in the past, who can be accused of "doing it the right way," it's Griffey. And is there anybody who doesn't believe that in the absence of a long list of horrific injuries, we'd be talking about Junior as the home run hitter of all time right now, maybe even the best all-around player ever?

With all the negative publicity MLB has received over the past few years, Bud Selig should have his head examined for not having climbed onto Griffey's shoulders years ago with any attempt possible to capitalize on Griffey's positive energy and clean image. If I were in charge, Griffey's face would have been on every piece of promotion Major League Baseball could produce. He should have been the face of the game. The fact that he wasn't says more about Selig's continued ignorance than any injury Junior ever suffered. That Griffey wasn't honored at this year's All-Star game with some honorary captaincy, or at the very least an on-field introduction was an injustice worse than any perpetrated by Bonds or McGwire.

The fact that the likes of Bonds, Sosa, McGwire and A-Rod had to juice up to do what Griffey did naturally speaks volumes about Junior's talent.

Now there's a guy who had an "unfair" adavantage.