Does Steroid Usage "Invalidate" Wins?

by acman319 on Feb 9, 2009 3:29 PM EST

Over the past 2 days, I have been catching a lot of slack from a friend of mine (a Brewer's fan none the less) over this whole A-Rod thing just because I'm a Yankee fan. First of all, I can't seem to get it through his head that A-Rod's usage DOES NOT invalidate the Yankees' wins. (A-Rod hasn't even won a World Series in New York anyways). I keep telling him A-Rod did them in Texas, not in New York. Does anyone agree with me on this? I voted in one of the polls and selected the "Let him play" option. I think that if he is clean now and has always been clean as a Yankee, then the Yankees should let him play. If in fact A-Rod did stop using back in 2003, then his time with the Yankees is legitimate.

The same goes for Giambi. He was cited in the Mitchell Report for using steroids back during his time with the Oakland Athletics and there was no news (to my knowledge) of his use during his time in New York. So his usage doesn't invalidate anything even though the Yanks didn't win a World Series with Giambi.

That covers A-Rod and Giambi. Now what about the possible implications of Roger Clemens's and Andy Pettitte's usage? Does anyone think that their usage during their time in New York somehow makes the Yankees' World Series performances questionable or are they irrelevant since the other Yankees were not users? Obviously the World Series title can't be taken away, but will there always be a metaphorical asterisk now when people think of the 3-peat years? I don't think so, but then again, I'm a Yankee fan.

One more note about A-Rod: As Yankee fans, I think we can almost all agree that if or when A-Rod hits that walk-off home run in a clutch situtation, our memory of this incident will start to fade. I heard a similar sentiment expressed by a legal analyst on FOXNews yesterday who self-proclaimed himself as a lifelong Yankee fan. I think he has something there.

Poll

Do Steroid Usage in Yankee History "Ivalidate" Wins?

Yes, those players who used had big impacts on the outcomes.

0 votes

No, it's not fair to the rest of the team who was clean.

1 votes

No, the Yankees are just getting what appears to be a bad rap for their popularity.

4 votes

Not sure.

0 votes

5 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

no, i dont think PEDs invalidate wins

simply for the fact that every team has users. the fact that it seems like a lot of Yankees have been ‘outed’ in the past 2 years is for a couple reasons:
A. the main witnesses in the Mitchell Report were trainers for the Mets and Yankees. If Mitchell had bothered to get trainers from other teams, I guarantee they would have named members of that team.
B. the Yanks have the highest profile players, so they attract the most attention. The Mitchell Report listed dozens of names, but the media jumped on two: Pettitte and Clemens, bc they’re very good and high profile. There were 104 names on the recent 2003 PED list, but the four sources (and SI) decided Arod was the biggest name. we dont know how the rest of the list is divied up.

does your friend not realize that Gagne was in the Mitchell Report? he would be naive to think he’s the only Brewer.

every title-winning team of the past 30 years has probably had PED users, so in that sense, no, it does not invalidate them.

by Travis G on Feb 9, 2009 5:34 PM EST reply actions

Never mind the Mitchll report

..wasn’t Cameron suspended for PED use?

by NumberSeven on Feb 10, 2009 9:45 AM EST up reply actions

yeah

forget about that.

by Travis G on Feb 11, 2009 12:06 AM EST up reply actions

I Agree 100%

I totally agree with everything you said. I think that since A-Rod’s right to privacy was violated with his name being released from the anonmyous list, then everyone else’s name from the list of 104 should be out too.

As for my friend, I did mention Gange to him but I guess it still doesn’t matter to him.

I wonder where the sports media is when it comes to looking at the other title-winning teams…oh wait, I forgot – the Red Sox are off-limits in Bristol, CT. lol

Pride, Power, Pinstripes...Go Yankees!

by acman319 on Feb 10, 2009 8:05 AM EST reply actions

I'd still love to see

some sort of scientific research on the effects steroids have on one’s athletic performance.

We all know that they help build muscle mass more quickly and help you recover from injury and wear and tear more quickly as well. So from that standpoint, they clearly give someone who’s using an advantage over somebody who’s not.

But strictly on the field, how does it impact play? Personally, I think it’s similar to the corked bat quandry. The distance you hit the ball is based on the force of the swing and the weight of the bat. Guys make their bats lighter so they can swing harder, yet a lighter bat exudes less force at contact. You may bulk up on steroids so you can swing harder, but your arms are a little heavier and thus move more slowly.

by 3460kuri on Feb 12, 2009 9:13 AM EST reply actions

Interesting...

That’s a very interesting point you make. I guess I never really looked at the scientific aspect of the situtation. I would like to see a study as well, but I think it would be hard to find players as test subjects.

Another thing, I still want to see the other 103 names on that list from 2003.

Pride, Power, Pinstripes...Go Yankees!

by acman319 on Feb 12, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions