Here's what I'm struck by: If, in fact, Kenny Rogers was cheating by using some illegal substance on his hand in the 1st inning, then you also have to be willing to accept a virtual conspiracy of cheating.
If you are willing to question
Tony LaRussa: Who neither pushed the issue at the time nor after the game.
(The fact that people are bringing up LaRussa's friendship with Leyland as the only logical explanation he might go soft in a World Series game instead of asking umps to check Rogers would, if Rogers WAS cheating, qualify LaRussa as a far more devious and devastating corrupter of the game of baseball than Rogers himself. It's bad enough that at the time, LaRussa didn't even QUESTION the APPEARANCE of a problem, which would have -- at the very least -- perhaps gotten into Rogers' head in a perfectly fair piece of gamesmanship.)
The umps: Who didn't push the issue (beyond reportedly -- or not -- asking
Jim Leyland: Who would HAVE to have known about it, particularly if it happened over multiple games. Again, if he willfully participated – even by looking the other way – it is as if he himself was cheating.
(It seems like the only people pushing the issue are analysts in the media, who are the LEAST likely to actually know what happened.)
What does this analysis indicate to me? That Rogers WASN'T cheating, that he COULDN'T have been cheating -- because the 360-degree conspiracy of culpability SURROUNDING him would be so staggering.
On the other hand, there are FAR smarter thinkers than me -- or most people you'll find in mainstream media: Like Baseball Prospectus' Nate Silver, who has the most reasonable analysis to argue that cheating MIGHT be happening. And, naturally, he takes the time to actually use some numbers to back up his analysis, rather than the qualitative b.s. you'll see from me and every other "columnist" out there. Here's the must-read link.