http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/2422949 Kent vents over steroid talk According to Astro, sluggers of the past not necessarily pure By JOSE DE JESUS ORTIZ Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle KISSIMMEE, Fla. -- In Jeff Kent's opinion, the steroid cloud over baseball and his former San Francisco teammate Barry Bonds is an embarrassment for the entire sport. That said, Kent believes all players are at least tempted to use illegal performance-enhancing drugs. In a far-reaching interview before the Astros worked out Thursday at Osceola County Stadium, Kent disputed the romantic notion that baseball was cleaner in the past. He is clearly tired of folks saying the new home run records and, by extension, this generation's sluggers are tainted because of steroids. Asked if the single-season home run record Bonds set in 2001 and the Mark McGwire record that preceded it were tainted, Kent wasn't sure because, he said, there is no way to know Roger Maris, Babe Ruth or any of the other great sluggers of the past weren't on drugs. "Can you tell me that those guys truthfully weren't doing drugs then?" Kent says. "If you can, then it's a shame (their records were broken). But if not, why b**** about it? Because you're b****ing about something you don't know." Kent doesn't buy into the myths that grew when the media didn't expose the frailties of men like Ruth and Ty Cobb. "Babe Ruth didn't do steroids?" he said. "How do you know? How do you (expletive) know? People are saying Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth. How do you know those guys didn't do steroids? So all of a sudden, you've got guys doing steroids now in the 20th century, 21st century? Come on. "Keep going backward. Pete Rose? Who knows? Who the (expletive) knows? The problem going on right now is the fact that we all sit here and argue and b**** and moan and say guys are breaking records now that were set a long time ago. How do we know those guys were clean? Did they test those guys?" Kent is not the first person to mention Ruth in a negative light. Baseball historians will tell you the Bambino wasn't exactly a model for clean living, possessing a voracious appetite for food, beverage and women. Nonetheless, the folks at the Babe Ruth Museum in Baltimore appeared insulted by Kent's stance. "My response is that I will not dignify his comments with a response," said Mike Gibbons, the museum's executive director. Kent, a University of California product who loves to debate, didn't back down from his argument. "They were shooting horses with steroids in those days, and that's the same kind of steroids they're putting into human bodies right now," he said. "So we don't know. Am I right? Babe Ruth was huge. He was fat, couldn't even run around the bases. He had knee problems, the same problems that happen to guys taking steroids right now. He was an alcoholic. "And now all of a sudden there are (jerks) in the game, and we're bad guys?" In other words, only the scrutiny has changed dramatically, allowing players of Kent's generation to be exposed before a wider audience. Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, who admitted to giving steroids to several players, was one of four men with ties to the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative charged this month with distributing steroids. Bonds and Yankees first baseman Jason Giambi, who has battled lately with the knee problems that also plagued Ruth, were forced to appear before the grand jury investigating the BALCO case in December. Because more than 5 percent of major-league players tested positive for steroids last year, all players must undergo mandatory testing this year. Kent laughs at the penalties, however, because the first positive test calls for counseling. A second offense draws a 15-day suspension and a $10,000 fine. The fifth strike finally draws a year's suspension. "I am accepting of the policy," Kent said. "I'm a union a guy, and I agree with the policy that we have in hand, voted on by 750-some ballplayers." That said, it's easy to see that Kent doesn't have much regard for the new steroid policy. "There's so much arguing going on in the media and perception and guessing and criticizing and assumption, some being true and some being false, that continues to embarrass the game of baseball," he said. "It's not a joke, but it's half-ass. It's a policy that when we were negotiating for it a couple of years ago, I made reference to our union that if we're going to give up the right for the teams to randomly test its ballplayers, then we need to do it right. "And if not, then don't give it up at all. I think there is value in ballplayers policing themselves. It's a right players before me fought for, and it's a right that I respected. But if we're going to give up that right, don't embarrass yourself and do it half-ass. Do it right. And I don't feel that the policy is right." Kent is equally damning when it comes to the BALCO scandal, which he calls "a pure embarrassment." Much has been said about sluggers coming into camp last year and this year much smaller than in previous years, especially Giambi and Bonds this winter. For years, skeptics noticed how much bigger sluggers such as Giambi and Bonds were. In Kent's opinion, size isn't a measure of steroid use. "There are small, petite guys who have been caught doing drugs, too," he said. "Runners, marathoners, all walks of life, all types of athletes have been caught doing illegal performance-enhancing drugs. So to sit there and say, `Well, he's big, so he does it; he's not big -- he doesn't do it,' is a bunch of crap. Sure, it might be more obvious from one from another, but it's still a bunch of crap." Kent read the comments of Rockies reliever Turk Wendell this week saying it was obvious Bonds had to be on steroids. Kent respects Wendell's right to an opinion, but he balked when asked specifically if he thought his former San Francisco teammate was on steroids. "I'm not going to get into who's doing them, who's not doing them, who could be doing them," Kent said. "I think that's an embarrassment to the game when these things take place. It just continues to create skepticism of who could or could not be innocent, and that's not right. That's not good for the game, and it's not good for the fans. It's not right to the players, either. "I think there's been a history of drug problems in any sport, guys that can't stop drinking, doing hard-core drugs. I think steroids can be just as addictive as those because it's a performance-enhancing drug. Guys can kick their performance into a second gear. That's a thrill, and that's what drugs do. Drugs give you a false sense of a thrill. That's sad sometimes that's what's needed." For that reason, Kent acknowledges the temptation to use steroids. "The competition level is so high that players are willing to sacrifice anything that they have just to maintain or to better their performance," he said. "Anybody that's going to tell you no is lying through their teeth. Every player in this locker room wants to do whatever it takes to be the best player, and there's no doubt that steroids can do that. To say that one player never thought about it is a bunch of crap. Everybody has thought about it. People have chosen one way or another." Ultimately, though, Kent remains adamant that today's ballplayers are just the same as the ones in Ruth's day. "We've got hard-asses in the game now, so people make a big deal out of it," he said. "People are scrutinizing the game more now than they had in the past, but we have the same player that existed back in the day. We have guys that have issues with drugs and alcohol problems. We have guys that have questionable attitudes. "Well, back in the day when the game was invented (and) with Babe Ruth, we had guys doing the same things. They had drug and alcohol problems then, and they had questionable attitudes then, too. "So why all of a sudden we're just now saying the game is different than it was then? Because chemically we don't know if it was an issue then. We had no testing. Now all of a sudden we've got testing, so it's different now? We put the game now on a different level than we did before?"
You actually have to work out to benefit from steroids. The only way they would have helped Ruth is if drinking and smoking cigars was an effective replacement for weight training.
While it's incredibly unlikely that guys like Ruth took steroids(because of the technology factor), Kent makes a very good point. Who's to say that guys in the 70s and 80s weren't taking steroids just as much? Just because no one found out doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
The reason people generally don't think that players juiced up just as much in the past is anecdotal evidence. In the 70s and 80s, there just weren't as many hulking sluggers in the majors. Guys like Mike Schmidt, George Foster, even Glenn Davis were premiere sluggers who didn't look like linebackers. Sure, you had to occasional huge guy like Greg Luzinski, but I don't remember seeing the preponderence of hulks like we have now until around when Canseco came into the league. And we all know about Jose Canseco. The other thing is that the power numbers are way out of whack now compared to every era. I remember Glenn Davis being second in the league in HRs with 31. I remember it was NATIONAL news when Cecil Fielder cracked the 50 HR barrier. 50! But nowadays (with the exception of last year) it seems like a dozen guys hit 50 every year. Sure, expansion and smaller parks are a factor for the power numbers, but people have every reason to look at the anecdotal evidence and conclude that there are more players juicing now than ever before.
But how much of that lack of muscles is due to strength training instead of steroids? Players in general aren't as athletic back then. Athletes in general are faster and stronger now. Unless you're willing to attribute all the improvement on the use of steroids, then your logic doesn't hold up. By the way, is it even possible to look at someone and think, "This guy is on steroid"? If I use steroids and bulk up, I'd STILL look pretty scrawny compared to every hitter on the Astros.
Well, I didn't attribute all the improvement to streroids: I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that advances in strength training account for better athletes. But the 70s and 80s weren't ancient history. We're not comparing today's ballplayers to guys like Lou Gehrig. I watched baseball in the 80s, and there were GREAT athletes. Some of it is strength training. But c'mon -- does strength training explain the insane numbers we're seeing now? There's no way strength training has advanced so much in in 15-16 years to explain the quantum leap in offensive numbers. Does strength training explain slugger after slugger changing their body type from beanpole to linebacker as grown men? Who changes their body type in their mid-30s from strength training alone? Some of them are clean, I'm sure, but ALL of them? Does it explain all these guys with heads that look like a sack of potatoes? Are they working their forehead muscles? "Logic" dictates that you can't look at all the evidence and not conclude that steroid use must be more widespread than ever. To attribute it all to strength training advances since 1989 is naive.
That's a pretty good take and a fresh perspective. First time I ever heard that argument even though it's pretty obvious. Gotta be fair about it. Still, they need to be testing those guys. I'm sure it'd actually help the league. They don't need more home runs right now. They need credability. And besides all the best games to go to are when the best pitchers are facing off. It makes the hits that much more exciting and gives the game a more on the edge of your seat feel. Who are the people more excited about seeing? Pedro or Nomar? Clemens or Bagwell? Remember when Randy Johnson was selling out the dome? That was awesome!
Someone check out Athlon Sports' Baseball preview for this season. In the Cubs' section, they have a picture of Hack Wilson, the all-time RBI season leader with 191. That dude was probably on steroids.
