In a hypothetical scenario, what if a big HR like one by Maris or Mantle in 1961, or a great hot week by a Frank Robinson in his triple crown year or a Carew in his .388 year-- what if any of those feats was the result in part of amphetamine usage?
The point regarding amphetamines is not to compare their degree of effect to modern drugs. The point is that an unfair advantage is an unfair advantage; the degree of advantage is a separate issue.
Then there is also the issue of whether a substance was or wasn't on a "banned list" when taken.
Each fan will have their own view on these complex topics and how to parse players' achievements between eras, and of course to each his own.
Ultimately, for this baseball fan, the salient point here is that the era and the potency of its drugs should not lower the level of proof needed to cast aspersion on a man's achievements.
In essence the underpinning logic there would be that the performance alone is evidence of guilt; and with there being PEDs of one form or another in each era, that same logic opens a door to saying any player in any era with elite performance was on the PEDs of his time. Hence my objection to lumping Griffey in with those who have either admitted to taking steroids or failed drug tests.
Last edited by MattyC; 07-06-2014 at 11:40 AM.
|