Truth and Consequences ©
Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and the Baseball Hall of Fame
by
Craig N. Moore
https://hipwallpaper.com/mlb-hall-of-fame-wallpapers/
On January 26, 2021, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum (the “Hall of Fame,” the “Hall,” or “Cooperstown”) announced that eligible voters had not elected anyone to the Hall of Fame this year. Those voters are the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America (“BBWAA” or “Association”). They are the sportswriters who report on baseball. Journalists who stay on that beat for ten consecutive years earn membership in the Association. Since 1936, when the Hall was founded, the BBWAA has failed to elect someone for admission only nine times. The last time was 2013. https://bbwaa.com/21-hof/ (February 6, 2021).
A. A Little Background — the Hall of Fame, the BBWAA, and the 2021 Election
The Hall of Fame is “an independent, non-profit educational institution dedicated to fostering an appreciation of the historical development of baseball and its impact on our culture.” https://baseballhall.org/support-the-hall/mission (February 1, 2021). It carries out its mission by collecting and maintaining artifacts, art, literature, and memorabilia from the sport. It also honors players of the game elected to the Hall. It is neither owned nor controlled by Major League Baseball.
The Hall of Fame has authorized the Association to hold an election every year in which only BBWAA members vote for Hall candidates. To gain admission, a player must obtain 75% of the votes. If a player fails to gain entry after ten years, the Association removes his name from the ballot. A “Veteran’s Committee” may subsequently consider any candidate but is not required to do so.
According to the Rules for election,
[v]oting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/rules/bbwaa-rules-for-election (February 1, 2021).
In the 150-year history of baseball, more than 19,000 players have tested their skills on a major league diamond. Of that number, only 264 are enshrined in the Hall. https://baseballhall.org/discover-more/stories/hall-of-famer-facts/hall-of-famers-by-position. (February 10, 2021). Some of them do not belong there based on the weakness of playing records. The writers probably should have elected other players but chose not to do so for reasons known only to those casting the votes. One could argue that some do not belong because they only compiled great numbers by cheating, for example, by throwing “spitballs.” Others may have had tremendous ability but were so lacking in good character that, even by yesteryear’s yardstick, one can only be amazed they were elected. Even so, by any measure, it is an extraordinarily select group.
That the BBWAA did not elect anyone this year might not have caused baseball fandom collectively to gasp. The results, however, again called to mind a rather dark time in baseball’s history. Moreover, it impressed upon everyone that at least two candidates — whose career statistics would otherwise assure their admission to Cooperstown — have only one year of eligibility left. Those two candidates, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, were at the center of the ensuing storm. They have career stats that are “eye-popping” great. But both have been and remain plagued by cheating allegations and related scandals arising from the steroid era.
B. A Little More Background — The Steroids Era
Ballplayers’ unchecked use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs “(PEDs”) for more than ten years originated the issue. I have found it challenging to define the “steroid era” concisely and accurately. The ESPN website did not have that problem. It accurately described the steroid era as follows:
“The steroids era” refers to a period of time in Major League Baseball when a number of players were believed to have used performance-enhancing drugs, resulting in increased offensive output throughout the game. Unlike other MLB “eras,” there is no defined start or end time to “the steroids era,” though it is generally considered to have run from the late ’80s through the late 2000s. https://www.espn.com/mlb/topics/_/page/the-steroids-
Major League Baseball (“MLB”) chose to ignore the PED problem for years. Balls were flying out of the parks as Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa raced to pass Roger Maris’s season home run total. Barry Bonds shattered Hank Aaron’s all-time home run mark. The fans loved it. Revenue flooded the owners’ coffers.
By early 2006, MLB could no longer turn a blind eye to the situation. The public had become aware of federal and state investigations of steroid dealers and potential users. Ballplayers themselves began making public disclosures about players using PEDs. One well-known former player, Jose Canseco, published a tell-all book claiming that at least 50% of players were using illegal steroids to boost their ability. In March 2006, Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig finally responded. He appointed former U.S. Senator George Mitchell to conduct an independent investigation into PEDs in major league baseball.
Senator Mitchell issued his investigative report (“Mitchell Report” or the “Report”) on December 13, 2007. The Report opened with the following paragraph:
For more than a decade there has been widespread illegal use of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances by players in Major League Baseball, in violation of federal law and baseball policy. Club officials routinely have discussed the possibility of such substance use when evaluating players. Those who have illegally used these substances range from players whose major league careers were brief to potential members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. They include both pitchers and position players, and their backgrounds are as diverse as those of all major league players.
Mitchell Report at SR-1. The Report found that between 5–7% of baseball players had tested positive for prohibited substances during the investigation. That figure very likely underestimated the number of players using PEDs, but there was no way to know how extensive that usage might be. Other estimates by people involved with the game ranged from 20% to 50%. Mitchell Report at SR-2.
C. Bonds, Clemens, and the Hall of Fame
Of the 89 players named in the Mitchell Report, Bonds and Clemens were among the most notable and controversial. They are unquestionably two of the greatest players ever. But for their alleged use of or connection to steroids, the BBWAA would already have made them members of the Hall. But they are also two of the players against whom the Mitchell investigation adduced some of the most substantial evidence of steroid use. And proof that they lied about it. Moreover, the government prosecuted them for their perjury.
Barry Bonds (https://thespun.com/more/mlb/trevor-bauer-sums-up-everyones-thoughts-on-barry-bonds)
In their first year of eligibility, 2013, Bonds received about 36% of the writers’ votes; Clemens a little more than 37%. Those numbers would not be unusual for a player whose credentials the writers wanted to consider more carefully before electing. Neither Bonds nor Clemens was that sort of candidate. If one considers career statistics in isolation, their statistics would virtually compel a first-year election by near acclamation. In the most recent election, the writers named Bonds and Clemens on about 60% of the ballots cast. That percentage was down slightly from the voting last year. Both men have now been on the ballot for nine years, and next year is their final year of eligibility. It seems improbable that either player will gain the additional 15% necessary for election to the Hall.
Roger Clemens (https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/roger-clemens/)
When the steroid scandal broke — and it was a scandal — fans could barely hear themselves think. The din was unbearable — from newscasters, other players, the many who had not used PEDs, legal commentators, sports commentators, and baseball writers themselves. Nearly all raised criticism that was, in my view, valid then and remains so today. Whatever excuses some players made to justify the conduct, the real reason was to gain a competitive advantage. They cheated. Much, if not most, of the indignancy of fans and reporters alike was that the Hall should not admit anyone who had used steroids. Their numbers were necessarily tainted. Would Bonds have hit all those home runs, more than even Hank Aaron, if Bonds had not been “juiced”? And seven Cy Young Awards for Clemens, three of them after he had barely been an average pitcher in the preceding four years? Really?
To my mind, nothing has changed to warrant the admission of Bonds or Clemens into the Hall. The substances are still illegal under federal law. They are still in violation of the baseball policy in existence when the players first used them. More importantly, the agreement with the players’ union expressly prohibited them. All the reasons that baseball adopted and follows those laws, policies, and procedures still exist. They have every bit as much merit now as when Bonds and Clemens first violated them. As they did when the scandal first became public. And as they did when so many people were adamant that the Hall should forever deny admission to such wrongdoers.
Perhaps some people have modified their views. Others have mellowed or decided to be more forgiving of past sins. Writers calling for blood back in the 1990s and early 2000s have either died, resigned from the BBWAA, or had severe memory loss. Different fans may be of the oft-stated position that both Bonds and Clemens would have been selected based on their performances even before they had used PEDs. And still others may believe, as many have from the outset, that insufficient proof exists of anyone’s use, and we cannot know for sure who did or did not use PEDs. Consequently, we must accept the record books as they are. The writers should register their votes accordingly. I disagree.
Understandably, people may dispute whether there is sufficient proof that Bonds, Clemens, or any other ballplayer illegally used PEDs. One of the central problems in analyzing this issue is the proof — or absence of it — that a player used an illicit substance. Unless a player has admitted using PEDs, or a witness or witnesses can attest to a player using them, or unless other evidence links a player to the use of PEDs, any claim that a player used them is necessarily based on circumstantial evidence, something which is neither improper nor unjustified. Admittedly, it raises legitimate questions about the strength and quality of the proof. Without going into all the details here, based on the available record, I am confident that both Bonds and Clemens used PEDs.
Many discussions about these players examine only their numbers and dismiss the steroids issue as merely an inherent factor of the times. The writers, however, are obligated to consider the criteria in the Hall of Fame’s Rules for Election. The writers should be discussing the extent to which they believe a candidate satisfies the Hall’s criteria for selection based on all the reliable information available. People may agree or disagree about what constitutes reliable information. Or whether a candidate is deserving of selection. One expects some disagreement. But at least everyone is trying to answer the same questions.
If one adheres to these principles, it is difficult to see how a writer could vote for any player where reliable information suggests PED use. Such conduct weighs heavily against every factor bearing on admission to the Hall of Fame. Consider each one:
- A Player’s Record
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a record is “the sum of the past achievements or actions of a person … or a person’s previous conduct or performance.” Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.lexico.com/definition/record, (January 30, 2021).
Is not the entire point of recording the sum of a player’s past achievements, conduct, and performance to make an accurate accounting of the same? MLB keeps such records for historical purposes, to compare one player’s performance against other players. The use of an illicit substance by one player creates several problems: 1) it distorts the record of the player using it; 2) it generates an erroneous view — to whatever degree — of the using player’s ability and performance; 3) it speaks volumes about the using player’s lack of integrity, that is, the extent to which he lacks the “quality of being honest and having strong moral principles …” id. (integrity); 4) it is the height of poor sportsmanship, constituting “unfair and ungenerous treatment” of one’s sporting competitors, id. (sportsmanship) — teammates and opponents alike; and 5) it demonstrates low character. Id. (character); See Mitchell Report at SR-8–9, and 4–5.
2. A Player’s Ability
Ability refers to the “means or skill to do something; talent, skill, or proficiency in a particular area. Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.lexico.com/definition/ability, (January 30, 2021).
Here, the impact of a prohibited substance could not be more evident. A player using it unquestionably has an improper advantage over the non-using player. It enables the using player to perform at a level higher than he otherwise would. It creates an erroneous view of his ability in his managers’, coaches’, and the writers’ eyes. The fans and public see the player differently as well;
3. The baseball writers are supposed to weigh a player’s integrity.
That means the extent to which the player has “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles;” being morally upright. Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.lexico.com/definition/integrity,(January 30, 2021).; See Mitchell Report at SR-8–9, and 4–5.
The concept of integrity involves more than basic honesty. Integrity embraces the notion that an individual is unwilling to compromise what he knows to be right even when a different choice would be more comfortable, more popular, more to his advantage and one that no other person would hold against him. Using an illicit substance to gain an unfair competitive edge smacks of nothing if not a lack of integrity. It bespeaks of the player trying to “get away with something” he knows to be wrong. It has an impact on his record and his performance, to be sure. It also infects the game’s play, insidiously and invisibly, lost in records the player hopes no one will ever question;
4. And how exactly does the use of performance-enhancing drugs amount to good sportsmanship? Sportsmanship requires “fair and generous behavior or treatment of others.” Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.lexico.com/definition/sportsmanship, (January 30, 2021).
The secret and improper use of a banned substance to gain a competitive edge is the very definition of unfair, selfish behavior and treatment of others. That includes teammates as well as opponents. That unfair advantage tarnishes any victory the user’s teammates believe they had won. To the extent that one or more of them may have career statistics similar to the using player’s, the latter has gained an unfair advantage in that area of play as well; and, finally,
5. The “mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual” comprise one’s character. Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.lexico.com/definition/characte, (January 30, 2021).
As individual “mental and moral” qualities may be good or bad, their cumulative nature — that is, one’s character — may also be good or bad, or something in between. The Hall’s curators are presumably interested in maintaining a Hall of Fame, not Shame. It is neither unfair nor unreasonable to require a candidate to exhibit a modicum of decent moral character — that, in playing a sport in which he is so gifted and more talented than others on the field, he would at least refrain from cheating.
D. Conclusion
In the mid-1950s, the NBC network televised a game show called Twenty-One. Two contestants competed by answering questions in specific categories. The questions ranged in difficulty, measured in points, from one to eleven; the higher the number, the more demanding the question. Each point was worth $2,000.00. The first contestant to score twenty-one points won the game and the total prize money. The categories of questions were authentic — world history, opera, explorers, kings, etc. Not unlike Jeopardy. The host asked questions that were also quite genuine. Viewers loved it. They propelled the show to number one in the television ratings.
Twenty-one was even more popular than I Love Lucy — until the public learned that the producers gave contestants the answers in advance. They determined who would win, when a player would win — and lose — and how much money the participants would or would not take home. The producers had scripted the show even to the point of turning up the temperature in a player’s booth, causing him to sweat when he was supposed to be “under pressure.” Both the audience and sponsors abandoned the show as the cheating scandal exploded. The show had lasted just two years. What the viewers had thought was a thrilling intellectual battle between two extraordinarily able competitors turned out to be nothing but a hoax.
If one is going to compete and claim the top prize, one must do so on a level playing field, fairly and honestly. Having one’s name recorded among the elite in any area of endeavor must mean that one accomplished his or her achievements without cheating. If not, the person is a fraud. The achievements are fake and meaningless.
Bonds and Clemens knew the rules and made their choices. Those choices have consequences. The truth always does. Sometimes the truth hurts.
