Cheating in baseball without steroids (article) by Harold Kasselman on AuthorsDen

I began to wonder about the bright line in baseball that differentiates those acts that are accepted as part of the unwritten code of baseball, and those that violate that code. The impetus was the July discussion about the role of steroids and induction into the Hall of Fame. I began to question whether there was a valid distinction between those players who used "greenies" or amphetamines in the 70's, those pitchers who admitted scuffing baseball wehn they pitched, or used the spitball, and those who cheated by using steroids.

I just finished reading Joshua Prager's book about the 1951 NL pennant race and "the shot heard round the world". It further raised issues for me because of the type of cheating that occurred.Here is my take:
This is an exhaustively researched story about the 1951 NL pennant race, the two most prominent protagonists, and the unrivaled loyalty of the fans of the Giants and Dodgers.I thoroughly enjoyed the insights into the quasi-fanatical and all-encompassing raison d'etre that the game had for the people of Coogan's Bluff and Brooklyn.
The story of the sign stealing scheme that manager Leo Durocher implemented on July 20th unfolds in a compelling manner. The rumors of the stolen pennant lasted for almost 40 years before it was made public. This was true despite the many cast of characters who were involved or aware of it.
It is also a a fascinating look into the psychological effects that the secret had upon Ralph Branca, who became aware of the tainted pennant race a few years later, yet kept the potentially personally liberating secret to himself for decades.
And what of the "hero" Bobby Thomson who lived with the guilt and the rumors and the press questions for so long? He knew of the tainted season because he admitted taking advantage of the sign stealing. Yet, despite maintaining that his homerun was based soley on his skill, he at times prevaricated(or at least left opaque) over whether the homer was tainted by the theft of a sign. I was left to wonder whether he could not admit to himself that he had eyed the signal from the bullpen.The man who was raised to do the right thing may have been unable to accept the realization that his homerun and Branca's trauma was aided artifically by a telescope and buzzer.
The conflict between the men was tense for years because of the secret they shared but still were able to use the homer to mutual advantage and at the very end were able to adjust and perhaps enjoy each other's company.
There is also the ethical question which was never memorialized into a rule in baseball. How far can a team go in stealing signs? At what point does it go from a crafty custom and skill to one that all would say trancends the bounds of fair play.For me the telescope meets the latter test.In fact there is only a memo written in 2000 by Sandy Alderson (then Exec VP) which condemned the use of "electronic devices" but not mechanical ones during a game.No penalties were set forth for a violation of same.Would the game be forfeited, suspensions given, or merely fines? No one has been caught stealing, although the Phillies were suspected in 2010 of using binoculars to steal signs.