The Sports Pedestal
The sports industry is such a beast. There are the games themselves. There are the televised and radio broadcasting of those games. Then there are the advertisements attached to the broadcasting. Each top athlete seems also to have his or her own agent, brand of a product (cologne, sneakers, sports drink), charity of choice, and bobblehead doll. Teams are allowed x number of players, but employee in the thousands in marketing and sales and general management.
Then there is sports journalism. Each radio market has at least one AM station devoted to sports talk radio. There are so many sports websites it would be futile to count. Each newspaper and network devotes sections and times to sports. Then there are the GM and Ford of sports journalism: ESPN and Sports Illustrated.
And what happens? We as a society place these athletes onto a pedestal. They are sometimes given carte blanche to do what they wish and to say and act as children. And we allow it.
Sometimes, we encourage it.
Take tomorrow's announcement for example. Tomorrow the 2007 class of the Baseball Hall of Fame will be announced. Likely only two candidates will make it (Cal Ripken, Jr. and Tony Gwynn). What we will also see, however, is how many writers have voted for Mark McGwire.
Yes, that Mark McGwire. The excuses to vote for him are already written. Two ESPN writers, Jim Caple and Bill Simmons, have stated their cases here. I've narrowed the excuses to vote for McGwire -- and other steroid users -- down to three.
1) He played in the steroid era when other players did it. In that context, look at how he performed. In the case of McGwire, 583 home runs, including the first player to 70 in 1998, a Rookie-of-the-Year award, a gold glove, 4 HR titles, 1 RBI title and that awesome summer in 1998.
2) He was never found guilty of anything. Unlike Rafael Palmeiro, who was caught, McGwire never admitted to nor tested positive for anything. In a society where our courts say innocent until proven guilty, he should be treated as such.
3) Other individuals already in the Hall of Fame had done as bad, if not worse, to baseball. Ty Cobb, for instance, was racist, extremely violent and was once suspended for throwing a ballgame. Gaylord Perry admittedly threw illegal pitches. If they are in Cooperstown, McGwire belongs as well.
Now, here are my answers to these excuses:
1) Mark McGwire, by taking steroids, cheated. He gave himself and unfair -- and illegal -- edge that not only puts a damper on that marvelous season (McGwire, by the way, was not the only story of that year. I recall Sammy Sosa being an equal part of that HR chase. There was also that incredible Yankee team that went 125-50 with no players hitting more than 28 home runs.) but also puts a black mark on one of the game's greatest records. And in an era where, for whatever reason, balls fly out of ball parks with alarming regularity, his home run totals are not nearly as impressive, especially considering he wasn't a contact hitter or stolen base threat or anything else.
2) Mark McGwire was never put on trial for anything. This isn't judicial court here, it's the court of public opinion. And we know that what happens in court isn't necessarily what really happened (see OJ Simpson). Mark McGwire cheated. We learned this when he spoke in front of the Senate. Read this article from Tom Verducci in Sports Illustrated. Do you really believe he isn't guilty?
3) This is, to me, the most offensive of excuses. What happened in the past does not justify a decision in the present or the future. There are Hall members that aren't worthy because of their actions. For whatever reason, they were elected anyway. This was a bad decision. Justifying a vote for McGwire because of this is justifying bad decisions. Worse, it justifies bad behavior.
Sports writers have an opportunity with McGwire and others to make a statement that athlete's behavior is as important as their performance. Wherever writers may have failed before with this is irrelevant. Allowing a McGwire (or a Sosa, or a Canseco, or a Bonds) into the Hall of Fame is the same as saying that athletes are on a pedestal, that they are somehow impervious to the rules that govern the rest of us.
It's an irresponsible decision to vote for Mark McGwire.
Then there is sports journalism. Each radio market has at least one AM station devoted to sports talk radio. There are so many sports websites it would be futile to count. Each newspaper and network devotes sections and times to sports. Then there are the GM and Ford of sports journalism: ESPN and Sports Illustrated.
And what happens? We as a society place these athletes onto a pedestal. They are sometimes given carte blanche to do what they wish and to say and act as children. And we allow it.
Sometimes, we encourage it.
Take tomorrow's announcement for example. Tomorrow the 2007 class of the Baseball Hall of Fame will be announced. Likely only two candidates will make it (Cal Ripken, Jr. and Tony Gwynn). What we will also see, however, is how many writers have voted for Mark McGwire.
Yes, that Mark McGwire. The excuses to vote for him are already written. Two ESPN writers, Jim Caple and Bill Simmons, have stated their cases here. I've narrowed the excuses to vote for McGwire -- and other steroid users -- down to three.
1) He played in the steroid era when other players did it. In that context, look at how he performed. In the case of McGwire, 583 home runs, including the first player to 70 in 1998, a Rookie-of-the-Year award, a gold glove, 4 HR titles, 1 RBI title and that awesome summer in 1998.
2) He was never found guilty of anything. Unlike Rafael Palmeiro, who was caught, McGwire never admitted to nor tested positive for anything. In a society where our courts say innocent until proven guilty, he should be treated as such.
3) Other individuals already in the Hall of Fame had done as bad, if not worse, to baseball. Ty Cobb, for instance, was racist, extremely violent and was once suspended for throwing a ballgame. Gaylord Perry admittedly threw illegal pitches. If they are in Cooperstown, McGwire belongs as well.
Now, here are my answers to these excuses:
1) Mark McGwire, by taking steroids, cheated. He gave himself and unfair -- and illegal -- edge that not only puts a damper on that marvelous season (McGwire, by the way, was not the only story of that year. I recall Sammy Sosa being an equal part of that HR chase. There was also that incredible Yankee team that went 125-50 with no players hitting more than 28 home runs.) but also puts a black mark on one of the game's greatest records. And in an era where, for whatever reason, balls fly out of ball parks with alarming regularity, his home run totals are not nearly as impressive, especially considering he wasn't a contact hitter or stolen base threat or anything else.
2) Mark McGwire was never put on trial for anything. This isn't judicial court here, it's the court of public opinion. And we know that what happens in court isn't necessarily what really happened (see OJ Simpson). Mark McGwire cheated. We learned this when he spoke in front of the Senate. Read this article from Tom Verducci in Sports Illustrated. Do you really believe he isn't guilty?
3) This is, to me, the most offensive of excuses. What happened in the past does not justify a decision in the present or the future. There are Hall members that aren't worthy because of their actions. For whatever reason, they were elected anyway. This was a bad decision. Justifying a vote for McGwire because of this is justifying bad decisions. Worse, it justifies bad behavior.
Sports writers have an opportunity with McGwire and others to make a statement that athlete's behavior is as important as their performance. Wherever writers may have failed before with this is irrelevant. Allowing a McGwire (or a Sosa, or a Canseco, or a Bonds) into the Hall of Fame is the same as saying that athletes are on a pedestal, that they are somehow impervious to the rules that govern the rest of us.
It's an irresponsible decision to vote for Mark McGwire.
posted by E-Luv at 1:31 PM
4 Comments:
As someone who believes that this country’s and corporate America’s extremely (overly??) competitive “win at all costs mind-set” to crush your competitors has been fueled by our obsession with sports, I’m glad to hear you (someone) say what you did. When I was growing up, I was told that baseball, football, basketball, etc. were…GAMES. I was taught about sportsman-like conduct. I was taught that “it’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game”. Question for you: Is there a parallel between our greedy, seedy, macho-like obsession to be number one – and only number one (anything else is failure) that’s found in sports today, and that in corporate America? Or in politics? Lastly, since ESPN has shows on poker and other forms of gambling, how do you feel about Pete Rose? - Tango
Tango,
Thanks for the comment.
There has been testosterone-fueled competition since there has been recorded history. We have heard of chariot races, the Greek Olympics, the Roman gladiators and other ancient sport.
And this obsession to be number one transcended sports long before the modern era. Conquests of ancient China, Macedonia, Rome and others are just a few examples of this. The Japanese, the British, the French, and now the Americans have been doing this forever. It is not new.
Cheating is also not new. "Greenies" were taken in the Willie Mays-Henry Aaron era (though I don't think either used them) to boost energy. Steroids have been prevalent in football since the seventies.
Is there a parallel? Absolutely. It's human nature. It is the undeveloped side to who we are. We have developed our minds to the point where we have chemistry, quantum physics and calculus, but we cannot yet shed our basic instinct for struggling for place within the pack.
Pete Rose was a phenomenal ball player and a severely flawed man. I've struggled with his Hall-worthiness for a while. But, by the same points I used to judge McGwire -- plus the fact he signed an agreement to be banned for life -- I think it makes sense to leave him out of the Hall.
E-
Check out my response to your post at http://herzy69.blogspot.com.
If you do some site searches, you will find my previous posts on the Pete Rose situation as well.
Long story short on charlie hustle, he belongs in the Hall, but out of baseball
I've admittedly gone back and forth on Pete Rose. Here is my issue:
Apparently, the Hall rules state that if you are banned from baseball you are ineligible for Cooperstown. If that is the case, he does not belong.
It seems sad that two of the game's greatest players (Pete Rose and Joe Jackson) won't be enshrined in the Hall. Still, I think that is a minor offense compared to the major problem of accepting and honoring people who clearly have done great damage to the game.
Post a Comment
<< Home