Vindicated Review
| April 23rd, 2008 by Robert | Word Count: 837 | Reading Time 3:20 | 4,270 views |
Let’s go for a book review today. I just purchased the latest Jose Canseco book titled “Vindicated” and have been reading through it. It’s a follow up book to his first book, “Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant ‘Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big.” His first book was published in 2005, before the congressional Mitchell report was initiated. When his first book came out, Canseco was labeled a liar, a cheat, a money chaser, or even a guy looking for an addition to his 15 minutes of fame. For every 1 person who believed what he had to say, there was a line of 50-100 there to dispel any statements with nothing more than personal opinion. People just did NOT want to believe what Jose had to say, even though he was flat out telling everyone from his point of a view what was truly going on in Major League Baseball, a view he LIVED!
For a little background so everyone isn’t lost on the subject, Jose Canseco was a professional baseball player from around the mid 1980’s to around 2000. He had a great career and he accomplished what no other baseball player had EVER done in 1988 by hitting 40 home runs and stealing 40 bases in the same season. He was the initial 40-40 club member. Imagine that, out of the thousands upon thousands of baseball players up until that year, nobody had accomplished that goal. That’s a pretty significant feat. However, Canseco was always followed by rumors of utilizing performance enhancing drugs, which were either illegal by US law or banned by sports jurisdictions. In the first tell all book, he explained that yes, he was on steroids and other forms of performance drugs to alter his performance. He wanted to be the best and he was willing to do anything and everything it took to reach that peak.
After his first book was ridiculed and dismissed by every “knowledgeable” insider and pundit, the Mitchell report was funded and over 20 months of investigation, found that there was actually truth in what Canseco had written about. Really? Wow! Major League Baseball has now instituted various drug testing policies and penalties to help curtail the usage of all kinds of illicit drugs as well as performance enhancing drugs of most any kind. Most that is. Testing is also a touchy subject and has a variety of loop holes. That’s an entire other story though. Firstly, Canseco was dismissed as a reject, a guy looking for revenge. Now, just a few short years later, people are coming to him as a material witness and insider with pertinent information on the subject and wish to talk and listen to his knowledge of just what was happening behind the closed clubhouse doors in MLB.
What a difference a nationally funded report can do right? MLB and all the sports reporters who dismissed Canseco before must have thought the public were nothing more than lemmings. People somehow just believed that baseball players could magically transform themselves from lean and quick players to behemoth linebacker substitutes over a winter of strength conditioning? The only people with the curtains over their eyes were the officials of MLB. The public knew which players were juicing. However, that didn’t make a difference. The public enjoyed the massive home run shows we were entertained with throughout the 1995-2005 seasons. These shows brought people through the turn stiles. They also brought in massive amounts of revenue in jersey sales, ticket sales, and paraphernalia sales. A blind eye was turned to the players because the money was flowing, the baseball strike was forgotten and everything was great again. It was the great American past time once again.
However, how can an institution glorified for being a true American past time allow its players to succumb to such a travesty of using drugs to make them better? They knew and they allowed it. Everyone vilifies the players and blackballs them in the media, but I say the owners and organizers of baseball should be held even more accountable. Their excuse is that the chemicals were not banned during “x” years and thus were “legal.” I say no, not even close. The United States laws classified steroids as illegal. Just because a company doesn’t explicitly ban these substances doesn’t make them immune to US law. That’s beyond my comprehension to use as a valid argument. Illegal for you and I also makes it illegal for everyone, yes, even a baseball player.
Jose Canseco should be sorry and held accountable for his use of illegal substances, but he should not be dismissed as a lunatic looking for fame. He knows the story. He lived the story. He brought the story to us. We should listen to him and then utilize the information to further track down the true story behind what has undermined baseball and its record books. It’s a sad day when you look at your hometown baseball hero and wonder, “Is he on steroids?”
on April 24th, 2008 at 7:40 pm:
I still think that ALL the athletes that broke records under the influence of steroids, should not be allowed to keep them.
on April 24th, 2008 at 8:06 pm:
I definitely agree with you. Their “tainted” records are not real in the least. They should not have an asterisk or even be attributed to a specific era. Removal is the only way. They are flat out cheater records that have totally ruined the value of the record books for a sport that revered past achievements. Very sad indeed.
on April 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am:
I agree that they should lose any recognition they received while under the steroid, etc influence, because that is the only way to be able to start fresh and still keep America,s baseball history clean and all be treated alike, past and present. What is legal or not legal by the law has been and is still the law. Right? The law has not been changed in any way, right? So no one should be excused whether it happened in the past or the present.
on April 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pm:
Even with the removal and public ostracizing of these athletes, what real effect will it have on them? They have already filled their wallets with untold millions of dollars. Can we think public outcry and record censoring will really affect someone who was willing to cheat to be better? I don’t think so.
These “do everything it takes to win” athletes are ruining every major sport we know and the only way to take it back is to enforce a very stringent drug policy. If the player associations will not agree with it, they are then part of the problem. The public should stand up and be counted by not supporting teams and players who cheat to be the best. Take the money from their fat wallets and then they will listen.
on May 7th, 2008 at 10:45 am:
Everyone knows Barry was/is dirty. Why do you think NO ONE talks about him anymore? They can’t just erase names from the record book, even if he was dirty, they don’t know an exact date of when it started or if anyone else on certain record lists was dirty. It’s a losing battle that can only be won in the future; or never.
on May 7th, 2008 at 11:00 am:
I don’t think it’s a matter of when they cheated, I think it’s a matter of if they cheated. If they cheated, all of their stats are removed. Punishment is simple. Cheat, you are thrown out. Cheat, you are penalized monetarily. Cheat, your statistics are forever banned. I’ve never met a cheater in my life that only cheated one time.
on May 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am:
But isn’t there a fine line there? If I cheat and use steroids to get over an injury, quit using, then continue baseball, is that the same as Barry’s entire body, well minus a couple parts, getting continuslly bigger? It will be tough to judge such crimes. Should Barry and the other example be treated the same? I’m not a fan of cheating, and while Conseco is the only “cheater” I’ve truly followed and liked, it is quite saddening to know that America’s past time is filled with fake, over paid roid ragers.
on May 7th, 2008 at 11:15 am:
I have a very firm stance on cheaters. If they are injured and are prescribed steroids for medication, then they are fine. However, if you purchase, illegally, a substance that is not prescribed, you are a cheater whether you are injured or not. Different circumstances, but still cheating and thus the penalty is yours to pay. The idea here is to make cheating wrong no matter what the situation. The penalty has to carry some serious weight or people will still do it.
Remember when you were young, you would rationalize the penalty versus the gain of doing something wrong? Well, I will get grounded for a week if I sneak out and go to the party I REALLY want to go to. Yep, it’s worth it. Let’s go boys! But, if you were grounded for a week, no television, actually sitting at the dinner table with your family, no computer, no cell phone, and you had to wear what your mother picked out for you to school, then you would think twice about it now wouldn’t you?
It’s all about the penalty. Make the crime, cheating, so wrong via a penalty, people will not do it if they are truly rational. I know, that’s asking a lot, but I still have faith that people are still rational. By the way, I was a huge Canseco fan, still am because I’m just dumb I guess. My first email address on the internet was canseco”at”blahblah.com.
on May 7th, 2008 at 11:29 am:
What about those who used steorids before it was illegal? I say death to all cheaters. Ok, seriously, let’s say 1. a month ban for first offense, 2. a ban of all statistics for second, and 3. ban from baseball
People like Barry are allowed to have records, but my boy Pete Rose isn’t even in the Hall!
on May 7th, 2008 at 11:34 am:
Steroids have been illegal in the US long before baseball decided to include them as an illegal substance. I think federal law supersedes any playing organization’s bylaws. I’m not a lawyer though so I’m sure there are loopholes. I mean, other than the IRS laws, does anyone really listen to any federal laws?
I think Pete should be in the hall no doubt. He never cheated. Yes, he shouldn’t have bet on baseball, but he never threw a game, never altered the outcome, etc. I guess people who own stock in their own business are cheating too because they are gambling that their company will either do well or poorly, whichever way you want to look at it – short sell your stock is an option. I think baseball (commissioner) just didn’t like Pete and took their fury out on him.
on May 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am:
Pete is a legend of the game. For one of the greatest players in baseball to not be in the Hall is a travesty. So he bet on baseball. He be on his team to win. He’s a company man. lol He had faith in his team and team mates, isn’t that the kind of person you want in the Hall?
on May 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am:
I think the whole Pete Rose thing revolves around him not being a company guy in the views of baseball. They wanted him to be a puppet just like the rest of their HOF group. Make them look good, put on the cheery face, play the part. But, Pete was his own man, and still is. He paid the price and will continue to pay because baseball can never own him. We can only hope they railroad the actual cheaters of the game like they did him.
on May 7th, 2008 at 11:54 am:
It’s a different time now and criminals and rule breakers aren’t held accountable for their actions much. Pete is still Pete because he won’t change his stance on what he did. Sports stars are allowed to get away with too much, look at Pac Man Jones, Chris Henry, Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, Latrell Sprewell, Ron Artest, the Dallas Cowboys…holy cow, the list goes on and on.
on May 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pm:
You can even throw in college sports in the mix. There are teams of hoodlums and cheaters that will do anything to get that Win. Scholarship, sure, we got one for you, can you score 20 a game? Admission to school, can you rush for 1500 yards, sign him up! Cheating has infiltrated even the lowest levels of competition. High school, junior high, etc. Even your local softball team cheats with “special” bats. It’s never ending. The penalties for cheating just don’t deter anyone from doing the wrong thing. Leave the decision to the inmates, and by inmates, that includes the owners and organizers, then cheating will be rampant, no matter what the competition in. Ever cheated in checkers? Yeah, I thought so.
on May 7th, 2008 at 12:03 pm:
I only cheat when I have to win. You can call me a hypocrite if you want. By the way, Bob Huggins and West Virginia University recruit thugs for their basketball team. Huggins has done it with every school he’s coached for.
on May 7th, 2008 at 12:06 pm:
=) What determines your nature of “Have to win.”
Yes, Huggins is one of those win at all costs. I’ve got an article lined up about this actual topic, except it’s about a Maryland recruit coming to the courts next year.
on May 7th, 2008 at 12:13 pm:
The nature of having to win is derived from the fact that I hate to lose.
on May 7th, 2008 at 12:33 pm:
Hating to lose, I know that one very well as I’m a competitive person. I was a baseball and basketball player (elbow ligaments and knee ligaments now say otherwise) so I’m right there with you. I used the “dirty” tricks, but never resorted to cheating. I think we can all play within accepted “rules” even when losing is not an option. As we know, losing is never an option! Well, of course that’s what the coach always told us.
on May 7th, 2008 at 12:37 pm:
You’re right, losing isn’t an option. Yeah, a basketball player, little baseball, golf, and a few others, I do not react well to failure. I hate losing more than I love winning. While ankle problems have hindered my basketball quality, it has not lessented my hatred for losing.
on May 7th, 2008 at 12:45 pm:
It comes down to whether you can accept a “moral victory.” Yes, it’s not something we like to talk about in sports and competitive environments, but it does exist. You can lose, and still “almost” win. It’s a happy way to think about losing. From a well renowned author and thinker of our time, Rosi Perez I think stated it best in “White Men Can’t Jump,” and I quote:
“Sometimes when you win, you really lose, and sometimes when you lose, you really win, and sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all one organic globule, from which one extracts what one needs.”
So you see, you can really win, lose, or tie in any situation, it’s just what you take from it. LOL!
on May 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pm:
Wow, anyone who quotes Rosie Perez is unbeatable. I will say, in this case, it’s a tie.