Bench-pressing Issue of the Day

That is a good, juicy issue to start off with, one which I have many thoughts about.

Let me start off with my overriding perspective of how I think about this. First, sports is a special realm in our society. We've talked about this before. It is completely illogical and irrational for anyone to care and/or think that it matters what a few grown men do throwing, hitting, kicking, catching or otherwise propelling little (or large) balls. Yet, in every "advanced" society that I know of, sports are a significant part of the culture, and of immense interest to much of the population. Why? My guess is that there are 2 main reasons.

First, sports provide much of the same function as myths. Humans crave meaning and life can often seem like a "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", to quote some British dude. Sports provides a clean through line, a simple field where success or failure is immediate and clear and determined by our own efforts, where opportunities for redemption are always arriving. Our own struggles and arenas are mirrored, smaller yet larger, in a way we can better understand, and even learn from.

Secondly, I think that sports provides a civilizing function. Instead of young men trying to kill each other or countries warring for blood and treasure, countries and cities and individual meet on the playing field and play out these conflicts in a less violent way. It's no accident that the fiercest sports rivalries are between locations with some real emnity between them.

So, all of this is to say that I think we should, and often rightly do, hold sports figures up to a higher standard. Sports for kids is a venue to learn how to play together, work together and compete together, how to win and how to lose, and how to learn right conduct, what used to be called "honor". Just "not breaking the law" isn't a sufficient standard for sports figures, particularly those who contend to be our biggest heroes.

The business world uses a bi-level ethical framework (all evidence to the contrary accepted). The first is the "legal" level. Does our conduct break the law. The 2nd level is the "Wall Street Journal" level, or the smell test. Does this seem wrong? Would I be embarrassed if this behavior was printed on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, even though it is legal. I guess I would call that societal mores.

To that I would add one more level --the "soft" categorical imperative level. "Would it be OK if everyone acted like this?" (The "hard" categorical imperative level -- "Would I actively wish everyone to act like this?" -- isn't needed in this realm.) I think all 3 of these levels should inform our moral judgments.

In baseball, as in life, there are "rules" and there are "rules". Take speeding 5 miles over the speed limit. It's against the law, but I think it passes society's "smell test", and it would be broadly OK (i.e., not harmful) if everyone did that. (As they do today.) Similarly, baseball has informally decided that some actions are OK, like stealing signs from the dugout, while others are not OK (like the batter peeking back to see where the catcher is set up), even if they are not prohibited in the rulebook.

So, let's look at possible performance enhancers -- exercise/nutrition, caffeine, "greenies", steroids, HGH. All were "legal" in baseball until recently. Maybe all passed the baseball "smell test" until recently too. In terms of exercise/nutrition and caffeine, they pass the "soft" categorical imperative test -- there is no harm to everyone doing them. Greenies and steroids are illegal, so fail that aspect of the broader societal smell test. And steroids in particular have very harmful effects on the body, so it fails the "soft" categorical imperative test. It clearly would not be OK for everyone to be doing steroids, both in terms of their own health and their impact on younger athletes. HGH is in a funny category. It is illegal, but its harmful effects have not yet been proven. I would say that it fails the soft categorical imperative test too. Would it be OK for everyone to be taking any untested, illegal, potentially harmful substances? Seems like the potential risk and harm from that is too high. The line between nutritional supplements and potentially harmful "drugs" is a fuzzy one, but governing (and legislative) bodies should help to define it, and these two "extra-legal" ethical tests can assist in that.

To bring this back to Mr. Bonds and the other users of banned or illegal substances, they exploited a loophole in baseball's rules and broke the law knowing that they were doing something wrong. They deserve a certain amount of approbation for that. At the same time, the powers that be in baseball (owners, commissioners, union) were quite aware of this behavior, and share culpability for allowing it to continue for so long. I don't think that any steroid user from prior to the ban in baseball deserves to be punished by MLB for their previous use.

The HOF is a different story. That is a place to honor the games greatest on-the-field heroes. (BTW, the HOF is completely separate from MLB. After the Pete Rose ban, the HOF voted to permanently exclude anyone on MLB's lifetime ban list, but they could lift that at their discretion.) If someone was a racist, a jerk, an alcoholic, didn't pay their taxes, but what they did on the field did not compromise the integrity of the game, they should be eligible for election. (Just like if there was an artist's Hall of Fame, there would be a lot of misogynists, alcohols, bad parents and racists in there too.) Their sportsmanship and behavior should be taken into account with respect to what happened on the field of play only.

If I were a voter, I would not elect anyone whose record without use of dangerous, illegal substances most likely would not deserve enshrinement. I also would not elect non-players who share significant complicity in enabling the continuing use of these substances. (Like Selig and Fehr.) I would elect players like Bonds whose statistical record prior to presumptive PED use would have ensured induction. I could see a strong case for keeping players like that out, but I hate to see only players punished for the abuses of an era.