The Case for Steroids In Sports

By Matt Hurst

@ThrowbackAttack

At what point does the public stop caring about headlines?

Look at almost any news cycle – be it in sports, or news or entertainment. There is the immediate interest, the follow-up reporting to keep you hooked, a resolution and then we’re on to the next one.

Whether it is constant wars and militant uprisings in the Middle East or parts of Africa, school shootings in the U.S., the latest with Britney Spears or a fake dead girlfriend, at some point we stop caring about the splashy headlines because there’s going to be something else to attract our attention.

That’s where we are with performance-enhancing drugs.

On Tuesday there were not one, but two PED-related stories that came out within hours of each other and momentarily drew some attention on Twitter and online. Yet seeing another set of athletes involved in a steroid scandal is no longer interesting or revolting. It’s become far too common and at this point it’s too easy to believe everything (deer antler spray barely registered a blip, right?), shrug your shoulders and assume that the majority of professional athletes in any sport are juiced.

And why wouldn’t they be?

The penalties are far too light – even baseball’s – for the athletes not to take risks and why would they give a damn if they get caught? They still get paid. The juice is definitely worth the squeeze.

Then it’s always a three-part process:

1. Deny steroid claims; discuss how hard you work out and that you’ve never tested positive.

2. Go into hiding as evidence builds; repeat step one in any interview.

3. Come clean; apologize, knowing the public will forgive you.

Part 3 of the PED Process.

Rather than feign anger or act surprised, as fans we should stop caring about steroid use.  Whatever rules are in place to prevent steroid use and clean up a sport, those who want to cheat will do so. They will find ways around it. Just think about how long it would take you, right now, to get a bag of marijuana, which is illegal in 48 states. And you’re probably devoid of any hook-ups or insider secrets that these athletes have in getting PEDs.

So let’s treat sports as what they are at the highest levels – entertainment.

Going to a game is like going to the movies. You pay for a ticket and hope to be entertained for a few hours. Vince McMahon runs a very successful empire on ‘roided up entertainment. Instead of creating the XFL, he should have created the SSL – Steroid Sports Leagues.

Tell me you wouldn’t want to watch players who are as juiced as possible doing amazing things in a sport. This would pull the cover off of everything. Strangely enough, it would legitimatize records and accomplishments because there would be a clear separation.

(Quick tangent – for those who are ever worried about records, then you’re not thinking to the times when baseball was segregated, when football didn’t emphasize the forward pass – or if they did, then the rules in place to accompany it – or when basketball didn’t have three-point lines. The game changes, folks.)

You mean a guy can play a punishing sport for 17 years,
be dominant in it, tear his triceps, come back
in the same season and we are supposed to believe he's clean?

We already don’t care that football players are using performance-enhancing drugs the way kids go through a bag of Skittles. Think about it – we don’t care whenever an NFL player gets popped for PED’s and is given a four-game suspension. It barely registers, something that’s in the agate part of the Sports section. There has never been a star busted in the NFL for steroid use, leading one to believe that the most powerful league in sports uses mediocre players as sacrificial lambs, suspending these lesser players to claim the league cares about this issue, likely hiding positive tests from the stars. Because, really, who would miss a third-string middle linebacker vs. a starting quarterback?

Look around the NBA – you really think that league is clean? And while there isn’t a regular test for human growth hormone, a pro athlete would be foolish not to use it during a long season and after working out to stay as fresh as possible.

The solution is not to make more rules and more tests, but to allow all professional athletes to use performance enhancers.

Of course, there is a trickle down effect based on this and here’s how to assure that youths, college athletes and minor leaguers don’t use, too. Put all the efforts of drug testing into the lower levels. Make it as clean as possible. Enforce a one-and-done policy where if you get caught, you’re banned for life. That way when someone makes it to the upper echelon, they did it on pure talent. Now, feel free to juice up and do things the human body wasn’t designed to.

It's all entertainment, right?

As fans, we’ll grab our popcorn and be entertained. If we want a clean version, we can watch college sports or the minor leagues. If we want to witness freaks of nature – once a compliment of a player and now a legitimate term – we’ll tune in.

As Maximus shouted in Gladiator: “Are you not entertained?”

A free agent fan picks his first favorite hockey team, part I

-- by @Josh_Suchon

The hockey lockout is over. That means it’s time for me to get serious about selecting my favorite hockey team. I’ve never had a favorite hockey team. I’ve never followed the sport much. But it’s one of the items on my list of “40 things to do before turning 40 years old” and it’s time to do it.

Picking a favorite team from scratch isn’t easy. I want to do it for the right reason. I don’t want to take the easy way out. I don’t want to dis-own my team after a couple seasons. I want this decision to be for life. I want to have a unique connection to my new favorite hockey team.

I started the process by eliminating teams for various principles. Here is that list:

Eliminated because I’m a proud Californian who can’t possibly like teams from these cities (5): NY Rangers, Philadelphia, New Jersey, NY Islanders, Boston.

Eliminated because the city is lame (3): Columbus, Buffalo, Sunrise/Florida.

Eliminated because the NHL shouldn’t have a team in that city (3): Tampa Bay, Phoenix, Carolina.

Eliminated because they already have enough fans and don’t need any more (3): Detroit, Montreal, Toronto.

Eliminated because one of my good friends already loves that team for whatever reason, and I want to be unique around here, and I want to talk shit when my teams plays his team (2): St. Louis, Vancouver.

Eliminated because my St. Louis Blues fan friend would never talk to me again if I picked that team (1): Chicago.

Eliminated because they just won the Stanley Cup, so if I pick them, I look like the biggest Bandwagon fan ever (1): LA Kings.

Eliminated because if I’m not a LA Kings fan, I can’t pick the team down the freeway because driving on I-5 is a major pain in the ass, and I hated the fucking movie that inspired this team (1): Anaheim

Eliminated because I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and I already have enough favorite teams from that region, and I don’t live there anymore, so I need to expand my horizons more (1): San Jose

That eliminated 20 of the 30 teams. So now we’re down to 10.

Out of those 10, I wrote a letter to five of them and mailed it on Wednesday, Jan. 9, 2013. 

I won’t list which five teams are on the list here because I didn’t want the teams to know their competition. I asked each of the five finalists the same five questions:

* The most basic: why should I become a fan of your team?

* What should I expect from the team and the front office if I become a fan?

* Part of picking a new favorite hockey team is falling in love with the city and visiting there often to see my favorite team. What should I expect from the city, and what should I know about it?

* I don’t want to be associated with a bunch of idiot fans. How would you describe what most of your fans are like?

* Has your team, or any of your players, made a video for the “You Can Play Project?” If not, how come?

Yes, I want to be courted and wooed by a team. No, this isn’t a ploy to see whatever team sucks up to me the most. There are lots of factors in choosing a favorite team and whatever response I get (if any) is only one factor.

Of course, I realize that after a lengthy lockout, hockey teams will be doing everything they can to win back their fans and secure new fans. The timing is actually really good for me to pick a favorite hockey team for the first time. Still, it’s not about who sends me the most free stuff. I want to make an informed decision.

For the five teams not eliminated earlier on this list, but who did not receive letters from me in the mail, they aren’t completely out of the running. If I’m not satisfied with the response from the current Final Five, then I’ll re-open my search again.

The process has begun.

The ball, err, puck is in the hands, err, stick of five teams.

This free agent hockey fan will announce his decision a few weeks into the season.

To be continued …

Which college football bowl games to eliminate

How many college football bowl games are too many? Well, we know for sure that the current 35 bowl games is a ridiculous number.

On the latest Out of Ink podcast, Josh Suchon and Matt Hurst discuss how we got to 35, what's the ideal number, which bowls should be eliminated, and what the criteria should be to get eligible for a bowl game.

Should there be sports played on holidays?

In the latest Out of Ink podcast, Matt Hurst and Josh Suchon debate whether it's a good thing there are so many sporting events played on Holidays.

Does winning a bowl game create momentum?

-- by @Josh_Suchon

Does a win in a college football bowl game build momentum toward the next year?

That’s something EPSN analyst Jesse Palmer said during the Pinstripe Bowl between Syracuse and West Virginia. My first thought was that’s a bunch of nonsense. I thought it was one of those statements that analysts make because it sounds good. Or it’s something that coaches say to motivate their players, and the analyst just regurgitates it.

This isn’t a knock on Palmer. I actually like him a lot and can understand why he’d make that comment. It was midway through the fourth quarter. The game was played in a blizzard at Yankee Stadium. Syracuse was leading West Virginia 38-14. The game is over. You’re just killing time. It’s one of those things that you say because there’s nothing else to say to keep interest in a blowout.

But is it true?

With nothing else better to do, I looked it up.

Last year, there were 35 bowl games, so obviously 35 teams won.

Out of those 35 winners in the 2011-12 bowl season, 25 returned to a bowl game this year. A bowl return rate of 71 percent is pretty good, but not spectacular.

Also, out of those 35 winners, eight finished with the same record as a year ago, seven improved their record, 10 saw their record drop while making a bowl, and 10 saw their record drop to a level that made them bowl ineligible.

In fairness, it’s actually pretty hard for a winning bowl team to “improve” its record. You needed to win at least seven games the year before, the maximum wins possible is 14, and usually the improvement is within the 8-10 win range. Still, when 57 percent of the winning bowl teams saw their record drop the next year, I don’t think the win did much to “build” momentum.

But how does that compare to teams that lost the bowl game, and didn’t get that momentum push?

Out of the 35 losers in the 2011-12 bowl season, 24 returned to a bowl game this year. That’s one fewer than the bowl winners.

Also, out of those 35 losers, five finished with the same record as a year ago, 12 improved their record, seven saw their record drop while making a bowl, and 11 saw their record drop to a level that made them bowl ineligible.

Again to be fair, when you’re dealing with a small sample size of 13 games, a win in a bowl game makes it that much harder to improve your record, and a loss makes it that much easier to improve. Still, five more teams that lost a bowl game last year improved their record, compared to teams that won a bowl game. Doesn’t seem like momentum mattered.

There’s always a few outliers, but it appears they don’t skew the numbers too much.

USC would have made a bowl game last year, but didn’t because it was on probation, and did make it this year.

Ohio State made a bowl game last year, and would have made one this year, but didn’t because they were on probation.

A few bowl losers from last year made big improvements this year: Notre Dame from 8-5 to 12-0 and a berth in the national title game; Utah State from 7-6 to 11-2; Louisville from 7-6 to 10-2; Tulsa from 8-5 to 10-3.

A few bowl winners from last year made big gains: Florida State from 9-4 to 11-2; Texas A&M from 7-6 to 10-2; Florida from 7-6 to 11-1.

A handful of bowl winners from last year had huge drops this year: Southern Mississippi from 12-2 to no bowl game; Houston from 13-1 to no bowl game; Arkansas from 11-2 to no bowl game; TCU from 11-2 to 7-5; Michigan State from 11-3 to 6-6; and Oklahoma State from 12-1 to 7-5. 

The likely reason those teams couldn’t carry over that “momentum” is because they lost their best players to graduation/NFL, they aren’t traditional powers stacked at every position, and it’s just plan hard to repeat an 11-to-13 win season.

In order to get a true indication of whether winning a bowl game gives you “momentum” for the next season, you’d need to sample at least the last five years, if not the last 10 years. I’m curious about momentum, but not curious enough to do all that research. If somebody wants to do it, I’d love to see the numbers.

Overall, we can safely conclude that winning or losing a bowl game last year did not have a noticeable impact across the board this year.

This isn’t a knock on Jesse Palmer. Again, I think he’s really good. My broadcasting resume doesn’t remotely resemble his resume. But I know the feeling of trying to say something, anything, in the waning moments of a blowout that is coherent.

Why I'm glad I'm not voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame

-- by @Josh_Suchon

When I left the newspaper business in 2007 to pursue my play-by-play dreams, my biggest regret was losing a Hall of Fame vote. At the time, I’d spent seven years as a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America. In three more years, I’d be eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame forever.

If I was one year away, I’d have probably delayed my career switch. Two years would be a tougher decision. Three years wasn’t that tough. No way was I spending three more years in the print journalism world.

Five years later, in what would be my second year as a Hall of Famer voter, I’ve never been happier to not vote. In fact, I think TJ Quinn has the right idea about giving up his vote.

The first reason is the performance-enhancing drug conundrum.

The second reason is the decision has such a massive financial impact on the player.

The third reason is joining a group of people who shouldn’t be making the decision.

I’ll go into more detail on each reason shortly. But first, let it be known that I once viewed voting for the Hall of Fame as the greatest honor for a baseball writer.

During my 10 years at The Oakland Tribune, the last seven covering baseball, I occasionally used the Sunday Baseball Column as a forum for my opinion -- especially unsexy candidates like Tommy John, who I wrote should be inducted because he’s on the cusp based on his career, and having a surgery named after him that saved so many careers should push him over the edge.

In 2008, when I auditioned for a job as the co-host of “PostGame DodgerTalk,” myself and Ken Levine spent about half the three hours discussing Hall of Fame candidates. The baseball knowledge we displayed, plus our instant chemistry, was a huge reason why decision makers hired us both and teamed us together.

But now, voting for the Hall of Fame is a lose-lose endeavor.

The performance-enhancing drug conundrum

Do you knowingly vote for a cheater and ignore how he compiled his accomplishments? Do you automatically eliminate anybody who even once put a questionable substance in his body? Do you try making a very subjective case-by-case decision? There is no correct answer.

For instance, my inclination would be to vote for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. My opinion is both were Hall of Famers, before the overwhelming circumstantial evidence suggests they began using performance-enhancing drugs.

My opinion is that Mark McGwire was a one-dimensional player whose candidacy is based on strictly hitting home runs, and he wouldn’t have hit that many without taking steroids. Sammy Sosa wasn’t as one dimensional, but his career arc was aided greatly by what appears to be an obvious case of PED use, even if there’s no smoking gun.

But those are just opinions. We don’t know exactly what they took, how often they took it, and what impact it had on their careers. We never will know. So how do you justify voting for one player and not the other?

If this is strictly a moral issue about character, then do you kick notorious scoundrel Ty Cobb and certified racist Cap Anson out? If it’s about using illegal substances, then do you kick noted spitball pitchers Gaylord Perry and Don Drysdale out? If it’s about using PEDs, then what about Willie Mays’ use of a “red juice” commonly known as an amphetamine, or the use of “greenies” by Mickey Mantle and so many more?

Does a one-time experiment with steroids (say in college) enough to eliminate somebody from consideration, or must it be over a number of years? What if there was no failed drug test or former teammate blowing the whistle on a candidate, like Mike Piazza, but widespread speculation because he was drafted in the 62nd round, and looked the part with back acne?

I’m not sure where you draw the line. The makes me want to draw no line at all. But I couldn’t wrap my head around voting for Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa or Rafael Palmeiro without making an argument that is contradictory to why I’d vote for somebody else.

The financial impact on the player

Getting inducted into the Hall of Fame isn’t just about a plaque on the wall, and making a heartwarming speech in Upstate New York to thank everybody who helped you along the way. It’s a ticket to potential financial freedom the rest of your life, or at minimum a huge immediate economic burst.

The fee for “Hall of Famer Bruce Sutter” to sign autographs at a baseball show is dramatically higher than the fee for “former Cubs great Lee Smith.” The same is true for “Hall of Famer Barry Larkin” compared to “Tigers legend Alan Trammell.”

How much would the lives of Dale Murphy, Craig Biggio and Tim Raines change if they are elected to the Hall of Fame this year? Not sure how you quantify it. But I know it’s significant.

Reporters should be covering the news, not creating the news.

It’s admirable that Dale Murphy’s son wrote an open letter to Hall of Famer voters to make the case for his father, and another son drew a cute cartoon. It won’t make a difference. Murphy isn’t close to getting in.

But when a family lobbies for their dad to receive an honor that could financially benefit them all, or when a team like the Giants uses its strength to lobby voters into admitting borderline candidate Orlando Cepeda to help the team constantly sell its rich history, it brings out the cynic in me.

Joining people who shouldn’t be making the decision

My last year as a baseball writer, I was the Bay Area chapter President of the BBWAA. It’s largely a ceremonial position. If there’s an issue with access to clubhouses or rules being followed, it’s the President’s job to talk with the team, or take the concern to the league office if the issue isn’t rectified.

The chapter President’s biggest responsibility is deciding which two members will vote for Most Valuable Player, Cy Young Award, Rookie of the Year, and Manager of the Year.

What amazed me during that year was the number of people who were BBWAA members that had no business in the club. It’s supposed to be daily beat writers, national ball writers, columnists, the sports editor, and perhaps a feature writer who covers a lot of baseball.

The sports editors of each newspaper decide which writers from their staff will get a BBWAA card every year. Again, if you’re in the BBWAA for 10 straight years, you’re voting for life. Most sports editors were very loose deciding who received a card.

Former beat writers would want the status of the BBWAA card, cover a few games as a backup, and somehow maintain their cards. A few smaller papers had copy editors who’d write a numbers- or notes-based Sunday column from the office, without ever visiting the ballpark, and they’d get a card. The list went on and on.

What I felt like doing was cleaning house on the individuals who didn’t belong in the club. But since it’s just a one year position, I didn’t want to get power hungry, and risk alienating my colleagues in the area. The only thing I did was ensure the people who were at the ballpark most frequently voted for the yearly awards.

I’m sure that many of those names that I wanted out of the BBWAA in 2006 are now voting for the Hall of Fame. There’s probably a decent-sized group who legitimately covered baseball for 7-10 years, but their careers went in directions beyond baseball, yet they keep voting. The might take the responsibility with incredible care -- and I sure as hell hope they do. Still, their credentials are flimsy at best.

And that’s the people who aren’t at the ballpark very often.

There’s also the people who are at the ballpark frequently, yet still aren’t qualified to be voting on certain members. This is a category that I would include myself.

Let’s say I never left the newspaper industry, just completed my 12th consecutive year covering baseball, and was voting for the HOF this year. I never covered Jack Morris specifically, or baseball in general, during his entire career. I might have seen Morris pitch 1-2 times as a kid in the stands. Now I’m supposedly qualified to decide Morris’ candidacy because, what, I saw Livan Hernandez eat up a lot of innings too?

I’d probably lean against voting for Morris, based on his career 3.90 ERA and because I think too much emphasis is based on his 10-inning shutout masterpiece in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. But then I read this blog from Tom Verducci of Sports Illustrated, and it makes me realize that I should be voting for Morris.

So now I’m voting for Morris because of Verducci’s strong persuasive skills and writing acumen, instead of my own personal experiences and opinion. I’m using Morris as one example. The same thing applies for Dale Murphy, Alan Trammell, Lee Smith and Don Mattingly.

I’m not sure who should be voting for the Hall of Fame.

All I know is that I’m glad Tom Verducci does has a vote, I’m glad TJ Quinn eliminated himself for these thoughtful reasons, and I’m glad that I’m not voting.

###

Aztecs and Gauchos – Not Rivals, but Kindred Spirits

 

- by Matt Hurst

I’d like to think that my co-author on this site and I were destined to become friends, regardless of how we met. Major League Baseball may have brought us together, but without even knowing it, we were already brothers in a way.

At least that’s how I feel about anyone from my sister school.

Josh Suchon went to San Diego State. I went to UC Santa Barbara.

Despite our teams sometimes matching up – and even more next year once SDSU joins the Big West in everything but football – the Aztecs and Gauchos are not rivals. We really are both kindred spirits.

Both cities are tourist flocking spots and are each buoyed by the beauty of the beach. San Diego and Santa Barbara each have a mix of the extremely rich, people trying to make it so they can live in the city and college students.

And, let’s be honest, both schools have the reputation as being a party school. And there is nothing that Josh or I did in our four years at each that made those reputations deteriorate. What you called a wild party, we called Wednesday.

Both schools have good fan bases – SDSU in men’s hoops and UCSB in men’s soccer – that give a huge home advantage and each has a large alumni network proud that they were all able to earn a degree despite perfecting keg stands rather than perfecting statistical problems during their experience. 

Aztecs and Gauchos each brag about how much liquor they can consume and debate whether the blondes at SDSU or the blondes at UCSB are hotter. But, really, how do you compare 9’s and 9’s all the time? 

But, rivals? No.

Rivals have something that happened in the past that created a boiling point or there is jealousy or some sort of bragging rights on the line. 

The Dodgers and Giants have been rivals for years because they played each other all the time in New York, moved to the West Coast at the same time, have had their fair share of fights on the field and in the standings. That’s a rivalry.

USC and UCLA are rivals because they are the two major universities in Los Angeles and there are shreds of jealousy that run deep – Bruins fans are jealous of USC’s football history and titles and Trojans fans want UCLA’s basketball legacy. That is a rivalry that includes major bragging rights through an alumni network and a city.

But the Aztecs and Gauchos are not rivals. And probably won’t be even though every Olympic sport will pit them against each other. 

At UCSB, you can't walk anywhere without seeing the ocean. 

It’s because there is a level of underlying respect for each other. “You took a mid-term after an all-night bender? So did I!”

Josh and I each wax poetically about our college years when we both were up and coming journalists who learned how to work under a heavy buzz and still produce clip-worthy material.

We both have an overwhelming sense of pride about where we went to school, despite the fact that our athletic teams are never in any national title chatter. In any sport.

Which is fine. See, each school is considered an underdog despite all of the recruiting advantages we both have (school on the beach, good degrees, beautiful students, etc.) because SDSU and UCSB are mid-majors that have to compete with the top dogs. And it’s not often pretty, but when there is an upset it galvanizes the fan base better than a conference title ever would. The underdog is a dangerous thing in sports and when you’re considered an underdog you have a chip on your shoulder in more than just who you root for. You have a sense of pride that overwhelms you like no other school could. 

At SDSU, aka Montezuma Mesa, is equally tough
to concentrate on your studies.

Wow, you root for Duke hoops … what’s next, cheering for childhood obesity at McDonald’s? Your favorite college football team is Alabama, geez, what was it like rooting for the Harlem Globetrotters?

Gauchos and Aztecs have similar backgrounds and stories and because of that, the location of each school and the joy of knowing you earned a degree while testing the limits of your brain and liver – oftentimes in tandem – in two of the prettiest spots on earth … well, then how can you be rivals? Even when your teams play each other?

That just gives you an excuse to join your brothers and sisters and raise a glass and share some stories and no matter who wins on the field, Gauchos and Aztecs all win in life.