The Mitchell Report

Or, how baseball was and is a game of enhancements.

Since everyone has been weighing in on the Mitchell Report lately (okay, not everyone, but I just wanted a nice lead in), I thought I'd offer my two cents.

I don't care that baseball players use steroids. It's not like these players were terrible up until they took a shot of HGH or whatever. Steroids don't give a player talent, they enhance his natural abilities. Barry Bonds would still have hit plenty of homers without using steroids. Would he have broken Hank Aaron's record? Maybe not. Does it matter? To me, not much.

Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite have both been revealed to have bent over for the needle at some point. Do I think Pettite should get credit (ooh...accidental rhyming humor :) ) for apologizing? No. Do I think he should have to apologize at all? Nope. Clemens, monumental attention whore that he is, is not a terrible person for using steroids. His use of performance enhancers finally offers an explanation for why he's still playing the game at 43, or whatever age he is now.

Do I think baseball has lost some element of "mystique" because the men who play the game have been revealed to have used steroids? Not at all. Read Bill "Spaceman" Lee's two books about his years as a professional (and unprofessional) pitcher. If ever you had any thoughts about baseball being a gentleman's game, these books will quickly disabuse you of this notion.

I go to a baseball game for two reasons. The first is to enjoy a spectacle - be it pitching or hitting, I want to see a good game. And you know, if both pitcher and hitter are on steroids, then that makes it harder for either to gain an advantage. Odd, but true. The second reason is to see players I like. I'll be at GABP in June when the Sox are in town for a three game set. (Incidentally, no current Red Sox players are mentioned in the Mitchell Report). I love watching the Sox play. If they can play the way they do without steroids, then I love them even more. Would I change allegiances if half the team turned out to be users? Not a chance.

I think the Mitchell Report reveals something about baseball. I don't think it shows a problem with the game, but rather a problem with how the American public perceives the players. Were fans really naive enough to think that their favorite players were all steroid free? That steroids weren't a big problem? Performance enhancers have been part of the game for ages. Why criminalize it now?

If you pull anything out of this disjointed ramble of a post, it should be something like this: Steroids are part of the game. They may not be a glamorous part, but they're a part nonetheless. And I gain nothing in terms of enjoying baseball by raising a big stink about who's using them and who isn't. I don't care.