STEROIDS AND MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Sports Journalism and Its Impact on Public Perception. Shelby Dixon

Transcription

1 STEROIDS AND MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Sports Journalism and Its Impact on Public Perception Shelby Dixon 1

2 Table of Contents I. Introduction II. PEDs and Baseball: A History III. The Narrative Created by Sports Journalism a. Mark McGwire b. Ryan Braun c. Andy Pettitte IV. Public Perception V. Conclusions 2

3 The integrity of the game is everything. -Peter Ueberroth, MLB Commissioner, Baseball is a game of the nostalgic, of the idealistic, of the exceptional. Within professional baseball, the American dream is personified: young men, working their way up from the bottom rungs and through hard work, dedication and integrity, reaching new heights of income, fame and idolization. Baseball is a game that idealizes the past, fans constantly look back on the golden days of baseball: of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, of $1 tickets and day games. Critical to this narrative of the past and integral to the American dream, however, is integrity, the honesty of personal achievement, garnered through God-given talent and relentless work. But this is the narrative for the fan, the baseball purist and baseball writers, not that of the players. Since the inception of baseball in 1845 and the founding of Major League Baseball (MLB) in 1875, the players have tried to cheat the game, to cheat the mythical, mysterious integrity of the game. Whether it was Sammy Sosa corking his bat or Gaylord Perry doctoring the ball, players have searched and found ways to gain a competitive edge and inflate their numbers and success to a level beyond their natural abilities. Two conflicting narratives, one ultimate goal: fame, fortune and a legacy that lasts forever. None of these acts of cheating and attempts to reach this eternal legacy, however, has been as pervasive or disruptive, nor has any other form of cheating captured the spotlight quite like performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) and steroids. The so-called Steroid Era of Baseball is a long-lasting, decades long dark mark on the game in which countless players, hitters and pitchers alike, have injected themselves with PEDs to increase strength and stamina, giving them otherworldly power, strength, quickness and endurance. Besides the illegality of taking anabolic steroids they were classified as a Class III controlled substance 3

4 under the Controlled Substance Act in 1990, banned by MLB in 199, with league-wide testing implemented in 2003 there is much more at stake for players who choose to use steroids (Baseball s Steroid Era). The writers hold the key to the Hall of Fame immortality sought by players; When it comes to Hall of Fame induction, journalists are the judge, jury and executioner. It is at this point that we see the dramatic, beautifully dark, twisted and intricate collision of these conflicting narratives: the idealistic commoner versus the fame and glory hungry player, yearning for superstardom. The dichotomy and juxtaposition of these two varying yet intertwined narratives has captured the heart and mind of baseball fans for years. What is the result of the cataclysmic intersection? If the ultimate goal for these players is a plaque in Cooperstown, what impact does the decision to use steroids have on their chances of reaching the Hall of Fame and their public perception? If the key to the Hall of Fame is held by baseball writers who vote on entrance, what role do sports journalists and the media have on impacting public perception and the voting process? In order to analyze this further, I will use the communication theories of agenda setting and framing to establish the narratives created by the media and sports journalists regarding performance enhancement in baseball. Agenda setting is the notion that based on what topics and stories the media produces directly influences what the public thinks about and what they think about these topics. Similarly, framing is the theory that establishes hot people think about a given. Framing theory argues that the cognitive frames established by mass media, the way in which media and journalists talk about a given topic (in this instance PEDs) and how it is established within a greater context will influence and alter the opinions and feelings of the audience for whom the message is created. In order to accomplish this, I will examine pieces written about three confirmed PED users and explain the framework created about these players and their 4

5 Hall of Fame candidacies. From this, a conclusion will be drawn as to what the overarching narrative in play is and what this narrative says about the supposed impact steroids has had on each player s candidacy, public perception and legacy. The next step in the process will be to conduct a series of surveys and interviews, to determine the public perception of these players and how the public feels about the Hall of Fame as it relates to players with a confirmed link to steroids. This will allow a comparison of narratives created by sports journalists and public perception to see if the two align. As the theories of agenda setting and framing are accepted and validated theories of communications, this project will not attempt to confirm or refute them. Rather, this study will give insight as to what power sports journalists truly have on public opinion and shed new light on the extent to which these theories permeate the sporting culture, providing a more in-depth analysis of their effect and power in the realm of sports journalism. The players that will be examined in this research will act as case studies. The players were selected for various reasons, and while each player s narrative is unique and has its own intricacies, it ultimately came down to three factors: they are all confirmed steroids users by their own admission, they all have arguably Hall of Fame worthy statistics (in the case of Braun, on pace for Hall of Fame worthy statistics), and they all have struggled with wide spread popularity before their connection to PEDs and had to answer tough questions after the link was made. I will look at Mark McGwire, because his role as the savior of post-strike MLB and the pariah of the Steroid Era make him the poster-child as the epitome of the dramatic rise and fall from grace as a result of association with steroids. Next I will examine the story of Ryan Braun because of his MVP season, his failed drug test and becoming the first player to ever win an appeal against the MLB for PEDs (albeit on a technicality) and his 5

6 adamant denial before the revelation of his connection to Biogenesis and his stunning fall from glory as the Hebrew Hammer to public enemy number one. Finally, Andy Pettitte, as his approach to being linked to PEDs is the polar opposite of that of Braun and McGwire, a narrative seldom spun by those accused of steroids use: immediate acceptance and apology. Also, the timeliness of his recent retirement has thrust him into the forefront of the debate surrounding PED users and Hall of Fame candidacy. 6

7 PEDS AND BASEBALL: A HISTORY While this is an abbreviated history of steroids in baseball, it does highlight many key dates, times and factors related to PED use in the national pastime. Also, this segment examines two questions: what led players to taking steroids? What factors led MLB to take so long to implement testing and what led to the Joint Drug Agreement and league-wide testing in 2006? I will also offer an overview of MLB policies regarding steroids and testing and conclude with the release of the Mitchell Report in The decision to stop with the Mitchell Report came because it is the most current legislative piece concerning steroids and was the key component in MLB taking a hard stance against steroids. The tumultuous relationship between baseball and steroids can be linked to many different occasions, but its official entrance to the game came in 1991, when then- Commissioner Fay Vincent issued a memo to all MLB teams, stating that anabolic steroids would be added to the league s banned substance list. Vincent s decision came on the tail of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the 1990 Anabolic Steroids Act, issued, which classified steroids and their derivatives as a Class III controlled substance (H.R. 4658, H.R. 5210). Despite resistance by the American Medical Association, Drug Enforcement Administration, Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which argued that anabolic steroids did not lead to the physical or psychological dependence of other controlled substances, lawmakers felt that steroids posed enough of a threat to demarcate them as illegal. Vincent felt that with this designation, he had no choice but to ban steroids from baseball; where he failed, however, was to implement league-wide testing or punitive repercussions for PED use. While it is hard to pinpoint when steroids and PEDs entered the game of baseball, there have been documented cases of their use as early as 1992, 7

8 when the FBI arrested Curtis Wenlzaff for steroid distribution. While Wenlzaff was not a player himself, he admitted to turning Jose Canseco from a novice user to a steroid guru (Steroid Timeline), indicating that steroids had arrived in baseball (Baseball s Steroid Era). Canseco may not have been the first player to use steroids, but he is certainly the first high profile player to be directly linked to steroid use. Due to the lack of testing in the 1990s, it is hard to know when steroids took off. But the drastic increase in yearly homerun totals during the mid-1990s indicates that this was the pinnacle of their use. In 1988, Canseco s only MVP season, there were 3,180 homeruns hit in the MLB *. By the year 2000, this number had ballooned nearly 78% to 5,693 total homeruns. While hitters are guilty of PED use, pitchers are also culprits of taking steroids. Because fastball velocity was not tracked and recorded until the mid 2000s, the best indicator for a rise in velocity is that of yearly strikeout totals (faster pitches typically leads to more swings and misses and thus more strikeouts). In 1988, there were a total of 23, 853 strikeouts recorded; by 2000, that number had grown to 31,356, an increase just shy of 35%. While the numbers of strikeouts have continued to rise since 2000, homeruns per year have plateaued and held even or declined beginning since 2003, which coincides with the implementation of league-wide testing. It is safe to say that this new testing policy discouraged many players from taking steroids, but it is also true that it was not enough to purify the game as holistically as MLB would have hoped, as positive tests have continued throughout MLB. But what is it that led players to begin taking steroids, and continue taking them, even after severe punishments were instituted for positive tests? Players have spoken about their steroid use and have used all sorts of excuses and reasons for their use, ranging from wanting * All statistics taken from almanac.com or reference.com unless noted otherwise 8

9 to heal from injuries faster (Human Growth Hormone has been shown to speed up the recovery process) to wanting to hit homeruns and succeed. But as indicated by the dramatic rise in homeruns in strikeouts during the mid-1990s, it is clear that steroids were not isolated to just a few players but pervasive throughout the entire league. One of the leading factors may have been the lack of punitive consequences during this timespan. If there is no threat or fear of being suspended, fined or punished, there is no deterrent to steroid use beyond integrity. But when livelihood comes into question, when dire circumstances come into play, many will do things they may not in times of security and stability. And certainly, the mid- 1990s were dire times for many baseball players. The widespread use of steroids in professional baseball made it hard for players to remain in the league without using. In an ESPN Magazine article in April 2000, Scott Bradley stated that he would still be playing baseball if he had used steroids, but because he had chose not to, he was out of baseball and out of a job in a few years (Baseball s Steroid Era). As indicated by Bradley, for many players, steroids were the only way to remain in the game, to stay in the league, to keep their jobs and keep drawing a salary. No longer were steroids a way of creating a immaculate legacy full of gaudy numbers that made you stand out from the crowd. Rather, steroids were the only way to keep up with the competition. Without testing for steroids and without punishment for steroids, using PEDs was not seen as a bad thing by many players, but as a essential and necessary to stay in baseball. Without testing and looming punishment, there was no risk for players, but only reward for taking steroids. If, as former commissioner Peter Ueberroth put it, the integrity of the game is everything, why then did MLB wait so long to take a hard stance on steroids in baseball and make an effort to gentrify the game? Several factors were in play, both in MLB s turning a 9

10 blind eye and their subsequent 180-degree turn. The first issue is at hand is that baseball needed to be saved. Perhaps it did not need steroids, but it did need to be saved. Attendance had been on a steady rise from 1988 until 1993, growing from 52,998,904 to 70,257,938. But following the strike, which cost the league 948 games and the cancellation of the 1994 World Series, attendance plummeted to 50,010,016 and the league continued to struggle with widespread fandom until 2000, when attendance levels reached pre-strike levels. The strike caused the league to lose credibility with its fans, as greedy owners and greedy players robbed fans of baseball for over a year; scorned fans paid the league back by not coming to games. Attendance began to rise again in 1996, but it took several years for the league to begin making strides towards gaining fans loyalty again. In the summer of 1998, sluggers Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa took fans for a ride, a magical summer that had not been seen since McGwire and Sosa chased the single-season homerun record set my Roger Maris in 61, and both McGwire and Sosa eventually passed Maris mark of 61 homeruns in a season, with McGwire setting the record at 70 homeruns. And it was during this season in which attendance began to rise back to pre-strike numbers, with attendance reaching 70,601,147 fans. While baseball may not have needed steroids specifically, it is safe to say it needed a new energy and level of excitement injected into the game and this was found through the mammoth homeruns hit by McGwire and Sosa during the summer of 98. Furthermore, between the years 1996 and 2004, MLB saw an increase in revenue, with the average MLB franchise value rising from $140 million in 1994 to $332 million in 2004 franchise revenues accelerated from a Pre-Steroid Era CAGR of 3.4% to a Steroid Era growth rate of 5.0%...the NPV of the profit stream for the average MLB franchise has Attendance numbers taken from 10

11 increased by $52.2 million (Grossman, 7, 8). This is in contrast to the unsteady economic climate seen in the early 1990s that saw ebb and flow to profits and franchise values and the ultimate decline in the years immediately following the strike. This evidence confirms that the excitement and energy that the monstrous home runs produced by those taking steroids was exactly what baseball needed to rise to its pre-strike prominence as an economic machine. With attendance and revenues sky rocketing, perhaps MLB was not concerned with what was behind the spike in power numbers, but instead focused on the profits that were coming at increased rates. But it would be ill advised and narrow-minded to say that these increased profits were the sole contributor to the MLB s slow response to the steroid dilemma. Rather, there was another factor in play during the Steroid Era. The hands of MLB may have been tied due to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which until 2002, did not allow for drug testing without probable cause. In 2001, MLB was able to unilaterally implement drug testing to all minor league players not on a major league 40-man roster and in 2002, Senators Byron Dorgan and John McCain told Commissioner Bud Selig and MLB Players Association director Don Fehr to negotiate a strict testing policy. As a result, in 2003, MLB and the MLBPA announce that they would conduct survey testing, stating that if 5% of players tested positive in 2003, more punitive testing would be implemented with penalties ranging from counseling for a first offense to a one year ban for a fifth positive test; on the flip side, if less than 2.5% of players tested positive for two consecutive years, testing would be dropped (Baseball s Steroid Era). In November, it was announced that more than 5% had tested positive and thus, more testing would continue. This may not have come about without the urging of Congress members and perhaps the use of steroids would not have become such a nationally covered phenomenon. But with the involvement of Congress came increased 11

12 national publicity and public concern regarding steroids in baseball. It was at this point that it became pertinent for MLB to clean up baseball and get back to the integrity that Ueberroth preached. The next major step in drug testing came in 2004 when the Senate Commerce Committee began the legislative process, telling Selig and Fehr that the current testing policy and is not sufficient. McCain is quoted, Your failure to commit to addressing this issue straight on will motivate this committee to search for legislative remedies (Baseball s Steroid Era). Following McCain s and the Senate Committee s denouncement of steroids and MLB s testing policy, in 2005, the House Government Reform Committee called for a hearing in Washington to hear testimony from various parties involved with baseball, including both players and MLB executives. When many players denied their invitations to attend, the committee issued subpoenas and all agree to attend the hearing. This hearing kick started the MLB s hard stance on steroids and led to the testing policy becoming much stiffer and player agreed to a new testing program with penalties of 50 game suspensions for the first positive test, 100 games for the second positive test and a lifetime ban for a third offense in 2005 (Grossman 3). After a multi-year investigation of players, Senator George Mitchell released a report on December 13, 2007 that implicated 89 players and spurned many current and former players. The release of the report was perhaps the final straw in the public eye and personified how pervasive and widespread the use of PEDs in baseball had become. The Mitchell Report revealed the names of many players and thrust the issues of steroids into the national spotlight to a level that had yet to be seen. Of the players named, many were not perceived as cheaters or had been suspected of steroid use prior to the release of the Report. However, their indictment in the Mitchell Report cast a negative and dark shadow on many players and 12

13 infuriated many baseball purists who held firm to Ueberroth s feeling that the integrity of the game is everything. 13

14 The Narrative Created by Sports Journalism: Mark McGwire When the topic of steroids comes up among baseball enthusiasts, two names come into conversation immediately: Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire. However, a problem is afoot with Bonds because there is no public admission of steroids use and no failed drug test, merely extreme amounts of suspicion and a conviction of obstruction of justice for his role during the BALCO investigation. McGwire, however, has admitted his steroids use. And as such, he is the first player examined in this paper. During his career, McGwire was seen in many circles as the redeemer of baseball following the strike and much less favorably for his role in the Steroid Era after he was one of the players implicated in the Mitchell Report. McGwire s numbers and career statistics certainly justify his enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. A career.263 hitter, McGwire amassed 1,414 runs batted in (RBI) and 583 homeruns, placing him 10 th all-time. Voted American League Rookie of the Year in 1987, McGwire began his career with a bang and continued to meet expectations throughout his career, which saw him named to 12 All-Star teams in 16 seasons, along with being rated as the 85th best player in MLB history by Sporting News in 2005, and named a member of the MLB All-Century Team in These awards and accolades came on the tail of a magical season in which McGwire eclipsed Roger Maris record of 61 homeruns in a single season, McGwire ending the 98 season with a majestic 70. And yet, despite these awards, accolades and records, McGwire has never received more than 24% of the vote to be enshrined in the Hall of Fame (75% is required for entrance). Between , McGwire received 23.5%, 23.6%, 21.9%, 23.7%, 19.8%, 19.5% and 16.9% of votes cast for a Hall of Fame ballot. During his playing career, McGwire was considered by many, if not unanimously, to be a surefire first 14

15 ballot Hall of Famer, yet he is struggling to get enough votes to merely stay on the ballot, let alone be granted a place in Cooperstown. Why then the disparity between statistics and the perceived, and reality? To find the answer, we must look at the story of McGwire as told by sports journalists. While an active player, McGwire was lauded and immersed in adoration. His homerun chase to break Maris record was praised and revered, despite what was found in his locker during that 98 season. A reporter in the clubhouse found a bottle of androstenedione, or andro atop his locker in plain sight. Andro is a pill that provides a brief rush of testosterone before a workout, enhancing the user s ability to lift more weight without tiring and thus, build more muscle and more strength. But as Mark Purdy wrote in his column in the San Jose Mercury News, The pills are legal. They may or may not be safe. I am not saying I would tell my teenager to swallow the stuff. But I am saying I accept McGwire's decision, as an informed adult, to do so. I am saying I understand McGwire's thinking. Totally. This sentiment was shared by many, saying that because the pills were not on MLB s banned substance list, they were fair game, no second thought given. Were a player to be found taking such a supplement in post-mitchell Report baseball, if MLB did not suspend them, the fans would certainly drive them out of the game. But not in 1998, not in the midst of a prolific, awe-inspiring season. Purdy goes on to say that andro is a baseball problem, not a McGwire problem. If baseball banned the stuff, McGwire wouldn t be taking it. The perception of Big Mac during his career is personified in this column alone; he is the all-american man, the ideal baseball player with a big smile, big heart and big muscles. This was perpetuated throughout his career, never a negative thought and no ill will directed at McGwire from the sports world. Certainly there were those who questioned his use of andro, but it was for health 15

16 reasons, not because he was perceived as a cheater. Here s the problem with Mark McGwire s pursuit of the all-time major league baseball homerun record: Nobody is enjoying it enough. Not him. Not us, is how Douglas Looney described the chase of Maris record in 1998, What McGwire is bringing to us is sports entertainment, yes, sports drama, at its very best. A pop-up or a ground out by McGwire is part of the fascinating mosaic, not reason to groan. Fans and journalists alike loved McGwire for what he was doing to and for the game of baseball. This continued throughout his career, up until his retirement, I m one of your multitude of fans who are still numb after hearing about your announcement of retiring you measure so high for an achievement that baseball statisticians don't consider. It's those lofty home runs that seemed to disappear in the clouds before they settled down far up in the stands I'm sure your home runs were the highest, loftiest, most spectacular ever hit, said journalist Godfrey Sperling in the Christian Science Monitor in 2001, making it evident that McGwire was beloved by all. The narrative spun by journalists was one that played to the sense of nostalgia that defines fandom, a narrative that made McGwire larger than life. He was on top of the world; the glowing, glorified, gracious hero. How could fans have negative feelings towards McGwire when, at the time, there was no suspicion of steroids and when they were constantly bombarded with stories, reports and columns that only immortalized him? McGwire was a god, worshipped by all those involved in the sport and his towering homeruns captivated baseball fans like never seen before. The narrative and perception changed, drastically, however, with McGwire s tearyeyed refusal to answer questions at the 2005 Reform Committee hearing, the release of the Mitchell Report and McGwire s 2010 admission to steroids use. With the link to steroids and banned substance, the narrative concerning McGwire shifted almost immediately. No longer 16

17 was he a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame, but rather McGwire was begging for consideration and votes. When McGwire was snubbed for the Hall on his first ballot, Bryan Burwell echoed the sentiments felt by many fans and sports writers: McGwire did not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. McGwire was a target baseball's Hall of Fame voters couldn't possibly miss. The lash of their outrage (or was it the sting of their unbearable disappointment?) flogged Big Mac's once-heroic reputation with a stunning vengeance Tuesday afternoon. Burwell acknowledged the deep hurt felt by fans and writer alike following the revelation that McGwire was a PED user, saying that suspected cheats do not deserve to be in Cooperstown, do not deserve the immortalization of that recognition. So I hope all the voters will continue to do the right thing Burwell said, Journalists are supposed to be the watchdogs upholding the sanctity of the game s record books. It is here that we can see the monumental shift regarding McGwire regarding the way he was portrayed in journalism. But Burwell is far from the only writer who shares this thought. Even before the admission and release of the Mitchell Report, McGwire s refusal to answer questions at the Reform Committee hearing was seen as a tacit admission of steroid use, said Lori Shontz in Shontz acknowledges this shift in public perception, saying, McGwire captured the nation s attention he fit perfectly in the pantheon of American folk heroes with their bulging biceps and superhuman strength McGwire could do no wrong, before stating that her respect for the man had changed and diminished with the steroids revelation. Writers began to no longer see McGwire as this upright, do-noevil, outstanding individual and this showed in their writing, with the narrative no longer so gracious but instead much more critical, cynical and contemptuous. For Rob Rains, an apology was what was expected but not a surefire way into the Hall of Fame, I m not voting for him until he does, Rains said, I want to hear that he s sorry for what he did. I still might 17

18 not vote for him. But it would help. After the link to steroids was made, the narrative for McGwire turned to one of detest, If you don t consider it your civic obligation to treat McGwire like a pariah, you are in need of an attitude readjustment, argued Bob Molinaro, a writer for the Virginia Pilot. This is what McGwire had been reduced to after his steroid use came to light: a shameful man, who deserves no recognition, none of the adulation granted to him during the 1998 season or the rest of his career. Baseball writers had announced their loyalties and where they stood on McGwire and the Hall of Fame. McGwire s deceit, deception, denial and deviance had left him a black mark on baseball. And sports writers had no problems writing it, announcing it and sharing that with the public. 18

19 The Narrative Created by Sports Journalism: Ryan Braun Perhaps the timeliest player to analyze regarding PEDs in baseball is Ryan Braun, after he was suspended for 65 games in 2013 for his link to the Miami anti-aging clinic Biogenesis, which was discovered to be peddling PEDs to professional athletes across all sports. Certainly McGwire captured the spotlight of the late 1990s and early 2000s. But that was nearly 10 years ago and the shock had worn off for fans concerning McGwire. As ESPN Louisville radio broadcaster Drew Deener explained, McGwire and steroids isn t a topic that holds a radio audience any more. Braun, however, is fresh on the minds of baseball fans and the general public as the new face of the Steroid Era. Less than 6 months removed from his suspension, Braun is forever tied to steroids and has seized the spotlight; he has taken the torch from McGwire. Similar to McGwire, Braun is the All-American ballplayer, with the million-dollar smile, the good looks, welcoming personality and, until his Biogenesis involvement, a likeable charm. While the 65-game suspension and involvement in the Biogenesis scandal was surprising, it was also not inexplicable. Braun s image had already been damaged following his 2011 National League MVP season, in which he hit.332, with 33 HR and 111 RBIs. After the announcement of his MVP, it came to light that Braun had failed a drug test during the season, with increased levels of testosterone. This positive test sparked the interest of MLB and, upon further examination, it came to light that this testosterone was synthetic, not naturally produced (Fainaru-Wada). In response to this announcement, Braun released a statement at a press conference claiming his innocence and declaring that he would appeal the 50-game suspension he faced for his first positive test under the Joint Drug Agreement of 2006, even going so far as to tell USA Today that the allegations were B.S. On February 24, 19

20 2012, Braun became the first MLB player in history to win an appeal regarding PED use and successfully had his 50-game suspension revoked. In a statement, Braun said, I am very pleased and relieved by today s decision it is the first step in restoring my good name and reputation. We were able to get through this because I am innocent I have nothing to hide (Braun wins appeal of suspension). Following the win of his appeal and such strong words proclaiming his innocence, many fans and writers believed Braun, and even though his suspension was overturned because of a mishandling of his sample and not because of a false positive, chose to forgive him and begin moving forward. As Howard Bryant, a writer for ESPN, wrote, the Braun decision played out exactly as it should have the system worked. Perhaps the love and willingness to forgive came from the same rhetoric espoused by Selig, who labeled Braun as one of the clean, exciting players in Major League Baseball, prior to the revelation of his positive test. But as mentioned earlier, in 2013, Braun was linked to the Biogenesis scandal that rocked MLB and saw 14 other players suspended 50 games for their connection (Alex Rodriguez received a 211 game suspension). As a result, Braun was suspended and missed the last 65 games of the season. When Braun s connection and suspension was announced, he released a statement, in which he apologized for not coming forth, accepting responsibility and admitting to using PEDs, saying, I have no one to blame but myself. I know that over the last year and a half I made some serious mistakes, both in the information I failed to share during my arbitration hearing and the comments I made to the press afterwards. I have disappointed the people closest to me -- the ones who fought for me because they truly believed me all along. I kept the truth from everyone. For a long time, I was in denial and convinced myself that I had not done anything wrong. 20

21 Despite his presentation of contrition and Hall of Fame trajectory (the 2007 National League Rookie of the Year, a 5 time All-Star and Silver Slugger with a career.312 batting average, 211 homeruns and 681 RBIs), the narrative surrounding Braun shifted tremendously following the revelation of his use of PEDs. Gone was the golden boy image that was similar to that of McGwire; no longer was he seen as the clean, even playing field superstar who was on track to revive baseball following the Steroid Era. Rather, as Jason Gay argues in the Wall Street Journal, Braun s apology was not received well and did nothing to rebuild his reputation. Braun's halting 130-word statement-slash-apology to baseball, was so comically awkward and tin-eared, Gay said, It appears to have been written by a robot stoned on allergy medication. For Gay, and many others, Braun s apology was a half-hearted statement by a superstar scorned by his own bad decision-making, making a futile attempt to rebuild his reputation. For Tyler Kepner, a writer for the New York Times, Braun s reputation is beyond repair, As a national figure, Braun is all but ruined, argued Kepner; like Gay, Kepner is not satisfied with Braun s apology, titling his editorial A First Step, Albeit an Incomplete One. As indicated by Kepner and Gay, Braun s late coming, half-baked apology is only a preliminary step and while it does help, it is not enough to rebuild his reputation in the public light. No longer are reports concerning Braun about his MVP season, his glistening record and bright white smile. A search on EbscoHost reveals that nearly all (25 of the first 30) articles concerning Braun are related to his connection to steroids. Braun is now synonymous with PEDs; his name cannot be separated from the topic in the sports journalism field. Many of these articles not only speak of Braun s link to PEDs, but damn him as well. They are written with extreme contempt, with passionate anger and with tremendous disappointment. As Kepner wrote in another article, There are liars and frauds and scoundrels, and then there are 21

22 people like Ryan Braun, who somehow seem worse. Kepner goes on to say that Braun s aggressive play against the con following his positive test puts him on a higher pedestal, or in a lower circle of hell depending on your perspective, than any other PED-using baseball player. But Kepner is not the only one to so vehemently denounce Braun, as many echo this sentiment, including ESPN writer Steven A. Smith. We ve seen rats like Jose Canseco We ve witnessed the cowardice of Mark McGwire There has also been the brazen Barry Bonds and the inexplicable Alex Rodriguez, says Smith, And then there s Ryan Braun. An individual so pathetic, so pathological in his lies that Major League Baseball should be embarrassed and ashamed for letting Braun walk away with just a 65-game suspension. Smith goes on to call Braun nauseating, cheater, and a coward, indicating the dramatic shift in the narrative concerning Braun. Smith s remarks personify the change in tone concerning Braun and his legacy, which in the eyes of writers is tarnished forever. So hurt is his reputation that Braun lost sponsorships and marketing power: local restaurants cut ties with Braun (Rovell). With the exposure of Braun s connection to PEDs, and the realization that there was no way out now, his character and reputation took a major hit in the eyes of sports journalists. Writers were much more critical of Braun. They did not, however, merely attack his numbers or his decision-making, but instead took jabs at his character, his moral fortitude, and took personal stabs at his reputability. The narrative concerning Braun shifted drastically, tremendously almost overnight. While many were skeptical following his win of his appeal, they had no choice but to forgive and move forward. But Biogenesis was the straw that broke the camel s back, and sent Braun and the narrative surrounding him into a harsh, sharp, 22

23 downward spiral that left Braun struggling to recover and catch his breath. Blow after blow came downing Braun, criticizing every facet of his character. 23

24 The Narrative Created by Sports Journalism: Andy Pettitte Following his retirement in 2013, Andy Pettitte, like every other player who has left the game of baseball, faced questions concerning his Hall of Fame candidacy. Pettitte, like many of his compatriots from the Steroids Era, must answer questions concerning his steroid use; after the Mitchell Report implicated him in 2007, Pettitte admitted to using Human Growth Hormone (HGH), not steroids, in 2002, in an attempt to recover faster from an elbow injury. Unlike many of his fellow users, however, at no point did Pettitte deny, lie or hide behind his steroids use. Rather, he accepted responsibility for his actions and showed fans and writers his contrition. While it was not against baseball rules, I was not comfortable with what I was dong Pettitte said, If what I did was an error in judgment on my part, I apologize I wasn t looking for an edge; I was looking to heal. And for that, he has been rewarded. For Pettitte, the questions surrounding his legacy are not those about PEDs, but instead, concerning his on-field performance and statistics. After an 18-year career, 15 of which were spent with the New York Yankees, Pettitte retired with 256 wins, a 3.85 ERA, and 2,448 strikeouts to go along with 3 All-Star appearances. Far from pedestrian, it is not Pettitte s regular season stats that give him credibility, but rather what he accomplished in the postseason. His playoff career saw him accumulate 44 games started, 19 wins, innings pitched (all of which are first all-time), as well as 183 strikeouts, which is second in baseball history. These statistics go along with 5 World Series titles, making Pettitte arguably the most successful playoff pitcher in history. Leading up to his admission of PED use, the narrative surrounding Pettitte was a positive one. He was a true Yankee, a winner, a workhorse, and an ace that aided tremendously in the success of baseball s most storied franchise. In 2004, when Pettitte s 24

25 current contract had expired, many fans and writers expected the Yankees to resign him. Instead, they failed to offer him a market value contract and left him with no choice but to sign with the Houston Astros (Curry). This was unacceptable in the eyes of New York Times writer Jack Curry, They alienated a player they claimed was their top priority. For Curry and others, Pettitte was what the Yankees needed; he was the penultimate winner with a sterling reputation as a competitor who pitched through elbow pain for years, (Curry), and deserved nothing but the best contract in the game. George Vecsey, another writer for the New York Times, called Pettitte an ace as early as 1996, indicating that even in the early part of his career, Pettitte was regarded as a top-notch pitcher who was a key to the Yankees success. If he s not the ace then what is he, Vecsey said, stopper call him anything. There is no denying that Pettitte was highly regarded during the early part of his career as a player you want on your team and on your side, the narrative surrounding him one was one of praise and adoration. Even after he left the Yankees and joined the Houston Astros for three seasons, there was little to nothing said about negative; and even when negative things were said, they focused on his decision to follow the money and better paying contract to Houston, not personal attacks on his character. Even the New York Times, the hometown paper of the franchise he left scorned refused to speak negatively about Pettitte. In his article Different Uniform, Same Pettitte, New York Times journalist Ira Berkow makes it clear that Pettitte is a class-act, respectable player who deserved all praise that was thrown out him, pointing out that Pettitte made an effort to reach out to Yankees owner George Steinbrenner and General Manager Brian Cashman. Journalist Jack Curry also made an effort to portray to readers the classiness with which Pettitte carried himself, while also commenting on his postseason successes and furthering the legend of Pettitte as the ultimate winner, Pettitte has had 25

26 monumental moments in October Curry said, the genteel Pettitte was a perfectionist, blaming himself for every misplaced pitch. Even when he gets out. Even after he wins. It is clear that Pettitte was revered by everybody in baseball, the narrative around him painting a picture of a down to earth, simple man who worked hard and took responsibility. As with McGwire and Braun before their steroids admissions, Pettitte is portrayed in the media as the golden boy of baseball: young, charming, hard working pitcher who epitomized and personified the American ideal and what fans wanted to see in a player. The similarities between McGwire, Braun and Pettitte end there, however. For one, Pettitte never issued a denial of PED use, like McGwire and Braun did, but instead immediately accepted responsibility. Perhaps it is this fact that led to the media handling the Pettitte PED saga differently and being more forgiving. ESPN writer Jim Caple calls this the hypocrisy of baseball and journalism, This, in a nutshell, captures our inconsistent stance about performance-enhancing drugs Caple said, We vilify some users (Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens) and forgive others (Jason Giambi and Andy Pettitte), just as long as they help our team win with home runs and postseason victories. Caple argues that there is an unfair treatment of those who take steroids and it starts with the fans; as he points out, the fan and media response relies heavily on the performance of the player after their positive test. Pettitte personifies this notion: before his admission of steroids in 2007, Pettitte s career ERA was 3.46 and following his confession was 3.98, a typical decline over the course of an 18 season career. So perhaps it is consistency between pre-confession Pettitte ( ) and postconfession Pettitte ( ) that has led to the unchanging narrative surrounding Pettitte; or perhaps it is Pettitte s statement in which he said he was attempting to get healthy and not trying to get an edge. Regardless, Pettitte is still regarded in many baseball circle, by writers 26

27 and fans, as a classy individual and portrayed as having a sterling reputation. The narrative has not shifted concerning Pettitte, despite confirmed PED use. With an EbscoHost search of Pettitte s name, this is confirmed. None of the first 25 articles containing Pettitte s name focus on his steroid use but instead his Hall of Fame candidacy based on his career statistics and winning ways. In New York Times writer Tyler Kepner s article The Sun Sets on Forever, Kepner encapsulates the current narrative surrounding Pettitte, drawing on the romanticized and nostalgic view fans have of baseball and of Pettitte. After his final game, Pettitte was met with a standing ovation from fans and a curtain call, a far cry from the reception that Braun and McGwire would receive in a ballpark today. Kepner makes no mention of Pettite s PED use in his article, no thought given to the fact that by the letter of the law, Pettitte is as much of cheater as MgGwire and Braun. Instead, Kepner and many other journalists choose to praise Pettitte for his work on the mound, his passion for winning and his masterful performances in the postseason. ESPN writer Wallace Matthew handles Pettitte in a similar fashion, But it is October when Pettitte truly has shined, he said, even likening Pettitte to Yankees legends Whitey Ford and Red Ruffing because of his winning ways. Journalists across the spectrum praised Pettitte for his workmanship and approach to the game, not mentioning his PED use but instead choosing to focus on the wins Pettitte brought the Yankee franchise. Thus is the narrative that journalists have spun for Pettitte. They have handled him in a much different fashion than McGwire, Braun and many other confirmed PED users and violators of the Joint Drug Agreement. While others have had to fend of questions, accusations and attacks on their character, Pettitte has endured nothing but praise. Winner, class act, champion; these are the words that Pettitte and fans read about Pettitte s career and 27

28 his on-field performances. Despite the admission of PED use, Pettitte has not had to fend off attacks on his morality or his character like McGwire and Braun, not had to withstand the torrent of questions surrounding his decision to use HGH. While there was a time when he had to do this, immediately following his admission, it appears the adage time heals all wounds, holds true for Pettitte, as the further we move away from the Mitchell Report, journalists and fans are much more willing to not only forgive but forget Pettitte s PED use. 28

29 Public Perception Since 1986, no topic has captured the sports media spotlight as steroids and PEDs have; between 1986 and 2006, of articles concerning PEDs in sports, 43% of Sports Illustrated articles, 39% in Newsweek, and 39% in Time have discussed baseball (Rutecki 144). Based on the immense coverage within these three prominent print media outlets, it is clear that sports coverage concerning steroids has revolved around baseball and that PEDs have been a major concern for writers. But what about the public? To what extent do they consider steroids to be a major issue and to what extent do fans approve or disapprove of their use in baseball? In a 2005 Gallup poll, 23% of fans believed that steroids were ruining the game, while 63% felt that baseball had a serious problem when it comes to steroids, indicating that fans felt a serious disdain for steroids and PED users. Public perception of steroids as a whole, however, is not necessarily indicative of their personal opinions of specific players. In 2008, another Gallup poll indicated that 61% of baseball fans felt that Mark McGwire should be elected into the Hall of Fame, up four percent from 2007, when 57% felt McGwire should be enshrined. While the majority of fans felt that McGwire should be elected, there was still a stigma regarding steroids in the public eye, as the 2007 poll revealed that only 23% of fans said they believed McGwire should be elected the first year he is eligible. In the baseball world, there is an air of respectability and glory granted to all members of the Hall of Fame, but even more so with the designation of being a first ballot Hall of Famer. While McGwire s statistics would certainly lend him to the title of a first ballot Hall of Famer, it seems as if his association with steroids has taken that from him and cast a shadow on his perception and robbed him of that distinction. Nevertheless, the majority of fans felt McGwire does deserve 29

30 to be in Cooperstown, despite the fact that a 2009 Gallup poll shows that 75% of baseball fans believed the use of PEDs was a more serious offense than Pete Rose s gambling (Rose, the all-time hits leader for MLB, was banned from baseball in 1989 for gambling on baseball). For McGwire, it would appear that fans have forgiven or chosen to look past his PED use. Despite the fact that fans feel that McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame, Journalist Billy Reed, a former writer for Sports Illustrated, Louisville Courier-Journal, Lexington Herald Leader and Executive Director of Communications for the Commerce Cabinet of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, said in an interview that there is no way of moving away from McGwire s association with steroids, When McGwire dies, (steroids) will be in the first paragraph of his obituary. Reed agrees, however, that baseball policy should not inhibit PED users from entering the Hall of Fame, You know the people who have admitted it, you know the people you suspect, but there could have been all kinds of others in the game using something, Reed said, so I think the records those guys set should stand, because they (MLB) weren t monitoring, they weren t policing. There is a connection, however, to the public opinion of steroids and the American dream narrative. Fabian Filipp, an Assistant Professor of Natural Sciences at California Merced, argues that there is a decision American society must make, that baseball fans must make, Do we want to celebrate technological achievements and surgeries to do maximum performance or do we want to celebrate the human will overcoming obstacles If commercialism pushes (enhancement) so strongly, we lose the core values about celebrating human effort and the joy of the effort and the love of the game. For Jared and Gregory Rutecki, the anger and hostility towards steroid use come from a notion of being cheated, that PED use, extrapolated to society as a whole, violates American values of fair play and equal opportunity. That is, PED use goes against the 30

31 American dream, of working and earning your success. Ron Von Burg and Paul Johnson describe it in this fashion: Even though we want our sports heroes to succeed and affirm the American dream, when they succeed too much outside of the supposed ethos of the game, our adherence to the narrative becomes problematic, and piety demands we expunge those who threaten our sense of order. Vande Berg and Trujillo (1989) note that the ideal American Dream is winning by being one s best, not winning at all costs and not losing by being one s best (p. 222). But the steroids era disrupts this narrative because many players are winning at all costs by being their unnatural best (Johnson 353). But this is not necessarily represented in a Gallup poll released two days after the Mitchell Report, in which 44% of baseball fans said that the Mitchell Report made no difference in their enthusiasm concerning professional baseball. While this is a minority of baseball fans, it is a very large chunk of the minority, indicating that at this point in time, the discussion and shock value of steroids in baseball had worn off, as represented in the same Gallup poll, when 83% of those interviewed said they were not surprised by the findings of the report. Despite this notion of being disappointed in players and despising them for violating the American dream, a large percentage of fans still feel as if those who violated drug policy and used PEDs deserve recognition in the Hall of Fame. As for the fans who do not think steroids users are Hall of Fame worthy, there is a disconnect between all cheaters and PED users; a hypocrisy exists in the public response to such actions. Throughout the history of baseball, there have been cheaters: Gaylord Perry was famous for scuffing and doctoring baseballs, and yet there was significantly less public outcry and outrage concerning this mode of cheating or his enshrinement in Cooperstown. In an interview with Lexington Herald-Leader columnist Jerry Tipton, he said that this is easily explainable. There is a societal acceptance of 31