The Mercury News

Is Cooperstow­n a shrine or a museum?

- By George F. Will George F. Will is a Washington Post columnist.

WASHINGTON — Many Americans are more thoughtful when choosing appliances than when choosing presidents, but the baseball writers whose ballots decide who is “enshrined” — more about that verb anon — in Cooperstow­n’s Hall of Fame are mostly conscienti­ous voters struggling to unravel a knotty puzzle: how to treat retired players who are known or suspected to have used performanc­e enhancing drugs while compiling gaudy numbers?

Such chemicals increase muscle mass, thereby increasing hitters’ bat speeds, pitchers’ velocities and recovery from the strain of training and competing. On Wednesday, two highly probable users, Roger Clemens (thirdmost career strikeouts, seven Cy Young awards) and Barry Bonds (career and season home run records, seven MVP awards) reached 54.1 percent and 53.8 percent, respective­ly, up from 45.2 percent and 44.3 percent last year and approachin­g the 75 percent threshold for admission. Only three players have reached 50 percent without eventually being admitted (Jack Morris, Gil Hodges, Lee Smith).

Cooperstow­n’s administra­tors — it is not run by Major League Baseball — and the writers-cum-gatekeeper­s must decide what the institutio­n is. Its title — the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum — implies that the hall containing the players’ plaques is somehow apart from and other than the museum. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “museum” as where “objects of historical, scientific, artistic or cultural interest are stored and exhibited.” A “shrine” contains “memorabili­a of a particular revered person or thing.” Cooperstow­n stipulates that “voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmans­hip, character and contributi­ons to the team(s) on which the player played.”

Some players’ records reflect abilities enhanced by acts of bad character — surreptiti­ous resorts to disreputab­le chemistry that traduces sportsmans­hip. But as younger writers who did not cover baseball during the PED era become Hall of Fame voters, the electorate is becoming less interested in disqualify­ing PED users. These writers should, however, consider why PEDs matter.

They subvert the central idea of sport — athletes competing on equal terms. Distinguis­hing legitimate from illegitima­te athletic enhancemen­t is complex: The body produces testostero­ne and human growth hormone that are components of some PEDs. Enhancemen­ts improve performanc­e without devaluing it only if they involve methods and materials better training and nutrition) that help the body perform unusually rather than unnaturall­y well.

PEDs mock the idea that winning is a just reward for praisewort­hy behavior — submission to an exacting training regimen and the mental mastery of pressure, pain and exhaustion. Drugs that make sport exotic make it less exemplary; they drain sport of admirable excellence, which elevates spectators as well as competitor­s. Beyond this civic interest in honest athletics, there is a matter of justice. Many former ballplayer­s missed having major league careers, or longer major league careers with larger contracts, because they competed honestly against cheating opponents, or lost playing time to cheating teammates. These handicappe­d-because-honorable players could have leveled the playing field only by using dangerous PEDs, thereby jeopardizi­ng their physical and mental health and forfeiting their integrity.

And consider Fred McGriff, who in 19 sterling seasons during the steroid era hit 493 home runs, seven short of the 500 mark that has generally opened Cooperstow­n’s doors to eligible players (retired five years) not suspected of PED use. There is no suspicion that McGriff used PEDs, and if he had, he certainly would have hit many more than seven additional home runs. The closest he has come to Cooperstow­n’s 75 percent is 23.9 percent in 2012. (He received 21.7 percent Wednesday.) And there are players in Cooperstow­n whose careers were enhanced by amphetamin­es, which once were ubiquitous in baseball but now are banned.

If Cooperstow­n is content, as perhaps it should be, to be a museum — not a negligible thing — Bonds and Clemens belong there as important elements of the game’s story, and their story should be candidly told on their plaques. If, however, Cooperstow­n wants admission to mean enshrineme­nt, it must embrace and articulate the Hall’s ethic. America has never more needed the insistence that real success is to be honorably achieved.

 ?? ASSOCIATED PRESS ARCHIVES ?? Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
ASSOCIATED PRESS ARCHIVES Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States