Comments on: Why Manny Cheated http://travisrmartin.com/2009/05/why-manny-cheated/ Business Lesson Plans and Insight Sun, 04 Dec 2011 21:11:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joe Seaver http://travisrmartin.com/2009/05/why-manny-cheated/comment-page-1/#comment-61 Joe Seaver Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:50:52 +0000 http://travisrmartin.com/?p=331#comment-61 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. 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.

]]> By: travisrmartin http://travisrmartin.com/2009/05/why-manny-cheated/comment-page-1/#comment-45 travisrmartin Fri, 22 May 2009 01:54:09 +0000 http://travisrmartin.com/?p=331#comment-45 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. 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.

]]> By: Joe Seaver http://travisrmartin.com/2009/05/why-manny-cheated/comment-page-1/#comment-44 Joe Seaver Wed, 20 May 2009 01:46:01 +0000 http://travisrmartin.com/?p=331#comment-44 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? 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?

]]>