Op Ed

Let's go on the record regarding steroids in baseball.

There is some talk that records set during this so-called steroids era are tainted records. And therefore these records should be viewed as suspect, and perhaps even discarded [or at the very least, visited with additional punctuation.]

Maybe we should take these guys out and shoot them? Um, shoot them full of more steroids, I mean!

First response: under the current rules, the statistics that are achieved RIGHT NOW if you are caught using steroids are ... untouched! Still valid! Unimpeachable! So let's dismiss any and all talk of discarding statistics.

And as for the asterisk? I think not. Baseball, soon enough, will have to do two things. One, make peace [or at least declare détente] with its past, and the fact that steroids existed and were used by not only home-run hitting behemoths, but also pitchers, catchers, big guys, little guys who became big guys and harmless enough hackers like 54 career home run guy Marvin Benard and 48 career home run guy Bobby Estalella. The juice was just part of the landscape, and yes it impacted stats, and players' health, and there is something unseemly about using "performance enhancing" drugs [unless it is you or I whose performance is being enhanced]. But the landscape is the landscape. You can't change yesterday's lunch. You're stuck with it. The adult thing to do is to come up with some real workable adult position today, admit that Baseball has been slow coming to the party and move on.

So that brings me to the second point. What to do about it now? Can anything be done? Should anything be done? There are likely many Libertarians out there who say "Let the players use the juice!" As the stuff hurts only the player [victimless crime?] and is undetectable [thus making it close to impossible to prove], I'm warming to this approach. Look at the utter mess bicycling is in. Everyone is clean this year! Um, by clean, we mean they have brand new blood! The problem with this approach is that it would encourage, and perhaps require, all players to use steroids reactively [just as Bonds juiced up, apparently, as a reaction to McGwire and Sosa.] I would say, that on the balance, that approach is not pragmatic, even though I like that it shifts the responsibility to the player. And the fans could show their displeasure or support at the ballpark, and on call-in shows, as they do [for Bonds, at least ... but not for Clemens! I'm not saying Clemens used or anything, cough cough.] right now.

Then, you should have some sort of policy? Self-policing? How about team policing? If a player on a team is found to have taken steroids, or some performance enhancing drug, the team suffers a serious penalty. More games on the road. No DH. Wearing pink uniforms. In my opinion, as long as the penalty is player-specific, and the likelihood of getting caught is slender [and the Players' Union will back you no matter how untenable your defense], then players will use. Especially players on the bubble who perceive that their existence as a Major League player is in jeopardy.

So I have two conclusions. The Libertarian approach will produce more bad than good. A penalty that is leveled only against an individual will not achieve an acceptable result. The only meaningful compliance result will occur when an individual's behavior threatens the whole team.

Some might say that this option would create a powerful incentive for a team to conspire and cover up any use, thus making them even more likely to become complicit. That's possible, but it is even more possible that teams, in this era of Sarbanes-Oxley, will take their responsibility seriously. And more importantly, that players will take their responsibility and allegiance to the team and teammates more seriously than they take their responsibilities to themselves.