Andro doesn’t affect the outcome of a game?
"I will, without question, vote for McGwire. I’m not interested in moral arguments; I’m not electing a prime minister, mayor, or pope. I would not vote for Pete Rose, because I believe that any manager or player tempted enough to bet on a game might be equally tempted to do something that would knowingly affect the outcome of a game."
–Jeff Blair, Toronto Globe and Mail reporter.
=======================
But if McGwire’s usage of Andro and similar PEDs gave him an advantage over those NOT using them, and he therefore padded his Hall of Fame stats resume, that’s OK?
dianagram
EXCELLENT point! I agree. That is the problem with all this. When anything – from gambling to steroid use, to scuffing baseballs, to throwing spitballs is used to gain an unfair advantage, it invalidates the competition. A competition is only valid when each side has equal advantages and disadvantages. When one side has an advantage the other does not, the compeition is invalidated, and therefore the entire point of playing the game is invalidated.
What some might argue is that in McGuire’s playing days, steroids were not illegal to use in baseball, so… theoretically anyone could have used them to gain an advantage. But I feel it must be all or nothing. Either EVERYONE has to use steroids, or NOBODY can use them. Without either scenario, there is unfair advantages and therefore invalid competition.
http://baseballspikes.mlblogs.com