Surprise, surprise. According to Ed Eagle of MLB.com,
during an injury-riddled 2001 season, David Wells said that White Sox
teammate Jose Canseco advised him to use human growth hormone. Wells,
who was 38 at the time, passed on the advice.
“I didn’t need to do that and I wasn’t going to do that. That stuff is not good for the game and it is not good for your body.”
Wells instead opted for back surgery, quit drinking and underwent an
intense offseason workout program that had him lose 30 pounds by Spring
Training in 2002. Wells enjoyed one of his best seasons with the
Yankees in 2002, going 19-7 with a 3.75 ERA and 1.24 WHIP. Wells
retired in 2007 with 239 wins, tied with Hall of Famer Mordecai Brown
for 56th on the all-time list.
Appearing at Yankee Stadium last month for the 11th anniversary of his perfect game, Wells suggested that baseball should give harsher penalties or even lifetime bans to those who test postive for PEDs.
“Just ban them right out of the
get-go; I think that would be great. No 50-game suspension. Ban them
right away, that would stop it in a heartbeat — especially with the
money they are giving out today. It would be incredible if they did
that. You wouldn’t have to worry about steroids or HGH.”
As he told reporters at Yankee Stadium last month, Wells believes that
any player who tests positive or admitted to steroid use should not be
admitted to the Hall of Fame. It’s almost comical, really, but Wells
just might be the perfect leader for an anti-performance enhancing drug
movement, proof-positive that a player can have a long-lasting and
decorated career without looking like an Adonis.
The Baseball Writers Association of America has elected Claire Smith the winner of the 2017 J.G. Taylor Spink Award. She becomes the first woman to be given baseball writing’s highest honor. She will be honored with the award that is presented annually to a sportswriter “for meritorious contributions to baseball writing” during Hall of Fame inductions in Cooperstown on July 30.
Smith, 62, covered the New York Yankees for five years beginning in 1983 for the Hartford Courant before becoming a columnist with the New York Times. She later served as an editor and columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer from 1998-2007. She is now ESPN’s news editor of remote productions, responsible for the integration of news and analysis in live game broadcasts and the Baseball Tonight and Sports Center studio programs. She is a two-time Pulitzer Prize nominee and winner of three New York Times Publishers’ Awards.
Smith was named Sports Journalist of the Year from the National Association of Black Journalists in 1997, received the Mary Garber Pioneer Award from the Association of Women in Sports Media in 2000 and the Sam Lacy Award at the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum and Hall of Fame in 2010. She has served on the Baseball Hall of Fame Veterans Committee and was the chair of the New York chapter of the BBWAA in 1995 and 1996.
Yesterday’s announcement that Under Armour will be taking over the MLB uniform business brought with it an added bit of news: for the first time, beginning in 2020, baseball uniforms will feature the maker’s logo on the front of the jersey. From Paul Lukas of UniWatch:
While the Majestic logo has appeared on MLB sleeves, the Under Armour logo will be appearing on the upper-right chest area.
Lukas has a bunch of Photoshopped images of MLB players wearing uniforms with UA logos on it to give us a sense of how it will likely look.
It’s certainly weird and in some cases even a bit jarring. It would be my preference not to see baseball uniforms go this route as I think they’re aesthetically pleasing parts of the game in and of themselves. But it’s inevitable. If there is a chance for leagues and sponsors to make money and if it doesn’t cause them to lose fans (i.e. lose money) they will take it. You can say you’ll give up baseball if they put corporate logos — including paid advertisements, not just the logos of the companies which make the gear — but you’re lying to yourself about that. You and I will complain and grumble and then we’ll get used to it. At some point, after a couple of years, we’ll start talking about which ads look better and which ones look worse and applaud particularly savvy and pleasing looking logos.
As I wrote back in April when the NBA approved ads on uniforms, there may even be a bright side to all of this.
Sports teams have had it both ways for a long time. They’ve worked to make a buck off of anything that isn’t nailed down all the while pretending to be something greater than any other business. They play on our nostalgia and our loyalty in order to portray themselves as something akin to a public trust or institution, entitling themselves to perks no other businesses get and the avoidance of regulation. By turning players into walking billboards, perhaps the four major North American sports will inadvertently make some folks realize that they are just businesses and that they aren’t deserving of such special treatment.
I’m not holding my breath about that, but anything that takes away even a bit of the faux public trust luster that sports leagues and teams use to manipulate their fans is a good thing. Maybe it’ll make, say, the Yankees or the Dodgers look less venerable and sharp. But maybe it’ll remind people that they’re just business units of a $10 billion industry, not some fourth branch of government or whatever.