Steroids Are Wrong etc.

One thing Scott at LGM harped on over the years was the stupidity and hypocrisy of efforts against cheating in sports (such as the Pats issues), especially steroids. Paul Campos has been on this for years, as this 2006 article shows. I think they both are wrong, but at some point, it's pointless to pushback. People have strong views and debate is not going to be had.

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Membership in the Baseball Hall of Fame, based on the criteria itself puts forth, is not just a matter of athletic ability, full stop. A rapist, for instance, need not be admitted into the HOF. The "integrity" and "character" rules here have some bite. No matter if it is not consistently applied. That is the road to nihilism. 

This argument has a lot of force, but, in the context of professional sports, there is also something hypocritical about it. We are perfectly happy to, for example, allow athletes to destroy their bodies.

When this sort of slippery slope rule is put forth by libertarians, the LGM crowd is likely to sneer at it. Here, suddenly it seems to have some bite. Still fails.  There are limits.  Lines are drawn.  

The claim that what they did was wrong because they may have acquired PEDs without legally required prescriptions is an obvious red herring.

Why is it a red herring?  Prescriptions are a means to provide limits here, including guarding against abuse and dangerous unregulated actions. This includes for more at risk players including minor leagues or even in high school and college ball.  Toss in the handwaving if people aren't put in the HOF because they lied to investigators and so forth.

Then, there is the statement that it wasn't even cheating at all since baseball "had no policy against the use of PEDs prior to the 2003 season."  

I saw some form of that argument over the years and overall discussions repeatedly do not clarify the exact details in an easy to examine way.  This is often the case when dealing with issues and I welcome those who provide carefully crafted summaries.  Wikipedia helps here, including providing links and general details you can use for further research. 

Anyway, that's WRONG.  There WAS a policy against use of PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) before then. What exactly it is I do not know.  It was in place. People who said players were "cheaters" were not just deluded.  The basic change there was TESTING.  Caps can be annoying.  They have their uses.  

For instance, this ESPN summary notes that "steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991."   Nineteen Ninety One.   So, we are left with details. What steroids.  How to prove their usage.  The spirit of the rules. etc.  The arguments about the "sanctimony" of opposition here move back and forth from details ("no policy") to specifics and "the rules are so arbitrary."  Regularly, rules in place is not the issue either.  

Anyway, like Doug Glanville and various others, I am not somehow appalled that Bonds et. al. are not in the HOF.   Specific choices are going to be closer calls in various respects, but especially given the overall criteria will not just be about steroid use (see my reference the other day to David "Big Papi" Ortiz), the calls will involve various criteria.

Like the current effort, however incomplete, dealing with domestic abuse, "everyone does it" or "we are inconsistent" is not an answer.  We can toss that out about everything.  Brian Flores' race discrimination lawsuit?  Well, sure, but hey, discrimination goes on in a bunch of ways. We allow it.  It would be arbitrary to just benefit him here!   

But, steroids isn't race discrimination!  Obviously.  They are a matter of fairness.  Some people do not want to harm their body using dangerous substances (again, there is not some "if you put yourself in harm's way, you can't complain about anything" rule), while others are pressured to do so because PEDs are assumed legitimate in some fashion.  And, the people who are harmed most often are marginal people, often of a certain race.

Its said that the accomplishments of athletes who use PEDs are tainted because their feats are a product of their drug use rather than the hard work necessary to fully develop natural athletic talent. But this claim is based on a misunderstanding of how PEDs work. No PED in and of itself enhances athletic ability: the value of such drugs is that they allow athletes to train harder, to build greater muscle bulk and endurance and to recover more quickly from the stress such intense training causes to their bodies. 

I don't see the "misunderstanding" here.  The results very well are a "product" of drug use.  It allows them to "recover more quickly," which makes it easier for athletes.  The drugs also leads to better results, given the alternative -- given the limits of human endurance -- will lead to less results.  People who use the drugs very well, at least in various cases, still work hard.  But, they are quite reasonably deemed tainted. 

The fact it is somewhat more complicated than some frame it (which is standard -- people simplify when they summarize things -- and the usual suspects selectively patronizingly call them on it) doesn't change the basic bottom line here.  Again, certain things are allowed here.  No shit.  

Other things are not.  If a secret pill, e.g., allowed people to throw 125mph, we can ban it.  Talking about how so arbitrary (condescension on high) that might be since we allow people to drink coffee etc. does not change that.  The same applies to performance enhancing drugs.  

Individual cases might be complicated or mitigating factors can be involved.  A few months of steroid use might not be enough for a voter to block a Hall of Fame admission.  A recent case of an Olympic hopeful who used marijuana to self-medicate was very unfortunate if you look at the details.  But, studies have shown marijuana affects (in various ways) performance.  The rules in place are there for a decent reason.  

Scott at LGM at times compares sports and criminal drug policies. They are not the same thing.  Requiring athletes to follow now clearly in place policies, including testing, and penalizing them financially when they break them, is not akin to locking up some poor black person or denying them college funds.  Comparing A-Rod to that is fucking asinine.  

Anyway, read again the rules for membership in the Hall of Fame. And, no, it isn't some special sacred thing.  It has some symbolic value, surely, but there are more important things.  People still can be great players if they are not entered into the HOF.  

The entrance rules still involve more than winning a lot of games and so forth.  And, rightly so.