Reading Beneath the Numbers

In the wake of the decision to allow the seizing of steroid test results by the FBI, whispers have arisen as to which players will be found upon the list of the supposed 100 who were found guilty of steroid use. Like the testimony of Jason Grimsley, this information will eventually be leaked so that judgment may be passed by angered and heartbroken fans alike. Unlike the names revealed by Grimsley—which have somehow been swept underneath the rug as if his words were never spoken or put upon paper—these findings are non-debatable. These test results provide hard evidence—substantial proof—that these players in fact cheated.

While many writers feel uneasy labeling various players as steroid users despite blatant signs that the players were undoubtedly using some variety of performance enhancing substance(s), these findings will quell their doubt. While these results are only from the 2003 testing period, and therefore cannot be used to identify culprits from the beginnings of the “steroid era”, they provide a fingerprint as to the source and direction of steroids throughout baseball. This evidence will not only solidify the cases against those upon the list, but create additional circumstantial evidence against ballplayers associated with those caught cheating.

You will not see Mark McGwire on the list—he had retired two years earlier—though names like Sosa, Giambi, and Sheffield are real possibilities. Still, if these names are not found amongst the 100, how will the public react? I fear that people will falsely believe that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and therefore find it even harder to accuse those that have clearly been deceiving us.

It’s naïve of people to turn their heads the other way and ignore the mounds of circumstantial evidence surrounding not only these players, but many others. This idea that if we put the steroid label upon McGwire we must put other greats like Maddux and Gwynn under the scope is absurd. While I do not believe that every player who rose to fame or excelled during the steroid era is guilty of using illegal substances—true it wasn’t explicitly illegal back then but does that mean you wouldn’t frown upon my shooting of someone in the leg in international waters just because there are no laws against it—there are ways of differentiating between possible cheaters and those who were simply great athletes.

It would be too easy and far too foolhardy to believe that every player between the mid-90’s and today who had sudden emergence of skill—one that either didn’t fit the development curve of a normal player or one that exceeded the perceived bounds of improvement over the off-season—were using some form of steroids. To ask every player to validate their newfound success—akin to asking for an alibi—would be scrupulous and unnecessary. The cops do not interrogate every person living within a one-mile radius of a crime scene, but when coincidences pile up, questions must be asked.

What happens when accusations from former or current teammates coincide with distorted numbers? Can we not then at least find some reason to consider the possibility that this player may be in fact cheating? Our country does insist that all are innocent until proven guilty and I am not opposing such a tradition. Yet, there is a threshold beyond which a player should have to for answer growing concerns, suspicions, and evidence that indicate that the player is in fact using illegal substances.

So what would be the procedure for conducting such testing? My own suspicions arise when there is both testimony and corroborating statistical evidence that support a player’s usage, yet these criteria could be problematic. Players could simply begin pointing fingers at those who had irregular statistical performances and thereby turn the players union into colossal free-for-all wherein everyone feels obligated to accuse another in order to protect their own credibility.

Still, I hold my own inklings regarding various players in Major League Baseball. Though I would by no means call these men criminals, I eagerly await evidence to support or nullify my growing suspicions. I will withhold the names for now, but will follow this passage up with another article regarding possible the usage of steroids in a particular team’s clubhouse in recent years.

As always, I would suggest keeping an open mind regarding steroids in Major League Baseball. Though it may feel as if players like Rafael Palmeiro—a man once loved for the consistent effort and air of respectability that he brought to the game—are unfairly turned into pariahs, compare this treatment to that of steroid users in the National Football League.

While writing this article I witnessed the words “great player” uttered with respect to Shawne Merriman, a confirmed steroid user in the NFL. His treatment compared to those found guilty in the Major League Baseball is cause for great concern and will undoubtedly be addressed in the near future by either myself or co-writer Jeremiah.