An Open Letter to Bud Selig
Dear Commissioner Selig,
I am a huge Dodgers fan. I was born and raised in Southern California and I bleed Dodger Blue. As a Dodgers fan, naturally I have gone through many emotions in the past few days since news has come out about Manny Ramirez being banned from baseball for 50 games due to a failed drug test. I was in shock after being woken up at 5:45 AM HST by a friend's text message simply saying, "I always knew manny was a cheater." I went to my computer and typed in 'espn.com' and was flabbergasted to see Manny's face plastered on the front page with the title "Banned 50 Games for Failing a Drug Test." I couldn't believe it. Just the night before I was elated and overjoyed as I wrote in my journal about how the Dodgers had just set a new MLB record for most home wins to start off a season. Chad Billingsley was 5-0. The O-Dawg was playing All-star ball. Broxton had established himself as one of the game's elite closers. Ethier and Kemp were really starting to turn it on. The Dodgers were on fire! They had the biggest run-differential of any team in the Majors, and were doing so with one of the best offenses and pitching staffs in the league. Well, I was right about one thing: they were definitely on fire, though not in a good way.
After the shock and denial (and hope), the sadness came next. I felt betrayed and hurt by what had happened. And not just Manny, but every player that had ever disgraced the game by seeking their own self interests over their teams'. Barry. Clemens.Conseco. A-Rod. Who knows how many more people? And that's just the thing: we don't know. A ton of good players that've played in the past 15 - 20 years now have a shadows of doubt over their accomplishments. When a player hits a sudden wall, instead of saying, "His prime is passed," we now wonder, "Was he on steroids?" That's not right. It shouldn't be like that. How long will it be before we stop thinking like that? How irreparable is the damage that they've caused?
A prime example of this is David Ortiz. Prior to the 2003 season, his career high in homeruns was 20. Then he went to Boston, ironically where Manny Ramirez was at the time, and suddenly his homerun total from 2003 to 2007 was 31, 41, 47, 54, and 35, respectively. His drop-off from 54 to 35 is considerable, but we gave him a pass since he was still tearing the leather off the ball. But then last season he only hit 23 homeruns, and now this season through 116 at-bats he has yet to hit a homerun. Instead of appreciating what he did in Boston through all those phenomenal years, I now wonder, "Did him and Manny team up in more ways than one in Boston?" Manny and all his cronies really have destroyed the respect and goodness of baseball.
With that being said, fifty games is not enough. What's even more ridiculous is the fact that he still gets more chances to mess up. When he comes back, he can take steroids again, get caught, serve out his suspension of 100 games, and still come back and play more baseball. Can you imagine the outcry from the public if this would happen. These men have ruined baseball. It will take years, nay, decades before baseball ever starts to return to what it was before. Why would you still want these men to be associated with our beloved National Pastime? All that can come to my mind is greed. Why else would you still want them in this sport except to continue to make money off of them?
What further confuses me is how you can have the gall to continue to uphold the ban on Peter "Charlie Hustle" Rose for life from baseball, yet these steroid-taking players get multiple chances?! Where is your reason? Regardless of whether or not one agrees with Pete Rose's ban from baseball, how can you possibly view taking steroids as anything less than gambling? Do they not both destroy the game's integrity? Do they not both ruin baseball's reputation and the trust that people around the world placed in it?
I am a huge Dodgers fan. This will not change despite Manny's actions. I was a Dodgers fan before him and I will continue to be a Dodgers fan without him. You and Major League Baseball have come a looong way in addressing and taking care of the steroid problem in this sport. But you're not out of the woods yet. Do not allow the Hall of Fame Committee members to be the sole issuers of justice by informally colluding to deny admission to steroid-rumored players. The responsibility lies with you. It really pains me to say this, but if you ever want to fully regain the trust of baseball fans around the world, every player who fails a drug test one time must be banned for life from Major League Baseball. That's just the way things need to be.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Baseball Fan
0 recs |
14 comments
Comments
I personally don't freaking care.
I didn’t care when Bonds did it, I don’t care now. I didn’t care when McGwire did it. Did you know all throughout the 80’s it was common practice for ballplayers to use amphetamines and gasp cocaine!? Did you know one in particular was a perennial all-star and gold glover, and is pretty well regarded now?
Now should you set rules up and should you penalize people who break those rules? Fine, if that’s what the owners and players’ union agree on. But when Bonds started taking it and when McGwire took andro it wasn’t against the rules and there wasn’t any testing. I don’t think there should be asterisks or any of that.
by Seanny Rotten on May 12, 2009 9:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"Why would you still want these men to be associated with our beloved National Pastime? All that can come to my mind is greed. Why else would you still want them in this sport except to continue to make money off of them?"
I do not want Manny Ramirez banned from baseball. Therefore, I still want these men associated with baseball. I do not make a penny off baseball, so the reason I don’t want these men punished cannot be greed (at least not for me nor most of the posters on this board.) I don’t want to pretend like I don’t care about steroids either, because I do. I think the punishment handed down to Manny is probably appropriate. Its a third of a season, compared to the NFL where the punishment is 1/4 (close enough for me anyway.)
by mwhite06 on May 12, 2009 9:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
In light of an article today in LA Times!
I am a little miffed by the suspension now, the reason behind it now is that he didn’t clear the use of this testosterone with MLB. So it is OK to use this drug you just got to raise your hand first, really then it shouldn’t be 50 games maybe 5-10. I feel there is something else going on here, I mean over the years most of the other MLB owners hate the dodgers and it mite be showing.
Teacher, Teacher I got go to the restroom no sit there and wait for the bell, you didn’t raise your hand Sean.
Paul D. Kelley
by so.cal.native1952 on May 12, 2009 10:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I, too, think they need to be addressing these things more on a case-by-case basis.
by Jesse Sparks on May 12, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mainly my beef with this whole thing is the disparity in punishments (i.e, ban for life for gambling vs. 50 games for steroids).
I don’t necessarily think that MLB should be back and retroactively ban all players who’ve tested positive for steroids (although that does seem to be what I mean in what I wrote). What I really think is damaging to baseball is how MLB has already supposedly addressed the steroid issue by coming up with is a tiered suspension plan. Every time another player is busted, suspended, and then comes back, it hurts the game.
by Jesse Sparks on May 12, 2009 10:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Don’t you think that there is a fundemental difference between PED’s and betting on baseball? While ideally I would love there to be no such thing as steroids and everybody got by on their natural ability, the reason players use steroids is to become better at baseball— which ultimately helps the team. On the other hand, the Chicago BlackSox took money (during a freaking World Series!) and threw the game. Pete Rose was banned for baseball with that incident as the historical pretext. Of the two infractions, I find gambling on the outcome of games you control (which both the Black Sox and Rose did) much worse.
In addition, one could make a compelling argument that giving off the impression that games are fixed killed horse racing (to a limited extent) and boxing. Nothing is more harmful to a sport, then giving off the impression that the result of the game is fixed. Penalties for points shaving, or outright gambling on the outcome of a sport in which you exert some sort of control of the outcome should be significant.
by mwhite06 on May 12, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I understand your point. I agree with you that the Black Sox scandal is worse than our modern day steroids.
Do you believe Pete Rose’s story that he never bet against his team? It sure seems like if he’s lying and he really did bet against his team that John Dowd would’ve found at lease some evidence proving that point.
by Jesse Sparks on May 12, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I do believe he never bet against his team. Given how much he lied about everything else it was the only thing I did believe.
by meercatjohn on May 12, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Do you believe Pete Rose’s story that he never bet against his team?"
I knew that’s the next thing that would be brought up. To answer your question, I would say no I don’t believe he did. But I would argue that distinction is irrelevant. As we’ve learned from Joe Torre, its important for a manager to consider the marathon as opposed to the sprint (house money right.) Therefore, if your manager bet on the outcome of the game that evening, would he be more or less inclined to abuse his pitching staff? Even though he is still trying to win the game, he is still arguably acting outside the team’s best interest.
by mwhite06 on May 12, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said, I was trying to write something like that but gave up when I knew I wasn’t able to communicate the point.
by meercatjohn on May 12, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nicely written but I don’t agree with the conclusion about banning players for life. The current punishment is quite severe and I believe enough of a deterrent that most players are toeing the line. While I agreed with Rose being suspended it is time to let him back into baseball. No need for a lifetime ban and the sport could use him.
by meercatjohn on May 12, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting with the poll above that everyone has either voted Yes or No… no one unsure about what to do :) .
by Jesse Sparks on May 12, 2009 11:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
















