It’s been called the “Steroid Era” in baseball, and now, the Baseball Hall of Fame may be creating a “Steroid Exhibit”.My view on all of this is that history is history. The minute the Hall of Fame starts whitewashing the history of baseball, the minute it becomes a house of propaganda.Today, Jeff Idelson, the vice-president of communications and education for the Hall of Fame was on the Dan Patrick Show, where Patrick brought up the topic.
“Have you thought about a steroid exhibit in the Hall of Fame?” Patrick asked. “Brian McNamee says to you, ‘Jeff, I’ve got some vials, I’ve got syringes, I’ve got HGH… I’d like to donate it to the Hall of Fame.’”
“There’s no doubt that in time we will address steroids and human growth hormones in our museum. It’s a part of the game,” replied Idelson. “It’s a lousy part of the game, but it’s part of the game’s history...But when we do tell the story, it will be in the context perhaps of good medicine versus bad medicine. It will be done in an educational way. Would we accept artifacts or items from Brian McNamee? I don’t know, I mean if it allows us to tell the story in an educational way, we’d consider it. But if it’s just to have, I doubt we’d take them.”
My only concern is that, like all historical endeavors, the people in charge of it attempt to apply some sort of reasonable perspective to it all. If that means waiting a few years, so be it.
2 comments:
I don't think Jeff Idelson is trying to "whitewash" history here. It sounds what he doesn't want is for the steroid exhibit to be a piece of propaganda for condemning steroid users. The choice, it seems to me, is for the Hall to either ignore steroids, support them, condemn them, or educate people in regards to their place in the game's history.
The first option is whitewashing history. The second and third are inappropriate for an unbiased institution, and the third seems to be what Idelson wants to do.
The role of steroids in the history of baseball just seems too murky to tell at this point.
Sure they could have mention of them now, but there's just not enough information out there for a comprehensive exhibit at this point, I would think. We're just too much in the thick of the controversy to have any real historical perspective on the subject.
We probably won't know the full effect for 5-10 years, at least, possibly longer.
Post a Comment