I try to keep this blog full of mostly positive stories about former players, but I also intend for it to be a great source about Silver Hawks from the past, present, and future. Unfortunately, sometimes those stories will be negative, as we have seen with players getting traded, released, etc.
Today, we hit another type of negative story with the announcement that former Silver Hawks outfielder Alfredo Marte has been suspended 50 games for a positive drug test. According to the story, he tested positive for metabolites of Stanozolol, a performance-enhancing substance, in violation of the Minor League Drug Prevention and Treatment Program.
Marte played for South Bend in 2009, hitting .251 with seven homers and 71 RBIs. He also led the team with 27 doubles. Last year, Marte was with Visalia, hitting .260 with nine homers and 61 RBIs.
The link above states that he is currently on the AAA Reno roster, but don't read too much into that. There is really no way that Marte was going to start the year at AAA, but everyone has to be on some roster during the offseason.
I first saw this story on esteemed Arizona Republic writer Nick Piecoro's blog, where he basically sums up Marte's career the best with the following line: Marte was once a fairly well-regarded prospect in the system, a guy with a quick swing, a strong arm and, some believed, a chance to become a dynamic player, but he hasn't lived up to expectations. He hit just .260 with a .688 OPS in High-A Visalia. This suspension, obviously, is a huge setback in his career.
Showing posts with label Steroids. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steroids. Show all posts
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Steroid Poll Results
I thought the question I asked last week about steroids in regards to the Hall of Fame was an interesting one given that we are fully into that time where the suspected users are becoming eligible for the HOF vote.
First of all, here was the question: How should steroid users or suspected steroid users be handled in terms of the Hall of Fame vote?
And here are your votes, with percentages rounded off:
None of them get in 1 (7%)
Keep out only those that actually failed a test or admitted use 4 (30%)
Handle on a case-by-case basis 3 (23%)
Put deserving players in, note the steroid link on plaque 3 (23%)
Vote as normal without considering steroids 2 (15%)
Although it's close, the winning vote was that you keep only those that actually failed a test or admitted use out of the Hall of Fame.
Here's the problem with that: Under this logic, you are letting in Sammy Sosa (who never failed a test or admitted use but is highly suspected of using), yet keeping out Rafael Palmeiro (who failed a test). That doesn't quite seem fair, especially if you think Palmeiro was a better player than Sosa (and he was).
So then you say, keep out all suspected users. Here's the problem with that: If you have no proof, isn't it possible that some guy is being accused when we really don't know? Take Jeff Bagwell for example. He was a great player, but many people think he used steroids. However, what if he didn't. It is right to keep him out of the Hall of Fame on suspicions alone?
The next step is to handle on a case-by-case basis, which again creates the same dilemma as above. You end up letting some people in because you don't think they used (when they might have), and you keep some people out because you think they used (when maybe they didn't).
Basically, this is my long-winded way of saying that I think you have to start voting in steroid users and suspected steroid users if their numbers are deserving. I think if you know for a fact that they used steroids, then you need to note on their plaque that they either failed a test or admitted use. If you don't know it for a fact, you have to assume innocence until proven guilty.
Does this jeopardize the integrity of the Hall of Fame? Probably. But the entire sport has had its integrity called into question by the use of steroids and shouldn't the Hall of Fame reflect that era, just like it reflects any other eras (segregation, juiced ball, dead ball, etc)?
First of all, here was the question: How should steroid users or suspected steroid users be handled in terms of the Hall of Fame vote?
And here are your votes, with percentages rounded off:
None of them get in 1 (7%)
Keep out only those that actually failed a test or admitted use 4 (30%)
Handle on a case-by-case basis 3 (23%)
Put deserving players in, note the steroid link on plaque 3 (23%)
Vote as normal without considering steroids 2 (15%)
Although it's close, the winning vote was that you keep only those that actually failed a test or admitted use out of the Hall of Fame.
Here's the problem with that: Under this logic, you are letting in Sammy Sosa (who never failed a test or admitted use but is highly suspected of using), yet keeping out Rafael Palmeiro (who failed a test). That doesn't quite seem fair, especially if you think Palmeiro was a better player than Sosa (and he was).
So then you say, keep out all suspected users. Here's the problem with that: If you have no proof, isn't it possible that some guy is being accused when we really don't know? Take Jeff Bagwell for example. He was a great player, but many people think he used steroids. However, what if he didn't. It is right to keep him out of the Hall of Fame on suspicions alone?
The next step is to handle on a case-by-case basis, which again creates the same dilemma as above. You end up letting some people in because you don't think they used (when they might have), and you keep some people out because you think they used (when maybe they didn't).
Basically, this is my long-winded way of saying that I think you have to start voting in steroid users and suspected steroid users if their numbers are deserving. I think if you know for a fact that they used steroids, then you need to note on their plaque that they either failed a test or admitted use. If you don't know it for a fact, you have to assume innocence until proven guilty.
Does this jeopardize the integrity of the Hall of Fame? Probably. But the entire sport has had its integrity called into question by the use of steroids and shouldn't the Hall of Fame reflect that era, just like it reflects any other eras (segregation, juiced ball, dead ball, etc)?
Monday, January 11, 2010
OMG! I Can't Believe It
In the least shocking news of all time, Mark McGwire took steroids while he was playing baseball.
The only shocking thing about this story is that he finally admitted it.
Comment below if you feel the urge. To me, this is not much of a story.
The only shocking thing about this story is that he finally admitted it.
Comment below if you feel the urge. To me, this is not much of a story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)