More on the polarizing subject of cheating in baseball
This is a response to a DB comment from the "At Any Costs" article.
The problem with the topic of cheating is that it's such a polarizing subject that those who participate rarely seem able to actually read what was there, rather than what they *think* is inferred.
I didn't say I expect the Cubs to win if they cheat. I said I expect the Cubs to cheat in general. Ways of cheating outlined in this post include ...
*stealing the other team's signs at Wrigley Field
*doctoring the baseball when pitching it (something Maddux was often accused of doing, but never caught incidentally)
*putting voodoo hexes on the opposition
*using a loaded bat whenever possible
*taking amphetamines to have more energy/awareness during a game
*consuming performance enhancing drugs.
I'm not advocating that the Cubs do the last one. I've never written a post in which I state "the Cubs really should start illegally using steroids. THAT will give them the edge they need!"
Instead I'm being a realist in saying that steroids, HGH, and probably all sorts of other PEDs are as much a part of the game as the things we have already accepted, like sign stealing, baseball doctoring, and drinking the "magic coffee" before a game's start.
To say the game is ruined for this brand of cheating but for none of the others is contradictory and wrong. We have to accept that in a billion dollar sport where massive amounts of dollars are on the line players will always, ALWAYS try to find advantages. Sometimes those advantages will be too illegal to ever be commonly accepted.
But rather than decry that the fairness of the game has been ruined, we should instead recognize that, at this point, pretty much every modern day player to hit 450 homeruns or more has either been suspected of - or flat out caught - cheating with steroids.
Meanwhile we really can't say that it's a "new" issue. There have been players from the 70's who've confessed to experimenting with steroids. People who played with Willie Mays have said that Willie used to consume a special drink before games that quite frankly was almost certainly laced with speed. And although we don't directly know it, you can bet that guys from the eras of Ruth and Gherig were cheating too.
Back to the point, if steroids are "against the rules," then that's understandable. Punish the users who get caught with suspensions and fines. But we need to either accept that we can no longer separate the Hall of Fame candidates who were users with those who weren't because there have been TOO MANY USERS. Either the Hall closes its doors and stops voting in candidates or they accept that the rules have changed and still vote in the guy with 620 homeruns and one 50 game suspension.
Like I said, DB, I never announced that I *want* the Cubs to all use steroids and I never *said* that they should use steroids to win. I just accept that they will and I know I'll still be a fan if they do and I'll still be overjoyed if they win a World Series in the process. But you said "I think it's a sad enough commentary in and of itself to 'expect' that we'll win by cheating."
But let's just be completely honest. EVERY TEAM CHEATS. Not every team wins. But there are plenty of ways to bend the rules and you'd be naive to think that it doesn't happen every single day.
Kurt, I know you never said
Kurt, I know you never said you wanted the Cubs to use steroids or that they should use them to win. But per your original:
"I will not only be totally unsurprised if the Cubs cheat to win, I actually expect it."
I'm sure cheating of some sort happens every single day like you said. But it is, as I said earlier, a sad commentary that people have just become so complacent about it. I guess I look at it as "expecting" cheating - whatever kind of cheating that is - is dangerously close to just throwing up your hands and saying oh well.
I'm sorry I care so much and that I think it's disgusting that athletes would inject themselves with something because they are too afraid to play on the strength of their own bodies and have no respect for themselves or others.
Sorry I was "unable to read what was inferred" there. That's a nice comment in and of itself there, Kurt.
I think the issue is that
I think the issue is that when you read the word "cheating" the thing that pops into your mind is "steroids."
Stealing signs is cheating. You don't think every team tries to steal signs at least once a game? You don't think they've been stealing signs for a century? If you haven't complacently accepted it by now, then when will you?
Touching up a baseball is cheating. You don't think every team has at least one pitcher who scuffs the ball? Again, pitchers have been scuffing the ball ever since they figured out that that it causes weird movement on pitches. What's more, there are Hall of Famers who built their careers on doing this.
If it doesn't enhance the performance of a hitter to know which pitch is coming, or the performance of a pitcher to doctor a ball, then what would you call it when they do that?
My point DB is that you STILL don't seem to read what was inferred. When I say "cheating is a part of the game" I am NOT saying "steroids are a part of the game." But any time you respond to what I've written you continue to attack the notion of players using steroids, rather than players stealing signs, doctoring balls, and doing anything else imaginable to get an advantage.
Fine. For the sake of nothing
Fine. For the sake of nothing then, yes I focused on steroids because it's the waving red flag in my face and there you go. It's a hot topic and one I obviously feel strongly about. In the scale of how bad it is, it's up at the top for me.
NONE of it makes me happy, but it's the steroid issue that drives me over because it's so egregious and MLB has taken forever to actually try and combat it.
And that is exactly why I
And that is exactly why I said "The problem with the topic of cheating is that it's such a polarizing subject that those who participate rarely seem able to actually read what was there, rather than what they *think* is inferred" - which you also took offense with -- but is absolutely true.
I'm not sure I understand why you'd have a problem with teams "cheating" to win. I mean, it's not like there was ever a glorious golden age of baseball in which they played under the rule of Fair Play and never did anything shady to win. Baseball is rich with stories of scoundrel players, managers, and owners so intent on winning that they'd do such low things as send prostitutes to hotel rooms in order to ply rivals with liquor and deprive them of a night's rest before a big game.
That has always been the game I follow. The thing that makes cheating acceptable is that both sides get to do it equally. Cheating is a part of the *strategy* of baseball. Again - "stealing" is a noted statistic! STEALING!!!!
I mean, I sincerely believe that baseball is a generation or two away from players getting illegal bionic eyes and limbs in order to make them faster and stronger. Before long, players will be injecting themselves with stem cells to help regenerate bruises and wounds (and I'm only being half facetious). I'm not preaching to you from a supposed moral high ground, I'm not telling you that I'd cheat if I had the chance, nor am I telling you I'd teach my children to cheat. I'm looking at this practically and I simply realize that in a sport that earns per year probably 10 figures - that's a LOT of money - then the people in that sport will obviously feel pressured to gain advantages to get their share of the pie. Understanding is not the same thing as condoning, and I am not suggesting - nor have I ever suggested - that steroids be "legalized."
But to act shocked at ANY athlete in ANY sport for using PEDs is amazing to me. And to use the argument that "Babe Ruth didn't do it in his day" ridiculously implies that he wouldn't have if he'd had the chance.
I guess I'll put it to you another way, DB ... are you by any chance a fan of the Beatles? Does it bother you that they used "performance enhancing drugs" to make some of their best music? My fiancee also really, really stronly hates the use of any drugs from pills to pot, and I like to point out to her that the number of successful artists in the world - from actors to writers to painters to musicians - who didn't use chemicals to influence their work can probably be counted on one hand. It doesn't mean everybody should do it, it doesn't make it "right," but it makes it normal.
"against the rules"
There should not be quotes around 'against the rules' because steroids are against the rules.
It is really quite a different thing to equate stealing signs, bases, and voodoo with the other things on your list.
Stealing signs is not against the rules, stealing bases is part of the game, and voodoo is just superstition.
Taking HGH is now explicitly against the rules.
I am fine with closing the HoF to 'roid users because I don't think that's on par with scuffing the ball or stealing signs. I think it disrespects all the people in the HoF to say these men are on their level.
It's not black and white: there is gray and all crimes are not equal.
Using a loaded bat can get you suspended, the penalty is not worth the small advantage and I would not encourage the Cubs to go this route.
I have some pity on HGH users who used when it was in a gray area, but it is not gray anymore, it is fully against the rules.
Moral Relativism is a mother-lover.
I mean if you write an article that basically states: cheat and burn down Wrigley you should not be surprised to see comments to the contrary. Despite all the semantic juggling, these concepts do point to a lack of dignity and integrity.
Go ahead and attack people who point out that these blatantly inflammatory posts are over the top and disregard our objections- If you need 15 more paragraphs to explain what you meant the first time then maybe it is not us with the reading comprehension problems.
Taking sandpaper to a
Taking sandpaper to a baseball is against the rules. Should they kick Whitey Ford out of the Hall of Fame?
Stealing signs is against the rules. Should the '84 Cubs be stripped of their NL East Crown?
Consuming amphetamines is against the rules. Should the Yankees of the 1960's - for whom there is specific documentation about amphetamine use occurring - be stripped of all accomplishments and crowns? Should Willie Mays - for whom there are reports of amphetamine use - be ejected from the Hall of Fame?
If it wasn't against the rules it wouldn't be called CHEATING.
I guess my problem Andre is that if I write an article I expect people to respond to what I say, not what I supposedly infer. Kind of like how you note a "change in tone" of my later responses to you when I quote my original content directly in those responses.
And why do you get to criticize me and disagree with me, but if I respond to you it's an "attack?" Are you an adult? If you aren't comfortable with me voicing an opinion you disagree with and then defending it then why in the hell are you engaging me in conversation?
stealing signs is not against the rules
You can steal signs as long as you don't use 'electronic means'.
There are rules in place to discourage people who doctor a baseball- kicking them out of the HoF is not an option, nor is it necessary.
My point is that cheating is not always the same as 'breaking the rules'. You can cheat without breaking the rules and breaking the rules isn't always considered cheating. If you forget to tag a base on a homerun trot then you are not cheating but you can be called out for breaking the rules.
Amphetamines are not the same as HGH- the effects of caffeine and redbull are very similar to Amphetamines. The rule against speed is (primarily IMO) there to protect the health of players.
If you suspect someone is doctoring the ball you can ask for an inspection, if you suspect someone is on HGH or other PED you really had no recourse. I considered it cheating and even though there was no rule explicitly stating otherwise I am not alone in my opinion.
I may criticize your stance and disagree with you but I don't say your posts are idiotic, your thoughts are stupid, attack your reading comprehension, or wonder if you are an adult. I only stated my point and asked you to reconsider.
You obviously love the Cubs and even though we disagree on some things you might see my point:
Winning is the ultimate goal, but please don't advocate the 'win at any cost' attitude.
There are lines that should be observed and just because someone else ignored them and was successful doesn't mean it will be worth it for our boys.
Don't you think Bonds would give back his 72 HR season if he knew it would basically ruin his life? If he stayed clean he was a first ballot HoF- sammy and mark would have taken all the heat and he might even be DH'n somewhere.
(ps Pot is not a PED)
1. 84 Cubs stole signs via a
1. 84 Cubs stole signs via a camera in center field and a small TV in the dugout.
2. There are rules in place to discourage steroid use too.
3. You're using semantics. Cheating=breaking the rules. Sophistry at its worst.
4. Take an amphetamine and tell me that it's the same as caffeine. With respect, you should talk about things you know of. Amphetamines are illegal, they are dangerous, and up until the ban on them they were eaten in the clubhouses like candy. They really aren't "like caffeine or red bull."
5. There is a system in place Andre to stop the use of PEDs. People who are caught get punished. Fans should feel betrayed in the sense that those players are hurting their teams by being unavailable for a minimum of 50 games, but the genie is out of the bottle - there are almost certainly players in the HoF who used steroids, there are HoF-caliber players who used and will never be caught, and there's nothing we can do about that. Our options are basically hang a cloud of suspicion over everybody and deny ANYBODY to be elected into the Hall because they achieved their Nintendo Numbers through artificial means, or accept that there are rule-breakers who are already IN the Hall, acknowledge when somebody gets caught, and base your decision on their statistics and accomplishements. Read that last sentence again and you won't find an opinion so much as you will find suggested options - close the doors to the Hall or get over it.
6. My stance Andre is that anybody who is a fan of a building has idiotic beliefs. I apologize if this hurts your feelings but I feel as strongly about that as apparently you do about steroid use in baseball. The object of baseball is to win. I'm not a Cubs fan because they haven't won, I'm a fan becaus I want them to. If - notice that this sentence started with the word "if" - Wrigley Field ever proves - notice the use of the word "proves" - to be a detriment to the Cubs winning a World Series, I'd volunteer to detonate the place myself. If - again, notice the word "if" - you wouldn't, then your view on Wrigley Field - emphasis on "view," not "you" - is an idiotic one that I cannot share.
7. I never said pot was a PED
I applaud your open-mindedness
1. I don't think that is as big a deal as HGH and to compare them as equals is not appropriate (see #5)
2. Now there are rules in place, but they were not always there. Hence "cheating" without "breaking the rules."
3. I am using logical statements, you can break the rules without 'cheating per se' and you can cheat without breaking the letters of the rules (ie with steroids up until a few years ago). If that is still a solipsism in your book then I can't help you out.
4. I'm on amphetamines right now thank you very much, feels like some damn strong coffee mixed with redbull! mmmm.
5. The problem is that you are taking 'rule breakers in the Hall' and lumping them together with current and recent steroid users. Who are you accusing of using steroids who is in the hall? I am not talking about greenies.
I am saying that there are different levels of dirtiness (for argument lets call them misdemeanors and felonies). To me, a misdemeanor offense is like scuffing a ball, and a felony offense is like betting on baseball and using steroids. You are creating a straw man argument by saying "it's all bad and they should all be treated equally". Why should I continue to justify this facetious tactic with reasonable responses? You might call them all felonies to make your point, but that's not reasonable.
6. Well thanks for the heartfelt apology- but why is being a fan of a building any more or less idiotic than being a fan of a baseball team? At least a building exists in space, technically a baseball team is sort of just a set of contracts and agreements.
[I'm a fan of both team and building but I am just questioning your train of thought while getting a bit esoteric for my own taste].
Honestly, I think Wrigley does hold the team back a bit. Using your own statement of a 1 million ticket swing based on if the Cubs are good or not- well that would be less incentive (economically speaking) for the owners to invest profits in salaries (see Chicago Tribune co prior to the Zell years). If Wrigley was empty when the Cubs were bad then there would be more incentive to invest more in the team. This is why I think your willingness to blow up the park is reckless and myopic.
7. You are comparing the two to justify your points.
"Well thanks for the
"Well thanks for the heartfelt apology- but why is being a fan of a building any more or less idiotic than being a fan of a baseball team?"
Sorry, but this question is a great example of your entire line of flawed thinking. You just asked - in apparent seriousness - about why being a fan of AN INANIMATE OBJECT is worse than being the fan of a SPORTS TEAM.
Thank you for that.
As for my "comparisson" I never mentioned "pot" when talking about the "performance enhancing drugs" used by musicians. That was your assumption.
Paul McCartney was on cocaine when he wrote Sgt. Pepper's, btw.
Do you not love?
Have you no heart? What is wrong with loving an inanimate object?
Jeez Mr. High n mighty up there on his imaginary soap box.
I wrote a song for you:
What is love? Oh I don't know, why you're not fair* I give you my love** but you don't care***. So what is right, and what is wrong? gimme a sign****. What is love? Baby don't hurt me, Don't hurt me, no more
*cheating vs rule breaking
**as long as it is for approved objects only
***unless we win the WS
****but don't let anyone steal them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muA09lqX6WM
There's nothing wrong with
There's nothing wrong with "loving an inanimate object." I'm just disappointed that it took several days of pointless debate for you to acknowledge - as I said all along - that you are a fan of Wrigley Field, not of the Cubs.
Enjoy that, I have nothing for you. And to reiterate what I said before you won't like it here. Maybe you should stop doing the masochistic thing and find a website more suitable to your disposition?
whatever guy
by your logic, you are a fan of the "Cubs teams that win the World Series" and not a Cubs fan. Honestly it is offensive for someone to say 'you are not a Cubs fan' because who appointed you the guy who makes such proclamations?
I do find it mildly entertaining to shoot your arguments down in a righteous and holy way.
I rebuke you and your goat voodoo prophesy: begone demon blogger.
condoned cheating
I believe what Kurt has been saying is that - Baseball has condoned cheating at some levels thru it's entire history. To expect your favorite team to not use the same strategies as the other teams is wrong. As a Chicago sports fan I had no problem with AJ using the rules to help the White Sox win a World Series (better them than Houston) and yes I would expect Geo to do the same. How can you expect someone who has worked their whole life for a shot at the gloden ring not to slip into the gray areas, as allowed by the baseball culture, when given a shot at getting at the ring . That would raise them to the level of a deity and not mortal man. It is up to each person to decide for themselves when gray becomes black. You can hope everyone draws the line at the same place as you, but you can not expect it. All you can do is tell that person they crossed a line you would not and leave it at that.
Kurt, if I am totally off base with your general point let me know.
That sums it up nicely
That sums it up nicely actually.
It's generally "ok" to cheat in baseball because everybody has the chance to cheat the same way.
This is the area where steroids really fall off track. Fine, take drugs, improve your numbers, help the team win. But those drugs appear to be dangerous and your body will pay a price later that you might not be happy with. It's inherently unfair of a player to feel that he NEEDS an edge to win, especially if he's concerned with the long-term effects.
Then again, there is still a choice involved there. It might not feel like a fair choice "cheat or get out of the way for somebody else who will (or doesn't need to)," but it's a choice nonetheless. I'm waiting for an opponent of PEDs to take the next logical step in this argument, but so far nobody has.
dropped third strike?
Advancing to first on a dropped third strike is not cheating, it is not even a gray area.
I fully expect people to go into the gray area: that is why it is a gray area.
You make sense with your train of thought: do you have a newsletter or blog that I can subscribe to?
AJ - rules
Andre,
My memory may-be off a bit as I am as old as dirt. I believe it was a debated dropped 3rd strike along with a disputed catchers interference later in the series. Here is where I was wrong, it was Dye and not AJ that got on base with a non-hit by pitch/hit by pitch. I am not trying to split hairs just trying to make sure my facts are correct. The actual play I was thinking of was actually when AJ got caught in a run down against the Cub's. He positioned himself so that the ump was screened and took a dive so it appeared that Theroit(?) ran into him without the ball and was called safe. The biggest point that I did want to make was that there is a gray area and that the baseball condones dancing in that gray area along with some steps into the black. Nobody can convince me that the powers to be in baseball did not turn a blind eye to roids and HGH.
I do come from the Annie Savoy, Crash Davis, Terence Mann, Ray Kinsella and Billy Chapel school of baseball. That said I believe that I am faced with 2 choices. Go back the 70's watching day baseball in a pristen Wrigley Field with only 10,000 fans and know best case is the team would finish at .500 (which I did). Or deal with that fact to compete in todays game and win consistently you need to spend money. If the money can be raised outside of Wrigley Field that is the best so the ballpack can be saved. But, if the Cub's have to move to the "Cell" (for you non-Chicagoians where the White Sox play) to contend every year then I would support that move.
One of the best thing that I can say of the Cub's fans is we have never gotten into the lastest rage at the ball park, no waves etc. So even if Jumbo Trons aka money making billboards went up on the roof tops they would never have to tell us when to cheer. Don't forget that cranking up the crowd's volume at the end of the Star Spangled Banner started in the Madhouse on Madison, rocking out the 7th inning stretch started in Chicago.
This has gone on longer that I planned and I guess should be a blog, but enough said.