What exactly does it mean to "gain an advantage?" How does that differ from "cheating?" Why is it that professional athletes who are doing something to gain an advantage are actually considered "cheaters?"
When you look long and hard at the world of professional sports, there has always been one constant through the years: Things change. Players change. Technology changes. Rules change. Expectations change. As fans, we cheer for our favorite teams, our favorite players, and our favorite games. So, why is it that we find ourselves with feelings of anger and betrayal when we see players get caught trying to improve themselves?
Ryan Braun's suspension for the remainder of the 2013 MLB season is just the latest in what has been a decade-long battle to "clean up" the game of baseball. Other sports have also "improved" their performance-enhancing substance testing in an effort to purify their games. But the microscope remains fixated on the game of baseball. But why?
It's not a popular opinion by any stretch of the imagination, but realistically, there's one question that continues to cross my mind as I see big names and All-Stars continue to find themselves on the wrong side of baseball law:
Should we really care?
Sports purists will argue that performance-enhancing substances "change" their respective games for the worse. Mostly, their angst is centered around the record books. Nowhere is this more evident than Major League Baseball, whose record book is considered almost biblical to some. But why keep record books if we're afraid to have the records within them broken? And, if we're being honest, a lot of the records being broken were aided by some sort of "change."
Babe Ruth used a bat that was 40 ounces in weight during the 1927 season when he hit 60 home runs, setting the record which would stand for 34 years before being broken by Roger Maris. Strangely, what people don't talk about is the advantages that Maris had. Sure, they bring up the additional eight games added to the schedule, which is one advantage. But no one brings up the fact that the Yankee Stadium dimensions changed from the time Ruth played to the time Maris played. In 1927, Babe Ruth was hitting balls to center and right field walls that were 520 and 425 feet from home plate, respectively. In 1961, those same walls were only 461 and 407 feet from home plate. Ruth used a bat that weighed 40 ounces and was 35 inches in length. In 1961, Maris's bat was one inch longer (36) and weighed 4-5 ounces less, allowing him to swing it faster. Needless to say, there were other factors to Roger Maris breaking Babe Ruth's home run record than just an additional eight games.
In today's game, similar changes have been made. Bats weight less than before and are made of different material. Many suggest they're actually weaker pieces of lumber than were used throughout 50's, 60's, and even 70's. The baseballs themselves are manufactured and woven differently than 50 or 60 years ago. Similar to the dimension changes made at Yankee Stadium throughout the years, many ballparks have brought their fences in to increase offense.
Couldn't performance-enhancing substances just be considered another "change" in the game? Why not embrace them and regulate them rather than fear them? If everyone is allowed to play the game the same way, is it possible that no true advantage would be had? And, is it possible the game may actually be better off?
Records were made to be broken. If sports continue to improve their games by altering equipment, changing rules, and expanding leagues, the records we've all grown accustomed to are truly not the same as they were. So, what is one more change? If it provides fans with a better product and a more exciting experience, who are we to judge?
I, for one, would prefer a game where I don't have to guess who is using a substance to gain an advantage, but rather a game where I don't have to concern myself with it and can just enjoy being a fan.
Should we really care otherwise?
No comments:
Post a Comment