Short answer: No.

MITCHELL BLATT

“The story line goes that baseball, reveling in the economics of its revitalization, looked the other way as players grew bigger and stronger, as home runs soared and turnstiles whirred.”

That’s Bill Rhoden’s story line, anyway, from a recent column in the New York Times.

It’s gotten to the point that just because every sportswriter says MLB turned a blind eye, we already know that MLB turned a blind eye to steroids. Not that I’m doubting the story. Many MLB execs past and present, mostly past, have admitted that they had some suspicions that their players were taking steroids.

Ken Towers, current Padres GM, for example, has admitted to feeling a little bit of guilt for suspecting that some of his players were taking steroids but not doing anything about it.

With the way the media has tried to erode “innocent until proven guilty” and “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” it is no wonder that they now think it is a crime not to act upon suspicions.

Mr. Towers said in response to Ken Caminiti’s (who played for the Padres from 1995 to 98) death:

I feel somewhat guilty, because I felt like I knew. I still don’t know for sure, but Cammy came out and said that he used steroids, and I suspected. Selfishly, the guy was putting up numbers, and I didn’t do anything about it. That’s just the truth.

The truth is, we’re in a competitive business and these guys were putting up big numbers and helping your ball club win games. You tended to turn your head on things. And it really wakes you up when someone you admire as a person is no longer around. I hate to be the one voice for the other 29 G.M.’s, but I’d have to imagine that all of them, at one point or other, had reason to think that a player on their ball club was probably using, based on body changes and things that happened over the winter. I think we all knew it, but we didn’t say anything about it.

I understand his pain for the death of Caminiti, but it is wrong to blame the executives for the steroid epidemic.

First of all, steroids weren’t illegal in baseball until 2002, so even if an exec had “suspicions” prior to 2002, why would he care? It’s not like the players were cheating back then.

Of course, steroids were still regarded as cheating back then. In 1998, Mark McGwire got into controversy during his home run chase when it was found that he was taking androstenedione, an over-the-counter muscle enhancer, legal in the MLB, but band by the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the media acted like he was cheating back then.

It wasn’t until 2002 that Caminiti SHOCKED THE WORLD with his admission to using steroids. In December of 2004, Bonds’ grand jury testimony was published. Since then the media has pointed out what was in hindsight obvious: players were getting bigger and going through body changes; they obviously were taking steroids.

(You know what else can make people get bigger? Weight lifting.)

Shocking…

I’d like to congratulate any members of the media who wrote columns to that extent in the past 6 years. Without the great investigative work you did by reading a Sports Illustrated cover story featuring a player admitting to taking steroids during his career, none of us would know the extent of the steroid scandal.

I can get past that fact though. Steroids might not have been explicitly illegal in baseball until 2002, but maybe they could be construed as cheating?

Okay, this one did actually require good investigative work:

If an executive were half as smart as the media, maybe he could have discerned that some of his players might have been cheating to benefit the team. So he asks them, “Are you cheating?” The response, from his own players whom he knows and trusts, is “No,” so he can’t really do anything about it.

Nor would he want to because the players are benefiting the team.

It might seem selfish right, to let the players abuse their bodies put up big numbers for the good of the team. Except that the players started juicing themselves to get big contracts. It’s a win-win for execs and players. Player puts up big money, team wins, sells more tickets, player gets big contract, both player and exec are richer.

It would be different if the players were being encouraged to take steroids by the front office. There’s nothing wrong with the GMs not doing anything about something they didn’t know much about.

Of course, there’s no innocence until someone has proven themselves innocent, so I guess if I just say that the GMs were handing out steroids, then it will be true?

Popularity: 7% [?]