The Hall of Fame Question

The term “performance enhancer” is one of the most reviled terms in today’s culture. To be connected with the term is to be singled out as a cheater and a felon. The outrage has brought about countless “60 Minutes” specials, ESPN special reports, and even Congressional meetings. Although the term has also been applied to football, the outrage has been much more present in baseball, which has long been considered America’s “pure” game. Just being mentioned as a possible user is enough to demonize a player. Fans and media alike scream for lifetime bans for users, but is all that outrage justified?

Several different reports have surfaced concerning users of these “performance enhancers” in recent years. None of these reports have been too reliable. The most reliable “report” has been a book whose author is, by all accounts, a scumbag. That book is ¬“Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant ‘Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big” written by former big league outfielder Jose Canseco. In this book and the sequel, Canseco discloses several names. At first, reviewers discredited Canseco, but so far, he has been more successful at exposing players than anything else. The other reports have all relied on even seedier sources and questionable circumstances. Who did or did not use performance enhancers is a question for which an answer does not seem possible. In addition, some evidence suggests that steroids, the performance enhancer most commonly associated with the term, actually do not help a player as much as people believe. For these two main reasons, players associated with performance enhancers should still be considered for the Hall of Fame.

To understand the extent of the witch hunt put on by Major League Baseball, one must first look at the definitive rehashing of steroid rumors – the Mitchell Report. The 409 page document officially titled the “Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation into the Illegal Use of Steroids and other Performance Enhancing Substances by Players in Major League Baseball” is anything but independent. George Mitchell was hired by Commissioner of Baseball Alan “Bud” Selig to investigate players suspected of steroids. In total, 89 names were revealed, including some huge stars, some retired but still well-known names, and, most of all, insignificant role players. For this, Mitchell needed sources. He found two of them in Kirk Radomski and Jason Grimsley.

Kirk Radomski’s contributions only happened under a very specific plea agreement that came about from his home being raided. Federal agents found receipts and an address book relating to sales of steroids and human growth hormone (HGH) and arrested him. After that happened, he gave them more supposed evidence (Mitchell 138-140). However, very little of it actually says anything other than a dollar amount. None of it is exactly the proverbial smoking gun when the truth is many ball players give clubhouse attendants checks for all sorts of services, and the dollar amounts are hardly consistent. A check from one player is for $200. Another player’s check is for $2000. The only evidence against catcher Paul Lo Duca is two handwritten notes that say, “Thanks, call if you need anything!” and “Sorry! But for some reason they sent the check back to me. I haven’t been able to call you back because my phone is toast! I have a new # [sic] it is [number not available]. Please leave your # again because I lost my all of my phone book with the other phone. Thanks.” Both notes are just signed “Paul” (Mitchell D-25). That does not reference steroids in any way, yet it is used as the only evidence against the catcher.

Jason Grimsley’s participation was also a result of government pressure. He was to receive a package of HGH, but the government was watching the delivery. He chose to participate with federal agents as opposed to jail time, since sale of HGH without a prescription is illegal, as is sale and possession of most steroids (Mitchell 106-108). The third means of information used by George Mitchell was information from the grand jury investigation of the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative in Burlingame, California, also known as BALCO. However, The BALCO investigation is hardly complete because one of the main trainers, Greg Anderson, has refused to testify and has been in jail as a result. To this day, he still refuses to testify. Not only that, but the federal investigation has failed to produce enough evidence to convict anyone connected to BALCO.

The question still remains – what do steroids do? Most people believe that steroids increase home run production. The effects on pitchers are vastly unknown, but essentially, the consensus layman’s belief is that it causes a person to gain velocity, although several baseball experts have found that there is no effect on pitcher’s performance (Walker). This happens because testosterone enhances muscle growth, which makes a person stronger. Put simply, “A great hitter can build extraordinary muscle mass, increase his endurance, and prolong his dominance” (Socher 55). If this is true, then there should be statistical evidence supporting the claim. However there is not. R.G. Tobin uses a mathematical and physics-supported model to show that steroids should increase individual home run production by 50% (16). That number is eye-opening and would completely demolish any argument that steroids do not enhance performance if found true. The problem is it’s not true. In fact, no player ever connected with steroids has ever achieved such a jump (Walker).

There are several examples of players connected with steroids that have never benefited from any sort of statistical anomoly. Alex Rodriguez did have an increase of home runs between 2001 and 2003 when he has admitted taking steroids, but using numbers adjusted for home field, the increase is actually not an increase (Sports Reference LLC). Eliminating home field statistics, which are skewed depending on the ballpark, the numbers actually show no increase at any point. Roger Clemens has been accused of beginning to take steroids in 1998. However, a study by Jonathan Cole and Stephen Stigler points out, “When we compared Clemens's E.R.A. through 1997 with his E.R.A. from 1998 on, it was worse by 0.32 in the later period” (qtd. in Walker). Even Barry Bonds, who allegedly took steroids for a long period of time and is the poster boy for steroid use, shows a fairly consistent line (Walker). He had one spike in his record breaking season in 2001, but steroids do not affect a player one year and not any others. The statistical evidence simply does not back up steroids having any effect on individual production.

However, individual production may not be noticeable at small doses, so surely, with steroid use as rampant as most believe, there will be a definitive jump in overall power production, right? Not quite. There has been five distinct jumps in power since 1900. Four of them directly resulted from changes in the manufacturing of balls used. Only two of the jumps even occurred in the so-called “Steroid Era,” which is from 1980 to the present. One of the jumps, from 1986-1987, is unexplained. The other, from 1993-1994, came from “a change made then in the ball-manufacturing process” (Walker). Taking those ball changes out of the equation, the steroid era – save for that unexplainable 1986-1987 jump – has actually seen a slight decrease in total power production. Steroid use affects the upper body more than the lower body. Conversely, in baseball, power comes mostly from the lower body and the torso. Bulked up biceps and shoulders do not actually help a batter hit the ball any better. In fact, research has shown that steroid use actually only helps a player hit the ball about two to four feet farther, which is only about one more home run a year, and that is assuming all muscle gain is directly related to steroids, which is preposterous considering the amount of time baseball players spend in fierce workout regimens (Walker). In addition, “there is some evidence that steroids decrease reflex reaction time, although there do not appear to be indications of a significant effect on such factors as hand-eye coordination” (Tobin 17). With that information in hand, it is difficult to argue that steroids cause as much of an effect as most people believe.

The question remains though: why take steroids if they do not actually benefit? Well, there are several answers. First, not everybody knows the truth. Several noted steroid users who have admitted to use have claimed in retrospect that they do not think it helped at all, but they did not know until they tried. This reason is probably the most important and most prominent. A lot of players think bulking up will help them become better players. There are at least two problems with this. First, as Tobin states, “Studies directly investigating effects on athletic performance … do not exist. … In a 1991 meta-analysis of 16 prior studies, Elashoff et al found no clear evidence for steroid-induced strength enhancement” (17). The truth that there has never been a statistical connection between steroids and production is echoed all over. Professor Arthur DeVany puts it best: “There is no evidence that steroid use has altered home run hitting and those who argue otherwise are profoundly ignorant of the statistics of home runs, the physics of baseball, and of the physiological effects of steroids” (qtd. in Walker). It is worth mentioning that most of the players mentioned in the Mitchell Report were either role players or minor leaguers – not everyday players, not superstars. Not only that, but there has been no pitching benefits. In Cole and Stigler’s calculations, they looked at 23 pitchers from the Mitchell Report and compared their ERA before and after alleged steroid use. They found that the ERAs actually rose 0.5 points after steroid use (qtd. in Walker). That is truly eye-catching.
Another main reason why players take steroids is medical benefits. Although there are many known defects caused by steroids (and even those are greatly exaggerated), there is also the consensus belief that steroids can heal injuries faster than simple rest and rehabilitation. That is simply untrue in all ways. Several doctors and biologists have said there has been no link. In fact, that rumor may have originated through athletes who believed steroids (or HGH, which is more commonly connected to this) helped them in this way. Dr. Mary Lee Vance states, “The key word is perception because there’s no evidence at all that it helps anyone recover from injuries” (qtd. in Walker). Although it is true that HGH and certain steroids are valuable in healing skin particularly with burn victims, as Dr. Gary Gaffney summarizes, “Any physician using HGH for healing (unless it would be related to burn injuries, AIDS, and children with short stature) is practicing myth, heresy, chicanery, or quackery” (qtd. in Walker). Skin injuries, or flesh wounds, are not the type of injuries that occur often in baseball, and when they do, they are not serious enough to make a player miss any time.

The fact that steroids and HGH are illegal is hardly relevant to the Hall of Fame. Crimes are off-the-field incidents that have little to no bearing on on-the-field production. The Hall of Fame is not just for nice people. The Hall of Fame is for players that excel in their era. With all the evidence that goes against the general consensus about steroids, it is hard to classify use of so-called “performance enhancers” as anything but a misled crime. Did the users intend to enhance their performance by taking the drugs? Maybe, but intent does not always generate results. “With or without steroids, it requires extraordinary skill, judgment, and coordination” (Tobin 15). Several alleged steroid users, and some admitted ones, have Hall of Fame numbers, and the evidence does not justify a sense of impurity in those numbers. Most of the players connected to steroids have not failed a drug test. Convictions cannot be allowed on hearsay. It is simply not known who actually used steroids and who did not. 104 players failed drug tests in 2003, the first year of testing. Only one of those players has been identified. Since it is a crime, players guilty of using “performance enhancers” should be suspended, but with careful consideration of the evidence, a failed drug test is just that – a failed drug test, not a black mark on the game of baseball.

Mitchell, George J. Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation into the Illegal Use of Steroids and other Performance Enhancing Substances by Players in Major League Baseball. DLA Pipers USA LLP. 13 December 2007.
Socher, Abraham. "No Game for Old Men. (Cover story)." Commentary 125.3 (Mar. 2008): 55-58.
Sports Reference LLC. Baseball-Reference.com - Major League Statistics and Information. http://www.baseball-reference.com/.
Tobin, R. G. "On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home run production in baseball." American Journal of Physics 76.1 (Jan. 2008): 15-20.
Walker, Eric. Steroids, Other "Drugs", and Baseball. The Owlcroft Company. .

For more information, visit Walker's site. It has the most in-depth analysis of all the claims of what steroids do.