Cui bono? That's one question you have to ask yourself as you analyze the aftermath of the steroids confessions: who benefited? Sure it's easy to blame the players, but the truth is that everyone benefited from steroids in baseball. Let's take a look from the top down of everyone who benefited at the time:
Bud Selig: Let's say you're a CEO of a company that just got done with a year-long strike. How much would you do to gain goodwill from your customers? Would you ignore certain things that was making your product more popular? Of course you would. Bud Selig is not a naive man. Maybe he didn't know the extent of steroids in baseball, but he certainly knew about them.
There's some proof that he knew of Mark McGwire using them back in 1993. Do you blame him that he didn't bring it up in 1993, right before a huge labor dispute was about to rock the sport? Do you blame him that he didn't bring in up in that fateful summer of 1998 as his sport was recovering from the strike, gaining goodwill from the fans? I don't. The sport has grown in billions of dollars and Bud Selig was at the helm as that occurred. It doesn't excuse
his uneven responses or his claiming of ignorance, but he certainly benefited from steroids in baseball and turned a blind eye towards it because of that fact.
The Owners: While the sport boomed, so did their wallets. What were they going to do? Not sign people suspected of taking steroids? Do you remember the first guy suspended for steroids use? Alex Sanchez. The dude weighed less than 180 and hit 6 career HRs--not exactly what most people think of when they think of steroids. The Colorado Rockies drew almost 4.5 million fans in 1993 (a major league record) and even "small-market" teams like Baltimore, Texas, Arizona, Tampa Bay, Cleveland, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Houston, and San Diego ALL set team attendance records from 1997-2004. The key was to put fannies in the seats and that happened more than ever during the steroids era. This was the same group that had Jeffrey Loria pull a Rachel Phelps from
Major League on the Montreal Expos, rewarded him with being able to buy the Marlins from John Henry in a fishy deal and then even more shadily allowed Henry to take his earnings and buy the Red Sox. So we're surprised that this group of people may have ignored something that gave them huge profits?
General Managers: Someone suggested that GMs should have demanded that players have steroids clauses in their contracts. If this was across all of Major League Baseball, that would have been a fine suggestion, but what GM would sacrifice his team's success and his livlihood by taking a stand in this situation? What GM was going to be banned as "the guy who doesn't want steroids users on his team", hampering his ability to sign any free agents? General Managers have a duty to put the best players on the field and help an organization grow. Steroids and HGH was a big part of that.
Managers: Others say that managers should have taken a stand about what went on in their clubhouse. But do you really think Joe Torre was going to call out Roger Clemens in 1998 as his team was heading to their historic season? Do you think Terry Francona was going to ask David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez to stop using in 2004 because it wasn't good for baseball? Do you think that any manager would risk being banned permanently from clubhouses by breaking the code of silence and outing a player to the press? Not a chance.
Players Who Were Clean: The knock is on the suspected clean players like Cal Ripken, Jr., Ken Griffey, Jr., Derek Jeter and Curt Schilling and why they didn't speak up sooner. In 1998, Cal Ripken, Jr. broke Lou Gehrig's "ironman" streak. Ripken's streak was overshadowed by the home run chase going on in the Midwest between McGwire and Sammy Sosa. So why didn't Ripken stand up and say how proud he was of his streak because he did it cleanly while others were playing dirty? Maybe because he would have been an outcast. Maybe because playing in that many consecutive games required some "enhancement" of its own. Why didn't Derek Jeter stand up and say something about steroids? Because his team was winning because of them. Why didn't Curt Schilling say something earlier about steroids, instead waiting until after his playing days to rail on users? Because his team may not have had a championship in 2004 without it. Why didn't Ken Griffey, Jr., who hit an amazing 56 home runs in both 1997 and 1998 stop the 1998 race by saying that he felt it was unfair that others had an advantage? Etc, etc. Sure players who were clean were upset that other players were getting away with it by being dirty, but what benefit would they have gained by speaking up? None. Players salaries were rising and they just went along for the ride. If you were a player who was blocked from the Majors by a dirty player, do you think that saying something would have opened up more jobs for you? Not a chance. You'd have been treated like the replacement players during the 1994 strike: blacklisted and ridiculed.
Players Who Were Dirty: I don't condone steroid use and I hate that the era that I grew up watching baseball is view as "unpure" or "marred" or "dirty". But do I blame anyone for doing them? No. If I told you that you could take a pill that could make you so good at your job that you were guaranteed job security and paid millions, but may have some side effects in the end and may not be totally kosher, would you take it? I would say that 90% of people would. People do things to cut corners in the job all the time. These players took the money to the bank and earned fame for quite a few years. I think they definitely benefited.
Press: One of my other favorite comments is that the press should have called out the players as cheaters. But what proof did they have? Did they see them inject? Did they have hard evidence? The guys who wrote Game of Shadows were sued, subpoenaed, and threatened with contempt of court unless they revealed their sources. Sounds like tons of fun. And that was in
2006! Imagine if they released a story like that in 1998. Ouch. Maybe they could have questioned the accomplishments of players of the time more, but without proof they couldn't name players and without naming players, their story wouldn't have sold papers. And if they found out something about a player that they could confirm and wrote about it, they would have been shut off for clubhouse access, one of the key parts of being a sports reporter. They benefited by going along for the ride as well.
Fans: I ask you this question (geared toward Yankees fans but anyone can really answer): if Carl Pavano had done steroids and HGH in his entire time in Pinstripes and he had stayed healthy, won a ton of games, and led the Yankees to at least one World Series win, but was then ousted as a steroids user, would you like him less or more than you do now? Of course it would be more. Players are chided for not caring, not being tough enough, not working hard enough, not performing to the levels we expect. We want to see wins and if a player goes out of their way to get those wins, we usually don't care. Gaylord Perry spit on the ball which helped him become a better pitcher and his team win. But he's enshrined in the Hall of Fame and is looked upon favorably. We want to see winners and we'll look the other way to make sure they do it. Were we, as fans, supposed to stay away from the ballparks because the players kept on getting bigger? No. We benefited by seeing some of our stars prolong their careers and other reach heights that made us delirious. There is no one that didn't enjoy the 1998 home run race at the time.
In the end, everyone benefited during "The Steroids Era" by not saying anything. This wasn't
the Holocaust. Is anyone really surprised now that nothing was said back then?
Cui bono? The answer is truly everyone.
Posts
