Whether the drugs that condemned Jhonny Peralta to a 50-game suspension in this past season actually worked in the sense of significantly enhancing his performances is up for debate.
One of the problems with the issue of so-called â€˜performance-enhancing drugsâ€™ is that no one, not even the people taking them, can accurately determine what effect they had (although if the substance is banned, the act of taking it regardless of any benefit may well deserve punishment).
So Peraltaâ€™s story doesnâ€™t help us with validating or dismissing the first part of Ashcroftâ€™s statement, but the St. Louis Cardinalsâ€™ decision last week to give him a four-year, $53m contract presents a strong case against the claim that they â€œmake things worseâ€.
The contract has provoked a considerable amount of debate, not least due to relief pitchers Brad Ziegler and David Aardsma taking to Twitter to point out that it doesnâ€™t do much for the awareness campaign to discourage drug use.
ESPNâ€™s Jerry Crasnick wrote an excellent article summing up the various parts to the debate and itâ€™s sure to be a topic of conversation again this offseason (when Nelson Cruz comes off the free agent market, for example) and in future winters too.
The Cardinals have had to mount a defence of their decision to sign Peralta, although the questioning will soon disappear if heâ€™s a success on the field for the Red Birds. When it comes down to it, thatâ€™s what fans really care about. The current drug-testing programme leaves a first-time offender in Peraltaâ€™s situation with a 50-game suspension and once heâ€™s served it thereâ€™s no reason for a team to penalise him. He was a good fit for the Cardinalsâ€™ offseason plan and they knew if they didnâ€™t sign him to a four-year deal, someone else was going to instead.
The only way to increase the deterrent, and to reduce the obvious embarrassment of someone getting caught in the drug-testing programme and then soon after walking off with a multi-million dollar deal, is to introduce longer suspensions of at least one year.
Crasnickâ€™s article notes that thereâ€™s a feeling among many players that there are different scales of drug-programme contraventions and that banning someone for a whole year for a minor transgression would be unjust. Aligning that position with harsher penalties may be difficult, but you suspect that Peraltaâ€™s contract may be a catalyst for further discussions on the matter.
Hall of Fame
The current dilemmas for Front Offices on awarding contracts to those labelled as â€˜drug cheatsâ€™ is nothing compared to the problems caused by â€˜suspected drug cheatsâ€™ on the Hall of Fame process.
Last yearâ€™s voting, in which no candidates were elected, was a miserable experience and the memories came flooding back when the 2014 ballot was announced. It includes a whole host of some of the biggest stars from the last 20 years or so, in fact so many that the Baseball Writers’ Association of Americaâ€™s rule that a ballot can only contain a maximum of ten players seems greatly restrictive this time around.
Thatâ€™s probably not going to be reflected in the voting results though as voters grapple with the candidacies of players that were part of the so-called steroid era. Due to the lack of testing during this period, whether someone was a user or not really comes down to suspicion in most cases.
Pitchers Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine are on the ballot for the first time and itâ€™s expected that they will be (rightly) elected, yet is it fair that they make it to Cooperstown whilst others (Jeff Bagwell being a prime example) are left in limbo on the basis of innuendo and suspicion based on no proof whatsoever?
The only fair way to treat the group is to disregard those suspicions and approach each playerâ€™s case for what it is; however the obvious problem with that is it may well lead to drug-users being voted in. The Hall of Fame is not exactly the Hall of Saints as it is, so perhaps thatâ€™s something that just has to be accepted.
Weâ€™ll find out what the voters think on 8 January.