Book Review

I read Game of Shadows by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams. It was about the investigation on BALCO (Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative) in San Francisco run by Victor Conte. It mainly focused on the labs distributing of steroids to professional athletes most notably Barry Bonds. Greg Williams, Barry Bond’s personal trainer had a relationship with Conte and was able to get drugs such as “the cream and the clear” which were steroids that would go undetected in drug tests. He was able to distribute the steroids to other athletes such as Jason Giambi who took them with Bonds. When they were discovered, it sparked a huge debate on whether or not Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame as a steroid user. What made things worse though is that Bonds broke the most cherished records in all of sports: most home-runs in a season and most home-runs in a career which were held by Mark McGwire (McGwire later admitted to using steroids, so the clean player holding the record was Roger Maris) and Hank Aaron respectively.

I liked this book due to several things. It really went into detail about the affects of steroids and all of the different kinds. That helped me figure out who should be in the Hall of Fame because I was able to find out how much the steroids actually helped the player achieve their statistics. I also learned about all of the dirty business that goes on behind the scenes to get the steroids which gave me negative thoughts on whether a steroids user should be rewarded.

I also had problems with the book. It did not talk too much about the Hall of Fame itself in the book so it did not help from that aspect. Most of the book was not about baseball, but the legal issues going on in busting BALCO. Mainly it is my fault though for not reading to much into the book before I got it. If I would have researched better, I could have read a book that was more germane to my topic.

Hall of Fame Debate

On the blog article, “Hall of Fame Debate – Steroids and Mark McGwire”, which is referencing the Washington Post article “Steroids Scandal on Deck for Baseball Hall Voters” by Dave Sheinin, it discusses about the first time suspected steroid users were eligible for the Hall of Fame such as Mark McGwire and Jose Conseco. The debate was over McGwire and whether or not he should get in because he had Hall of Fame numbers but took steroids. Bob Feller, a former Hall of Fame pitcher, had this to say, “Everybody knows its coming. Some people would be upset (if McGwire is elected). I obviously wouldn't like it. That would be very damaging to the Hall of Fame” (Washington Post). Some said the only fair way is to not let anyone from the steroid era in the Hall or let any good player in regardless of steroid use. The voters vote on things such as integrity, sportsmanship, and character and those words should be in their head when they choose.

I agree with just about everything in this article. I also believe it would be disappointing to see a steroid user in the Hall of Fame. Buster Olney, an ESPN columnist, talks about keeping everyone out of the Hall from the steroid era and he says it is the only fair way well that is not completely true. If everyone was kept out it would not be fair for the ones who did not cheat even though they might not get in anyways. The only thing that would benefit is the voters and just makes it easier on them to not have to make a tough decision. I just think it should stay the way it is and hope that the voters can have good judgment and morals to make the right choice whether the public likes it or not.

Sheinin, Dave. "Steroids Scandal on Deck For Baseball Hall Voters." The Washington Post. N.p., 30 July 2006. Web. 22 April 2010. .

"Hall of Fame Debate - Steroids and Mark McGwire." Baseball's Steroid Era. N.p., 27 Nov 2006. Web. 22 April 2010. .

Power Alley

In this video Hank Aaron gives his views on Pete Rose and steroid users in the Hall of Fame while being on Sirius XM radio with Jim Duquette and Seth Everett. Hank thinks that what Pete did what was wrong by betting on his team. Then he says he would want to see Pete in the Hall of Fame as far as his performance on the field without cheating. As far as the steroid issue he said if they are guilty of using steroids they should have an asterisk by their record. He says "I just don't believe that no one, I don't believe anyone can go out there and play the game the way it's supposed to be played and hit 75 or 70 home runs, I just don't believe it"(Duquette, Everett).

I completely agree with Hank Aaron in this video. I also think that cheaters like Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame even though what he did was wrong, his cheating did not make him a better player because he was betting on games. His performance on the field though should be enough to get him in to the Hall of Fame. As far a steroids go I don't think they should have an asterisk by their records, I just think they should not be in the Hall of Fame at all. I agree with his quote that it is not possible for a player to hit that many home runs without some sort of help because the only ones who have done it are those accused of doing steroids.

"HOF Hank Aaron on Pete Rose and steroids in the Hall of Fame - Sirius|XM Radio ." YouTube. Web. 15 April 2010. .

Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? My current votes on Steroid Era stars

In the article "Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? My current votes on Steroid Era stars" by Jon Heyman he discusses how tough it will be to vote players into the Hall of Fame. He says it won't just be over statistics, but also cheating and how much did cheating help the player. "Some voters will eliminate all the steroid guys. Others will take it case by case" (Heyman). All the players have a different story, some admitted to using steroids and others did not. He says he will vote case by case because what would the Hall be like without a whole era of players missing. Heyman says he will judge by two questions: Did the player take steroids or other PEDs? and Did the PEDs turn him into a Hall of Fame player? He claims that he has trouble not voting for a player that is considered an all-time great such as Barry Bonds whom he said he would vote for because he was all ready a good player before steroids.
I somewhat agree with this article. I also think that the voting should go by his two questions. The thing is though that the second question is so hard to answer about whether steroids made a player a Hall of Fame candidate. I think in Barry Bonds case steroids made him become the greatest home run hitter of all-time and caused him to break non-cheaters records. Then again it is to hard to tell whether they made him a Hall of Fame player or not so that is where I disagree with Heyman and I would not vote for Bonds. My opinion may be the same about other players also because deciding who should be in the Hall is tricky and is not something I would want to vote on.

Heyman, Jon. "Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? My current votes on Steroid Era stars ." Sports Illustrated 18 May 2009: n. pag. Web. 15 April 2010. .

Cooperstown Confidential

In the video "Cooperstown Confidential" by Zev Chafets, he talks about the problems the Hall of Fame has today. He says that it is unwilling to face reality about the steroid issue today. There were many different eras in baseball from the dead ball era to the steroid era and the players from the other eras are in the Hall of Fame so why exclude steroids? It goes on the say that in the upcoming years there will be a debate on whether players such a Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, or Alex Rodriguez should be in the Hall of Fame. Chafets says that, "If the Hall of Fame, for reasons of Victorian morality tries to keep them out..... then no one would care about the Hall of Fame anymore" (Chafets).

I have mixed feelings about this video. I don't think that any player who used steroids should be in the Hall of Fame. In this video though, Chafets makes a good point that there are players who cheated in other ways in the Hall of Fame, so why keep out players who used steroids. He then says if the Hall tries to keep them out by morality then no one will care about the Hall of Fame. I think it is the exact opposite, I don't think it would be ok to knowingly let a cheater into the Hall because then it would have no more meaning.

"Cooperstown Confidential by Zev Chafets." YouTube. Web. 9 April 2010. .

In the article "Steroids, Baseball and the Hall of Fame" by Robert Schlesinger he brings up the question about what will happen when all the "steroid era" players become eligible for the Hall of Fame. It explains different opinions from Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Bunning and player turned announcer Steve Lyons. Bunning thinks that the MLB should set a good example and not allow cheaters in because they broke the records set by players who did it through hard work and that their is no place for cheaters in the Hall of Fame. Lyons on the other hand was not as harsh and said that many players have cheated in some way and are in the Hall of Fame and that one day we will have to recognize the steroid users accomplishments. Shlesinger says that he agrees with Lyons and that "For those writers who draw a clear line in the sand and proclaim they will not vote for any player linked to steroids, I say you're being delusional and ignorant" (Schlesinger).

I don't really have the same views as the author in this article. I think he is wrong when he says you are ignorant if you don't vote for someone who uses steroids because its not like you aren't voting for them because of race but because they cheated and why would you reward cheating. Also when he says "What are you going to do when you help elect a player and it's subsequently revealed that they did use something at some point?" (Schlesinger), this might happen at some point but if you voting for them it was because you did not know that they were a cheater and there is nothing you can do about that. Overall I did not agree with this article by saying, oh well we are not sure who cheated so lets just let everyone in the Hall of Fame to where it no longer is even an honor to be in it.

Schlesinger, Robert. "Steroids, Baseball and the Hall of Fame." U.S. News and World Report. N.p., 26 July 2009. Web. 8 April 2010. .

In the article "Let Steroids Into the Hall of Fame" by Zev Chafets, he discusses how there are already many great players in the Hall of Fame that have been linked to some sort of drug use. Given what we know about players such as Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, and Mark McGwire that have all been linked to steroids, brings up the question, "What great players haven't been linked to drug use"? (Chafets). Ever since baseball started players have used anything that will give them a competitive edge such as Grover Cleveland Alexander, who during Prohibition drank banned alcohol to calm his nerves. Thoughout the years the game has constantly been changing such as in 1908 Ed Walsh pitched 464 innings and in 2008 C.C. Sabathia led the league with 253 because they were just the conditons of the time just like steroids is a part of today's game. Due to all of this the Hall of Fame would be better off accepting the game as it is for the better.

I do not necessarily agree with this article. In the article the author says, "On any given day, the stands are packed with youngsters on Adderall and Ritalin and college students who use Provigil as a study aid. The guy who sings the national anthem has probably taken a beta blocker to calm his stage fright" (Chafets). This is true but the people in the stands are not cheating and trying to break records, they are just doing it for their own well being and not to be famous. It goes on to say, "But baseball players aren't children... If they want to use anabolic steroids, or human growth hormone or bull's testosterone, it should be up to them" (Chafets). I agree that it is up to the players whether they want to use it or not but, they are breaking the rules by doing it. So is this encouraging that just because you are an adult you can do what you want, against the rules or not?

Chafets, Zev. "Let Steroids Into the Hall of Fame ." New York Times 19 June 2009: 1. Web. 1 Apr 2010. .