Myths of Steroid Use

The steroids controversy continues its slow grind onward as names are leaked like Chinese torture from the list of players tested by MLB in 2003. Not to get too deep into the legalities, moralities and technicalities of whether or not the rest of the list should be released, I'll just say I fall on the side of releasing all the names and getting it over with.

Yes, I know none of the names should have ever been released, but this agonizing trickle of names needs to stop. And, this distraction won't end until all the names are out. Then, we can all stop for a second like Clark Griswold at the Grand Canyon, take our salacious peek, and move on. We know everyone was juiced, what's the big deal?

There are a couple of things about this situation that really bother me, though. One is when people make the excuse that steroids weren't banned at the time of the 2003 tests. It's true MLB didn't have any specific penalties for using steroids at that time, but using steroids without a prescription is illegal. It was then, it is now.

To use this excuse that these players shouldn't be looked poorly upon because MLB didn't have penalties for steroid use is a poor argument to make. MLB has no specific penalties for having "child porn", either, but if a player got caught with loads of child porn on their computer, should they be excused merely because baseball hadn't expressly banned it?

Of course not.

Besides, the idea that baseball did not have a ban on steroids is a myth.

On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids."

Illegal steroid use was clearly banned well before the 2003 tests. So, let's get over this idea that these players weren't breaking any rules. They clearly were.

Another argument I've heard about steroid use (and Bonds used to make this one) is that steroids don't make you a better baseball player. The obvious answer to that argument is: Then why do so many players use them?

Of course steroids make you a better player. To argue otherwise is foolish. Now, steroids alone will not turn someone into a baseball player. You can't go from zero to major leaguer merely by taking steroids. The hand eye coordination, the years of practice, the dedication to the game has to already be there. But, add to all of that the advantage of steroids and you produce a great ball player where a very good ball player once existed.

And, as suggested in this Scientific American article, the true benefit of steroid use is that it allows you to perform at a higher level for a longer period of time. As the season progresses into August and September, players tend to wear down and their numbers don't continue at the level they did earlier in the season. Steroids help the body recover quicker, whether you're working out in the gym or playing baseball.

This applies to improving play as you grow older, as well. Players like Bonds and Clemens are proof that steroid use can extend careers into ages rarely seen before in the history of baseball. Where players' bodies used to begin breaking down in their mid-30's (see Ken Griffey, Jr.), Bonds and Clemens actually improved in their late-30's, early 40's. That just doesn't happen.

There are years of proof as to when the bodies of our professional athletes begin to wear down, and to improve at those ages goes completely against what we've always seen.

Steroids have always been illegal, regardless of whether or not there were penalties to be paid to MLB if you were caught. Societal laws were in place, as well as explicit bans by MLB. But, because using steroids helped players both improve their level of play and maintain that success over longer periods of time, players risked the consequences, both legal and health-wise, and took them anyway.