Two or three days ago, whenever the story broke, I was on the Washington Post website reading about the Capitals. For some reason I checked the front page and under the "Breaking News" section (still love the Daily Show's line about breaking news: When News Breaks, We Fix It!), there were two headlines posted, according to the site, just minutes ago. The first was 'McGuire Admits Steroid Use' and the second was 'Sarah Palin To Join Fox News'.
Under those headlines were 'Titanic Sinks', 'Nixon Is Crook', and 'Clinton Fucks Couch, Stove, Coffee Maker'. In other news, I'm shocked.
Is there anyone out there who thought, 'I really think that McGuire guy was clean'? I suppose its news that he came out and admitted that he did it, but it wasn't like we needed him to do so. And I don't mean because he hit a ton of homers. Guys have done that with steroids and guys have done that without steroids, and McGuire probably fits into both categories.
Predictably people are making judgments, moral and otherwise, but nobody really knows what this says about McGuire. Because we really don't know, don't understand at all, the effects steroids have on a baseball player. Steven Goldman of Baseball Prospectus and the Pinstriped Bible recently asked if steroids were so helpful to baseball players why isn't baseball being infiltrated by weight lifters?
So we don't know. Using steroids could help a player get healthier more quickly like McGuire and Andy Pettitte before him claimed, but what are the effects on the rest of the body? Again, we don't know. Most prescription drugs come with warnings because often to solve a problem you have to create another. I know someone who had a kidney transplant. As one would imagine, she's on a ton of drugs, many of which are to solve problems created by other drugs she's on. You take one to help X, but by doing so you create Y, so you have to take something else for that, but it creates Z, so you have to take something else for that, and so on.
So I'm skeptical that steroids are the magical cure-all that they're made out to be. But even if they are, what is their effect on ball players? Again, we don't know. We can easily see the benefits of taking steroids for offensive linemen in football. Their job is to shove people. Strength is a requirement. Without it, they're out of a job. Baseball isn't that way though. Some of the best players in history, before steroids were conceived of to be used by ball players, were skinny people with quickness and hand-eye coordination. Ted Williams and Joe Dimaggio come to mind. Check out this picture of Dimaggio or this one of Williams. No muscles on either guy, but both are thought of as great hitters and both are in the Hall of Fame.
So maybe steroids solve a single problem, but medicine is more complex than that. By solving a problem, how many more problems are created? McGuire is a interesting case because he claimed that steroids helped him get healthy. If we are to take him at his word, he started using steroids in 1993 when he missed all but 27 games to injury. Prior to that year, McGuire averaged 150 games played per season. From that year on, McGuire averaged 106 games played per year. Would he have played fewer games without steroids? Maybe, but he also might have played more.
None of this is intended to give McGuire a pass for an act that if not specifically prohibited by baseball's rules, was against the law. He shouldn't have done it, if no other reason, than because it was illegal. But much of the public debate concerns, not the moral component, but the on-field effects. What was the effect on McGuire's on-field performance? Would he have hit as many homers if he hadn't used steroids? That is impossible to know. It seems to me the answer is no, but its such a complex question that its almost silly to answer it (notice that didn't stop me).
Its impossible to know what 'taking steroids' meant for McGuire, but his admission of guilt is the farthest thing from surprising.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment