MLB and NFL: Outrage at 'cheaters' not equal

by cavscout on Sep 6, 2007 5:17 PM EDT Comment 4 comments

He sets it up as well as I could so this from Jayson Stark at ESPN.com

Finally, can we just pose this question: Suppose a prominent and popular All-Star player on a two-time World Series champion were to get suspended for a quarter of a season because he got nabbed obtaining HGH. And suppose, at the same time, a coach on one of last year's World Series teams was also suspended for the same offense. How gigantic would the headlines be on every front page in America? How scathing would the columns be from all your favorite writers? Well, any time America is ready to kick up a similarly massive sense of outrage over the HGH suspensions of Rodney Harrison and Wade Wilson, we're ready to read every word of it.

Honestly, what is the deal with Harrison and Wilson pretty much being a non-story?

Thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 4 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This was on Gambo and Arse yesterday

It seems to be the outrage of the week.

The outrage is different because the NFL has been policing their players for a while now while MLB has had some very notable problems getting even the slightest amount of testing put in place.

I'm not saying it's right, but that's why the outrage levels aren't the same.

My opinion is that the NFL needs to stiffen the penalty for HGH positive tests.

Bob Melvin Sucks

by nihil67 on Sep 6, 2007 6:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There's another aspect to it, as well.

Firstly, Rodney Harrison, while a good player, is probably not a HOFer, and is unlikely to create any lasting record numbers, especially this late in his career. (# of tackles, sacks, ints, etc.)

Secondly, football (fine, Jim... gridiron) is a game that's virtually impossible for any single player to have a huge effect on. Oh, sure, maybe a defensive player comes up with a huge stop, or a turnover, but then the offense has to score. Sure, maybe the offense gets a touchdown, but then the defense can't get run over. As a single player, it's pretty tough to singularly dominate a football game. (Unless you're a kicker who can make a field goal from like 75 yards, or something like that) Baseball is much more of an individual sport. There's no comparative stat in football to the home run. (Sacks? Catches? Yards? All dependent on others.) Al Capone may disagree but I don't think Barry Bonds would.

Third, there isn't the same obsession with the numbers in football as there is in baseball. (Lynn Swann became a HOFer even though he only caught a measly 5462 yards!) There wasn't nearly as much attention and gnashing of teeth when Peyton Manning broke the season touchdown record as when Barry broke the season HR record, and I'm sure the former didn't get nearly as much hate mail, despite the fact that football has essentially replaced baseball as America's favorite sport. Sure, in football, the numbers are mentioned, but not with the same hallowed reverence as in baseball.

Come on, Sandy Baby, loosen up. You're too tight.

by DbacksSkins on Sep 6, 2007 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A large reason

is that baseball is romanticized more than any other sport in America. Working in a book store, we get tons of books about baseball; the numbers of baseball, the history of baseball, novels about baseball, et cetera. How many do we get on football? No where near as many (though still a lot).

Even if baseball isn't on the same level as football for popularity, the people that control the media (editors and journalists) still fantasize about the "good ole days" of baseball. So the idea that the game is tainted shakes people more to the core than the rough and tumble football. Hell, it seemed Chargers fans (the few I know, which is very few luckily) seemed to celebrate that Shawne Merriman had taken steroids, as ridiculous as that is.

The cynical side to me says that media turns a blind eye or takes a softer tone with the NFL because it generates so much money. It's easy to bash the NBA or the NHL or MLS or any of the other smaller leagues because they frankly don't generate as much profit, but NFL seems to be the golden fertility calf.

Stay grindy, my friends.

by soco on Sep 6, 2007 11:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good points

nihil67: It seems to be the outrage of the week.

Only in sports circles. A baseball scandal like this would have been front page news. I'm a sports fan (while not a NFL fan so much) and haven't heard all that much about it. In other words, it hasn't been shoved in my face all day and all night. It's been met with a collective shrug.

DbacksSkins: ..there isn't the same obsession with the numbers in football as there is in baseball

I think this is a huge part of it: no hallowed records are being broken by the 'cheaters'.

soco: The cynical side to me says that media turns a blind eye or takes a softer tone with the NFL because it generates so much money

Also true - the NFL truly is the golden calf as you put it.

I think another aspect is that 'roids and HGH get a pass in football because those agents amplify the 'footballness' of football. Fans want the hulking players, the blinding speed and the huge hits. The more the merrier. Perhaps football is now in the place baseball was back when "chicks dug the long ball". We knew something was amiss with Sosa, et al - but we just didn't care. That's where football is - but I just don't see the pendulum swinging back anytime soon.

by cavscout on Sep 7, 2007 10:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs