Journal pudge's Journal: Mark McGwire 11
I am not a huge Mark McGwire fan. His career hit its first peak when his team, the Oakland A's, was sweeping my Boston Red Sox in the playoffs. Worse, I lived near Oakland at the time. He went on to play for the Cardinals, the only team to beat the Red Sox in the World Series twice (although the Sox finally beat them last October).
I have always respected his skill, ability, and demeanor, but still, I'm not and never have been a big fan of his.
So I am in the odd position of defending him. To me, he was an almost entirely sympathetic figure in the Congressional hearing last week.
McGwire's position is simple: he is not going to talk about steroid use of individual people, his own or anyone else's. That's not to say he has used steroids; we don't know. Everyone who has been saying we know he took steroids is lying, unless the person has firsthand knowledge, and of that one person, we only have his word to go by, and his story is full of holes and inconsistencies.
That person is former Oakland teammate Jose Canseco, who claimed he had injected McGwire more times than he can count, which he later amended to "once or twice." McGwire's opening statement hit the nail on the head: you don't do that to to people, especially friends and colleagues.
It got worse. At least two members of Congress, in the clips I saw, were browbeating McGwire to answer the question of whether or not he had taken steroids, and such. I can understand people wanting to know if he has taken them. And if he has taken them, I would say he cheated.
But this hearing was not the time or place for it. I was hoping, before the hearing, that they would stick to trying to understand the scope of the problem, and how to fix it, rather than going after individuals. My hopes were quickly dashed. Congressman Elijah Cummings asked McGwire if he had taken steroids. He said McGwire didn't have to answer the question. McGwire said he would not, and the Cummings asked, "are you taking a Fifth?"
If McGwire is not required to answer the question, then the Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with it. Cummings was either ignorant of what he was asking, or he was trying to shame McGwire into answering. In either situation, it was his own performance that was shameful. If you're going to demand an answer, do so. If not, then don't browbeat him to answer.
Not that the media was much better: in many cases, they reported McGwire did take the Fifth, which is false.
Many people took issue with McGwire's repeated, and at some points reactively combative, denials. But that begs the question, as he would not have had to make repeated or combative denials if the members of Congress had not made repeated and combative attempts to get him to say something he made clear he would not address. This is an easy and boring game: find out what someone doesn't want to say, and keep asking them to say it, and make them look bad for not saying it.
Of course, for many people the point is that he won't answer the question. But what business is it of Congress to demand such an answer? If his personal use is an issue, it is one for Major League Baseball and law enforcement to address, not Congress.
But if he did not take drugs, why not say so? This is the most damning question, in part because it highlights the main flaw in McGwire's position, but also because it wrongfully assumes that there's only one reasonable answer. Maybe it is because he simply thinks it is wrong to address the question in this manner, and he is principled enough to stand up to it by refusing to cooperate with something he thinks is wrong. I am sure without being too creative we could come up with more, but one suffices to prove the point.
Maybe McGwire was a steroid user. It wouldn't surprise me in the least. But Congress was way out of line turning him into their whipping boy. I have no sympathy for someone who took cheated in baseball, but I do have sympathy for people who are assumed guilty based almost entirely on the testimony of a known liar, and a shameful hatchet job by Congress.
I would agree (Score:2)
Furthermore let me say that I think there are much better uses of our elected official's time than these silly hearings on steroid use in baseball. The only way this is remotely relevant is if there was a serious move affoot to remove baseball's antitrust exemption. Even then t
Re:I would agree (Score:2)
I heard one reporter actually attack Congress for spending time on this and not other more important issues. But they hold hearings on lots of important things that the news simply doesn't cover! Whose fault is that? In fairness, this was Gwen Ifill, and her PBS NewsHour does a better job than most at covering such things, but still
IAWTJE (Score:2)
McGwire has the right not to discuss steroid use if he doesn't want to. During the time in question it was legal anyway.
I'd say Congress should butt out, but then they might spend more time writing Bills of Attainder [sfgate.com]. And they do have a point that we spend a lot of taxpayer cash on baseball, so they do have some right to get involved. But baseball needs to clean its own house, and if they don't, the fans need to hold them accountable.
Re:IAWTJE (Score:2)
No, steroids were not legal. He did take a performance enhancing non-steroid substance that was at the time legal in the MLB, but now is not. Steroids have never been legal in the MLB since he entered the league.
Old SNL Skit (Score:2)
Apply it to baseball. Move centerfield 700' away from home plate and let them take heroin during the game.
All I want is to be entertained. The days of men who play a boy's game because they love it are long gone anway.
Re:Old SNL Skit (Score:2)
Why is congress investigating baseball (Score:1)
No sympathy from me (Score:2)
Re:No sympathy from me (Score:2)
Why should he come out and say he hasn't? It's not Congress' business to ask, so why should he answer?
He was under oath, and as such, should have truthfully answered the questions asked--with the exception of those he believed would result in incriminating himself.
He was under no obligation to answer that question. If he were, he would have had to take the Fifth, in which case you might have a point.
But perhaps what I found most obnoxious was the
Re:No sympathy from me (Score:2)
Because he's publicly denied using steroids while not under oath in interviews & press releases. I will grant that whether Congress should be doing this is questionable at best, probably worse. If he refused to answer on the grounds he didn't think Congress should be having the hearings I could respect him standing on principle. But from his opening statment, he said he supported the Committee's w
Re:No sympathy from me (Score:2)
I was not addressing whether Congress should be holding the hearings, in what you were replying to. Even if you think Congress should be holding the hearings, it is not unreasonable to think that Congress has no business investigating specific individuals. That's what I am getting at, and that is