Gamble 1

Annotated Bibliography

Roid Rage: How Steroids Enraged America

David Gamble

Professor Malcolm Campbell

UWRT 1103

October 25, 2016

Gamble 2

"The Steroids Era." ESPN. ESPN, 5 Dec. 2012. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.
This
source is an article I found online, that ESPN produced back in 2012, that provides
almost all you need to know about the Steroid Era. It consists of five main points. Those
points being an overview, the investigations, testing, hearings, and the fallout of all the
scandalous activity that occurred. The overview discusses the history, and gives
background to the story that is about to unfold. It hits all the main points such as the
timeline, some key names, along with what caused all the suspicion that led to the rules
and regulation the MLB has in place today. The investigation tab is broken down into two
sections: the BALCO scandal and the Mitchell Commission (Report). The BALCO
Scandal portion outlines the stories of Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds, but the nutritional
supplement firm was associated with many more players. It discusses Giambis testimony
in front of a grand jury in 2003, and how he admitted to using steroids and HGH given to
him by BALCO although he never tested positive. Bonds case is much more
complicated, but in short, he ended up being charged with perjury and obstruction of
justice in 2007 because of his testimony from 2003 being false. The second part, the
Mitchell Commision (Report), outlines how Senator George Mitchell and his team of
investigators went about interviewing hundreds of people and finding out exactly which
players were using steroids and other PEDs. Only two players cooperated, Frank Thomas
and Jason Giambi. This commission of 89 names led to many of the strict testing rules
the MLB has in place today. The next tab goes in depth about when testing for steroids
began, and the changes that occurred year by year to the testing policy. It begins in 2003
with the first implementation of a testing policy, and ends in 2008 after the Mitchell

Gamble 3

Report came out and Commissioner Bud Selig was pressured to make more changes. The
fourth tab discusses two hearings, one being of Jose Canseco, who wrote a book on
steroid use among himself and his peers. The second being of Roger Clemens, who was
met with six different charges, all of which he was found not guilty on. The Fallout
section of the article discusses two players, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez,
involved with steroids that were accused after the Bonds trial and Mitchell Report.
This source is definitely objective, as it simply tells the story of the Steroid Era using
facts. Im not sure of the author of the article, but Im sure it was written by a baseball
historian employed by ESPN. This article is very reliable due to the company that
published it. ESPN is the leading sports network, and I would expect nothing less. Id
consider it an academic article, because it provides a historical account of the events that
took place, but it could also be considered popular.
As for the usefulness of this source, Ive found it to be the most useful source yet. Its so
in depth, and hits all the main points. It does a great job of introducing more questions as
well as answering my initial questions too.
Nathan, Alan M. "The Possible Effect of Steroids on Home Run Production." The Baseball
Research Journal (2009): 36-38. The Physics of Baseball. The University of Illinois,
2009. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.
This entry to The Baseball Research Journal is Alan Nathans take on a paper written
previously by physicist Roger Tobin. His goal is to confirm what Tobin originally
proposed, just like what most scientists do. It goes extremely in depth on how,
mathematically, muscle mass can directly influence batted ball speed and in turn,

Gamble 4

distance. In the entry, he concludes that a 10% increase muscle mass can result in a 50%
increase in HRBiP (home runs per ball in play).
The author, Alan Nathan, is very credible because he runs a website devoted to the
physics of baseball. On this website, he has countless papers written on various aspects of
baseball. He is a certified expert on the matter. The article is very objective, as it deals
with math and physics to prove a point and not any sort of opinion. Id say its academic
as well, as it is posted on a university professors website and is intended for educational
purposes.
Im not sure if this source will be very useful or not. I didnt exactly plan on
incorporating math and physics into my paper, but if it comes about I will definitely use
this source. It provides such an extensive and in depth look into what actually makes a
baseball travel a certain distance, so its also very useful in that way.
Sandomir, Richard. "Baseball Is Booming Despite Talk Of Steroids." New York Times 5 Apr. 2
005: D1. Science in Context. Web. 18 Oct. 2016.
This is a newspaper article from the New York Times in which the author, Richard
Sandomir, discusses how steroids had a positive effect on the game of baseball. The
increased offense positively correlated with ticket sales, as they were projected to be up
almost 40% at the time. Now granted, this was before all of the legal complications went
down with Barry Bonds and the Mitchell Report, so I would have to look into the years
after 2008 to get the full story. Sandomir brings up how General Motors re upped its
sponsorship of the MLB after a nine year break. He interviewed a college professor from
California who said, ...It's baseball. This isn't going to affect it. In my wildest dreams, I

Gamble 5

don't see a single marketing guy pulling back from dealing with baseball because of
steroids. So, at the time, many felt there was a disconnect between the game of baseball
and steroid use.
Sandomir has been writing for the New York Times since 1991, and hes written six
books. I think thats credible. He offers an objective view of the subject by presenting
numbers and statistics, but he also incorporated quotes of important people, that were or
are involved with marketing in baseball, that tell what they think about the relationship
between steroids and the popularity of baseball. I consider this a popular source because
its from a very famous newspaper thats read all over the country. The audience could be
anyone reading the newspaper at the time when it was released or someone like me who
is curious about the subject.
This article is pretty useful because it deals with something I definitely wanted to discuss
in my paper, and thats how steroids changed the game positively and negatively. This
mainly covers a positive aspect so the negative side will have to be found elsewhere.
Smith, Gary. "WHAT DO WE DO NOW?" Sports Illustrated. Sports Illustrated 28 Mar. 2005.
Web. 18 Oct. 2016.
This is an article from the very popular sports magazine, Sports Illustrated. The article
begins with the author reminiscing over all the moments he experienced in baseball
during the summer of 1998, when Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire were in their prime
and hitting five home runs in a weekend. Then the article shifts to the time, over six years
later, when McGwire, Sosa, and others were testifying in front of Congress over alleged
steroid use. The author then goes on to make several phone calls looking for opinions on

Gamble 6

steroids and the integrity of the game and discusses each one in detail for the rest of the
article. He talks to a smorgasbord of people, including a Catholic priest, John McCain, an
ex-Kansas City Royal who was in prison for crack, Hank Aarons son and many others.
The authors goal here, clearly, was to gather as many opinions as possible on Sosa,
McGwire, Bonds, and the integrity of the game. Theres a lot less consensus on the
matter than youd think. One of the final people the author speaks with is a doctor whose
son is a teenage phenom. They discuss how the kids, who are my age now, didnt really
care that their heroes were using steroids, and that they just saw it as a way to get an edge
like having a better calculator than the kid beside you in class.
Gary Smith is a pretty famous sportswriter considering he was a senior writer at Sports
Illustrated. He won the National Magazine Award for nonfiction, which is the magazine
equivalent to the Pulitzer Prize. Its safe to say he is a credible source. He does have a
bias, though. When discussing the testimonies of Sosa and McGwire, he talks about how
the prosecutors asked everyone except members of the media like himself. He felt that
the medias input could benefit them just as much as anyone within baseball such as
general managers, players, the commissioner, athletic trainers, etc. I would call this
source popular because it comes from a magazine, and it deals with culture. The audience
is just people like me that want to know more about how steroids impacted fans.
Im not exactly sure how Ill use this source, but I think it could be very useful if I decide
to involve the effect that steroids had on the fans. The conversations Gary Smith had with
all of these people are vital for understanding how steroid use in baseball affected people
from all walks of life, young and elderly, the die-hards and the casual fans, the rich and

Gamble 7

the poor. It provides so many perspectives to the moral argument of steroids, and that
would make it very useful.