Follow Up on the Mitchell Report

For those of you who can stomach reading more on the Mitchell Report, there is one more angle that I wanted to cover which was highlighted perfectly by Andy Pettite's admission today that he was injected with HGH two times in 2002. I don't blame you if you're sick of hearing about this issue, but I would advise you to get used to it -- the story isn't going to go away anytime soon, and the collective work product of real journalists and bloggers alike will serve the purpose of helping fans of baseball look at the issue from a multitude of perspectives.

One of the reasons that I don't like the idea of immediately black-listing any player connected with the use of performance enhancing drugs is that we have very little information on the extent of use for any player. Pettite's situation highlights that perfectly -- he admits to two injections in 2002 while recovering from an elbow injury. What's the effect of two doses of HGH? How "potent" were the injections? Did they help Pettite recover more quickly? Perform better when back on the field? How long did the effects, such as they were, linger? We have no idea what the answers to these questions are. All we know is that Pettite made the decision to illegally use HGH -- that's worthy of condemnation, yes, even though it wasn't specifically against baseball rules at the time.

Just as an aside, the defense that HGH use wasn't against baseball rules at the time is a very, very poor one. From my very quick research, HGH is not listed under the Controlled Substances Act -- however, it is covered under the 1990 Anabolic Steroids Control Act, which makes it a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison to distribute or possess HGH "for any use . . . other than the treatment of a disease or other recognized medical condition, where such use has been authorized by the Secretary of Health and Human Services . . . and pursuant to the order of a physician . . .". That means that, whether baseball has singled HGH out as "against baseball rules" seems relatively irrelevant -- it seems to me that the knowing use of an illegal drug is, shall we say, and implicit breach of baseball rules. In other words, Pettite was wrong to use HGH regardless of whether baseball had specifically said "no."

That's enough legal stuff -- let me get back to the situation now facing fans and HOF voters. Are we really willing to take a player like Pettite, who seems to have used HGH in a very limited fashion and for the purpose of recovery, and lump him into the same category as we put Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, whose use at least seems to be much more consistent, and much clearly against the spirit of competition? It seems to me that there's an awfully big difference between those players who make a habit out of the illicit use of PED's in order to play at a high enough level to stay in the big leagues, and those who stupidly decided to try the stuff to recover and then stopped using it.

I've stated before that I think, even if the allegations against Clemens are true (and I'm inclined to believe that they are), he still should go into the Hall of Fame. Even if I were to change my mind on a player like Clemens (who seems to have been engaged in sustained use), however, I don't think one positive test, or being implicated for use over a very short period, should be enough to keep a player out of Cooperstown. Give me proof of sustained use, and I would think about changing my stance on a player's Hall-worthiness. Short of that, it doesn't seem to me that there's nearly enough to keep a great player out of the Hall. I don't know whether Andy Pettite will be seriously considered for the Hall of Fame 5 years after he retires or not -- I'd vote no if I were lucky enough to have a ballot -- but that decision should not be impacted by what appears to be an isolated incident from a few days of a lengthy career. Rather than giving in to the hysteria, the baseball writers who are talking about frauds and cheats need to step back and consider all of the details. Heck, this even makes me happy for the somewhat overlong 15-year ballot eligibility requirement, because by the time players like McGwire and Bonds and Clemens would be removed, there will have been a lot of time for sober consideration of the issue.

Mitchell Report Reaction

It's been almost exactly 12 hours since the Mitchell report was released, as I sit writing this post. I've been trying to gauge my own internal reaction to the whole sordid affair, and haven't had much success. Nonetheless, here are some rambling thoughts (emphasis on rambling -- this is not intended to be a polished article). I expect I'm significantly in the minority on this issue, but such is life.

***

This was going to go at the end, but I'm putting it up front because it's the most important thing I'm going to write on this subject. My enjoyment of baseball was not affected in any way, shape, or form by today's events. I loved it growing up, and I love it now. I don't look back at all those games I watched and feel as if I were cheated -- because plain and simple, I wasn't. The game is magical regardless of whether the star players are on steroids or just plain aspirin.

As for "purity," I ask you how a sport that is much more about generating money than about what happens on the field has anything to do with "purity?" You want purity, go watch little league. Major League Baseball is about men playing a game -- a beautiful game, but a game nonetheless. For the reasons mentioned below, I don't support the use of performance enhancing drugs. That doesn't mean I'm going to get offended if someone uses them. ESPN can have all the day-long scandal specials they want, but I'm not buying it. No, I'll hang onto my fond memories instead, thank you very much.

***

I can't dismiss the use of performance enhancing drugs as irrelevant, but I find it hard to get worked up about the issue. The use of many of the substances that baseball has banned is illegal, and I don't condone the blatant disregard of the law. However, while I think it's idiotic and short-sighted to take illegal performance enhancing drugs, I don't think it's immoral, and I have a hard time even finding it to be unethical.

Without a doubt, there are ethical ramifications to the use of these substances. For one thing, there's the whole "purity of the sport" issue. There's the role-model issue. There's the "stealing a job from a young up-and-comer" issue. But is the use of performance enhancing drugs that much different from other things that we find perfectly OK? Players try to cheat regularly, and always have. We usually don't have a problem with it -- stealing signs? No problem. Scuffing the ball? No problem. Convincing the umpire you caught the ball when you know you actually trapped it? Par for the course. Not to mention the fact that players load themselves up with as many legal supplements as they can find. Or the fact that modern surgeries can allow players to return to action with more velocity than they had before going under the knife.

So what is it, exactly, that makes the reaction to steroids and HGH use so incredible? Is it the fact that they're illegal? Or is it the fact that they're effective? Isn't this just a matter of degree? And isn't the burden of use primarily on those who idiotically take these supplements, thus risking their health? As I sat thinking about the report, this is what kept popping into my head. I confess to not having come up with a reasonable answer.

***

Roger Clemens has been implicated for a long time, and I would be rather surprised if anyone in baseball was caught off guard by his inclusion in the Mitchell Report. While this will probably torpedo his Hall of Fame chances, it shouldn't. The same is true for Mark McGwire, or Barry Bonds, or any other big name player who gets implicated from this era. Baseball was so rife with performance enhancers that it's impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. On top of that, I'm not convinced that Clemens, McGwire, or Bonds wouldn't have been Hall-of-Fame caliber even without the PED's.

I think the Hall of Fame should prominently state that the statistics of the steroids era are tarnished, but that players should be voted in on the basis of the numbers they put up on the field. Roger Clemens is just as much a Hall of Famer today as he was yesterday. So is Bonds. McGwire -- well, I'm not convinced about McGwire's credentials even without steroids looming over him, although I'm softening on that front. We shouldn't ignore that these players used steroids, but we also shouldn't suggest that steroid use was wholly responsible for their incredible performance. Simply put, the Hall of Fame will become completely irrelevant if it fails to include players like Clemens and Bonds when they become eligible. Then again, maybe baseball doesn't care, since it already keeps out the great Pete Rose when he, too, should have a plaque. A Hall of Fame that includes Bill Mazeroski but not Pete Rose is awfully close to a joke. A Hall of Fame without an eligible Clemens and Bonds would be something far sadder.

***

The one thing that makes me favor significant punishments for the use of PED's is the absurd denials issued by player after player. Occasionally a player comes clean, and I respect that even when it's been preceded by continuous denials. I find the lies and cover-up more distasteful than the original use, especially considering the pressures to perform and stay healthy that lead so many players to the use of PED's in the first place. I may not find PED use to be immoral or unethical, but lying about it fits the bill on both. I didn't lose respect for Roger Clemens when he was fingered in the report -- but the denials (by his lawyer, no less!) disgusted me. This probably isn't fair, because it remains possible that Clemens did nothing wrong and is being unjustly named. It's awfully hard to be fair, though, when all of the evidence (including the denial-by-lawyer) so strongly suggests guilt.

***

Is there a more ridiculous angle to the steroid story than the idle speculation on several prominent media sites suggesting that (1) the Miguel Tejada trade was driven by the impending release of the Mitchell Report, and (2) that the Red Sox somehow were tipped off by Mitchell, as evidenced by the non-tendering of Brendan Donnelly? Please. Find something better to write or don't write anything at all. Considering that the Orioles have been trying to trade Tejada for, oh, about 2 years, I'm going to guess that the timing was coincidental rather than causal. As for Donnelly -- well, it's not all that suspicious that a player coming off of a significant injury would be non-tendered so the team cutting him doesn't have to worry about arbitration issues. Good grief.