Cardinal Sin

Since the Hall of Fame ballot came out last week, there has been plenty of wailing and gashing of teeth about Mark McGwire. And plenty of hand-wringing from the BBRAA voters as they pontificate about why they just can’t bring themselves to vote for the big cheater.

The Tribune’s Rick Morrissey has managed to neatly summarize all the arguments against McGwire into one self-serving column. Highlights follow:

I think Cardinals shortstop David Eckstein, who might be 5 feet 7 inches, 165 pounds after a week-long Pizza Hut jag, is more deserving of a Cooperstown bust than McGwire is.

Here’s the first clue that Morrissey has no idea what he’s talking about: there are no busts in Cooperstown. Sheesh.

I know: we don’t have proof positive McGwire used steroids. We do, however, have two pieces of information that make it very, very difficult to put him alongside the greatest ballplayers of all time.

The first is his admission that he used androstenedione, a steroid precursor that converts to testosterone when metabolized, during his 70-home run season of 1998.

{snip}

The second is McGwire’s refusal to discuss before the House committee whether he had used steroids. It’s like wanting to become U.S. president but refusing to answer background-check questions about ties to a secret world government. Life doesn’t work that way.

To sum up: McGwire ‘fessed up to taking andro. And he didn’t answer questions from grandstanding House members in 2005. That makes it “very, very difficult” to check his name on the HoF ballot? Morrissey can rationalize anyway he pleases, but I don’t know if logic works that way...

But wait – there’s more!

Rather than dirtying up the place, why don’t we wait until there’s hard evidence showing he didn’t use steroids? Rather than having to knock down his bust like the Iraqis did to Saddam Hussein’s statue, why not give this more time and investigation?

Great googaly moogaly! Take that passage in again, Gentle Reader – in Rick Morrissey’s world, the accused are guilty until proven innocent! I shudder to think what would happen if that kind of thinking was the norm…especially since we’ve seen what will happen when it does become the norm…

One thing Morrissey conveniently forgets is that MLB did not test for steroids back when McGwire was playing. So there is no evidence (hard or otherwise) to prove McGwire’s guilt. Or his innocence. Despite this, the burden of proof is on McGwire. And they all laughed at Dusty Baker when he referred to “steroid McCarthyism.”

Oh, and I have to point out once again that the Baseball Hall of Fame does not display busts of its members! If Morrissey can’t be bothered to get this simple fact straight, why should we believe anything else he has to say?

And let’s not even talk about who really toppled that statue of Hussein…

Yes, I know that cracking on Morrissey for not checking his facts is a mere distraction from the actual subject of debate. Just as Morrissey’s cracks about Saddam and a “secret world government” were…

I’ve heard some baseball writers ask how they could keep McGwire out of the Hall when steroids were not banned by the sport during his career. It’s an argument so thin it could be made into gruel. Steroids might not have been banned by baseball, but unprescribed steroids were illegal in society.

Finally, an argument that isn’t based on histrionics. I’ve wrestled with this issue myself while trying to decide if McGwire has my vote (for what it’s worth). Steroids may not have technically been “cheating” in MLB, but they were certainly against the law. But if we’re going open that can of worms, what do we do about all the fellows in the Hall who have violated other laws of the land? You don’t have to look too closely at MLB history to realize that some of the finest players in history were less than exemplary citizens.

But that’s OK – Morrissey has an answer for that, too:

I don’t care that pitcher Gaylord Perry made the Hall even though he slathered the ball with Vaseline. I care about now. I care about the effect steroids use has on impressionable kids.

Now, there’s an argument that’s gruel-worthy! Who will think of the children?

I have two reactions to this line of thought:

1. As the PSA says: Parents – the anti-drug.

2. A better cautionary tale for the kids would be Ken Caminiti. An admitted juicer, he died young and unhappy.

Perhaps a better rebuttal to Morrissey’s blather is from ESPN’s Jim Caple, as he describes The Hypocrite’s Guide to Voting on Mark McGwire:

You knew McGwire was taking andro in 1998's home run chase and suspected he was taking something much stronger but nonetheless repeatedly wrote stories glorifying his deeds and crediting him with "saving baseball." You now have no additional evidence other than those same old suspicions, but you are nonetheless repeatedly writing stories condemning his actions and blaming him for ruining baseball. Therefore you clearly must not vote for McGwire, because that was then and this is now.

You constantly ridicule grandstanding politicians and bureaucratic government committees in your columns but when you saw grandstanding politicians drag McGwire before a bureaucratic government committee, you were appalled that he did not show the proper respect by fully answering their questions. You feel that he greatly damaged his reputation, effectively admitted his guilt and gave the sport a black eye by saying, "I am not here to talk about the past." You also write stories claiming that the government has no right to force reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams to testify before a grand jury, and that it will cripple the First
Amendment if they so much as state their names. Therefore you must not vote for McGwire because everyone knows he should have testified when he was subpoenaed while reporters should never have to do so under the well-established legal principle of "that was him, and this is us."

{snip}

You have known since reading Ball Four that a vast number of players since at least the 1960s have been taking amphetamines. You also look at the players of the '60s, '70s and '80s as representative of when the game was clean and level. Therefore you must not vote for McGwire, because steroids gave him a grossly unfair advantage while amphetamines are nothing more than a harmless pick-me-up.

{snip}

You disregard McGwire's home run totals, because he reached them with the help of steroids in an era in which offensive stats were greatly inflated. You also hold as sacred the offensive statistics compiled by Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby and others during an era when black and Latino competitors were banned from the game. You therefore must not vote for McGwire, because his numbers are suspect unlike those of the players from the clean golden age.

You feel that letting steroid users into the Hall of Fame will cheapen the institution and insult the legacy of the players already enshrined. You therefore must not vote for McGwire because you must preserve the integrity of Cooperstown for such Hall of Famers/ cheapskates/bigots as Cap Anson, Ty Cobb, Charles Comiskey and Tom Yawkey.

You constantly write that baseball must strengthen its steroid testing but you yourself are able to tell whether a player was on steroids just by looking at him in the clubhouse. Therefore you must not vote for McGwire because he obviously took steroids, and you must give Cal Ripken Jr. a pass – and everyone else for whom you will eventually vote – because, duh, obviously they did not.

{snip}

But seriously, folks …Before you write in – no, I am not saying Ripken took steroids. I don't believe either he or Tony Gwynn took any performance enhancers and I will vote for them without hesitation and eagerly await their acceptance speeches for the honor both so richly deserve. But I never suspected Ryan Franklin or Alex Sanchez took steroids, either. The point is, we just don't know who did and who did not take performance enhancers, other than the players who have tested positive. To withhold votes on some players we suspect because they fit a certain profile is no more valid than arresting and convicting someone of a crime because they fit a profile. Fitting a profile is not proof of guilt, just as NOT fitting a profile is not proof of innocence.