First appeared in Bleacher Report
Dennis "Oil Can" Boyd has a book coming out in
which he admits to using cocaine throughout his baseball career. Boyd admitted
in an interview with WBZ-Radio that he played under the influence of cocaine
two-thirds of the time he was on the mound. According to Boyd, it wasn't just
him (via Boston.com).
“I feel like my career was cut short for a lot of reasons,
but I wasn’t doing anything that hundreds of ballplayers weren’t doing at the
time; because that’s how I learned it," he said.
Boyd's career spanned the decade of the 1980s when cocaine
was the worst-kept secret in baseball. Today's culture is so caught up with
steroids that many of us forget—or weren't around yet—when the drug of choice
for Major League Baseball players was cocaine, not steroids, human growth
hormone or the new wave of performance enhancers.
Is there really a difference?
That's the question I can't wrap my head around when former
athletes come out and admit they used cocaine or other "recreational
drugs" during their careers: Why is that different than taking
performance-enhancing drugs?
It's not different. Taking amphetamines or cocaine before a
game would enhance performance just as much, if not more, than taking steroids.
In fact, taking steroids is the long-form way of breaking the rules while
cocaine and amphetamines should be looked at as the "get hits quick"
method of cheating the game.
Most anabolic steroids, as we have learned through
baseball's very public history with the drugs, are used to help athletes heal
faster and give muscles the ability to recover quicker after exertion.
With steroids, the player still has to put in the work. You
can't just shoot yourself in the ass and magically become faster or stronger.
Yes, surely it has been well-documented that steroids help that process, but
you can't compare the immediate benefits of anabolic steroids or human growth
hormone to the instant reaction your body has by taking cocaine.
We look at the history of cocaine use (and abuse) in
baseball as a recreational problem because it exists in recreational circles.
In the 1980s, anyone in the stadium—players, coaches, fans, media—could leave
the game and find a place to do cocaine. Players could go into the stadium
bathrooms during games to find some blow just like the guy in the nosebleed
seats (cheap pun, I know).
Cocaine exists in the real world. In the 1990s and into the
2000s, steroid use added a layer of disconnect the more recreational drugs
never had. Reporters and fans would never go hang out with friends after a game
and stick steroid needles in each other. Unless you are a workout freak, there
is no "recreational" reason to use steroids like there is with
cocaine.
That doesn't mean cocaine isn't also a performance enhancer.
Let's WebMD this for a minute:
What's so great about being high on coke? Cocaine users
often describe the euphoric feeling as:
·
an increasing sense of energy and alertness
·
an extremely elevated mood
·
a feeling of supremacy
Those sure sound like performance enhancers to me.
In September of 1985, MLB made national news when players on
the Pittsburgh Pirates and several other teams in the league were brought
before a grand jury in connection to the buying and selling of cocaine. There
was talk at the time that Dave Parker's potential Hall of Fame bid was hurt by
his involvement in the scandal. Tim Raines, now a hot topic with baseball
purists for Hall of Fame induction, was right at the center of that scandal as
well.
Jerry Crasnick of ESPN wrote a story back in 2007 that laid out
the case for Raines making the Hall of Fame. After highlighting his
numbers—certainly Hall of Fame statistics when properly dissected—Crasnick
explained Raines' (literal) baggage:
Raines has some personal baggage to overcome. During the
Pittsburgh drug trials in the early 1980s, Raines testified that he kept a gram
of coke in his uniform pocket, snorted during games, and made a point of
sliding head-first so as not to break the vial. Not exactly a wholesome image
there.
It would be a cheap joke to wonder why Raines really he had
the nickname "Rock," but Raines' involvement with cocaine was
certainly no joke. He had it in his pocket during games? Cocaine was so
important to Raines the drug actually impacted the way he played on the field.
Twenty-seven years after Raines was embroiled in an enormous scandal for the
sport, it seems there is not a baseball writer alive who doesn't stump for
Raines to get into the Hall of Fame. Well, except whatever voters are still
keeping him out.
Because cocaine is seen as a recreational stimulant, people
looked at players hooked on the drug as addicts. Cocaine has ruined the lives
of many people in the world and certainly had negative effects on the careers
of several prominent baseball players in the 1980s. Bring up cocaine to Mets
fans and they can run down a list of players whose careers were impacted by the
drug.
I'm not downplaying the addictive nature of cocaine. I'm
merely trying to point out that because normal people get addicted to it all
the time, fans and media covering baseball seem to make excuses for players who
use cocaine when it comes to the history of the game.
Players who abused cocaine had a problem. Players who abused
steroids are cheaters.
In 2005, Bud Selig got the MLB Players Association to officially
ban the use of amphetamines (greenies), a drug experts suggest had a far bigger
impact on the drop of offense between 2005 and 2010 than steroid enforcement.
Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt wrote a book in 2006 that openly
discussed the use of greenies during games, saying amphetamines were
"widely available in major-league clubhouses."
Schmidt explained that amphetamines helped players get up
for games during the long, daunting baseball season. Blogger Murray Chass,
writing back then for The New York Times, mentioned that players couldn't take
the pills too early in case the game was rained out and they "spent the
rest of the night climbing walls."
Willie Mays—one of the four or five greatest players in the
history of the sport—reportedly had a liquid form of amphetamines in his locker
when he played with the Mets.
Mays reportedly had a bottle in his locker containing a
liquefied drug, classified as a controlled substance, and how is this different
from Mark McGwire having a bottle of Androstenedione or Barry Bonds having
"the cream" and "the clear" in his locker? How?
Yes, thankfully baseball has better testing now than it did
when Mays or Boyd or even Bonds played. From what we know, the game is
remarkably cleaner than it has been at any time in history. It just feels like
the gatekeepers of baseball's history are making an example out of this
generation of player without using proper context into how drugs—both
recreational and performance-enhancing—have helped the careers of previous
generations.
Ferguson Jenkins was once briefly suspended from baseball
when a customs agent found drugs in his luggage, including three grams of
cocaine. Some suggest "that cocaine incident" delayed his induction
into the Hall of Fame. Others have suggested the same for Raines, that his
involvement with cocaine could be a reason why he hasn't gotten into
Cooperstown yet.
But he will. Raines will be a Hall of Famer, maybe as early
as next year, the same year that Bonds and Roger Clemens are eligible. Do
voters have a that short of a memory? Do they not recall the drug use that
impacted Raines' career and helped him perform on the field, or do they simply
not care because there are other more topical drug issues to expose?
If Raines or any player—Schmidt, Mays and other Hall of
Famers included—who used and abused "recreational" drugs is
ostensibly forgiven for their drug-related sins over time, then Bonds, McGwire,
Clemens, Alex Rodriguez and, heck, even guys like Ryan Braun should eventually
be judged with the same wide scope. Throughout the history of the game, players
have always been using something to get them through the rigors of the season.
Using drugs to cheat the game is wrong, but to pretend this generation of
cheating is somehow worse feels just as wrong.
In 25 years when players are injecting their muscles with
liquefied oxygen because a scientist found it can regenerate muscles tears
faster than steroids, will we look back at Bonds, McGwire and this generation
of cheaters any differently? Will steroid users be remembered as addicts like
history remembers the cocaine users in baseball and we will eventually feel sympathy
for those who ruined their lives (or lost their lives) by taking steroids?
Oil Can Boyd is not a Hall of Famer. He's not even close. If
he didn't take so many drugs, would things have been different for him? He
thinks he might have won twice as many games in his career if it weren't for
all those drug-addled sleepless nights.
The game is full of stories like Boyd's, the drug of choice
changing with each passing generation. Some players had their careers destroyed
by drugs. Others had Hall of Fame numbers because of them. History—specifically
those who guard the entrance to history's front door—is ill-equipped to
determine the difference between addiction and cheating, recreation and
performance-enhancing.