Last night, listening to the ever excellent Tony Paige on WFAN at 3 am, I was listening to callers list any number of reasons to support or decry what Jason Giambi said last week and what should be done about it. It struck me that we've been though quite distinct waves of sports and drugs over the last few decades, according to that most important personal characteristic - my foggy memory:
- 1970s: when I was a kid in school, steroids were what East German swimmers and other Soviet athletes took. We didn't know their names and could never think of them as heroes as they were cheaters plain and simple. They bad, we good even when we lost to them.
- 1980s: Somewhere in here Sports Illustrated does a huge article on how high school and college kids in sport are using steroids regularly. In 1988, Ben Johnson certainly let the world know that it athletes from the west used steroids. Sports illustrated posted comparison photos of changes to his shoulder mass. Saturday Night Live did comparison photos to US women sprinters upper lips.
- 1990s: Lyle Alzado admits doing steroids before the NFL player dies. The early '90s baseball strike leads amazingly (and quite unexpectedly to everyone everywhere...like...you know...pixie magic dust had settled on the game) to the late 1990 home run boom by all these big guys.
- The new millennium: Jose Canseco proves you do not have to be clever to be an author and everyone almost admits that people they knew when they were young knew people who did steriods. Barry Bonds approaches Hank Aaron's all-time home run record. Giabmi now says all of baseball should apologize.
Group project rules apply.

Comments
Gordo - May 22, 2007 10:07 am
Nice. He admits to past drug use, so the Yankees look into dumping him.
Professional sports organizations like MLB and the NHL are going to have to do something about drug use other than closing ranks against anyone caught. Otherwise, they risk turning into freak shows like the WWE.
Mike C - May 22, 2007 10:40 am
My neighbour won a bronze medal in swimming at the Montreal Olympics, losing out to two lovely East German ladies. I'm not sure there was much of a gold-medally sponsorship cash-in in those days, but it still would have been nice.
cm - May 22, 2007 11:12 am
<i>Do we take apart baseball because we want it pure even though we loved the home runs when everyone knew the players were on the drugs?</i>
Yes. We don't want to see the little man behind the curtain.
gr - May 22, 2007 11:34 am
I will be offering commentary here, no citations available.
Michael Vick should be prosecuted, if found guilty, to the fullest extent of Virginia law (felony) and then sentenced to the maximum prison sentence and finally covered with honey and fire ants. What a jerk.
An article I read recently and cannot cite mentions the St Louis pitcher who died last month, apparently in a drunk driving accident. The author noted that nobody has died of steroid use, but plenty of athletes, and others, have gotten into worse trouble and physical problems due to alcohol abuse. So, in this frame of reference, why worry so much about steroids when other drugs are abused and cause more harm? I am not answering that. BUT, I remember the Pinewood derby of my Cub Scouting days. My parents and I believed that it was my race car, and my project, and so I spent my spring break during grade 3 carving and painting a race car. Apparently, everybody else had jig saws, graphite etc etc etc and so my car was dead last. Same thing with people who cheat on tests in school. My point here is: we want competition and sport to be pure. People who wake up, have their wheaties with a banana, and work on their skills, period. Therefore, steroids should be rigorously banned and prosecuted.
Alan - May 22, 2007 11:38 am
Lyle Alzado died, didn't he? I think if we review other premature deaths of 1980s and 1990's athletes you may find steroids have killed people.
cm - May 22, 2007 11:44 am
But were those deaths <i>attributed</i> to steroids?
Alan - May 22, 2007 11:49 am
Do you mean "caused by" or "admitted to be related to"?
gorthos - May 22, 2007 11:59 am
On one hand, I don't have an issue with adults using steroid in professional sports because really, they are adults and personal choice and all that.. The use does not affect others. BUT in amateur sports, it gives an edge to atheletes and their nations that can afford a proper medical steroid program.
Steroids aside, many athletes move from poorer nations to more wealthy ones, get their citizenship and all of a sudden are allowed to compete internationally as a member of that nations team. This is unfair to poorer nations as not only can they not keep their people because of monetary issues. What we end up with is an Olympics with richer nations with a percentage of mercenary athletes. Banning use of steroid at the amateur level dampens this unfairness down a bit..
gr - May 22, 2007 12:48 pm
Alan, I know what you are saying about Lyle Alzado, and potentially others. (I met Lyle Alzado once---HUGE guy) As I was trying to say, play without steroids.
I don't understand what Gorthos is pointing out in his last paragraph's last sentence.
Alan - May 22, 2007 1:05 pm
Well, it may be in relation to countries like the US and Canada and others taking in third world athletes as "special citizens" or for other more legitimate reasons and them coming to represent our countries in sports events. I think that is a wee bit sideshow to the steroids discussion.<p>Wasn't there a 1980s to 90s US gold medal womens sprinter who also died prematurely?
cm - May 22, 2007 1:31 pm
I mean "admitted to be related to".
Chris Taylor - May 22, 2007 1:39 pm
I'm inclined to favour the libertarian argument a little (who cares what adults do with their bodies), but the statistician in me says that permitting widespread steroid use subtly changes the essence of sport in undesirable ways.
Will we still regard Babe Ruth as one of baseball's greatest players when his stats (and those of other Hall of Famers) are rapidly outpaced by steroid-bulked successors? If hitters start regularly cranking in lifetime stats of 900 HRs and 3500 RBIs, are we going to be impressed by his steroid-free 714 HRs and 2214 RBIs? Not to mention his all-time records like slugging and on-base percentage are going to disappear into obscurity.
If we permit steroids, we may as well permit all sorts of performance-enhancing surgeries and deformations. Sport ceases to be a contest between hard-working, hard-training peers that the average kid might aspire to. It becomes the preserve of those willing to endure the most extreme genetic, pharmaceutical or surgical alteration.
Alan - May 22, 2007 1:42 pm
Derek Jeter and Julio Lugo would be better with a third arm.
Chris Taylor - May 22, 2007 2:36 pm
Forgot to mention that I would like to petition our lawmakers to include "covering in honey + fire ants" as a discretionary penalty for both summary and indictable convictions under the Criminal Code of Canada. Thanks Gary.
Tom Wilson - May 22, 2007 6:23 pm
It is one thing to not see... it is another to look the other way and say I did not see...
Your article was indeed thought provoking but some of us have a real simple take on the steroid era in baseball...
The Asterisk Party
Our Creedo
We make no attempt to single out Barry Bonds. Barry just happens to be carrying the steroid banner presently. McGwire, Sosa, Fehr, Selig etc... all of them, in our opinion are guilty of drinking from the steroid trough.
We protest the “steroid era” and like good custodians we do not accept the “everybody did it” excuse... the integrity of the game is at stake.
Future baseball fans will certainly look back on this time... the steroid era... and they will wonder why no one took a stand and called foul.
So this year, we stand up for the past, to show the future, that the now matters. And we will make our stand... in the stands... at the ballpark... for all to see. We knew what was going on and we did not stand by and ignore it.
Our little piece of foam does not attempt to change the record book or right a wrong. That would certainly be beyond our ability and would only add to an already convoluted tangle of words and facts. This little foam asterisk simply allows the fans to demonstrate, in a peaceful simple way, that we were not blind. We were not fooled. And we did not stand by and look the other way while the integrity of the game was ground into the dirt.
The Asterisk Party
Gordo - May 22, 2007 6:51 pm
Bravo, Tom! Very well said, thank you.
Alan - May 22, 2007 7:02 pm
Are there other asteriks? The reserve clause? The Negro leagues??
gr - May 22, 2007 8:25 pm
Consider this reality: professional athletes made very average salaries up until about what, 1970, roughly? Guys worked at car dealerships or in construction in the off season. Salaries went crazy with the TV revenues etc etc, and the expectations have been upped too. These are not supposed to be extremely talented average guys, they are supposed to be a whole lot more, to justify the many million dollar salaries. I don't want to go back in time, but I don't know if I like the age of the multi-million dollar contract, and the steroids and the big attitudes.
Chris, if honey and fire ants aren't available, I was thinking we could cover him with bacon and put him into a pit with some of his own dogs. Who hadn't had breakfast yet.
gorthos - May 22, 2007 10:09 pm
I thought it was ASTERIX like the little Viking guy's name.
Okay, lemme rewind my crazed "sideshowy" rant from earlier...
Simply put, professional sports, I dont give a rats behind who screws up their players bodys with steroids, bionics or genetic modifications. If it is a paid athlete, then damn well put on a god show for me and if it means you end up a catatonic mess in 10 years, well, it was the choice you made for your big paycheque.
Amateur sports, no, complete and utter ban.
Its like th difference between professional wrestling (sorry wrasslin) and olympic wrestling.. one is for entertainment, one for sport.
gorthos - May 22, 2007 10:10 pm
that should say good show but GOD show is equally fitting..
cm - May 23, 2007 8:54 am
Waste of good bacon, gr.
gr - May 23, 2007 10:19 am
http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2007/05/bacon_bits.html
Well, cm, this sort of thing has been in the news lately.
portland - May 23, 2007 11:52 pm
if youre going to start putting astericks by steroid induced homeruns, then put one by anything bob gibson did because the mound was so much higher. put one beside all ruth's records because the ball got juiced when he started playing the outfield and put one beside...... my point is that you can't compare stats from era to era. it's fun to do it, especially after beers, but don't kid yourself that anything like some sort of ultimate truth will emerge. clean up the drug problem and move on i say. put mark mcguire in the hall, let bonds have the record outright, and move on. how many bad players took steroids? how many homeruns did they hit? what's the big deal. you want ultimate truth? here it is; bonds has always been a very very good baseball player, babe ruth was easily the best player (all around) to ever live, and henry aaron is more of a man than the both of them put together. i can live with that. i'm moving on.
gr - May 24, 2007 11:18 am
There was a tavern across from old Comiskey park in Chicago, and Babe Ruth went there between innings to smoke a cigar and have a beer. Let's put up an asterisk after his name: his home run record was influenced by beer and cigars.
As Portland says, move on..........