Double Standards

Jason Giambi who clearly admitted he'd been on steroids in the past came away a free man from any form of punishment yesterday by Bud Selig. During the course of this entire saga, I've been a bit confused what the line of thinking has been concerning steroid policy for a player who did not test positive, but openly admitted (in good faith) he had done so in the past.

Giambi may be a special case. In 2004 he opened the season by apologizing to fans and then this year gave an interview admitting his past use in more detail. Immediately following this, the controversy was around whether Giambi should be punished and speak to the Mitchell Investigation, which he did.

The one thing I don't completely understand about all of this is why Giambi would possibly be punished in the first place. On the one hand, he did criticize baseball for the entire Steroid Era, but on the other hand, what's wrong with regretting your past and coming to terms with it? To me, all of this is was just politics to get Giambi to speak with Mitchell since that entire investigation seems to be going nowhere.

But would the same process occur if another player came forward and said they'd taken steroids in the past? What if Gary Sheffield, who's outspoken on everything from contracts to racism to steroids, came out and said, "yeah that clear stuff I took was 'roids"? I don't think he'd go through the same process. I think the process is a case-by-case basis.

In any event though, why aren't the players from the minors up to the majors who have been caught not talking with the Mitchell Investigation? The sport still has players taking enhancements and no one really understands why it happened and continues to. I know baseball's policy is "trying" to catch cheaters and make the sport cleaner, but why is it that someone who is caught doesn't have to be questioned about it?