Literature Review

Steroids are Performance Enhancing Drugs (PED) and have been a banned among
players of the Major League Baseball (MLB). The ban took effect in 1991 and has been upheld
ever since (Erickson et al., 2015). Despite this fact, it was not until 2003 when MLB introduced a
policy for league-wide testing for steroids. Before 2003, there were common instances where
MLB players were never tested for steroids (Erickson et al., 2015). At the time, the penalties
were a player tested positive for steroids was suspension for ten games if the player was a first-
time offender and one-year suspension if the player was guilty of steroid use for a fourth time. In
cases of fifth-time offences, ten a player would be discontinued or expelled for life from the
MLB.
On December 13 2007, the Mitchell report was released, and it was based on nearly one
year of investigations on the possibility of steroid use among MLB’S high profile players. The
report revealed that Baseball was infected. There are used hypodermic needles discovered in
training fields and clubhouses where players frequented. The players were found to be using
steroids to enhance performance, and this gave most of them a competitive advantage over the
players. Trainers and coaches turned a blind eye, and some were actively involved in helping the
players acquire the steroids and even administer them. The management was aware of this but
pretended that such a problem never existed within their teams. Eighty-nine players were
implicated in the Mitchell report. They were found to be taking steroids and consequently acting
in violation of MLB guidelines as well as Federal and State laws. The revelation made by the
Mitchell report changed Baseball not only for the players themselves but for the fans as well.

3
The report was shocking to some, and to others, it confirmed their suspicions. The aim of
the report was to expose and bring the Steroid era to an end. The report was the turning point in
the world of Baseball. It was instrumental in shaping the reforms that followed, specifically on
stopping drug use among players. MLB had an opportunity to end a difficult part of history and
improve its overall policies and approach on curbing steroid use among MLB players. The report
represented a revolution and a kind of salvation. Reinforcement programs and testing were
strengthened to ensure that such practices do not go undetected. Besides, the report proved to
players that their steroid use trail could not be covered. Regardless of how well they thought they
had hidden the tracks, there was still a possibility of being caught.
Reforms were made, and unions agreed on tightening rules and penalties on steroid use.
However, despite the harsh penalties, it seemed that steroid use was deeply entrenched in the
culture of Baseball. To this day, high profile players are still implicated in steroid use. For
instance, in 2016, there were about five suspension cases in a period of just two months
(Schrader, 2016). Such instances and irregularities have had fans question the credibility of some
of the results. The problem is, thus, every additional positive case of steroid use adds onto fan
suspicion on how good their favorite players really are and whether they also use steroids to
enhance their performance.
The steroid era created a cloud of suspicion that does not seem to e going anywhere. For
example, there were suspicions on whether Mike Piazza used steroids. Doubts on his credibility
are magnified because he played during the steroid era. According to Davidoff, it remains
unclear where Piazza’a performance was influenced by steroid use, and he thus became a good
player not based purely on his abilities but also due to his reliance on boosts provided by the

4
drugs (Davidoff, 2014). Studies have shown that the steroid era created a level of suspicion that
has continued to haunt players and their accomplishments in the field.
The steroid era subjected players to a lot of scrutiny and now one has to prove natural
ability lest fans start digging into their history with drugs. However, history has proven that
sports fans have been very forgiving of their favorite players. This has particularly been the case
with baseball stars. However, after the steroid era, some researchers have argued that Baseball
lost some of its fans. They have argued that the steroid era made baseball heroism appear like a
scam because it is possible that players who recorded very high scores then were under the
influence of steroids. Thus, they cheated the game and acquired fame for efforts they knew were
not purely natural (Ham, 2008). Over the years, researchers have noted that fans no longer
frequent the ballpark as they used to before the steroid era and the shocking revelations of the
Mitchell report.
However, new baseball fans continue to take the place of old ones. Baseball has a
tradition, such as the Hall of fame, and these aspects of the game remain a vital part of society.
Baseball provides grandfathers and fathers with an opportunity to introduce young boys to the
game as they too were introduced many years ago. Research has shown that even though the
game may have an imperfect past, it is still loved, and some of the traditions associated with it
are still preserved among its fans (Von Burg & Johnson, 2009). Thus, one of the critical aspects
of generational exchange has been the introduction of new fans to the game and the importance
of the Hall of fame. Each day, visitors frequent the Hall of fame, and they represent a
generational exchange and a blending of multiple generations who have chosen to share in the
tradition of Baseball. Thus, the influx of new fans signals a changing perspective regarding the
effects of the steroid era on the attitudes of fans.

5
Further, the voters who vote on ballots at the Hall of Fame show a shift in views that fans
have towards the steroid era. It is surprising that writers on the ballots continue to vote in more
individuals who were shining stars during the steroid era (Antinori et al., 2017). It seems that
maybe the fans have adopted a forgiving attitude. They have reconciled with their past and have
chosen to celebrate the stars they watched them play. Some of these stars have since died.
However, whether dead or alive, players who accomplished a lot in their careers during the
steroid continue to be voted into the Hall of fame. It is not clear why fans continue to celebrate
their heroes, oblivious of the fact that they may not have been heroes had they not used steroids.
Theories have since been formulated to explain the unwavering support provided by
some fans despite the steroid era ‘drama’. For instance, according to Osborne (2005), society has
remained loyal to Baseball and players that have dominated in the game over the years because
they want to protect their children’s role models. Most children look up to athletes as their role
models (Erickson et al., 2015). When a certain player is cancelled ten the health of the children
who identify with them as their role models may be affected. Fans seem to have accepted that
Baseball has its dark past, and some events such as the steroid era may affect how the game is
perceived, but they have chosen to remain loyal to the game.
On the other hand, Osborne (2005) argues that steroids are a form of cheating. They
enhance a player’s performance and chances of winning. Accomplishments are not necessarily
based on effort. Thus, steroids’ main value is to increase the athlete’s ability to perform. Based on
the assumption that an extra cost and effort are required to achieve certain goals, steroids help a
player achieve the same goals but at reduced costs and efforts. The theorists then hold that
steroids are a way of cheating as they enable players to reach levels that they would otherwise
not reach (Ham, 2008). He acknowledges n interesting fact that if fans value natural efforts and

6
abilities, then they will reward a player for being drug-free and for putting in the necessary
effort. Conversely, they may choose to withdraw their support as a way of punishing players who
choose to take the easy route.
Remarkably, fans may not have much influence on players’ decisions to use steroids or
not because they do not have direct consequences on the salaries paid to players. However, fans
can demonstrate their displeasure with a team or player by not watching their games or not
buying tickets. They may also fail to buy merchandise associated with the team or player
(Grossman et al., 2007). Such retaliatory efforts have a direct effect on the team’s revenue and
consequent success. Besides, the prevalence of steroid use and social acceptance, such as through
celebrating players during the steroid era and who have used steroids to enhance their
performance, is a threat to the young generation. Teenage players whose dream is to become
famous baseball players may be deluded that the use of steroids is the easy way to achieve their
playing dreams (Erickson et al., 2015). Besides, most teenagers who may be dealing with social
rejection or exclusion may be tempted to use steroids to cope with the challenges of the
environment in which they live.
Further, studies have shown that teenagers are increasingly using steroids. For instance, a
baseball the named Garibaldi was caught using steroids by his father (Whitman, 2008). Upon
questioning, he said that he started using steroids when he was eighteen. He further added that
baseball players use steroids and because he is one, he is not an exception. Such trends are
becoming prevalent, as evidenced by different studies (Whitman, 2008). The reaction of certain
fans during the steroid era may have sent a message to young players that sports are competitive
in nature, and for one to succeed, then it is important to enhance natural strength. It is important

7

to understand the impact of the steroid era on the attitudes of young players towards
enhancement of abilities using drugs.
This prospective study identifies a gap in the existing literature regarding fans views on
steroid use. The presence of players who played during the steroid era reflects a possibility that
fans do not understand how the steroid era affected the players’ abilities in the field. Education is
thus necessary to help fans understand the history of Baseball specifically as it relates to the
steroid era. The fact is that the steroid era was a time that will remain woven into the very fabric
of the history of basketball. Current votes at the Hall of fame do not reflect the sentiments of fans
who watched the steroid era drama unfold and who have watched several players banned from
taking part in Baseball. As a result, the research question that will be explored in the research
paper is “How did the steroid era impact fan choices to buy tickets or watch games?” the research
will be looking deeper into whether the number of fans watching Baseball during the era reduced
and whether the fans who vote for players who rose through the ranks during the steroid era
understand the possibility that these players could have boosted or enhanced their abilities. The
study will seek to fill the gap on the changes in views among fans who followed the game during
the steroid era and among individuals who have acquired their passion for the game through
generational inheritance or because they were introduced by the fathers to the game.

8

References

Antinori, P., Blackman, R. J., & Blackman, R. (2017). Contextualization of a shifting perspective
regarding the steroid era. The Sport Journal. Retrieved from: http://thesportjournal.
org/article/contextualization-of-a-shifting-perspective-regarding-the-steroid-era.
Davidoff, K. (2014, January 8). Piazza may never get into Hall due to unfair PED backlash. New
York Post. Retrieved from http://nypost.com/2014/01/08/unfairped-backlash-could-keep-
piazza-out-of-hall/
Erickson, B. J., Yanke, A., Monson, B., & Romeo, A. (2015). The effect of the steroid era on
Major League Baseball hitters: did it enhance hitting. J Sports Med Doping Stud, 5(161),
2161-0673.
Erickson, B. J., Yanke, A., Monson, B., & Romeo, A. (2015). The effect of the steroid era on
Major League Baseball hitters: did it enhance hitting. J Sports Med Doping Stud, 5(161),
2161-0673.
Grossman, M., Kimsey, T., Moreen, J., & Owings, M. (2007). Steroids and major league
baseball. Berkley University, 30.
Ham, E. L. (2008). The Immaculate Deception: How the Holy Grail of Protectionism Led to the
Great Steroid Era. Marq. Sports L. Rev., 19, 209.
Osborne, E. (2005). Performance-enhancing drugs: An economic analysis. Wright State
University.
Schrader, B. J. (2016). It’s a Whole New Ball Game: The Mitchell Report, Performance
Enhancing Drugs, and Professional Sports (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver).

9
Von Burg, R., & Johnson, P. E. (2009). Yearning for a past that never was: Baseball, steroids,
and the anxiety of the American dream. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26(4),
351-371.
Whitman, J. H. (2008). Winning at All Costs: Using Law & (and) Economics to Determine the
Proper Role of Government in Regulating the Use of Performance-Enhancing Drugs in
Professional Sports. U. Ill. L. Rev., 459.