A "Growing" Issue for the Magnificent Seven

Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire. All seven of these men were sure-fire, no doubt, first ballot Hall-of-Famers, now there is a chance that none of them will make it to Cooperstown. Yes I know, they all are guilty of taking some sort of "performance enhancing" drug, well at least in the minds of the fans that is. Now the question is, do they really deserve all of this persecution? I'm sorry people but I am no longer a part of the steroids crusade.

For a while I was at the same point most are at now about this topic and felt that those who took some sort of substance should in fact be judged and condemned by the baseball world. Now I think differently. Not only has this long and drawn out witch-hunt disappointed me, but it has also made me question what's really the big deal. Now before you get on that high horse of yours and rant about the purity of the sport and how steroids have tainted everything and how these athletes are despicable cheaters, why don't we put this whole incident into some persepective?

First off, most of these players weren't doing anything illegal. They were taking a substance to increase performance, like you or I would take whey protein or creatine or any other muscle building substance, just these substances were given to them by trainers or doctors and were not disallowed by baseball as of 2003. People on the 2003 list were tested in order for Major League Baseball to conclude if there should be testing. These substances were taken by the athletes to get an edge, to play better, to last longer, and to gain more muscle. So like every athlete in the world these players took something to help out, yes it has its side effects and its bad rep, but its just a substance. I've always felt that steroids make you hit better like energy drinks make me test better, sure it helps, but its still my skill on display.

Now you might be saying well these drugs are illegal and people shouldn't take them, and yes I agree with you there, but I do not feel right in condemning these athletes any further, because in all honesty I feel that if I were under that pressure I'd do the same thing. Athletes take many anabolic,"natural", and synthetic materials everyday, and if anything they are taking now becomes illegal in the future, well they are toast. There have been many athletes from the past that have even come forward and said they would have taken them. You can't tell me right now that Babe Ruth wouldn't have taken something to keep himself going if it were around then. We are judging these players wrongly and insensitively. Taking drugs that are illegal is wrong from a legal standpoint, taking a substance to help you perform better in a sport, is just the way of the world. If you play sports and want to make it big in this day and age, not the fuddy-duddy days, then you're going to take performing enhancing substances in some way shape or form, and fans, I only ask you to get over yourself.

One of These Things is not like the Others!

What does it mean to be a hall-of-famer in a professional sport? Does it mean you put up Hall-of-fame worthy numbers? Do you have to be an innovater of your sport? What does it actually take to be considered one of the best ever to play your sport? When I think of players that don't belong, one man comes to mind immediately and I have been saying it for years. Why is Joe Namath in the Hall of Fame? Sure his name is famous, people know who he is, but does he belong?? What if he never called that improbable superbowl win over the Colts? Would he have made it, I think not.

Lets look at strictly stats right now. Some people say Namath was a winner...not true, his overall record as a starting quarterback, 63-63-4, a .500 record? Doesn't look Hall-of-Fame worthy, but ok he must have had some nice stats though right? Once again, not true. He threw for 173 touchdowns in his career, not a horrible amount, but compared to the 220 interceptions he threw, not impressive at all. Does a quarterback that threw more interceptions than TD's deserve to be in the HOF? Just for kicks let me also say that his career passer rating is 65.5 and completion percentage is just 50.1% Hmmm...NFL Fans, still think he belongs?

Let's do some playful comparisons, Drew Bledsoe, a quarterback many have considered average? His record 98-95, TD's 251, yards 44,611 (sorry I forgot to mention Namath didn't even throw for 28,000 yards). Bledsoe also has a career passer rating of 77.1. By Namath's standards, Bledsoe should be a Hall-of-Famer without question, but is he by yours? Jeff George, Tim Couch, and Jeff Garcia all have higher career passer ratings than Namath. Are they Hall-of-Famers? If you believe they are then maybe my argument here is flawed and I apologize for throwing this man under the bus.

If he lost that superbowl, is he a Hall-of-Famer?

Image Courtesy of AllPosters.com