The Needle In The Diamond
Barry Bonds’ use of steroids should serve as a blueprint for greatness. Bonds practiced hard, played strong, and served as a role model to the children of the early 2000s. Yet, Bonds’ reward for being such a forceful presence in the league is the execution of his illustrious career. Cheating in the MLB is ever present, and Bond’s use of steroids is not that; in a game that doesn’t admonish cheating but embraces such behaviors, Bonds’ is a beacon of hope.
Major League Baseball has an abundance of banned substances that have no business being restricted. The MLB does not tolerate performance-enhancing drugs, but in all actuality, they have since the Steroid Era days that spanned from 1994 to 2004. Drugs of Abuse, Performance-Enhancing Substances, Stimulants, and Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) spearhead the massive list that confuses more players than helps. The prohibited substances list spans 175 different substances and unfairly confides steroids into the same categories as cocaine and methamphetamines.
Steroids and prohibited substances saved baseball. We remember the Great Home Run Chase of 1998, where Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire battled to break the record for most home runs hit in a single season. McGwire set the record at 70 home runs, then came Barry Bonds three years later to mash 73. Patrick Antinori and Rodney J. Blackman, state, “it’s Great Home Run Chase has been stamped as having saved baseball.” Yet, the authors point out that the journalists and owners who celebrated the historic accomplishments of the players during this era were the same people to unfairly admonish them for using steroids. “Contextualization of a Shifting Perspective Regarding the Steroid Era.” displays the unfounded hypocrisy of the MLB and journalist praising the enhanced popularity during the Steroid Era to stab those same players in the back ten years later for saving the game.
Barry Bonds, Jose Canseco, and Rafael Palmeiro are three of many players who bore harsh criticism when the Mitchell Report was released in 2007, documenting the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. The Mitchell Report ended the steroid era and ushered in new waves of PED drug policies, but it never stopped anyone from taking steroids. New York Yankees President Randy Levine and author Warren Chu believe the year-round tests for a plethora of PEDs created after the Mitchell Report bring back the integrity of the game; baseball is a game of doing whatever it takes to gain the advantage over the other team.
In 2013 New York Yankees President Randy Levine was interviewed on Bloomberg’s ‘Taking Stock,’ where he whole-heartedly believed that Major League Baseball has the strictest drug testing policies in professional sports. Warren Chu is another firm believer in the fallacy that random drug tests throughout the offseason and 162 game stretch that is baseball prevents the use of steroids. Chu continues to outline the multi-tiered punishments a player receives for violating the MLB’s drug prevention program. However, these punishments don’t deter the use of steroids; we see players suspended yearly for steroid use. The policies do nothing but create a black market community for taking steroids.
Imposing strict policies on players hurt their perspective image to the player’s followers. The New York Times has produced many articles outlining PED use’s detriment on a player’s career. Twenty-four players have served suspensions within the past five years. As listed on ‘Baseball Almanac,’ these players include superstars Fernando Tatis Jr and Emmanuel Clase. Tatis went from having the second-most jersey sales in the league to losing his Addidas sponsorship. Even young stars like Emmanuel Clase, who was only 21 when he was suspended 80 games for violating Major League Baseball’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program, caused disappointment to his team and fanbase. Major League Baseball’s stance is that these drug testing policies serve as a harsh warning to the players, but all it achieves is the one-year hiatus of what will be hall-of-fame careers for Tatis and Clase.
Steroids are a hot debate throughout baseball, from the hardcore sports journalist to the average fan. These arguments have caused a divide in the baseball community at large. Disputes arise over the wrong topics. We shouldn’t be debating whether or not Barry Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame or whether or not Mike Schmidt should be in the Hall of Fame even though he used amphetamines. Numerous players have made their way to the hall of fame despite their drug use or their “cheating,” so we need to find the best solution to give players the safest way to use steroids if they so choose.
Steroids may be banned now. They give players an advantage over players who don’t, but there are everyday subtleties of the game of baseball that give players advantages over their counterparts. Take Coors Field, for example; it is the mile-high city of Denver, and the high elevation allows players to hit the ball farther than in lower-elevation stadiums. Batters with pine tar have an advantage in bat grip over players who don’t, yet pine tar is allowed for use. Players cork bats, use pine tar, have pre-game rituals, hire nutrition coaches, and train with the best coaches in the world, all to gain an advantage over another play and team. MLB allows these habits because they’re chosen to be safe and controllable.
Yes, these behaviors differ from steroids, yet all end in the same outcome, an advantage for the player using them. It begs the question of what benefits arise from using other means than natural skill and talent. It seems unfair that players are stripped of all their accomplishments because there’s no safe and regulated way to use steroids. Players who use pine tar, spider tack, or the litany of advantages players use to enhance their abilities daily revel in their glory. We need to be the tide that changes the narrative that players who took that injection are not villains but, in fact, heroes.
References
Baseball and Performance Enhancing Drugs. (2013). Bloomberg.
Chu. (2021). WADA Time to Choose a Side: Reforming the Anti-Doping Policies in U.S. Sports Leagues While Preserving Players’ Rights to Collectively Bargain. The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 44(2), 209–. https://doi.org/10.52214/jla.v44i2.7824
“JDA | Mlbpa.” Mlbpa, http://www.mlbplayers.com/jda. Accessed 17 Oct. 2022.
Mitchell, G. (2007, December 13). The Mitchell Report. https://files.mlb.com/mitchrpt.pdf
MLB.com. 2022. Clase suspended 80 games after positive test. [online] Available at: <https://www.mlb.com/news/emmanuel-clase-suspended-80-games> .
MLB Steroid Suspensions (2005-2022) | Baseball Almanac. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/steroids_baseball.shtml
nytimes.com. (2022, October 6). Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/06/sports/baseball/fernando-tatis-padres.html
nytimes.com. (2020, November 18). Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/sports/baseball/robinson-cano-mets-suspended.html?action=click
Patrick Antinori, & Rodney J Blackman. (2017). Contextualization of a Shifting Perspective Regarding the Steroid Era. The Sport Journal.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
For my first draft, I’m happy with how this turned out. However, I’ve noticed small things I need to change. Some block quotes may help in certain situations. I know I need to add a title and make a small annotation change. I also need to rearrange my reference list in alphabetical order.
I’d appreciate any general advice whether that comes in the form of structure or communicating ideas. I know what I want to argue, and I tried my best to drop hints of that throughout my definition argument, however, I feel as if it doesn’t truly come out until the end of the paper and I’m afraid it’s too swift, almost like the analogy from class. I want to make sure I’m guiding my diner, not shoving nonsense down their throat!
Thank you for the specific request, Gymrat. I’m here only to acknowledge your Feedback Please, though, so detailed feedback will have to wait.
I will say while I’m here (in partial answer to your question), that your first three paragraphs sound completely unconnected. I don’t get a sense of an unfolding argument, which is dangerous in an essay.
1. I imagine my entire career is derailed for having used a banned substance. Got it.
2. You detail the hundreds of substances banned by the league. I’m lost already. Am I supposed to feel I was fairly warned what to avoid by this list? Or am I supposed to feel that the dizzying array of substances set me up for failure? “shakes fear” suggests I’m unfairly on the spot. “neatly placed” suggests I received fair warning.
3. I do remember the Chase, and I agree it may have “saved baseball” for a time, AND I concur that it launched a lot of concern about steroids. But . . . where are we going with this? Do YOU think banning substances was the right reaction, or are you siding with the players who found an edge?
I shouldn’t be wondering 3 paragraphs into your essay what your point of view might be.
Your point here is unclear:
—Is it important (and your point) that journalists were hypocritical?
—”Claims such as this” is extremely unclear. The claim(s) that journalists played both sides? The claim that the MLB cast doubt on the records?
Your timeline is very smudgy. You mention the Steroid Era in five paragraphs in a row without naming the start and end dates. So when you drop in the Chase of 1998 and the Report of 2007, we are left to calculate for ourselves whether they’re both inside or outside of the Era.
I’m now FIVE paragraphs in and still I don’t know whether you favor enhancements or their strict prohibition. You may respond that what’s important is that I first absorb the background information needed to put your opinion into context, . . .
but if you do . . .
I’ll respond by saying I don’t care enough without knowing if there’s an argument to follow here or not. Readers need a STAKE. Your evidence needs DIRECTION to create a DRAMA.
You outline the restrictions, the testing protocols, the penalties. You enumerate and illustrate a few anecdotes of the ramifications of getting caught violating the policy . . . and still we don’t know why you’re telling us. I’m actually amused that you’re managing to delay taking a position this long.
Granted, players seek and find advantages having nothing to do with banned substances. And so . . . ?
And still you manage in your conclusion, except for one tiny lean in the direction of tolerance, to phrase what could be your declarative claims as rhetorical questions. It would be maddening if I had a vested interest in your point of view, but you have to INVEST ME in a point of view for that to happen.
Hey Professor Hodges, here is my rewrite. I’d like to see what you think of my improvements and inform me of what my regrade would be compared to the 80 on the original draft.
I feel as if this is a much cleaner draft then my first and provides much more clarity of argument. I tried my best to make my argument clear from the beginning instead of waiting to the very end.
Clearly your best work yet and a vast improvement over all early drafts, Gymrat. I’m so impressed with your work ethic and commitment, and your growing understanding of rhetoric.
I could have let the rest of the critique go at that, but I want to serve you better and recommend still more ways to improve your good work. You deserve the respect of my taking you seriously.
See if what follows helps you, and if it does, make a final round of revisions. You’re teetering on the edge of two grades now and need one more pull-up to chin the bar.
I’m two paragraphs in and I know your argument! I was pretty sure after just one!
If I could suggest just a few words to remove ambiguity and smooth the transitions . . . I’ll put them in brackets.
Barry Bonds’ use of steroids should serve as a blueprint for greatness. Bonds practiced hard, played strong, and served as a role model to the children of the early 2000s. Yet, Bonds’ reward for being such a forceful presence in the league is the [condemnation] of his illustrious career. Cheating in the MLB is ever present, [but Bonds’] use of steroids [was in no way unfair]; in a game that doesn’t admonish cheating but embraces such behaviors, Bonds’ [competitive advantage] is a beacon of hope.
Major League Baseball has an abundance of banned substances that have no business being restricted. The MLB [claims that it] does not tolerate performance-enhancing drugs, but in all actuality, they have since the Steroid Era days that spanned from 1994 to 2004. Drugs of Abuse, Performance-Enhancing Substances, Stimulants, and Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) spearhead the massive list [of banned substances] that confuses more players than helps. The list spans 175 substances and unfairly [consigns] steroids into the same categories as cocaine and methamphetamines.
The first claim that really confuses me is this one:
Is this supposed to be a rebuttal opinion? It sounds like one, but you don’t present it as one.
The paragraph that follows helps clarify what you meant above. One word would make all the difference:
Once it’s sprung, your trap is obvious and clever. Strict rules and guidelines give the owners/league ethical cover but don’t achieve their stated goals. Players get penalized, yes, but if the rules were truly deterrent, they’d eliminate the behavior that triggered the fines and suspensions.
I don’t understand this sentence at all:
Man, you dropped Mike Schmidt into the pot at just the moment you risked losing advocates to your point of view. Brilliant detail, nicely deployed.
Steroids may be banned now. They give players an advantage over players who don’t [use them], but there are everyday subtleties of the game of baseball that give players advantages over their counterparts.
Batters [who use] pine tar have an advantage in bat grip over players who don’t, yet pine tar is allowed for use.
Players cork bats, use pine tar, have pre-game rituals, hire nutrition coaches, [get lasik surgery, even undergo prophylactic UCL surgery,] and train with the best coaches in the world, all to gain an advantage over another play and team.
MLB allows these [competitive advantages] because they’re chosen to be safe and controllable.
—I like “chosen.” It indicates a set of possibilities and a method for choosing. It means the differences are not obvious, not chiseled, represent bias.
Yes, these behaviors differ from steroids, yet all end in the same outcome, an advantage for the player using them.
—Don’t give the point away, Gymrat. You’ve done a nice job of setting up the conclusion that steroids are NOT so different. Minimize the difference. Hint at bias or lay the accusation.
It seems unfair that players are stripped of all their accomplishments because there’s no safe and regulated way to use steroids.
—Feels like a retreat. Can steroids be used safely? If not, you shouldn’t be arguing for them. But if they can, the league should sanction SAFE USE, not BAN an effective enhancement arbitrarily. Regulate the hell out of it . . . the process can’t be any MORE intrusive and a nuisance than constantly testing for their use.