We recently ran a poll asking our readers, Did Steroids Make Baseball Better?
We posted the poll after news broke that Manny Ramirez was suspended for using Performance Enhancing drugs. Though he wasn't using steroids, it did make for a simpler headline and at this point we all use the words steroids and Performance-Enhancing drugs as a reference for the same thing, using banned substances to boost performance.
35 people voted in the poll and the outcome was near evenly divided. In the end, the voters decided by a slim margin that steroids did not make baseball better, with the final tally coming in at 19 to 16.
Did Steroids Make Baseball Better?
- No (54%, 19 Votes)
- Yes (46%, 16 Votes)
Total Voters: 35
Here's some thoughts from the comments section (links are to that commenter's blog, twitter account or to the original comment, in that order):
I’m not ready to say it made the sport better but i think it definatley caried it out of a slump and made it more relevent to none baseball fans.
Thinking about this from another angle; baseball is just a profitable game. So what difference does it make what players do to their bodies? If people knew exactly what went on in locker rooms & doctor’s offices & etc, would they suddenly stop going to watch baseball games? Or stop buying team merchandise? And if yes, would the players care enough about the loss of revenue (which pays their salaries) to scale back on the use of chemical advantage? Or are they playing for themselves, for the feeling of winning, and pushing themselves beyond their own limits?
it didn’t make the game better it made it more buzz worthy for the pink hats of the world, with all the dingers.
I voted yes and feel semi-guilty for doing so
There you have it folks, the fans decided (barely) that steroids did not make baseball better. Make sure to vote in our latest poll, Should Manny Ramirez be Allowed to Play in the 2009 All-Star Game?, which ends June 31st, just before midnight [EST]. Make your voice heard!