Tabloids let us down (aka A-Roid)

[Olympic Fan]

Back page of the New York Post is a big picture of A-Rod with the stale headline: A-Fraud.

That's the line from Torre's book which is last week's news. After yesterday's revelation that Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003, they missed the perfect headline:

A-Roid

Seriously, Alex Rodriguez has joined Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens as three players whose performance puts them in the discussion as an all-time great -- not just a standed run-of-the-mill Hall of Famer, but among the top 5-10 players of all time.

But, personally, I find a player tainted with steroids hard to think of in that way. As a Yankee fan, I'm as sorry to see A-Roid tainted as I was to see Giambi on the suppliment list. I'll really be crushed if I ever see Jeter linked to 'Roids or to growth hormones.

[Jarhead]

Back page of the New York Post is a big picture of A-Rod with the stale headline: A-Fraud.

That's the line from Torre's book which is last week's news. After yesterday's revelation that Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003, they missed the perfect headline:

A-Roid

Seriously, Alex Rodriguez has joined Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens as three players whose performance puts them in the discussion as an all-time great -- not just a standed run-of-the-mill Hall of Famer, but among the top 5-10 players of all time.

But, personally, I find a player tainted with steroids hard to think of in that way. As a Yankee fan, I'm as sorry to see A-Roid tainted as I was to see Giambi on the suppliment list. I'll really be crushed if I ever see Jeter linked to 'Roids or to growth hormones.
I heard the A-roid reference on Good Morning America this morning. I think it may stick, and that's fine with me.

[rockymtn devil]

Back page of the New York Post is a big picture of A-Rod with the stale headline: A-Fraud.

That's the line from Torre's book which is last week's news. After yesterday's revelation that Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003, they missed the perfect headline:

A-Roid

Seriously, Alex Rodriguez has joined Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens as three players whose performance puts them in the discussion as an all-time great -- not just a standed run-of-the-mill Hall of Famer, but among the top 5-10 players of all time.

But, personally, I find a player tainted with steroids hard to think of in that way. As a Yankee fan, I'm as sorry to see A-Roid tainted as I was to see Giambi on the suppliment list. I'll really be crushed if I ever see Jeter linked to 'Roids or to growth hormones.

While I don't think we'll ever see Jeter on such a list, as a baseball fan, I'm beyond being surprised or crushed if any player shows up on such lists. That's the nature of the game going back at least two decades, if not farther.

The question becomes whether the Hall of Fame should have a dearth of players from this generation because it is the "steroid era". In the case of Barry Bonds, for example, keeping him out of the HOF is nothing more than punishment. All indications are that he didn't start using steroids until he was with the Giants (and, more likely, until he'd been there for years). He was already an established HOF player before the huge power numbers, so the roids didn't make him great. Does he get in? I don't know.

[SlimSlowSlider]

A-HOLE!

My dad just called me and told me he saw it in the drugstore. Hysterical. Talk about pushing the envelope.

[Bluedog]

I'm probably in the very very tiny minority, but my opinion of Rodriguez hasn't changed at all really and I don't blame him. I blame MLB. In 2003, there were no penalties for steroids. According to Conseco, 60%+ of players took them. So, in 2003, the MLB has random testing that was supposed to be anonymous and NEVER disclosed to determine if they needed to test the players. Obviously, after that, MLB determined that random drug testing was necessary. Under court order, no results from the supposedly random anonymous 2003 testing were ever to be released by anybody. Somebody broke that court order. And A-Rod's name has been released, but nobody else from 2003 gets their name tarnished. MLB should have realized this was a problem much earlier, told players it was against the rules, and enforced penalties. Without these parameters, the majority of players took steroids. I feel almost bad for A-Rod now...

[allenmurray]

I'm probably in the very very tiny minority, but my opinion of Rodriguez hasn't changed at all really and I don't blame him. I blame MLB. In 2003, there were no penalties for steroids. According to Conseco, 60%+ of players took them. So, in 2003, the MLB has random testing that was supposed to be anonymous and NEVER disclosed to determine if they needed to test the players. Obviously, after that, MLB determined that random drug testing was necessary. Under court order, no results from the supposedly random anonymous 2003 testing were ever to be released by anybody. Somebody broke that court order. And A-Rod's name has been released, but nobody else from 2003 gets their name tarnished. MLB should have realized this was a problem much earlier, told players it was against the rules, and enforced penalties. Without these parameters, the majority of players took steroids. I feel almost bad for A-Rod now...

An agreement was reached to keep the test results anonymous. The agreement was why the players agreed to participate in the testing. That the agreement was not kept is wrong. Whoever leaked it should suffer some serous consequences.

While it may not have been against the MLB rules, it has always been against the law to posess/use a prescription medication without a valid physicain's prescription. Thus, I have a hard time with any player's statement, "but it wasn't against the rules". I dont feel too badly for any professional athlete who got caught breaking the law.

[Channing]

someone mentioned canseco - he was laughed at when he said A-Rod was a known roid usedr - is this even more credibility for him?

He hasnt been wrong on anyone yet has he?

[allenmurray]

A-Rod says, "I did it"

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3894847

[mr. synellinden]

I will reserve full judgment until I see the interview, but I respect what I've read about his admission. Essentially:

I did it.

I took steroids for a three year period.

I did it because I felt enormous pressure to perform and live up to the expectations of my huge contract.

It was stupid. I was young and acting stupidly.

I regret it.

I have been clean since 2003.


I think we have to keep in mind that it wasn't against the rules of the game in 2003. So many people were taking performance enhancing drugs at the time, that I think you can have some understanding of the pressure to "keep up with the Joneses" so to speak.

I am not a fan of A-Rod, but I do feel sympathy for him in this situation. He has been unfairly exposed and singled out. Ironically, this incident may end up doing more good for him long-term than being subject to years of speculation and rumors and having to fight the truth.

On another note, I expect a lot of other big names to be revealed among the other 103. Pujols comes to mind as perhaps the biggest name. That was be almost as bad for the game. Here is a guy who has had as good a start to his career as any hitter EVER. I'd hate to see him tarnished, but I expect it.

[DukieBoy]

For those that haven't heard (you must be living under a rock), Alex Rodriguez reportedly took steroids in 2003 when he first joined the Texas Rangers. In an interview on espn.com (http://www.espn.com) (should be on front page), A-Rod admitted to Peter Gammons that he took steroids. He stated that he felt he was under immense pressure to perform up to his huge contract.

IMO, A-Rod took 3 steps back when I found out that he took steroids, but too 2 steps forward by coming out right away and admitting that he took them. You have players like Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Mark McGwire who are almost sure bets to have taken steroids, and they just deny, deny, deny. However, A-Rod manned up and said "Ya, I made a mistake. I'm sorry I did it and I'm sorry to the fans." In the past, I hated all the Yankees, but A-Rod just became one of my favorite players today.

[dbb03]

For those that haven't heard (you must be living under a rock), Alex Rodriguez reportedly took steroids in 2003 when he first joined the Texas Rangers. In an interview on espn.com (http://www.espn.com) (should be on front page), A-Rod admitted to Peter Gammons that he took steroids. He stated that he felt he was under immense pressure to perform up to his huge contract.

IMO, A-Rod took 3 steps back when I found out that he took steroids, but too 2 steps forward by coming out right away and admitting that he took them. You have players like Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Mark McGwire who are almost sure bets to have taken steroids, and they just deny, deny, deny. However, A-Rod manned up and said "Ya, I made a mistake. I'm sorry I did it and I'm sorry to the fans." In the past, I hated all the Yankees, but A-Rod just became one of my favorite players today.
He denied taking them over and over and over until... the evidence was irrefutable. So then, he admitted it.

To think he took it for 3 years and stopped is naive, IMO. He's sorry he got caught, that's all. I do, however, think he has been unfairly singled out.

[roywhite]

A pox on all these cheating drug users, and a pox on baseball. Shame on them for not addressing and policing the steroid issue earlier. Not that other sports are immune from these problems, but baseball has been particularly inept in dealing with it.

[Ben63]

I'm probably in the very very tiny minority, but my opinion of Rodriguez hasn't changed at all really and I don't blame him. I blame MLB. In 2003, there were no penalties for steroids. According to Conseco, 60%+ of players took them. So, in 2003, the MLB has random testing that was supposed to be anonymous and NEVER disclosed to determine if they needed to test the players. Obviously, after that, MLB determined that random drug testing was necessary. Under court order, no results from the supposedly random anonymous 2003 testing were ever to be released by anybody. Somebody broke that court order. And A-Rod's name has been released, but nobody else from 2003 gets their name tarnished. MLB should have realized this was a problem much earlier, told players it was against the rules, and enforced penalties. Without these parameters, the majority of players took steroids. I feel almost bad for A-Rod now...

The problem was the MLBPA. They kept the samples in one facility and the matching codes in another facility to ensure anonymity. The feds raided both facilities and just matched up the codes. The MLBPA could have destroyed the samples or the corresponding codes, or even better, both. THis was not done and they (and A-Roid) now face the consequences of their lack of attention to detail.




On another note, I expect a lot of other big names to be revealed among the other 103. Pujols comes to mind as perhaps the biggest name. That was be almost as bad for the game. Here is a guy who has had as good a start to his career as any hitter EVER. I'd hate to see him tarnished, but I expect it.

The absolute worst player to be on any list is Derek Jeter. Yes, Pujols would kill, but having Jeter would be a downer for Jeter, the Yankees, but especially the MLB and baseball as a whole.

[DukeUsul]

Why did they even have a list of names and codes? If they wanted it to be truly anonymous, they should have never written the names down in any relation to the samples.

[Ben63]

Why did they even have a list of names and codes? If they wanted it to be truly anonymous, they should have never written the names down in any relation to the samples.

I'll bet A-Roid is asking the same question.;)

[rockymtn devil]

Why did they even have a list of names and codes? If they wanted it to be truly anonymous, they should have never written the names down in any relation to the samples.

This is speculation grounded in facts that I've read surrounding why the lists survived at all. Essentially, an MLBPA lawyer maintained the lists so that he could work--in any way possible--the number of positive tests below the 5% threshold for a new testing policy (MLBPA was desperate to avoid the testing). My guess, then, is that being able to correlate the results with specific players allowed for closer scrutinizing of the results which, in turn, made it easier to prove false positives.

[CarterTheGreat]

Pujols has never been linked to any steriod scandal. The only question with him is his true age, as some do not believe him to be as young as he is.

I might just be a die hard Cardinal Fan defending my boy here but let's not start sullying the good names of players who epitomize what the game means: Pujols and Jeter are great examples. These guys come to play hard everyday and just because it would be a big deal if they tested positive, we immediately start to assume they are involved? Give me a break.

And I don't say this just being a Cardinal fan either. McGwire was my favorite player ever until the steriod thing. Had all his cards etc etc but now, after knowing he cheated, to hell with him. No room in my hall of fame for anyone who cheats, including my prior favorite player.

My point is, let's worry about the ones we know cheated and more importantly, how this problem can be fixed, as opposed to starting a witch hunt for anyone with a big name!

[rockymtn devil]

Pujols has never been linked to any steriod scandal. The only question with him is his true age, as some do not believe him to be as young as he is.

I might just be a die hard Cardinal Fan defending my boy here but let's not start sullying the good names of players who epitomize what the game means: Pujols and Jeter are great examples. These guys come to play hard everyday and just because it would be a big deal if they tested positive, we immediately start to assume they are involved? Give me a break.

And I don't say this just being a Cardinal fan either. McGwire was my favorite player ever until the steriod thing. Had all his cards etc etc but now, after knowing he cheated, to hell with him. No room in my hall of fame for anyone who cheats, including my prior favorite player.

My point is, let's worry about the ones we know cheated and more importantly, how this problem can be fixed, as opposed to starting a witch hunt for anyone with a big name!

Perhaps this is a post to the world at large, but no one in this thread has assumed that Pujols is involved. No one in this thread has accused him of anything involving PEDs.

The only mention of Pujols (prior to your post) was a mention that his name would be a killer for MLB, but not quite on the level of Jeter. A hypothetical noting how damaging it would be to the league is not the same as assuming Pujols is involved.

As a response to previous posts suggesting that steroids weren't against the rules in 2003, that simply isn't true. Steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991. Baseball didn't test for it before 2003, but it was against the rules. A-Rod--and every other player who used steroids from 1991--was absolutely in violation of the rules of the game.

[SlimSlowSlider]

I think we have to keep in mind that it wasn't against the rules of the game in 2003. So many people were taking performance enhancing drugs at the time, that I think you can have some understanding of the pressure to "keep up with the Joneses" so to speak.

I read today where it was against the rules of the game, beginning in 1991. Problem was, there was no testing until 2003, so the rule was flouted. Because it was against the rules, however, anyone who used steroids is properly labelled a "cheater."

[Mal]

On the side issue of "What player's name would be most damaging if it were to show up linked with a positive test?": Frankly, I would find a Jeter inclusion to be rather humorous. And Pujols wouldn't be that much of a shock. I submit that there's one name that would be far more devastating to this fan's opinion of the game than Jeter or Pujols, if it were to be tied to a positive drug test: Griffey. I don't expect to ever see it on any list, but at this point you just never know. That would be a "Say it a'int so, Joe" moment for me.

[DukeUsul]

At this point I'm just going to assume everyone has done it, and just stop caring about baseball.

[allenmurray]

Pujols has never been linked to any steriod scandal. The only question with him is his true age, as some do not believe him to be as young as he is.

I might just be a die hard Cardinal Fan defending my boy here but let's not start sullying the good names of players who epitomize what the game means: Pujols and Jeter are great examples.


http://www.pujolsfamilyfoundation.org/index2.html

[allenmurray]

just stop caring about baseball.

I tried that once. It simply didn't work. If you ever really cared about baseball you will always care about baseball.

When I was 10 years old (1970) the Baltimore Orioles (my favorite team) won the World Series. There has never been a time since that I couldn't name the entire starting line-up. When my wife and I started dating in 1989 I told her that - she looked incredibly worried. she was right to have been (and though it has been a great 20 years it has taken her almost all 20 of them to understand that once a baseball geek, alwasy a baseball geek!).

[jma4life]

You guys do realize that a substantial amount of the league was on amphetamines in the 70's right? Hate to say it but I'd strongly assume Aaron was on them back in the day, just based on the fact that his career picked up after I think 35, iirc.

Furthermore, HGH is not testable so who knows whose on that. You're only caught if you're dumb enough to be found with the stuff or someone rats you out as with Jordan Schafer.

And why does no one seem to care that a substantial number of footballers are on roids. Even when caught, it doesn't really bother fans. Does anyone presently care that Merriman served a suspension for roids last year?

[allenmurray]

You guys do realize that a substantial amount of the league was on amphetamines in the 70's right? Hate to say it but I'd strongly assume Aaron was on them back in the day, just based on the fact that his career picked up after I think 35, iirc.


First, there is no correlation between amphetamines and power. So, his rising production would not be evidence of amphetimine use. Better infielding might be evidence (but he wasn't an infielder).

Second, there was no real pattern for Hank Aaron.

His highest production was 47 HRs, when he was 37 years old. So yes, he was up there during his best year. But he also had:
45 HRs at the age of 28 years.
44 HRs at the ages of 23, 29, 32, & 35 years.
40 HRs at the ages of 26 & 39 years.
39 HRs at the ages of 25 & 33 years.
34 HRs at the ages of 27 & 38 years.
His lowest production in a full season came at the ages of 21 and 22 (he had lower years but played far fewer games).
It was his consistency (16 years with 30+ home runs) that made him great.

Finally, you should come to the table with a whole lot more than that before you besmirch Hank Aaron.

[roywhite]

It was his consistency (16 years with 30+ home runs) that made him great.

Finally, you should come to the table with a whole lot more than that before you besmirch Hank Aaron.

Agree, and a slightly belated Happy 75th Birthday to Hammerin' Hank.

This does point out how drug scandals can taint an entire sport. Who is surprised when a prominent cyclist or track and field performer is found to have been using steroids? And now baseball is approaching that level of public skepticism; seems that the steroid era mostly ended by 2004 or so, but the sport's reputation took a more permanent hit.

[jma4life]

Yea, I agree. I love Hank and went too far there, but I'm making a point many others have made. While his raw homerun totals don't show much of a patter, I have seen sites where I think his homeruns/ at bat went up pretty strongly and peaked at the end of his career. Not the kind of difference you saw in Bonds, but there was an increase.

Also, a lot of people think the reason home teams did so much better this year than in past years was due to tighter restrictions on amphetamines. Not sure if there was a statistically significant change but its an interesting theory that I'm sure someone will look at. Clearly, amphetamines do enhance performance. Might not make you stronger but allow you to utilize your strength. And the point does remain that amphetamine use was rampant in that era. It's not like doping just began. I can just about guarantee that prominent athletes from that time were on amphetamines. Some hall of famers.

Also, does anyone care that guys like Sutton cheated with illegal pitches?

That said, you are right. There is no where near enough information to say anything about Aaron who is certainly one of the classiest guys in the sport, and one of my favorites of all time, but I was really just trying to make a point. Unfortunately, I just did something I have attacked others from doing in assuming anyone who does something impressive or makes gains must be doping. Stupid statement.

[jma4life]

Agree on cycling. But here's my question. No one cares when football players juice. No one. Or basically no one. I thin its pretty much assuemed they all do it. So why is it so shocking, disappionting, disilusioning when baseball players, or cyclists do it? If anything, steroids help football players way more than baseball players, with drug use proabably helping cyclists and track and field athletes the most. Baseball probably results in the least advantages since its such a skill based sport.

[roywhite]

Agree on cycling. But here's my question. No one cares when football players juice. No one. Or basically no one. I thin its pretty much assuemed they all do it. So why is it so shocking, disappionting, disilusioning when baseball players, or cyclists do it? If anything, steroids help football players way more than baseball players, with drug use proabably helping cyclists and track and field athletes the most. Baseball probably results in the least advantages since its such a skill based sport.

Good question, and don't have a ready answer for it, unless there is just some public perception that, of course, those big old linemen are pumping themselves up.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D968SOGG0&show_article=1

Back to baseball, looks there are some consequences, as Miquel Tejada is being charged with lying to Congress about steroid use.

[Olympic Fan]

I just want to make the distinction between the observation that "anybody" might have used steroids (or other illegal performance enhancers) -- which I think is true -- and the assertion that "everybody" in the era used something -- which is a gross exaggeration.

The infamous 2003 "anonymous" test that nailed A-Roid showed 104 users -- out of almost 1,400 players tested. It was less than 10 percent. I don't think every player from the era should be tainted because a lot of players were cheaters.

Yes, I believe the steroid users were cheaters. Not only was the use of the product illegal without a prescription, but it was dangerous. I know that apologists suggest that the players have a right to risk their own health -- but when a significant number do so -- and reap the benefits (as Bonds and A-Roid did) -- it puts pressure on other players to take the same risks with their lives (and if you don't think steroid use is a risk, talk to Ken Caminiti or Lyle Alzado). I believe that using steroids is a far more dangerous violation of baseball rules than betting on baseball -- as far as I know, that hasn't killed or crippled anybody.

I'm glad that A-Roid finally fessed up -- after lying about his useage for years. I'm not sure I believe anything he says now (just as I don't believe Marion Jones, Shawn Merriman, Julius Peppers, Andy Pettite, Rafael Palmero -- all proven liars about their cheating ... just as I don't believe Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens and their denials).

I do blame Major League Baseball. It's very much like the gambling problem in the early part of the last century. The 1919 Black Sox Scandal didn't happen in a vacuum. Players cheated and threw games for years -- it was widely known, but the baseball establishment did its best to dismiss the evidence and sweep everything under the rug until it blew up in 1920 (and even then, baseball did its best to avoid investigating the 1919 series fix).

Well, the steroid crisis didn't happen in a vacuum either. There was evidence as early as 1995 and by 1997, excessive steroid use was an open secret. Baseball fought tooth and nail to ignore the problem as long as possible. They didn't do testing until 2003 (and only then as an anonymous test to see if they should test). The Mitchell Report was a superficial white-wash that was basically based on ONE source.

Now it's blown up again. I don't know how it gets fixed (but I suspect the spectacularly inept Bud Selig is not the guy to fix it). Will there be any sanctions for the proven cheaters? It doesn't look like it -- Pettite and A-Roid are both set to play for the Yankees this year. Heck, even as Bonds' perjury trial starts, he's trying to get back in the game.

I HATE the cheaters -- including the Yankees (my favorite team) that cheated. I still love baseball and I'm praying that when the other 103 names on the 2003 list are leaked (as they clearly be at some point) it goesn't include the guys I love most -- Jeter, Maddux, Chipper Jones and, yeah, Pujols. It won't surprise me if any of them is nailed, but at this point, I still say the odds are 9-to-1 that an unnamed player is innocent.

PS Bravo to the Hall of Fame voters willing to punish the cheaters. Happy to see Mark "I don't want to talk about the past" McGuire getting 25 percent of the vote. I suspect that Rafael "Liar" Palmero will never get 20 percent and Sammy "No speka de English" Sosa will get stiffed too.

The big tests will be Bonds, Clemens and A-Roid. They are three of the greatest players of all time, but I hope the voters punish them as they've punished Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. It's a small thing ... but a right thing.

[Olympic Fan]

First, there is no correlation between amphetamines and power. So, his rising production would not be evidence of amphetimine use. Better infielding might be evidence (but he wasn't an infielder).

Second, there was no real pattern for Hank Aaron.

His highest production was 47 HRs, when he was 37 years old. So yes, he was up there during his best year. But he also had:
45 HRs at the age of 28 years.
44 HRs at the ages of 23, 29, 32, & 35 years.
40 HRs at the ages of 26 & 39 years.
39 HRs at the ages of 25 & 33 years.
34 HRs at the ages of 27 & 38 years.
His lowest production in a full season came at the ages of 21 and 22 (he had lower years but played far fewer games).
It was his consistency (16 years with 30+ home runs) that made him great.

Finally, you should come to the table with a whole lot more than that before you besmirch Hank Aaron.



Sorry for the double post, but I had to respond to the Aaron notes. While Aaron was remarkable consistent over the course of his career, his power numbers do jump at age 32.

There's a reason for that beyond drugs -- the Braves moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta. They went from an average power park (County Stadium) to the Launching Pad. Then late in his career he got another boost as the rules changed (lower mound, smaller strike zone) to favor hitters after 1968 (when pitchers absolutely dominated the game).

The changing conditions hide the normal decline Aaron should have endured as he got older. He DID decline, but conditions -- first the park, then the rules -- also got easier.

The same thing happened to Ty Cobb. As he went into decline late in his career, the conditions got easier -- a lot of reasons ... just saying that the .324 he hit in 1908 (the deadest year of the deadball era) was actually a significantly greater achievement than the .328 he hit in 1924 -- a year when outfielders were hitting .320 and getting released.

The same thing happened in reverse to Willie Mays. He went from the Polo Grounds (a good HR park, despite its deep centerfield) to windy Candlestick, which was a pitchers park. If the Giants had moved to Atlanta and the Braves to San Francisco, Mays and not Aaron would have been the alltime home run king.

[jma4life]

Good post. Thanks for that info so I have some ammo for the people that told me about the Aaron stuff.

[Ben63]

Why is no one calling for the resignation of Bud Selig and Donald Fehr. Neither have done their job properly in the least bit. They can be blamed for this whole mess and even with all of this new stuff Selig continues to sit back and do nothing. What is it going to take? A good kick in the butt? I don't know. But I think Selig should hold a press conference and accept all blame and responsibility for the "Steroid Era" and step down and let someone else clean up his mess, because he clearly cannot fix what he started.

[rockymtn devil]

Agree on cycling. But here's my question. No one cares when football players juice. No one. Or basically no one. I thin its pretty much assuemed they all do it. So why is it so shocking, disappionting, disilusioning when baseball players, or cyclists do it? If anything, steroids help football players way more than baseball players, with drug use proabably helping cyclists and track and field athletes the most. Baseball probably results in the least advantages since its such a skill based sport.

I think there are two reasons why.

1. The NFL appears--at least in rhetoric--to care more about punishing its players who cheat. It implemented strict testing earlier than MLB. As a result, players are viewed to have paid for their crime (Merriman did miss 1/4 of a season which, in the NFL, is significant). The MLBPA, on the other hand, fought tooth-and-nail to prevent any form of testing and many of the players seem to get off without any punishment. It might all be perception, but don't underestimate the importance of perception. Football seems to care. Baseball doesn't.

2. Baseball is a game the puts such a ridiculous emphasis on its history and records that when players appear to have achieved great heights artificially, it takes a shot at the "history" of the game. Football doesn't have that history and certainly isn't as caught up in the numbers (Bret Favre's TD mark wasn't heralded the way Bonds's HR mark was; ditto for Favre's consecutive starts). This may be because football is much less of an individual sport than baseball, but I don't know.

Found this blog post which echoes some of my points and adds a few:

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/for_the_record/posts/49101?eref=fromSI

[Mal]

Agree on cycling. But here's my question. No one cares when football players juice. No one. Or basically no one. I thin its pretty much assuemed they all do it. So why is it so shocking, disappionting, disilusioning when baseball players, or cyclists do it? If anything, steroids help football players way more than baseball players, with drug use proabably helping cyclists and track and field athletes the most. Baseball probably results in the least advantages since its such a skill based sport.

I'll give three theories:

1. I think the conventional wisdom answer to this is the "importance" to baseball fans of the ability to compare statistical output numbers across different eras (and thus the hallowed nature of all-time records). Obviously that's subject to a lot of wiggle room - times change, equipment changes, parks change, strikezones change, whatever (but that's what Sabermetrics are for). That element of cross-era stats comparison just isn't really there for football, except to a limited extent for skill players.

2. There's also a longer, older mythology about the "old-timers" and their pure ways in baseball, which was the national pastime for a good 50 years before the Super Bowl even came along and football began its steady ascendance. More (a lot more) of the collective psyche of the nation, and its self-perception, is wrapped up in the glorious history of baseball. Witness James Earle Jones' speech at the end of Field of Dreams. So to see that "tainted" seems at some level more of a trashing of our own history than Shaun Merriman.

3. Sort of related to 2 above, but it's obvious to any first time viewer that size and strength is of paramount importance in football. Speed too, but at a number of positions, speed is third in line behind size and strength. So it comes as no surprise that steroids, whose two most obvious benefits are the ability to add size and strength, would infiltrate the sport. Baseball performance isn't as obviously susceptible to those things, and is at least in theory a lot more about hand-eye coordination and speed than brute strength. That's a major part of the appeal of the game to a lot of fans. So, to an extent, to see extremely bulked up players dominating the game upsets everyone's natural understanding of what the game rewards in terms of athletic abilities. That's a pretty bitter pill.

[Mal]

Football doesn't have that history and certainly isn't as caught up in the numbers (Bret Favre's TD mark wasn't heralded the way Bonds's HR mark was; ditto for Favre's consecutive starts). This may be because football is much less of an individual sport than baseball, but I don't know.

I think it's because football's such a differentiated sport, to the point of players only playing on one side of the ball or the other, and many of them even on offense not doing anything easily statified, if you will. There's generally a lot less difference between what a first baseman and a left fielder do (both have defensive responsibilities and both have to bat) than a running back and an outside linebacker. Obviously pitchers are in a class of their own, and you can't really compare defensive stats around the diamond, but roughly speaking there's a lot less difference from one to the next in baseball.

A football player's stats are also dependent on scheme and style in a way that a baseball player's aren't. I'm thinking of QBs, RBs and WRs especially. They're also dependent on how good the team's defense is, which is totally untrue in baseball, where statistical compilation may be affected by the quality of others in the batting order (but again, that's what Bill James and Rob Neyer are for), but not by the quality of the pitcher.