It's like clockwork, seriously ... recently, every year around the Baseball Hall of Fame inductions there is news that A) Bud Selig is or isn't considering lifting the lifetime ban against Pete Rose and B) names from the list of players who tested positive in 2003 are leaked.
As for option A, Pete belongs in the Hall of Fame -- but not in baseball. I mean seriously, he has the most memorabilia in the Hall of Fame, so induction is theoretically academic. Enough of that though, I want to take a look at the steroid list and the potential economic impact on baseball.
Yesterday, it as reported that David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez (major cogs in the Boston Red Sox championship run) tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003. Ortiz was an outspoken critic of steroid users this spring, and is now looking like a bit of a hypocrite; and it appears that Manny has been using steroids for quite some time (more than just this year at least, for which he served a 50-game suspension). I am not here to debate the "steroid era" and whether records should or shouldn't stand, or should or shouldn't be marked with an asterisk. What I wonder is if fans will ever get sick of this and will there be an economic impact on the game?
Attendance in baseball is down nearly 3,000,000 fans through July 30 when compared to last year, with only 9 of the 30 teams seeing attendance increase. Obviously, this can be blamed on the economy -- but what happens if disenfranchised fans start to take a stand and refuse to purchase tickets? It won't matter for the big cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Boston -- these teams are winning and packing their stadiums every night. But what if it happens in Kansas City, Pittsburgh, and my hometown of Cincinnati? The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and Bud Selig will turn a blind eye because the game is still making money.
It won't even matter if it is the biggest names in the game are on "The List," the Dodgers will still have their Mannywood (for Manny Ramirez), Red Sox fans will still heap praises on Big Papi (David Ortiz), and fans will still flock to the game to see winners play. Win at all costs may seem very Machiavellian, but it has paid off in baseball and will continue to pay off until someone makes a stand. Who will this be? Not Bud Selig, not the players, probably not the fans -- do we have to pin our hopes on Jose Canseco? I hope not, but it sure looks like it is going to be that way.
As a baseball fan and a die-hard Cincinnati Reds fan, it sickens me to know that the steroid talk is brushed under the table, allowing cheaters to prosper. Eventually the fan will have to take a stand -- who's with me (I don't expect to see any fans of front runners joining me)? Baseball fans unite! This won't stop until we make our voices heard!
In a completely different and unrelated note: Snuggies for dogs? Stop the world, I want to get off.
Entrepreneur's Journal: Want to get a piece of the Buffett/Goldman honeypot?
The week in preview: No turkey earnings from Tyson, Hormel, Cracker Barrel ...
Comfort Zone Investing: Intel is saying something ... can you hear it?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-31-2009 @ 1:28PM
numerwan said...
I'm not with you... You cant crucify players from 2003 and before considering the 2003 tests were supposed to be sealed and confidential. Also, new rules on steroid use occur AFTER 2003... It's like if congress put into law that you can smoke pot from here on out... They can't release those who are currently in jail for pot use. Or if your state passed a law saying text messaging while driving carries a $500 fine. They cannot go back and redo all the tickets for a $100 fine...
I think anyone who is found to be using steroids post-2003 deserves to be punished. They've had enough warning and enough meetings to know they are screwed if they are caught.
The players union should sue the hell out of the New york times and MLB for releasing CONFIDENTAIL and PERSONAL documentation... If you had AIDS, is it okay for me to take your results and post them on the internet without your permission?
7-31-2009 @ 1:29PM
clikdawg said...
Cards fan here, Mark (Lord, how I loathed and feared the Reds when I was a kid!), and I doubt whether a fan revolt is in the frame: The whole steroids phenomenon is based on the apparent fan preference for watching the ball fly over the fence with as much monotonous regularity as humanly possible.
Without that demand for more and longer home runs, steroid use would be a moot point.
Look at St. Louis (if you can stand it): Traditionally a scrappy speed-singles-and-pitching ball club, it has (with the advent of LaRussa) become essentially an American League-style enterprise, increasingly dependent on The Long Ball. And St. Louis fans love it; they happen at this time to have the remarkable (and supposedly clean) Albert Pujols to do the bulk of their swatting, but anyone of a more mortal make-up who wants to please the homer-hungry Mound City might just find himself tempted to bulk up artificially just to have a shot at competing.
Bottom Line: Steroid use will decline if and when fan fascination with dingers decreases and an interest in Small Ball returns -- there is a lot more to the game than sitting around waiting for Joe Giganticus to launch yet another 'tater out onto Waveland Avenue, and perhaps when fans start wanting to see Lou Brocks and Rod Carews again instead of McGuires and Ramirezes we can return to an asterisk-free new era.
But since homers look cooler on SportsCenter than two-run chops to the opposite field, don't look for that day any time real soon ...