Take Me Out of the Ballgame

Jason Grimsley's revelations to federal investigators do not surprise me. Not one bit.

They sadden me. They disgust me. But they do not surprise me.

A lot of baseball experts would have you believe baseball is on its way out of the so-called "Steroid Era," on its way to getting those nasty drugs out of the game and on its way back to integrity and respectability.

As soon as Barry Bonds retires.

But, as I long suspected, this drug scandal goes much, much deeper than Bonds. Bonds might be the biggest name in all this--two books written about him over the past few months and his historic chase of Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron--but he is far from the only one allegedly guilty of juicing.

We now know it wasn't just beefed-up sluggers taking their share of steroids, HGH, and whatever else you can conjure up in your head. It was seemingly everyone--journeymen pitchers, utility players, borderline Major Leaguers...nobody can be excluded from the discussion or the suspicion.

It makes perfect sense for borderline big-leaguers and journeymen to be using the stuff; a constant effort to keep up and stay competitive in a game where anyone can be gone with a snap of the fingers and the ring of a telephone. We've known steroids to be an issue on the minor league level, and this is the primary reason for it: players trying to get an edge over everyone else and make it to The Show.

Does that make it right? No, but it makes more sense than a surefire Hall of Famer allegedly beef-roiding himself out of spite for the magical summer Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa brought us back in 1998.

Grimsley's admissions also reveal a problem we should've seen from the very beginning: MLB's steroid testing policy, as good and harsh (and late) as it is, does not test for human growth hormones. It tests for steroids, it tests for amphetamines (which, honestly, I don't see what's so wrong with them)...but it does not test for HGH.

So players can simply change their drug of choice, pass all the random tests and walk around under the specter of "clean player."

Baseball and the World Anti-Doping Agency both say there's no reliable way to test for HGH. Baseball only condusts urine tests, and traces of HGH are only visible in blood tests.

Somehow, I don't buy the "there's no test" argument.

If the Grimsley revelation has shown us one thing, it's that the drug scandal in baseball is much deeper than any of us cared to consider or admit. It's entirely possible that at some point, at least half of the game's players were juicing with something. But, since testing didn't begin until 2003 and tests today don't check for HGH, how can we expect players not to do everything they can to gain an edge?

And make no mistake: though the names Grimsley named were blacked out in the public version of the federal affidavit, those names will become public within the next few weeks. Some intrepid reporter will find out who those names are, and you'll be seeing these names over and over again on SportsCenter. Grimsley will be reviled in the clubhouse, and players all over the league will be shaking in their cleats.

Also, there is no way baseball will ever be completely clean. Even the Olympics, which has arguably the best drug program of any sporting organization, has the occasional positive test. But Bud Selig and Major League Baseball really dropped the ball in the mid- to late 1990s when they turned their back on the scandal, and I'm afraid this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Barry Bonds has been the scapegoat in this scandal--perhaps unfairly--but now there's no doubt: this is deep. This is bad.

So bad, I don't know if the game can recover.

Just a Wie Bit Overgrown

Unless you've been living under a rock (or Utah) over the past few days, you probably know by now that 16-year-old golf phenom Michelle Wie tried and failed to qualify for the U.S. Open.

The men's U.S. Open, not the LPGA version.

And I have a definite problem with that. Let me preface this argument by saying Wie is a remarkable golfing talent, leaps and bounds over anything I'll ever be able to produce on the golf course (for one thing, she can keep it between the strips of rough). Her talent is extraordinary, and I can't deny her the dream of one day being the best golfer in the world, male or female.

And I have no problem with women's athletics; I've long been a supporter of women's basketball and believe women are athletically capable of the same things men are capable of.

But Wie is 16 years old. Last I checked, that still qualified you as a "kid." Wie's not even old enough to compete full-time on the LPGA Tour; she can't do that until she turns 18.

So in the meantime, she competes off-and-on on the Annika Sorenstam circuit, while trying to cut her teeth on the "men's tour" thanks to a bevy of sponsors' exemptions. Twleve times Wie has tried to make the cut at a PGA Tour event; 11 times she's failed. The one success: a Korean tournament with an arguably watered-down field.

Could Wie be the greatest ever one day? Maybe, maybe not. But 16 years old is not the age to attempt this feat. Sixteen is the age to finish high school, concentrate on competing in the junior circuits. Compete within your age group, learn how to compete, how to win...maybe even how to dominate.

Tiger Woods, the current edition of "the best golfer ever," went about things much the same way. Yes, he tried to compete in PGA Tour events when he was a teenager and an ameteur, but he also cut his teeth in the junior ranks, winning the U.S. Junior four years in a row. He also played collegiate golf at Stanford.

Then, and only then, did he make the move to the PGA Tour. By then, he was ready; Tiger knew what it took to compete, to win. I think the rest of his resume speaks for itself.

Wie should follow the same career path. I'm not saying she should play collegiately--it's obvious she can jump straight into the LPGA once she's old enough to compete full-time--but she should begin by playing at her level. Play her competition, learn how to win, how to finish.

Right now, finishing is Wie's problem; she had three straight bogeys to close out her U.S. Open qualifier Monday, and more than once her play down the stretch has cost her making the cut at a PGA Tour event.

If Wie played against her level of competition, she might learn how to physically and mentally withstand pressure and perform up to her potential. She might dominate the junior circuit--even the LPGA one day--but the lessons she could learn from that would prove immeasurable.

Is Wie good enough to one day play on the PGA Tour? I think so, and I believe that, someday, she will play in the U.S. Open and even The Masters (take that, Hootie Johnson...). But for right now, at age 16, she needs to focus on fine-tuning her skills, playing against level competition and learning how to win.

There is learning in failure, but right now, the talented Wie is in over her head. The PGA can wait another five years. In the meantime, work on proving people like Paula Creamer (who I happen to agree with, by the way) wrong.

Play, compete, win.

Wie isn't even the best women's golfer right now--that honor goes to Annika. I think Wie needs to worry about trying to dethrone her before she thinks about going after the men.

Tiger, Vijay, Phil, and the rest can wait. For now, Michelle, just worry about your game.

The PGA will still be there when you grow up a little; I promise.