|
|
#1
08-05-2005, 12:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
WSJ Op-Ed\'s view of Rafael Palmiero
Would they take this attitude if Palmiero was friends with Bill Clinton? What a bunch of hypocrites.
Op-Ed piece Did Rafael Palmeiro use steroids or didn't he? He said he didn't, and the President of the United States says he believes him. Why should we care? We care because baseball is the "national pastime," and its meticulous rules, lore and personalities have become an ineffable metaphor for life itself in America. We admire magnificent lifetime achievements, and few are more magnificent than that of Baltimore Orioles first baseman Rafael Palmeiro's combined career total of 500 home runs and 3,000 base hits. If you know baseball, you know that is an astounding and rare human feat. Baseball now has suspended Mr. Palmeiro for using a banned substance, widely believed to be a steroid, and an arbitrator ruled against his appeal. Mr. Palmeiro said it made "no sense" for him to take drugs in the same year he'd arrive at one of baseball's highest plateaus. George W. Bush, who as owner of the Texas Rangers knew Mr. Palmeiro, says, "I believe him." We don't know whom to believe. We do know that we have become fatigued by the steroids issue -- the debates between libertarians (who cares?) and purists (it ain't fair). So here's a modest proposal. Baseball's fans know about the "dead-ball" era prior to 1920 and the "live-ball" era that followed. Whatever the much-debated cause, stats before and after were like night and day. So let's designate post-1995 the "live-player" era. Professional sports are now populated with chemicalized robots who are often fun to watch. But they are different than what went before. We can call this the "live-player" era, let the old heroes rest in peace and argue into the night about the new heroes like Mr. Palmeiro. 
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
