"I write in order to attain that feeling of tension relieved and function achieved which a cow enjoys on giving milk." H.L. Mencken
I'm not much of a baseball fan, since grade school anyway. Coincidently, I've known some well known players and yep, they all appeared to have been enhanced somehow. Whatever. I wonder if the question shouldn't be "how few players enhance & who are they" instead of who enhances? Seems to me the MLB record books may run out of asterisks. This is the same MLB that denies Pete Rose a place in the Hall of Fame for gambling? Guess he should have used anabolic steroids instead, eh? If Pete Rose isn't admitted to the Hall of Fame, eventually, then the "Hall" is meaningless as a recognition of playing ability and consistency.
Pete Rose's crime is betting on baseball while in baseball (as a manager). If he bet against his own team (and the evidence was there but not conclusive) I do not see them lifting the lifetime ban (which he agreed to BTW). Still, I would like to see Pete get in while he is still alive. I would have had no problem with the penalty against A-Rod being worse. The doping thing is bad because they essentially are robbing other players (beyond being terrible role models).
I'm just having trouble seeing betting for or against a team you manage as worse than drug use and abuse, which also distorts game outcomes and far more frequently. Think Sosa and McGuire & et al. As far as betting against his own team, if the evidence is not conclusive I'm old fashioned...he's innocent of it. This guilty, by presumption, until proven innocent meme is disturbing on all levels. I repeat, PED's have influenced the outcome of far far more games than any betting line laid down by Pete Rose ever could have. That and the hall of fame is allegedly about player skills, accomplishments, consistency, and longevity. Rose qualifies in all of those categories. He is blocked only because MLB can do it without consequence. They don't dare block everyone who uses PED's and alters game outcomes by dint of it, because they'd essentially be out of business.
I don't disagree Aridog, but MLB is not a court of law, is not about fairness or justice but what they perceive is in the best interest of MLB (ask Shoeless Joe Jackson), and they have had a stick up their buts about gambling since the "Black Sox" thing. I am not saying I support that decision, I am just guessing how they might act.
I think A Rod only informed on people if there was something in it for him. He's good that way.
I welcome all legitimate comments, whether you agree with me or not. Keep it civil. Thanks.