Hank Steinbrenner has recently come out and stated that he doesn't "like baseball being singled out" when it comes to the attention by media and congress over the steroids issue. He later commented, "Everybody that knows sports knows football is tailor-made for performance-enhancing drugs. I don't know how they managed to skate by. It irritates me. Don't tell me it's not more prevalent. The number in football is at least twice as many. Look at the speed and size of those players."
I will give Steinbrenner some credit. I do think it is amazing that guys like Shawne Merriman and Rodney Harrison--two prominent defensive players in the NFL--can test positive for steroids/HGH and no one truly seem to care. Do fans not care about the integrity of the game? Do fans and maybe even media enable these players because they want to see brutal collisions on the field?
I do think, though, that there are a few differences between baseball and football in regards to this issue. Harrison, and to some degree, Shawne Merriman, admitted that they were wrong. They were willing to accept their penalties. That doesn't make what they did OK, but these players and others did not break NFL policy, and continue to lie about it. They didn't play the "he said, she said" game. They realized what they did was wrong, asked for forgiveness, and attempted to move on. They acted like men.
That's not to say that some of the players in the MLB should admit guilt if they aren't guilty. But, at least in the court of public opinion, they all certainly aren't innocent. Barry Bonds? Palmeiro? Clemens? Maguire? Sosa? There is this "hush, hush" mentality among these big name players, and yet mounds of evidence that would appear to seriously cloud their credibility.
Another distinct difference between baseball and football in regards to steroids is the actual benefit. It is known that steroids can give you a boost in strength, muscle, and speed. Something that Rodney Harrison took, though (HGH), is widely believed to aid in the recovery of injury. When Harrison apparently took the drug HGH, he was attempting to recover much quicker from an injury than he otherwise wouldn't have been able to. Again, this doesn't justify his actions. At the same time, we as fans cannot begin to fathom the wear and tear on one's body that playing in the NFL induces. There are former players that have a hard to going about their day due to massive injuries. ESPN analyst Mark Schlereth, a former offensive lineman, has admitted to having at least twenty knee surgies. And some former players even suffer from dementia due to the brutal sport of football.
Another issue I have is with the impact steroids has on the game of baseball and football. Baseball is much less of a team sport than football. Essentially, baseball is a pitcher versus a batter. If the pitcher is taking steroids that may allow him to throw the ball with a bit more velocity, that is an advantage. If the batter is utilizing steroids to allow him to hit the ball further, that could potentially turn typical double plays into home-runs. That is, most certainly, an advantage. These factors decide games.
Can games really be decided by steroids in football, though? Does steroids help you read a defense better? Does steroids allow you to make every single tackle on the field? Does steroids give you the heart and drive to study film, pick up on signals, or give your vision to see and hit a hole?
Football is a team sport. If one person--or for that matter, a few players--are using steroids on the offensive or defensive side of the ball, I am not convinced that that is an advantage. It may make you a bit stronger. It may make you a bit faster. But, unlike baseball, I don't think those benefits can make you and your team better. I've seen guys come into the NFL who are complete physical specimens (Former number 1 overall pick in 2000, DE Courtney Brown, springs to mind).
Guys who are the strongest and fastest, and yet their careers never take off due to injury, or an inability to pick up the playbook, or a lack of heart.
Remember, you need the physical tools and talent in the NFL, but football is most certainly a mental game. Akili Smith and Michael Vick could throw the ball out of the stadium into oncoming traffic on the highway, and both had legs that could scramble them out of any situation, and yet they were both average quarterbacks.
I am not saying that players cannot and do not benefit from steroids in the NFL. In 2006, when Merriman was suspended four games for steroids, he still racked up 17 sacks in 12 games. That is an incredible stat. At the same time, in 2007, in just 15 games, Merriman still registered 12.5 sacks. That is still a very good total. And while steroids may have contributed to Merriman being able to get around the corner and sack Peyton Manning a couple extra times, steroids absolutely cannot aid you if you bite on Manning's play fake, and he throws it over the top to Reggie Wayne for a touchdown.
While I agree with Steinbrenner that steroids is getting a free pass by the media in the NFL, and that it may be more prevelant in the NFL, I truly believe that steroids impacts the MLB in a much stronger way.
