I am used to Rick Reilly's arrogance and self-importance. He is, and always has been, a very good writer. That he is acutely aware of his skill has long been evident in his willingness to hail his own superiority. But even by his standards, today's ESPN column is too damned much.
Reilly's goal, you see, is to "right the wrongs" of the steroids era by announcing the rightful winner of the MVP awards that went to known juicers. Among those whom he admires: Mike Piazza and Albert Pujols. Reilly reasons that Piazza was cheated by Ken Caminiti and Pujols was cheated three times by Barry Bonds. Caminiti and Bonds, of course, are "known" to have used performance-enhancing drugs. There's more, but you get the idea.
Just one question, Rick. How do you know that Piazza and Pujols are "clean?"
Please don't think that I'm accusing either player of cheating. But isn't it this kind of self-righteous certainty about who's playing by the rules and who isn't part of what got us where we are right now? Isn't that why the A-Rod stuff is such a big deal?
It's obvious that many major leaguers have used performance-enhancers. But let's stop acting like we have some kind of detective's moral compass to find out which ones. Because, inevitably, we'll be wrong again.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think you raise an important point here that is indicative of the way the press has worked throughout this entire process. They seemingly need to have "rights" and "wrongs," "good guys" and "bad guys," etc. And, of course, none of them can ever live up to it. And, frankly, Reilly comes across as just as smug as the ballplayers whose smugness is part of the problem. It's funny to see ESPN juxtaposing a photo of A-Rod looking smug, as if to visually create disdain by the viewer, with Reilly's column, but with Reilly's column characterized as "truth," not arrogance.
And, of course, there's no mention of past "eras" here. By Reilly's take, shouldn't players from the 1960s and 1970s be vacating awards for amphetamines, etc.? Shouldn't Babe Ruth be vacating awards as well? I'm sure Gaylord Perry's then got two Cy Young Awards to hand back.
And, really, in all of Reilly's smugness, has he never used a performance-enhancing drug? You mean to tell me that in all the years of writing columns and building his journalistic career, he never drank a bunch of coffee or Mountain Dew or something to help stay awake and crank out product? I have to finish dissertation chapters, course papers, research articles, grading exams or papers, etc. Now, perhaps we might say that coffee and soda aren't the same as PEDs, but don't the little everyday practices of drugs helping productivity ideologically bracket the stuff in MLB? And, given the different, high-stakes context of MLB performance, doesn't that just make it all the more inviting to do the steroids, et al.? Rick can have Barry, et al. give back their awards when he's willing to do the same with his sportswriting awards, too. What an arrogant SOB!
I'm much more inclined to find value in Mike Schmidt's take: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2009/news/story?id=3915892
Thanks for the Schmidt link--that's a rare dose of humility, isn't it? I just can't figure out why anyone would speak with such certitude and arrogance (like Reilly) given what we continue to learn about players who used PEDs.
Post a Comment