E&P piece criticizing 1990s baseball writers for not breaking 'roids stories

He wasn't dead at the time of Verducci's story, though.

I understand you're a bit of a steroids advocate. But it's illegal in sports and if its use is rampant, the story needs to be pursued and reported upon. Whether they should be illegal, etc., is a separate issue that should be handled separately.

 

If you understand that I am a "steroids advocate," you understand poorly.

 

Can you articulate your position then? It seems you often weigh in on these threads in favor of less aggressive reportage and prosecution of PEDs. I assume your position is more nuanaced?

 

My position on this thread is that the criticism leveled in the E&P piece is unfair, for the reasons I've already said.
On the global issue, my position is ambiguous. I believe the country is ill-served, always, by drug hysterias. The first resal whacks at the Bill of Rights that are resonating today came during the drug-hysteria in the 1980's. I believe the awesome power of federal and local law enforcement needs to be kept within the recognizable limits of that document. I do not believe in random drug-testing without probable cause, by anyone, public or private. (I believe that, while it's wrong for the government to abridge our civil liberties, it is equally wrong for the government to subcontract that job to every other institution that commands out lives -- schools, employers etc. It makes those guarantees de facto worthless.)
As to PED's, well, science marches on. The absolutist anti-PED position rests on two rickety pillars. First, that it is ethically inappropriate to improve one's performance through artificial drugs. Second, that these drugs must always be forbidden because of the dangers, real or imagined, to the health of the athlete. Neither of these arguments can stand alone. The first one is ethically inconsistent because you cannot, IMO, argue coherently against PED's and against, say, painkillers and corticosteroids, both of which are dispensed like gumdrops. (Remember, we are not talking about the relative civil legality of the substances. Drug laws get made whimsically. It makes no sense for marijuana to be illegal while we're pumping kids and ourselves full of Paxil, IMO.) I can't see how you can make an coherent argument that it is ethical to take a drug to make a performance possible, but unethical to take a drug to make a performance better. Which is where the health-of-the-athlete argument becomes useful, even though there's more evidence that corticosteroids do long-term damage than there is in that same regard on HGH. (And I don't think anyone would argue that pumping NFL players full of xylocaine so they can play with injuries does much for the longterm health of the players.) However, science marches on. Sooner or later, someone's going to invent a PED that is harmless. What's the argument against that then?
Also, and this doesn't really matter much, there really isn't a great outcry among fans over this.

 

Hindsight is 20/20.

No one had any proof of anything. That's why the drug was so alluring for so many - because it was undetectable.

As a beat writer - not sports - I've had a lot of stories that I had to just wait out. It's a lot easier to look back and point to some of the signs you missed, but the truth is it usually takes the shit to hit the fan until writers have enough documentation and first-person accounts to move forward.

 

When I was 13, back in 1986, I wrote a term paper on drug use in sports. Steroids comprised a great deal of that paper, and much of it focused on football players. But I did throw in some discussion of the growth of steroids into other sports, specifically baseball. I don't remember what I cited, who I quoted, not even what was said, I just know that I finished the paper with a pretty strong belief that steroids were going to be a big part of sports in the future.

Sure, beat guys are awfully busy. And guys aren't willing to say much. But it's difficult to believe that there weren't at least a few more stories on steroids in baseball. If I was cognizant of what was about to happen as a chubby 13-year-old baseball fanatic, surely there were reporters who had similar suspicions.

Dave Kindred makes good points, but we should also remember that he's comparing a months-long investigation to about two decades of sports reporting.

 

Like others have said, I don't think it is fair to blame to lads and lasses on the beat for not breaking the 'roids-in-baseball story.

Typically they're writing anywhere from nine-to-sixteen stories a day (gamer, news, notes, sides) for three editions from February to October. Exactly when were they supposed to find the time to start an investigation into steroids in baseball?

Look at the work that's been done on the BALCO story. It's been done by investigative reporters, men and women who have had the time to research the story.

 

Well said. And ditto.

 

Having suspicion and reporting are two different beasts. To confuse the two would be a mistake a 13-year-old would make.

 

Dead solid perfect.

 

Would you be willing to change your drug-testing stance for school bus drivers? Nuclear power plant operators?

 

Of course not. That's my point. I wasn't trying to say I'm the one who broke the story that there are steroids in baseball. I was illustrating how I did as much work as a beat writer could reasonably do while covering the beat, and I still came up with nothing concrete.

Short of finding someone to admit it (as Verducci did), all anyone is going to get is general stuff about how "it's a problem... I've heard guys do it ... etc." Even today, the only way to get people to name names is to put the heat of the federal government on them. That's something I didn't have at my disposal.

Even thought I saw Greg Anderson walking around the Giants clubhouse, what was I supposed to do? "Hey Greg, are you selling steroids?" (I did ask Bonds about it, and of course he denied it.) I'm afraid I didn't have the time to start sifting through his dumpster, as Jeff Novitzky did.