Why It's OK To Hate Baseball Players For Using Steroids And Not Hate Football Players For Doing The Same Thing
We've all been inundated with the baseball steroids scandal for what...five years now? Something like that. Far too long. It's rocked baseball to it's very core. The fans were pissed, the media was REALLY pissed, the owners pretended to be pissed, and the players were pissed that the status quo was changing. Former godlike heroes like Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds were turned into pariahs over illegal drug use. Former scumbags like Jose Canseco and Ken Caminiti found unexpected sympathy from the public for admitting to using steroids, and calling out the fact that many players do so. The baseball world was literally turned upside down.
We've all seen the coverage. We've all seen the scandal. We've all become jaded and bored by it. One can easily argue that baseball is not the national pastime anymore.
However, some media members have called hypocrisy on America. "It's not fair," is usually how the argument goes, "that America complains about baseball players using steroids, but does not complain about football players who are obviously using steroids." If both are black, then the pot and the kettle must both be addressed, according to these naysayers.
Actually...yes, it is fair to hold baseball to a steroids standard, and not hold football to one. And here's why.
As usual, an addendum before I begin. I am a fan of baseball. Baseball was the first sport I ever cared about--my parents cared/care nothing for any sport (that one of their children aren't playing in)--and my first experience with anything other than YMCA soccer as a toddler were watching Cubs games on WGN with my grandfather. That's where my sporting career began. Football I hate. That's right, hate. I don't particularly care for the game: I hate America's obsession with it; I find football players are typically among the worst human beings; sports where pure violence is the only goal (football, boxing, etc.) have never appealed to me. So if anything, I should give baseball the benefit of the doubt.
However, baseball gets held accountable in the steroids department, whereas football doesn't. The biggest reason why is history. Baseball is supposed to be America's National Pastime. It is supposed to represent the purity of American sport. Our work ethic, values, competitive spirit, and integrity are wrapped up in the game. It's the pride of our fathers; we grew up watching it, as our fathers grew up watching it with their fathers, as their fathers grew up watching it with their fathers. It combines an elegance, power, finesse, grace, and speed in the gameplay. It combines teamwork with individualism. It's supposed to represent something pure, from a simpler time, that we can all enjoy and feel nostalgic about.
That's why steroids in baseball are so reprehensible. It's a foreign, dirty, underhanded, illegal way to cheat to get ahead. There's nothing pure about it; you're using modern science to cheat the natural purity of your body to make yourself better. You're also using possibly the most disturbing social ill of modern (1960+) American life--the drug problem--to further your fame in a sport that has been held sacred since the 1800's. Steroid use is contrary to everything that appeals to America about baseball.
Football, on the other hand, appeals to America for entirely different reasons. It's a sport of violence and power. There's very little grace or beauty; it's a sport almost purely of strength. It's a game of pure showmanship; there's no unwritten code of not showboating your opponents--quite the opposite, you're expected to show up your opponents. It doesn't have the long history that baseball has enjoyed in America, and thus has always had a more "commercial" feel than the "old tyme game" of baseball enjoys. It's the modern, violent, "in your face" game of the present, not of the past.
Sadly, football is also more entertaining than baseball is. Like it or not, modern America does not like sports where the count is worked over a period of five minutes. It likes a sport where someone is hit every play over and over again. Baseball is boring when compared to football. If that is the truth, then why watch baseball? Again, for the nostalgia, the innocence, the purity. You appreciate the rare exciting moments--the home run, the outfielder gunning out a runner at the plate, etc.--because they are so rare in the classical game.
And that is why steroid use is accepted in football, but not in baseball. Baseball's entire appeal is built into it's innocence, history, purity, and elegance. None of those adjectives apply to steroid use. Football, however, is popular because it's violent, exciting, modern, and values talkin' shit. A sport like that is where you would expect to find the modern ill that is steroid use.
So in the end, it's like combining oil and water: they don't mix. Baseball isn't popular because it's modern; if you compare the game to modern values, it would have ceased to being played years ago. So you cannot introduce an ignoble aspect like steroid use into a game that is surviving purely on its history and purity. Football, however, is the modern champion: it is the most popular sport in America, and its appeal is built on modern values. That is why a modern ill like steroid use can be stomached there: it appeals to enough of our modern wants and needs that we are willing to overlook some of the minor ills that come with it.
Baseball represents the American ideal, and shame on any player who wants to ruin that. Football represents the modern athlete, and if he wants to eventually kill himself using steroids, well, then that's his business.
We've all seen the coverage. We've all seen the scandal. We've all become jaded and bored by it. One can easily argue that baseball is not the national pastime anymore.
However, some media members have called hypocrisy on America. "It's not fair," is usually how the argument goes, "that America complains about baseball players using steroids, but does not complain about football players who are obviously using steroids." If both are black, then the pot and the kettle must both be addressed, according to these naysayers.
Actually...yes, it is fair to hold baseball to a steroids standard, and not hold football to one. And here's why.
As usual, an addendum before I begin. I am a fan of baseball. Baseball was the first sport I ever cared about--my parents cared/care nothing for any sport (that one of their children aren't playing in)--and my first experience with anything other than YMCA soccer as a toddler were watching Cubs games on WGN with my grandfather. That's where my sporting career began. Football I hate. That's right, hate. I don't particularly care for the game: I hate America's obsession with it; I find football players are typically among the worst human beings; sports where pure violence is the only goal (football, boxing, etc.) have never appealed to me. So if anything, I should give baseball the benefit of the doubt.
However, baseball gets held accountable in the steroids department, whereas football doesn't. The biggest reason why is history. Baseball is supposed to be America's National Pastime. It is supposed to represent the purity of American sport. Our work ethic, values, competitive spirit, and integrity are wrapped up in the game. It's the pride of our fathers; we grew up watching it, as our fathers grew up watching it with their fathers, as their fathers grew up watching it with their fathers. It combines an elegance, power, finesse, grace, and speed in the gameplay. It combines teamwork with individualism. It's supposed to represent something pure, from a simpler time, that we can all enjoy and feel nostalgic about.
That's why steroids in baseball are so reprehensible. It's a foreign, dirty, underhanded, illegal way to cheat to get ahead. There's nothing pure about it; you're using modern science to cheat the natural purity of your body to make yourself better. You're also using possibly the most disturbing social ill of modern (1960+) American life--the drug problem--to further your fame in a sport that has been held sacred since the 1800's. Steroid use is contrary to everything that appeals to America about baseball.
Football, on the other hand, appeals to America for entirely different reasons. It's a sport of violence and power. There's very little grace or beauty; it's a sport almost purely of strength. It's a game of pure showmanship; there's no unwritten code of not showboating your opponents--quite the opposite, you're expected to show up your opponents. It doesn't have the long history that baseball has enjoyed in America, and thus has always had a more "commercial" feel than the "old tyme game" of baseball enjoys. It's the modern, violent, "in your face" game of the present, not of the past.
Sadly, football is also more entertaining than baseball is. Like it or not, modern America does not like sports where the count is worked over a period of five minutes. It likes a sport where someone is hit every play over and over again. Baseball is boring when compared to football. If that is the truth, then why watch baseball? Again, for the nostalgia, the innocence, the purity. You appreciate the rare exciting moments--the home run, the outfielder gunning out a runner at the plate, etc.--because they are so rare in the classical game.
And that is why steroid use is accepted in football, but not in baseball. Baseball's entire appeal is built into it's innocence, history, purity, and elegance. None of those adjectives apply to steroid use. Football, however, is popular because it's violent, exciting, modern, and values talkin' shit. A sport like that is where you would expect to find the modern ill that is steroid use.
So in the end, it's like combining oil and water: they don't mix. Baseball isn't popular because it's modern; if you compare the game to modern values, it would have ceased to being played years ago. So you cannot introduce an ignoble aspect like steroid use into a game that is surviving purely on its history and purity. Football, however, is the modern champion: it is the most popular sport in America, and its appeal is built on modern values. That is why a modern ill like steroid use can be stomached there: it appeals to enough of our modern wants and needs that we are willing to overlook some of the minor ills that come with it.
Baseball represents the American ideal, and shame on any player who wants to ruin that. Football represents the modern athlete, and if he wants to eventually kill himself using steroids, well, then that's his business.
posted by Michael Pondrom at 8:48 PM
6 Comments:
I think you're right on about the appeal of the two different sports and why steriods have created such an uproar in baseball.
I would say that almost every sport has some form of semi-underhanded cheating that is unofficially sanctioned. In baseball it's stealing signs. While not really appreciated, it's gamesmanship that doesn't undermine the integrity of the game. In Nascar it's bump-drafting and several other things that no one really talks about.
Here's a question for you, Mike. If steriods are accepted in a sport totally about power and strength, why is it such a taboo in cycling? That sport is all about speed and power. Does it fall under the "violation of the grace and beauty of the game" section of your argument?
Ryan... I think that falls under the "French people are friggin retarded" section of the argument. \
-Tone Loc
I think the acceptance of drugs has a lot to do with the uniforms. Baseball is played by guys of all sizes. You can see the faces of each player as they play. They are real people. In football, I think fans don't really realize they are watching people. The players are huge behemoths wearing tons of pads and a helmet that covers their face. Its like football players aren't really people-- just giant robots with a little bit of personality.
Ryan: yes, I think it falls under two arguments: the one you mentioned, and the boring factor. Again, not to insult cycling fans, but cycling appeals to a niche audience. It's too boring for widespread appeal. So when the corruption of steroids makes it into cycling, I think it has that same affect where the common fan isn't willing to overlook/accept that since the appeal isn't based on excitement, but on grace and speed.
And while it is built on strength of legs, which is power, it isn't based on the type of "power" the average American wants to see--the big hits in football, boxers/UFC/wrestlers beating the Hell out of each other, etc.
Bo: as usual, that is an outstanding point. I hadn't thought of that, but I totally agree with you.
Michael
While I can see all of these as valid points about why steroid use is "overlooked" or brought to the forefront of sports reporting, it is disturbing to think that the American public would accept steroid use for any athlete, regardless of the sport they are participating in -- which we basically do. They issue an apology and get a slap on the wrist. Big deal. I'm sorry, but you're not a real athlete if you have to chemically alter your body to compete. Period. And I think we are way too lax about how we handle these infractions. If you're caught with steroids, get the hell out of the game and don't come back, because you're obviously not a worthy competitor.
And you're right Anonymous--in a perfect world, that is true. But the fact is that the makers of steroids are at least one step ahead--if not two or four--of steroid testers. And there is some ambiguity as to what performance enhancer is wrong and what is right--seriously, can you tell me why some of the crap at GNC is okay, and some stuff is illegal?
The point is, we'd like to say everyone has to be all natural, but that's just not going to happen. At some point you have to cut your losses and live with a compromise. And as long as you have 400 pound men running a 5 second 40, well, you're living with a compromise buddy. Sorry.
Michael
Post a Comment
<< Home