|
The High Court |
|
Deep Thinkers Only... |
|
The Moral of the Story |
|
January 11, 2007
Today’s open letter from The Chief is to San Francisco Chronicle writer Gwen Knapp.
Ms. Knapp,
I am writing on behalf of the ‘anti-morality’ crowd. I am not a member of the anti-morality crowd, although I do occasionally dabble in a little anti-morality, and I do attend meetings of the club on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I guess you can consider me an advocate for this ‘anything goes’ group (they also support the Academy Award candidacies of actresses with augmented breasts and believe that Milli Vanilli is one of the great musical acts of all time), and I am here to defend them after reading your column of January 11.
I must open by saying that I support your decision not to vote for Mark McGwire. It is your vote, and you should be able to base your vote in any responsible fashion you see fit. And I agree with you wholeheartedly: Morals should absolutely matter when casting a ballot for the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
But…I must say that I am a bit confused as to how you apply this ‘morality’ test. You have made it clear that Mark McGwire has failed your morality test for apparently using performance-enhancing drugs…and not just using performance-enhancing drugs, but also for having the gall not to be honest about it. You make a considerable show of saying how little McGwire’s inauthentic numbers mean (although you have no way to prove if steroids actually contributed to any of McGwire’s 583 home runs), yet you burn a perfectly good Hall of Fame vote on Ken Caminiti, a man who admitted to using the same performance-enhancers we believe McGwire used. Now you mentioned that your vote was symbolic, in support of Caminiti’s candor and honesty about his steroid use. But using a moral yardstick, in what way does Caminiti’s revelation get him off the moral hook? Cheating is cheating, and I can hardly see how you get bonus points for being upfront (albeit well after the fact) about it. Why not take your symbolic support of Caminiti and apply it to Don Mattingly, a perfectly clean performer who was immeasurably better than Caminiti. Frankly, I have to ask: Is your symbolic support of Caminiti an indication that you would have voted for McGwire had he admitted his steroid use? Would that make his inflated home run totals any less bogus?
I must pause to note that I have no axe to grind with Ken Caminiti. Caminiti was regarded as a good man and an outstanding teammate, one who just happened to have one too many demons to overcome. Speaking of his demons, and as long as we have opened the proverbial can of worms on morality, are we to assume that the only morality that matters to you is that which applies to competition on the field? When taking a shot at those who support McGwire, you wrote the following: “People who voted for McGwire have a moral code, too, one that reveres what happens on the field regardless of how it happened, and one that equates not receiving the ultimate professional honor with not being allowed to roam free in the world.” Can I assume then, that your moral code applies only to what happened on the field? I have no choice but to assume that is the case; otherwise, how could you possibly vote for Caminiti (an alcoholic whose drug addiction killed him) and Parker, who was one of the central figures in the Pittsburgh drug trials of 1985. How much of a fine moral example was the Cobra? Just this fine: He was one of seven players given one-year suspensions (suspended in exchange for the players donating salary to charity and following several treatment and community service conditions set by Commissioner Peter Ueberroth) for their drug use and connections with the drug dealers involved in the cocaine trials. Might I say that I hope your support gets Parker into Cooperstown. Perhaps I can take my young son and show him Parker’s plaque, complete with razor blade, mirror, and commemorative blow…
Allow me to apologize. My emotions got the better of me. I noticed, though, that you have resigned yourself to below-the-belt attacks from the McGwire supporters (and, I would guess, from the Bonds apologists). That is unfortunate, because the issue of who deserves immortality in Cooperstown, while important, isn’t that important. It really isn’t grounds for nasty talk, which is why I have to wonder why you went to such great lengths to take the low road. You even went so far as to use the word obfuscate (Am I going to have to get the soap?). Ah, obfuscation. Now if that doesn’t sound like a game Milton Bradley (the game company, not the bottle-tosser) should be working on, I don’t know what does. You are right, of course…making the water muddy by bringing up the fact that NFL cheats are held to a different standard than baseball players in no way exonerates steroid users in baseball from unethical and potentially amoral behavior.
That’s no reason, however, to lump all McGwire supporters as head-in the-sand fools. You don’t honestly know what every McGwire supporter thinks, and you don’t have insight as to all of the motivating factors that led to a vote for Bunyan-esque slugger. I, for one, have never believed that McGwire was a slam dunk Hall of Famer under any circumstances. The .231, .235, .201 stretch he authored from 1989-1991 (which may have triggered his steroid use) is not something often seen on Hall of Fame résumés. His .394 career OBP and .588 slugging provide some aid to his .263 career batting average, but it can’t wipe it away. McGwire was once an above-average first baseman defensively, but almost fittingly, his many injuries and swollen physique eventually turned him into something of a liability in the field. The truth of the matter is, McGwire was closer to Dave Kingman than Lou Gehrig, and I wouldn’t think more or less of his career had he hit 475 home runs or 611 long balls. He was, for the balance of his career, a good, but not great, player. That being said, I would be willing to bet that there are voters who voted for McGwire simply because they believe he was worthy of induction, and not because they hoped to stick it to the morality crowd. It is a vast oversimplification to suggest that anyone who supports an alleged steroid user is stupid. They made their vote; you made yours. Let’s just leave it at that.
One of the saddest (as opposed to disappointing) developments to have emerged from the steroid/BALCO saga is the chasm that it has opened between many who love the game of baseball, fans and writers alike. There should not be two camps, those who decry steroids and those who support alleged steroid users. There are plenty of fun things in the game to argue about; this sad tale should not be one of them. The use of steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs was and is wrong. We should all be able to agree about that. That does not, however, mean that we should also throw away everything and everybody that is somehow connected to BALCO or shows other signs of having been a steroid user. Jeff Bagwell just retired as one of the classiest individuals to ever put on a uniform. But he went from being a line-drive spraying hitter in the minors to a masher in the big leagues. How are we to evaluate his career when his turn on the ballot comes? Or whither his former Astros teammate, Roger Clemens? Was the Rocket’s career revitalized by his unceremonious departure from Boston and his legendary work ethic, or was it prompted by sinister chemical means?
These are questions that may never be answered. And it isn’t fair to keep honest individuals out just because they MAY have used steroids. We may not want to let all of them in, but it isn’t fair to keep all of them out, at least not simply based on suspicion. Righteousness is an elusive thing, and an even more slippery slope. Mark McGwire can be kept out, but letting him in would be less of a crime than allowing a cheater (like say, a pitcher) who passed under the radar into Cooperstown in his place. Until there is a perfect system to winnow the all-naturals from the cheats, everyone involved in the process will walk a very tight rope.
In closing, I would say this. The anti-morals are wrong; you are right. Morals DO matter. They matter a great deal. But it is important to remember that policing morals as they apply to on-field behavior and turning a blind eye to morals as they apply off the field isn’t really about morality at all…it’s just stupidity.
Thank you for your time, Travis Turner Chief Justice The High Court of Sports
You can contact The Chief at chiefjustice@thehighcourtofsports.com or post your own comments at The Chief’s Daily Verdict.
|