King Kaufman's Sports Daily

Jose Canseco, steroids and NHL doomsday: The readers write.

Read more: Drugs, Sports, Baseball, War on Drugs, NHL, News, Major League Baseball, Steroids, Salon News, Ice Hockey, King Kaufman, Sports Daily

Feb. 17, 2005 | If you like steroids and labor disasters, this has been a great week for sports.

You readers have had plenty to say about Jose Canseco's steroid apologia, "Juiced," and about Wednesday's announcement by NHL commissioner Gary Bettman that he was officially calling off the 2004-05 season, the owners and players having failed to reach an agreement to end the 5-month-old lockout.

We'll start with Canseco.

Geoff Wills: Isn't the fact that we see baseball's fraternity lining up to defend itself so vehemently against a whistle-blower a tip-off in itself? A classic case of circling the wagons. Here comes La Russa and all the rest trying their hardest to undermine Jose and dismiss his story without explaining the charge itself. Crisis Management 101 of any major establishment is to destroy the messenger and sidestep the issue at hand.

King replies: While I believe what Canseco says about steroid use in baseball, it's paradoxical and unfair to cite denial as proof of guilt. The baseball fraternity would deny the charges if they were true, but also if they were false.

Rick Ferguson: There's a fatal flaw in Canseco's argument that steroid use is good for baseball when properly controlled. Never mind the argument that it taints the game by disconnecting it from its history -- the "How many homers would Ruth have hit on 'roids?" argument, which, I believe, is a valid one.

The fatal flaw is that it's bad for business. If steroids were legal and permissible in the game, then every ballplayer would have to juice or they couldn't compete. Following Canseco's logic, widespread steroid use would merely level the playing field once again and increase the cost of doing business. What good would it ultimately do for the players and owners, let alone the fans or the game?

King replies: Canseco's argument is that it would make for a more exciting game because the athletes would be bigger, stronger and faster, and because fans love home runs. I don't agree with him that the game would be better, but I can't say for sure that it wouldn't be a more popular one.

Unsigned: I'm amazed you can't see the peril in the logic that a "talented" player from an abjectly poor background would see the financial attraction of taking steroids to get a big long-term contract. Maybe a $20 million contract looks humongous to this player (it would to me, and I've never known abject poverty), but how does this player know beforehand that he is "talented"? Steroids alone won't get you to hit a baseball.

And maybe this person has the focus and determination of a Barry Bonds (weight lifting regimen, diet, mental acuity) and decides he doesn't need "supplements." All this exposes the narrow logic expressed in the "poor player seeks financial security" paragraph.

King replies: Of course I can see the peril in that logic. The point is, it's unreasonable to think that some 16-year-old, probably uneducated, kid in a slum in a developing country will see it. I can see the peril in the logic of dealing crack too. Easy for me to say.

Next page: Legalization is no panacea. Plus: The NHL just wants to break the players union