What a vote for Manny means

Sometimes policies are instituted only after the unexpected happens. That's understandable; no one can foresee everything. I won't fault Major League Baseball, then, for not having a policy prohibiting players who have been suspended for much of the season from being eligible for the All-Star game.

Out of respect for the game's rules, there should be a policy preventing suspended players from being All-Stars. At the same time, it's great for the game that the policy wasn't in place this year. In fact, this omission is probably the greatest thing to happen to Baseball in the entire Steroid Era, and should be the final statement about it.

That's because the player in question, Manny Ramirez, is very close to winning a spot on the All-Star team, even though he was in violation of MLB's performance-enhancing drug policy.

Before MLB instituted drug testing, several of the game's biggest stars had been suspected of using drugs that were banned by the government, but not banned by Baseball. The level of evidence varies from case to case, but the reputations of every one is tarnished considerably.

Yet, during the Steroid Era, from the early 90's until recently:

• the Player's Union shielded players and stonewalled any proposed drug policy
• the owners and Commissioner looked the other way
• the media marveled at the unprecedented feats, told the fans that steroids wouldn't be helpful for baseball players, and if anything speculated that it was the ball that was juiced.

This was before there was a steroid policy. Then revelations dropped that steroids were actually commonplace and that big stars were probably using. At the news of this, the media became angry, and began to wonder if such stars do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

But what was the opinion of the typical fan, whether casual or die-hard?

During the era, it appeared they had the same view as the Union, management, and media. At the same time, one may sympathize with fans who thought the game was on the up-and-up. I, for one, followed the 1998 home run chase with some interest. I believed what I was told about workout regimens and nutritional supplements as the source of weight gain and muscle mass. I believed it when the media said that greatly-improved strength through steroieds would hurt a pitcher's control and a hitter's swing. Steroids disrupt one's body rhythm.

Then the revelations came forth that steroid use was probably true, and my thought was, "Oh, so it was steroids. Huh. What will I have for supper today?" I couldn't work myself up to have felt cheated. I couldn't work up much disappointment in the accused players.

Also, I found it hard to even get worked up about the integrity of the record book. Rare feats, and the athletes who perform them, can only be judged relative to the era in which they were performed. Everyone knows that 1950's-60's NFL running back Jim Brown wouldn't be as dominant today, as he would have rivals just as big and fast, and the defenses he would face are much larger and more athletic. 1960's NBA Giant Wilt Chamberlain would face more big men today and better athletes overall. Wayne Gretzky's passing would be disrupted by more athletic defenders, and his shots by better goalies today than in his 1980's heyday. Their accomplishments only demonstrate how much better they were than the rest in their respective eras. But their stats, taken alone, prove nothing. That goes for baseball stats as well.

Finally, I grew disgusted by Congressional investigations. I have even defended the Steroid Era, even as I'm glad MLB is taking steps to end it.

And I think the votes Manny is getting is the final statement, the coda on the Steroid Era. The media vilifies ex-players who may have used when there wasn't even a policy. Manny admits to violating the policy that is in place, yet many fans still want him in the All-Star game.

That settles it. Perhaps the Steroid Era could have been thought of as total failure by the Union, Owners, and Media, with the fans the only victims because they were deceived by the "cheating." The votes for Manny have become the response of the fans: "It's okay. We were in on it too. Perhaps we didn't know then, perhaps we were naive, perhaps we looked the other way, but today, we don't care. The users didn't do anything we wouldn't have done in the same situation."

The fan is saying, "Let's forgive and forget. By putting Manny in the All-Star game, what we are really saying is, put the best players of the era in the Hall of Fame."

And I agree. More importantly, I insist on this:

• If you are a baseball writer with a Hall of Fame vote, and
  
• if you are are outraged about the "cheating" in the Steroid Era, and
  
• if you are convinced the superstars of the era with Hall of Fame numbers were users, and
  
• you refuse to elect them to the Hall of Fame, yet
  
• during the Steroid Era, you never raised a peep of suspicion or mounted an investigation, then

Do the honorable thing and resign your vote!

Those who are guilty of stupidity and negligence - i.e., incompetence - do not deserve a position that decides if another person is worthy of an honor. That is, an honorable baseball writer with a Hall of Fame vote and righteous anger against Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, or Manny, should think to himself: "Wait a minute. I suck as a baseball writer because I couldn't even see what was going on. Regardless of whether they deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, I don't deserve to have a vote!"

Instead of morally judging others, we are better off just moving on, with lessons learned but no regrets.

Maybe as a result of all this, baseball fans will learn to appreciate baseball statistics, and appreciate the great athletic feats, in the context of the era and stop comparing them to history. The Steroid Era will teach them to wake up and remember to judge a player not by history, but by his own era.

In Defense of the Steroid Era

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In May, 1996, Favre checked himself into the NFL's substance abuse rehabilitation program for an addiction to the painkiller Vicodin. You don't get addicted to Vicodin from prescribed amounts. Undoubtedly, Favre broke the law. . . .

In Favre's case, he was given credit for his competitive spirit and trying to help his team win, not because he wanted to throw more touchdown passes, win the MVP Award, and get a huge contract.

But baseball players who used steroids are never given credit for the fact that missing fewer games and hitting more home runs would actually help the team win ball games. They have no "competitive spirit," they're just greedy.

A-Rod's the victim

It looks like the revelation of Alex Rodriguez's positive steroid test six years ago may have violated both confidentiality agreements and the Fourth Amendment. I would love it if the investigation of this leak ultimately results in Barry Bonds's exoneration.

I can understand - not condone, but understand - cops going a little overboard on the Fourth Amendment in obsessive pursuit of a serial killer or some such person. But you can't ascribe good intentions to investigators in the BALCO and Bonds cases. Steroid abusers harm nobody but themselves. One may object that they harm the integrity of Major League Baseball. But that's MLB's business, not the government's, and MLB didn't take action against steroids until a few years ago.

An emailer to ESPN this afternoon says that A-Rod isn't sorry for having used illegal substances, he's only sorry he got "caught." But that's the thing: he didn't get caught; it's more accurate to say he was exposed through illegal means. Confident now that he would never test positive for steroids, and also confident now his positive test result from years ago has been destroyed or remains confidential, he could lie and tell Katie Couric that he's never taken steroids. Sure, it's a lie, but it's a lie about something that was nobody else's business.

Imagine Joe Blow is asked on 60 Minutes whether he ever had an affair. He says no. Then his psychiatrist comes forward to say that Joe Blow did have an affair, after which Mr. Blow admits that, yes, indeed he had and is very sorry.

It does no good to accuse him of only being sorry the affair was discovered. It is more likely true that he was sorry that he had it in the first place, which is part of the reason he didn't want it discovered: it wouldn't do any good for anybody, including himself. The real crime in this case is not the adultery, and not lying about it. It is, rather, the contractual breach of confidentiality on the part of the psychiatrist.

Likewise, that A-Rod used steroids should come as, at most, a mild surprise. The real scandal is not his behavior, but the leak that exposed it.

I don't condone steroid use. Because A-Rod was presumed "clean" and seemed destined to break the all-time home run record, maybe karma caught up to him. But if that's the case, karma wil also eventually catch up to the leakers and prosecutors in this unethical and unconstitutional war on steroids.

Pleading the Tenth

Has anyone ever refused to answer a question from a federal inquisitor on Tenth Amendment grounds? I don't know, but I'd love to hear it from Roger Clemens when he testifies at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee next month:

"Mr. Chairman, I have read the Constitution and it does not grant you authority to ask the question or hold this hearing on my alleged steroid use. Therefore, I will exercise my rights as an American citizen under the Tenth Amendment, and my natural rights as a human being, and refuse to answer it.

"But let me clarify one thing: I do see under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations. I will assume this includes the selling of drugs across state lines. I do not believe any drug should be regulated by any government, but I respect the legitimacy of such legislation under the Constitution. I will thereofre affirm that I do not know how steroids, or any other illegal performance enhancer, is produced or distributed. I have no knowledge of drug trafficking or drug smuggling at all, and even if I knew someone who dealt drugs, I never saw him or her transport drugs across state lines. To the extent a Congressional hearing on steroids is Constitutionally legitimate, I do not have any information to help you. To the extent this hearing is illegitimate, I refuse to cooperate.

"My non-cooperation does not mean that I endorse performance-enhancing drugs in baseball or anywhere else. Major League Baseball is a private organization, and has the right to ban steroids among its players, and suspend or fine those who are caught. I see the merit in this, because young men shouldn't be caught having to choose between a huge paycheck today and poor health tomorrow. Steroids could also disrupt the competitive balance of the game, if it becomes dominated by steroid-induced strikeout pitchers and power hitters who are intentionally-walked all the time. Much of the excitement of baseball as we know it today - base-running and chasing balls in the field, would disappear.

"So I agree that Baseball should ban steroids, and Baseball has banned steroids, and is taking measures to upgrade its enforcement. It does not need the help of this committee. Tens of billions of dollars have been squandered on waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq, yet you insist on holding a hearing on a problem that the private sector is taking care of by itself.

"The Constitution you have sworn your allegiance to gives the Congress few and specific powers. Prohibiting individual drug use is not one of them. This is clearly left to the states and to "the people," as the Tenth Amendment says. If steroid possession or use should be illegal, the states should have laws and enforce them. But better yet, if drugs are so bad, the private sector could provide drugs tests, and indeed much of the private sector, including baseball, already does. But we do not need a federal police force and federal prisons warehousing thousands of non-violent drug dealers and drug users. The whole War on Drugs, of which the War on Steroids is a part, is a Constitutional travesty. I will not defend steroid-dealers or any other kind of drug-dealer, but if they are bad, you members of this Committee are much worse. For they are out to make a buck from willing customers, whereas you people are out to take away the freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves, without their consent.

"Most of this committee is Democrat, and I bet most of you Democrats and maybe a couple of Republicans here are [use hand gesture to signify quotation marks] "pro-choice." If it is a Constitutional right for a woman to pay a doctor to kill a human life inside a woman's womb, why do individuals not also have a Constitutional right to take any substance they please, including steroids or some mind-altering drug?

"The federal republic was formed to provide an internal free-trade zone and a common foreign policy for the states. In few cases, like counterfeiting or treason, does the federal government have the authority to arrest and try individuals. Steroid use may be dangerous. Steroid use may be morally wrong. But steroid use is none of your business.

"I do not recognize the legitimacy of this committee hearing. I will now leave."