A Contrarian Take on the Old Ballgame

by Cliopatria

I want to address two baseball issues quickly:

I know the rest of the world is growing tired of the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry. Hey – we’re sorry you root for uninteresting teams. Stop complaining. The Red Sox and Yankees have enhanced your life and you know it, you bitter, jealous titmouse. But the latest episode in the ongoing saga needs a bit of perspective, and as we all know, when it comes to the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry, I’m the guy for that.

I really do not think I am being a Red Sox fan apologist when I say that ESPN was almost comical in how big a deal they made of the Gary Sheffield run-in with the fan in the stands last night. My favorite, but also the most contemptible, part of the whole situation was how the announcers and every commentator from the minute it happened made it sound as if the fan threw a punch at Sheffield. Of course Sheffield played that card as much as he could after the game. But watch the video (we’re destined to see it another 385,000 times anyway). By no estimation can a reasonable person assert that the guy was throwing a punch or trying to pop Sheffield. No way. He took a little swipe that almost looked as if he wanted to try to get the ball, but this is as big of a much ado about nothing case as I’ve seen in a long time. Incidentally, Sheffield is a bit insane, but that guy in the stands was a big dude and he wasn’t exactly backing down. In any case, the fan should have been thrown out of the game – largely because he interfered with play, though even that was overstated, as Sheffield reacted after he had the ball in his hands. I do wonder why no one has made this point – they celebrate Sheffield’s composure (our standards have clearly sunk - -Sheffield is being hailed for not punching a fan; oh Ron Artest, what hast thou wrought?) and yet forget to point out that rather than finish the play, he first pushed the fan.

My second point may be even more controversial, but it’s been percolating for a while and I am going to say it: Steroids were not forbidden in baseball during the 1980s and 1990s. Granted, they were illegal (at least most of them – some of the drugs were moving ahead of lawmakers’ capacity to address them), but as far as performance enhancement goes, they were not illegal in baseball. This is not splitting hairs. People are talking about attaching asterisks willy nilly against people who have not been shown to have used steroids in the first place, which is bad enough, but they are trying to add asterisks to something that was not forbidden by the sport. I don’t mean to try to quell the hysteria, but what precisely are people claiming? One could, I suppose, claim that the very illegality of the act makes its use prima facie verboten in baseball. OK. Then I expect that we will be vacating the World Series titles of every team that had serious drug abuse issues (The Kansas City Royals’ clubhouse in 1985 looked like Tony Montana’s rumpus room) and taking away awards from every stupid meathead who has ever hit his girlfriend? After all, those things were ILLEGAL!

Baseball absolutely dropped the ball by not addressing this issue earlier, and that we should condemn. And as someone who ran track in college and beyond, I loathe steroids. I loathe the idea that clean athletes are tainted by the dirty ones, that athletes might actually be put in a position to decide what is more important, being able to compete or long-range health. It is because of those athletes who have used banned drugs that decent-but-not-world-class Division III track athletes (ahem) would have to piss into a cup at big track meets if they won, placed, or got unlucky in the draw. (And if you want to talk about a process that strips everyone involved of their dignity, well, let me tell you – when you just finish competing, are still sweaty and tired, they don’t give you a cup and point you to the bathrooms. There is serious and close scrutiny involved. It’s like being a Culkin at the Neverland Ranch.) But for all of the serious and stern criticisms I have of illegal performance enhancing drugs, baseball DID drop the ball. Even if that knuckle-dragging, ridge-browed Dryopithecus Jason Giambi did use steroids (and it seems that he did), he may deserve our censure, but he does not deserve punishment from baseball except for illegal acts that he committed. And given that the baseball record book is littered with criminals, cheaters, and ne’er do wells, it would be utterly inappropriate to take action now against guys who used steroids when illegal spitballs, corked bats, stealing signs, and other things that were banned at the time they were stealthily carried out have not blighted the record books with asterisks, never mind the continued standing of all records earned prior to 1947 and the integration of modern baseball. Punishing players who (allegedly) used steroids in the 1990s would be the ultimate example of the establishment of an ex post facto law.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Rich Holmes - 4/20/2005

Just passed this legislation with respect to my condo. I've got the numbers of some nice hourly motels down the street from me for when you visit.

The Boston police are so preening, I'll give you that one. I like your prior comment about worse happening in Boston night clubs this weekend - as a frequent patron to some of Beantown's finer establishments, you could not be more correct. And these guys get shown the front door (sometimes by the Boston Blue) and are told not to come back. Amazing what people will do when the cameras are on them. (like taking a shot at a Yankees outfielder.)

+Rich

Derek Charles Catsam - 4/20/2005

Rich --
That was the question I wondered about, and you answered it -- if you can say the most absurd things about someone and still not be culpable for damages, then surely maybe, possibly, not really but I guess you could say so taking a swing at an athlete that does not really connect and does no damage cannot possibly result in damages.
I still think that the Boston police are just preening for the cameras.
And I'll keep proving you wrong this weekend and into next week. little do you know, I'm squatting in your place indefinitely once I get there.
dc

Rich Holmes - 4/20/2005

I was going to put this on our previous thread but with the announcement that the Boston Gestapo are shaking down Mr. House for "disorderly conduct," it fits here.

Previously when I dicussed the issue of whether the fan assaulted Sheffield I was referring to the tort of assault. This is a civil cause of action Sheffield would have against the fan, where it would take a preponderance of the evidence for Sheffield to prevail. (and he would have a good chance of prevailing.) This differs from the criminal offense of assault, where it is the DA filing charges and needing to show the heightened burden of proof in order to prevail. I still think the DA would have something to work with. You don't take swings at people. Period. You can talk to me about where Sheffield was standing and where the guy was looking until you're blue in the face, but the guy screwed up. If some people can ultimately conclude (and there are a number that have) that the guy was taking a swing, then guess what? The guy might have been taking a swing.

Now, this idea respecting whether Sheffield has a cause of action against this guy stemming in tort goes back to something we discussed a few weeks ago regarding Canseco's book and whether those he accuses of having used steroids can sue him for defamation. Damages. Assuming arguendo that the guy did indeed strike Sheffield (battery) or came close enough to cause apprehension in Sheff (assault), Sheff-dog would have to prove damages. Emotional distress? Eh boy. Only if Sheff is so scared to walk on a baseball field he has to quit the team and is seeing a counselor 5 times a week. His swollen lip? Boy, I think even the lowliest of lowly person injury attorneys would be hard-pressed to take that one. Unless you're some douchebag like Randall Coyne.

+Rich

Derek Charles Catsam - 4/20/2005

The Boston police don't buy Rich's argument that Chris House assaulted Sheffield (who, by the way, DID assault the fan; Just sayin' is all) either. They are indeed pressing charges: disorderly person and disturbing a public assembly. This is just the police posing. And I see this as a very slippery slope. I have a hard time seeing this as any sort of crime. Bigger scuffles will literally happen at any club in Boston this weekend. If this is all that the Boston police have to do, the city really is in damned good shape.
dc

Derek Charles Catsam - 4/19/2005

Rich --
Except when the act allegedly happened, Sheffield did not fear -- he was pursuing the ball. It was after the fact when he believed that he HAD BEEN hit that he reacted as he did. If someone says they thought a gun was being pointed at them, and instead it is a candy bar, and we then find out that they did not actually see the gun/candy bar, then suddenly the preponderance of evidence changes. Sheffield can not think he was in danger from a gun he never saw if he only thought there was a gun after the fact. Sheffield perceived that he had been punched (no physical marks, no sign on the video that a punch connected). Perhaps Sheffield (who has lied about steroid abuse -- credibility of the person asserting the charge sometimes plays role in these things) lied. perhaps he misconstrued. By your logic, Ron Artest could win an assault case against the fan he attacked in the Palace at Auburn Hills because he "had an apprehension aboput the fan's actions.' the problem is, as in Boston, the fan did not do what the athlete thought he did. being wrong should not win out in a court of law. The apt analogy is not the unloaded gun, it is the cup of beer in Auburn Hills.

If the evidence is so heavily in your favor, that this was in fact assault, ask yourself this: It is on film. Why are no charges being brought? Because no reasonable person would call this a case of assault. The evidence is in my favor: no charges are being pursued. The belief of the person allegedly assaulted is only one small component of the evidence -- if the FACT is that there was no attack, the perception becaomes moot. The burden is still on the state to prove that the actual charge occurred. This is why no charges will emerge from this. I realize that there are no good prosecutors in Boston and that is why they will not pursue your rock solid case. But even in a city with good prosecutors, say, Burlington, this one would not go anywhere. Again -- if torts 101 is in your favor, the DA would be all over this. My guess is that those daft folks in the Suffolk County prosecutors' office disagree.

dc

Rich Holmes - 4/19/2005

If it was a class during my 3L year I definitely missed it.

No evidence? Seriously? If both of his hands were clenched tightly around his beer, one could say there was "no evidence." It's clear Sheffield thought the guy was throwing a swing at him based solely on Sheffield's reaction. And for an individual to be guilty of assault, he must create a reasonable apprehension in the person he is assaulting. So if I point an unloaded gun at you and scare the living bejesus out of you, I can't go back and argue that you were never in any harm because your state of mind is what counts. Roided out or not, Sheffield thought the guy was coming after him. The fan's purported excuse (although I'm not sure if he has made any public statements regarding what he "intended" to do) is irrelevant. It comes down to whether a reasonable person, in Sheffield's shoes, had an apprehension about the fan's actions. That's torts class, 1L year when I actually showed up. You seem to think no reasonable person anywhere would think this. So let's review: Fenway Park. 8th inning (read: 12 beers deep). Front row. Hated opponent within inches of fan. Fan makes uppercut-like motion inches away from opponent's face, but more than a few feet from the ball.

If we're dealing with the tort of assault and a preponderance of the evidence respecting this issue, the scales are not weighed in your favor, my friend. Not even close.

+Rich

Derek Charles Catsam - 4/19/2005

How am i a biased homer? I think the guy should lose his tickets. Do you really think the penalty was too lenient? If so, then fine, i am being a homer. but I thought the penalty was just right. i also thought that Sheffield -- who DID push the fan, period, no intent needed to prove it -- should not be penalized. So let's review -- we do not know what the fan intended to do, but just for interfering I believe he should receive a pretty severe penalty. Sheffield (A yankee, in case you had not noticed) did push a fan, and yet I think he should not be punished. Are there lead paint chips in your home, Rich? I am utterly confused as to how it makes me a homer to believe that the Red Sox fan ought to be punished and the Yankees player absolved.

As for the fan,. maybe he was just reacting to the ball coming his way -- if you've evr been to a major league game you would know that what appears to be a simple bounding ball in the corner was in fact a major league double -- he just looked to me like someone who was reacting, neither trying to belt Sheffield nor really making an earnest attempt at a fast-moving baseball.

This apparently is the class you missed in law school -- the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. It might have occurred the same day as they talked about "burden of proof." The fact is the guy did interfere, but there is no evidence that he was trying to hit Sheffield. No evidence = he is not guilty of it.

dc

Rich Holmes - 4/19/2005

Perhaps "uneducated" was not the best choice of words, and certainly I'm never one to play the law degree card. Far from it. So I'll take that back and instead substitude "biased homer" in its place, because your position on this one makes you look exactly like that.

My position is that its inconclusive what this guy was doing. If he was indeed going for the ball, it defies logic and reason that he would do so 1) not looking in the general vicinity of where the ball was whatsoever; and 2) knowing that the ball is rolling on the ground yet his fingertips were 6-10 feet from the ball itself. In short, his hand was a hell of a lot closer to Sheffield's face than it was to that ball. Case closed. It was a weak punch if that is in fact what he was doing, but it was an even more of an abysmal effort to "go for the ball." Come on.

So to clarify: education has nothing to do with where one comes out on this. Logic, reason, and as you alluded to in your response - physics - are what counts. The guy was not even bending his knees or at the waist when he was purportedly "going for the ball." The only person who would have had a legitimate shot at getting the ball in that situation is Inspector Gadget.

Go-Go gadget arm!

+Rich

Derek Charles Catsam - 4/19/2005

Rich --
Apparently you have not bothered to look at the videotape. he begions his swipe at an angle that brings his arm from the outfield fence toward home plate. he starts it before Sheffield is in the view of anyonbe but an owl. The swing was pretty weak. it also continued its trajectory unfettered -- i have to wonder if he hit Sheffield at all, because there was no interruption of the parabola of his swing. There is no way he was swinging at Sheffield. None. And you say that I look like "an uneducated homer" (uneducated, Rich? What does education have to do with it? Does a a law degree give you some insight as to intention, which would be the only way to answer this question fully?) right after which you say what I say -- that it did not look like he was trying to crack Sheffield. (The education from all that book learnin' that I got says that when you disagree with me by -- catch this -- agreeing with me, it sort of weakens your argument) The guy who clearly did something intentionally was the guy who poured beer on Sheffield. I think the punishments that the Sox doled out are apt.

dc

Rich Holmes - 4/19/2005

DC-

You can't be serious. You state that "By no estimation can a reasonable person assert that the guy was throwing a punch or trying to pop Sheffield. No way." Come on, you sound like such an uneducated homer when you write that crap. Did it appear that the guy was making a legitimate effort to get the ball? Absolutely not. However, did it look like he was taking a crack at Sheffield? Honestly, I can't really say that he was either. Mike Lupica wrote a great piece in the Sunday New York Post about this incident. He made a lot of good points, one of which was that there is only one person in the world who knows whether the fan, Chris House, was throwing a punch at Sheffield - Chris House. Period. I've seen the clip a dozen times now and I honestly have no idea what the hell the guy was trying to do. For all we know, him and his buddy were 15 beers deep and minutes before that play his buddy could have told him, "Hey Chris, I'll pay you $20 bucks if the next time a ball is hit this way you do your impression of Tiger Woods' forearm uppercut when the camera is on you." Because in truth, the guy looked like he was mimicking Woods more than anything. But, we just don't know.

The main point Lupica made in his piece was that people need to simmer down about this incident. One of the key ingredients to this great rivalry is the fans themselves, and, but for the bullpen incident 2 years ago with Jeff Nelson and Karim Garcia getting into it with a groundskeeper, the fans over the past few years have been fantastic and have enriched the rivalry to new heights. The incident last week with Sheffield and House is a tempest in a teacup. No need to start crying that the sky is falling because it really isn't.

I can't belive you would so unequivocally state that the guy was not taking a swing at Sheffield. Unless he was so intoxicated that he thought his 25 foot arm would be able to reach down and scoop up the ball, I'm just not seeing it. Your comment seems to condone this behavior, and it is unacceptable whatever the fan's intentions. I'm glad he's going to be watching the rest of the Sox games this year on NESN.

+Rich

Greg Robinson - 4/19/2005

Mr. Dresner beat me to it, but kudos to the Red Sox for doing the right thing: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2040064

Jonathan Dresner - 4/18/2005

http://nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-BBA-Sheffield-Scuffle.html

Greg Robinson - 4/18/2005

Bouton's Ball Four is a great example. Bouton invented big league chew. No joke.

You're right about the season tickets; probably too harsh, but removing him from just the one game is wayyyyyy too lenient. Maybe one season's worth?

I did like one comment that a little girl (I think) said who was in the area where the incident happened, "and then he (Sheff) went all steroid on us". We learn early in America how to hit where it hurts.

Derek Charles Catsam - 4/18/2005

Rebunk is an asterisk free zone.*

*For the time being . . .

David Lion Salmanson - 4/18/2005

D'oh! I've been too busy to bring up the Ball Four point anywhere and now you beat me to it. Maybe I need some greenies so that I can have time to blog and do my work? Or would all my comments get asterisks.

Derek Charles Catsam - 4/18/2005

Greg --
And of course amphetamines and baseball go together like hot dogs and beer. Re-read Bouton's "Ball Four" and you'll be reminded that there was never a point when baseball was innocent and virtuous.
Ordinarily I would say that revoking season tickets is a bit harsh, but the fact is that there are thousands of red Sox fans who would have wanted those tickets. There are no tix available for 2005. It would send a message. I also think Sheffield should not be punished.
dc

Greg Robinson - 4/15/2005

The fan is a season ticket holder and should have his rights to those seats revoked. Harsh, yes, but it would send a message to fans everywhere that it is unacceptable to interfere with a game in play. It happens so frequently in baseball there needs to be a stiffer penalty. If the fan is not a season ticket holder a fine should be assessed.

Agree with you on the steroid thing. While the act of using the drug is despicable and cowardly a) it wasn't banned by the league b) it doesn't necessarily make you a better hitter (keep in mind, Jeremy Giambi also used steroids and he sucked) & c) if we're handing out asterisks, how about one for every record set and World Series won prior to 1947 and the integration of baseball.

The worst part about the whole deal is the example it sets for youth athletes as well as collegiate and minor league players. For every Jason Giambi that they helped get to the major leagues there are hundres of minor league, college and high school athletes that use and suffer the horrific side-affects. But Ty Cobb was quite possibly the biggest a-hole the world has ever seen and certainly not a role model for kids (nor was the gluttonous Babe Ruth) and we aren't throwing their names around in the asterisk-awards ceremony.

Tom Bruscino - 4/15/2005

My team has a Japanese pitcher who starred in a gay porn film. Uninteresting? Bah!