A VIEW FROM THE CHEAP SEATS
By Rich Trzupek
Hall of Shame
Baseball writers will take their first crack at judging modern-day cheaters later this year, as Mark McGwire comes up for the next Hall of Fame vote. For some reason this seems to be an object of debate. God knows why. Cheaters shouldn�t share space with the likes of Ruth, Aaron or any of the Robinsons.
Apologists for McGwire, Bonds, Palmero and the rest of the steroid squad make of number of arguments, all of which miss the mark as badly as a Bears quarterback trying to find the tight end.
They often say, for example, that a person should be innocent until proven guilty. In terms of legal rights, they�re absolutely correct. If one is going on trial for murder, with lifetime in jail or the death penalty at stake, �innocent until proven guilty� is a damn fine standard for a civilized society to apply. The familiar condition attached to that standard, �beyond a reasonable doubt�, is equally important where an individuals rights are concerned. Note that we�re talking about rights.
But here�s a news flash: election into the Hall of Fame is not a right, it�s a privilege. We can, and should, apply any standard we choose where a privilege is concerned.
No one may ever be able to legally prove that these guys used steroids when they were crushing baseballs into dust. So what? The evidence is all over the place, from bottles left lying around, to dirty trainers, to testimony (and bizarre non-testimony) offered by the players themselves, to all of those remarkable body changes. If that isn�t enough to convict, it�s surely enough to keep these guys out a very special club.
Sorry.
During the Congressional steroid hearings McGwire said that he didn�t want to talk about the past. Super. Let�s grant him that wish. If he�s not elected to the Hall, he�ll never have to go to Cooperstown and try to explain his career.
Others say that steroid use shouldn�t matter because the drugs were not banned from baseball until 2003. That is true, but there is still the small matter that steroid use was and is illegal under federal law.
As my daughter so astutely pointed out, fans and writers were appalled when the Philadelphia Phillies let pitcher Brett Myers start a game after he was accused of assaulting his wife. Assaulting one�s wife is not banned by baseball, so � following the logic of the steroid apologists � why should anyone get upset if the guy plays?
The answer is obvious. Slugging one�s wife is wrong. Using performance-enhancing drugs is wrong. It doesn�t matter whether baseball officially adopts either position, which happen to be part of a little something we call �the law of the land�, they�re wrong. End of story.
One particularly befuddled apologist said that baseball was terribly, unreasonably high and mighty. How dare they tie the Hall of Fame to things that �happen off the field�. According to him, Pete Rose and Joe Jackson are not in the Hall because of �off the field� gambling activities. Locking out the steroid squad would, he said, also be an off the field issue, which shouldn�t have anything to do with what they did on the field.
He�s missing a point so obvious that a 5th grader could grasp it. Rose and Jackson directly affected what happened on the field. When a ballplayer or manager bets on the game, or accept bribes, off the field it inevitably changes the nature of what happens on the field. It changes the MLB into the WWE.
It�s exactly the same with steroids. If a guy walks onto the field juiced, with cartoon muscles and a blimp for a head, then whatever he accomplishes is irretrievably tainted � on the field.
The last argument that apologists make is that there are already cheaters in the Hall of Fame. Gaylord Perry doctored the baseball to 300 wins, in the most famous example. What�s the difference between Perry and McGwire?
There�s a big difference, even if it�s a subjective one. It�s the difference between winking at the rules and throwing away the rule book. It�s the difference between getting an answer to question five on the math quiz and stealing a photocopy of the final from your professor�s desk.
Perry cheated, but he did so in a fashion that is within baseball�s code of honor. He enhanced his skills, not his body. Everyone got that and, for the most part, strangely admired it too. To say that, because Perry cheated in that way, the Hall should no longer apply any ethical standards at all is just plain stupid.
The steroid boys didn�t just flaunt the rule book, they ripped it up and flipped it in the garbage. Instead of working with the gifts and guile they were given, they chose to create an entirely new creature who bore little resemblance to the competitors they faced.
Which is why none of these goof-balls deserve induction into the Hall of Fame. If we are to grant athletes the honor � the privilege � of being recognized as the sport�s best, we shouldn�t have to find the least common denominator to sneak them in. They should have to prove their greatness and demonstrate their character. If they can not, then the best we should do is to wish them a comfortable retirement.