Alex Rodriguez’s quest for 600 officially began several days ago. In years past fans might have flocked to Kansas City to get a glimpse of baseball history, but this past weekend’s series of games demonstrated how times have clearly changed. It was also only a short time ago that steroid induced home run records not only captivated audiences, and filled stadiums across the country, but brought baseball back to its feet after a hard knock down. Now that stadiums are filled with dominate pitchers blistering hitters with nasty arrays of pitches the question is which scenario is better and which is worse.

The argument against steroids is more than obvious. Quite frankly the use of steroids is cheating in its most primitive form. I attribute their induction to the fact that baseball stopped being a game and quietly became one of America’s biggest and most recognizable businesses. When baseball became more about money and ego rather than fans and competitive sportsmanship, players began to look for ways to increase their personal profits. Since it is player talent on display, most stars view themselves as the product and have empowered the Players Union to organize justifiable contracts for their services. However, just like any normal workforce there are continuous feelings of exploitation and disgruntlement, thus players constantly feel like they are owed more; and who are the agents to argue? In order to achieve those higher salaries a player must not only produce at a high level but also be able to out compete their teammates and foes alike. In the steroid era the easiest way to gain a clear advantage and sustain a longer career was to use.  

During this time period America was engrossed in every act. They watched games at home, listened to them on the radio at work, and gasped every time a ball soared deep into the outfield stands. The game had renewed life. In essence steroids saved the game. However, as time progressed and white clouds were replaced with gray, fans began to feel cheated. Fans were watching a fake product. The argument was attempted that if “everyone” was doing it then it really wasn’t cheating. The reality of the situation showed something drastically different. Soon discussions were raised about purity, asterisks, and exorcism. Discussion of this nature quickly harbored the current era we’re all witnessing in baseball. For the sake of simplicity I will call it the “clean era.”

In this “clean era” fans seem to have become frustrated and restless with the impending results. The most evident proof was the public’s reaction to the 2010 All Star game in Anaheim. The game was magnificently played on the mound but lacked that certain pop many of the previous mid-summer classics portrayed. It was this lack of offensiveness that turned disgruntled whispers into boisterous hums of aggravation. Talk across the nation was centered on how inevitably boring the game had become. Those same feelings were reflected in the ratings released a short time after the game. (If I remember correctly the ratings were one of the lowest in recent memory.) The ratings disaster merely proved the notion that steroids were indeed going to be missed, whether subconsciously or not.  

In this regard the steroids conversation is brought back full circle. Are steroids, HGH or any other performance enhancer worth the results? During their usage baseball couldn’t harness any more popularity and during their banning it can’t seem to catch a break. While I am by no means condoning steroid usage, it is apparent that fans, not just players, have become dependent on the amplifying effects of steroids. That being said, it is apparent that steroids not only have played a pivotal part in baseball history but in its immediate future as well. For the common fan, the difference between a steroids laced game and regular baseball will make all the difference, leaving the rest of us to decide whether or not going cold turkey was unconsciously for better or worse?