It's not worth asking. Assuming that steroids in baseball are bad (which I don't believe, but I'm willing to allow for the sake of the discussion), Major League Baseball and the individual teams either knew but did nothing about steroids, or were completely ignorant regarding thier use, neither of which is acceptable.
People didn't care then, and with a few high-profile exceptions, people don't care now.
cwrtlm wrote:Who Cares, IMHO that Steriods were good for baseball from an earnings and popularity stand-point. After the strike years so many people turned their backs on baseball and the other major sports, NBA and NFL, said THANKS. The growth of the NBA and NFL over those years was astounding. But with the homers Canseco ,Sosa, McGwire, Bonds and others were putting up singlehandedly brought many people back to baseball. Pair that with the re-ascending of one of the greatest franchises in all of sports, the Yankees, many people came back to Baseball to cheer on their childhood favorite team and see the longballs that these guys were putting up. Nobody was complaining while it was going on, no investigations were going on during that time. But now as many people look back and point the finger saying that this was bad and it tainted the game, I would be willing to put money on it that these same people were there cheering on these men as the saviors of baseball. So to all of you who want to look back with shame remember that the league and many others sacrificed the "integrity" of the game to turn a profit and return baseball to the hearts of many Americans. "It is, what it is, nothing more, nothing less"
It's funny that you mention the strike and the importance of saving baseball as the NFL and NBA were exploding in popularity. I'm almost certain that the man who almost singlehandedly brought baseball back into American living rooms, Cal Ripken JR., never touched steroids.
I don't think homers, the Yankees, interleague play, Japanese pitchers or anything else did as much to bring baseball back after the strike as Ripken. He was one of the most likeable players of all time who broke an unbreakable record with dignity, integrity, and genuine respect just 5 months after the strike ended.
PlayingWithFire wrote:but nobody is sure Ripken never did steroid...I mean one of the main benefit of steroid is supposedly make you stay healthy...
It's true, he could have been doing steroids. They were definitely in the clubhouse with Brady Anderson, and Raffy. I just really doubt it given things he's written, things he's said and the way he carries himself. Also, with his frame and baseball ability, if he started packing on muscle he could have been a monster hitting 50+ every year.
Steroids don't just help people hit more homeruns, they also help people recover faster from injuries...which would be a huge benefit to someone playing thousands of games in a row. Are people that are certain that Ripken never took steroids also certain that he never took amphetemines? Or is that okay?
Also, most assumptions about what Ripken thinks and how he feels about steroid use in baseball are way off. The public statements that he has made regarding steroid use in baseball don't necessarily jive with what I've personally heard come out of his mouth when speaking with him off the record.
Anyway, the point is this: It doesn't matter who didn't do steroids because it doesn't matter who did.
and to continue with what was stated about going back we can also look to what kinds of drugs are popular RIGHT NOW. despite all of the testing for steroids there are certain p.i. drugs that athletes still use because they cannot be detected on any test out there. HGH is the the most popular p.i. that is still undetectable and it is also the one that helps promote growth and strengthen ligiments therefor helping the injured athlete heal faster (much more healing power then any anabolic steroid).
there have always been ways to cheat and those who want/need that edge will do so in order to win and it still goes on today IN ALL SPORTS.