Why Manny Cheated
Baseball fans familiar with “Manny Being Manny,” the phrase used to describe the hijinks of dreadlocked slugger Manny Ramirez, are about to add a new saying to their lexicon: “Manny Being Jose (or Alex or Barry).”
On Thursday, the Dodger leftfielder became the first superstar to test positive for a banned performance enhancing substance under Major League Baseball’s new drug-testing policy. As a result Ramirez, one of the best right handed hitters of his generation, will spend the next 50 games of the season watching from the bench.
Although the announcement of Ramirez’s positive test may come as no surprise to the legions of fans that have become conditioned to view every statistical feat through steroid colored glasses, the question remains: why would Manny cheat? Going into the 2009 season, he was a surefire hall-of-famer with a resume that included twelve all-star appearances, two World Series rings, 500+ home runs, and nine silver slugger awards.
Well, perhaps Manny had been cheating all along. In a sport that rewards performance with lucrative contracts that feature crooked numbers followed by a trail of zeros, Ramirez definitely had a financial incentive to juice. The same holds true for Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, and any other professional baseball player over the past 10 years. In fact, the beginning of the steroid era can be traced back to the late 1990′s when the salaries earned by the highest paid players in the league began to dramatically outpace the average Major League salary.
Compiled using data from USA Today
When viewed in this light, the steroids epidemic in baseball begins to make sense. From 1999 to 2009, the highest paid player in Baseball was associated with steroids in some way. Five of the top ten highest paid players in the game in 2007 turned out to be associated with steroids as well. When all that stands between a ballplayer and a ten-fold increase in salary is a needle, should we be surprised if some of the players choose the money over the morals?
If, in fact, Major League players are using steroids because of financial incentives, the league’s current attempts to end the steroid era will not work. As Manny’s test results have proven, the drug testing policy works as a detection tool – which is good. At least now fans will know where to draw the asterisks in their Bill James Handbook.
But, Manny’s suspension may have also proven something else: the MLB drug policy is not working as a deterrent.
Related posts:
Though I certainly don’t condone using steroids or, as you say, “cheat”, I can also understand why a player might do this. Even at a minor league level, the desire to remain in the game as opposed to being released and sent back to rural no man’s land might motivate someone who dearly loves the game to use an illegal substance. Especially if a marginal player who sees other players on his own team “juicing” it might entice him to do the same just remain on the team and in the game.
Again, I don’t condone “cheating.” On a related note, however, how many pitchers throughout baseball history have thrown a spit ball, or scuffed up the baseball, in order to gain an unfair advantage for what is illegal in the rule book? A case in point is hall of fame pitcher Gaylord Perry. He probably used spit, vaseline, cooking oil, whatever he could find to get away with cheating. And for the most part, he got away with it.
So, should we put an asterick by his name in the record books since he, without doubt, cheated? If not, how is one method of cheating more “moral” than another?
Hi Joe. Thanks for stopping by.
Based on what we’ve seen from the drug tests conducted by baseball, the majority of players being caught seem to be the “Quadruple A” or fringe Major Leaguers. And I see your point – when faced with a life outside of baseball or a continuing shot at a major league roster, the decision to juice or not to juice starts to creep into that gray area of morality.
It is an interesting paradox that pitchers that cheat by doctoring the baseball get a free pass from fans and media. Gaylord, as you pointed out, was probably the most notorious spitballer of all time. But for some reason people look at what he did, laugh, and call it “crafty.” And, as far as I know, no one had a problem electing him to the HOF.
The question of one method of cheating being more “moral” than another is a philosophical question that extends beyond baseball (i.e., is it “more wrong” to steal $100,000 as opposed to $1…both instances are stealing, right?). Obviously, Gaylord cheated (and was at one point suspended for it), but in the hierarchy of baseball crimes, doctoring balls doesn’t rank nearly as high as steroid use or gambling. So, right or wrong, MLB must believe that there are levels of cheating.
Travis,
Thank you for the response.
In terms of the degree of a perceived right or wrong (baseball and beyond), reality is subjective. Oftentimes, where one stands on any given issue is largely influenced by where one sits.