How Does Everyone Know Hank Aaron Was Clean?
| 16
|
by Notthatgood4
It has become fashionable to say a player "played the right way." In today's context, this usually means that he did not use performance enhancing drugs.
In the wake of Barry Bonds' breaking the home run record, many are quick to denounce the record as a fraud and claim Henry "Hank" Aaron is still the home run king because he did not use steroids. But how is everyone absolutely sure?
I'm not saying Aaron used performance enhancing drugs, in fact I highly doubt he did, but why is the public so naive to believe it is not a possibility?
Baseball did not test for drugs then, as it did not when Bonds was accused of using them. Just as there is no absolute proof that Bonds intentionally used performance enhancing drugs, there is no absolute evidence Aaron did not.
Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn were applauded upon their entry into the Hall of Fame for what else but "playing the game the right way." Again, how do we know they played the game the right way? Because they were nice guys?
Ripken's record for consecutive games played is widely commended as a sign of his superb dedication. How do we know that he did not use some sort of drug or product to aid the streak? In professional sports, injuries are natural. For a player to go years without missing a single game is not natural. Perhaps he was just highly fortunate; perhaps he used something extra to help him recover quickly.
As for Gwynn, he is also commended for "playing the game the right way." What does this mean? Since he was too lazy to get in shape it's a sign of his integrity? Again, how is the public absolutely certain he did not use something to aid his performance in lieu of exercise?
Now I'm not accusing either of these players of violating the rules, but the public is naive to ignore the possibility. What does it come down to? That these men are supposedly nice guys, a persona that could easily be manufactured to cover up darker intentions? If Barry Bonds were a nice guy, would he be given the benefit of the doubt? Probably.
If the public should have learned a lesson by now, it is that you cannot assume that human nature is flawless.
