I didn't see Canseco's "60 Minutes" interview this weekend, but there is ample reason to doubt his credibility. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that he's making every bit of his story up, either. Logic says that the truth lies in the middle somewhere, which still leaves us with a major league problem for Major League Baseball.
Here's a survey of some of the most pertinent stuff being written out there:
Thomas Boswell, perhaps the most respected baseball writer in the country (and one never afraid to take on superstars when necessary), says Canseco simply cannot be believed:
According to the Daily News account, Canseco will claim that he personally injected Mark McGwire with steroids. In the buttocks. In a bathroom stall. In Oakland. In the clubhouse. Thanks, Jose. It's the details that make it art.Boswell adds:
If any other famous player of recent times were about to publish a tell-all book, the game might be shaking. But Canseco is a special case. The former slugger lied for years about his own steroid use, so why would we suddenly believe he's telling the truth when he smears Mark McGwire, Ivan Rodriguez, Rafael Palmeiro and Juan Gonzalez with accusations of being juiced?Bernie Miklasz of my hometown Post-Dispatch, who fawned over McGwire during his Cardinals years, isn't so sanguine, wondering if the longrunning Conspiracy of Ingorance in baseball is now rearing it's head through Cardinal manager Tony LaRussa's vehement defense of McGwire:
There's only one problem with the La Russa defense team's aggressive counterattack on McGwire's behalf: La Russa and other Oakland-era figures discredited themselves by sticking up for Canseco when he initially faced steroid allegations [in 1988].The important question is: What does all of this mean for Major League Baseball, particularly for the records set by such suspects as Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa?
...If it comes down to choosing between La Russa and Canseco, I certainly believe La Russa. But I can't blame others who notice the discrepancies and wonder: If the Oakland boys covered for Canseco when it was in their best interests to do so, then how can we be entirely sure that they're not doing the same for McGwire?
Baseball finds itself in a very difficult position. Obviously the integrity of the game is paramount. But it's also impossible to forget that McGwire and Sosa saved baseball as a spectator sport in the wake of it's disasterous strike and cancelled World Series in the '90's.
In my opinion, it comes down to this. If it can be proved, using the normal standards of legal proof, that McGwire and Sosa and Bonds were taking steroids during the bulk (no pun intended) of their accomplishments, baseball should go back and void their records, however painful that will be.
On the other hand, simply looking at before/after pictures does not constitute proof of steroid use. McGwire openly took androstenedione and Sosa openly took creatine during the late 90's, both of which are controversial performance enhancers, and both of which would explain huge size gains. Both players were the subject of no small amount of controversy for taking these supplements. But at the time, both substances were perfectly legal under the rules of Major League Baseball.
No, Babe Ruth didn't have that advantage. He didn't have personal trainers and highly scientific weight-training either. But the Babe also never had to hit at night, nor did he have to bat against a lot of guys throwing 98 MPH split-fingered fastballs either. In other words, some of this stuff tends to even out.
But these steroid allegations are bad, and if they are proved, the consequence will be that much of recent baseball history will have to be erased. They raise the question of cheating, which is much more significant than simple technological differences between eras. However, the allegations will have to be proved. And that will take more people more credible than Jose Canseco to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment