Steroids in Baseball pt.2 (Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, BALCO, etc.)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Purists Will Hold Maris' 61(*) sacred, from the USA Today.

gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:51 (twenty years ago)

ick. i hope josh gibson rises from his crypt and starts cock-punching some purists.

The Obligatory Sourpuss (Begs2Differ), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 15:58 (twenty years ago)

I'll second that w/out bothering to read the article.

David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 16:08 (twenty years ago)

barry do you think that if the padres gm knew about caminiti's roids, he also knew about his crack/cocaine use?

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 16:36 (twenty years ago)

But there's no denying that fans can't take the Mark McGwires and Barry Bondses as seriously as they should take the Roger Marises and Henry Aarons.

"I believe a large majority of power hitters were drug-assisted over the last 10 or 15 years," Yesalis said, "and I'm outraged by it."

Yep. Please to replace "power hitters" and "10 or 15 years" with THE ACTUAL WORDS that will make that sentence less laughable.

David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 17:16 (twenty years ago)

On PTI, they were sorta discussing Towers' culpability in this nonsense, and saying that his hands were tied and clean of any wrongdoing, which is horseshit. (Though Wilbon made a great point about baseball being all about cheating, tho I wish he followed up on it further.) No, Towers wasn't breaking any rules back then, but (like hstencil said), if it was really a big deal to Towers, the Padres could've done some tests on their own to make sure this shit wasn't going down. It's really convenient, now that steroids and HGH are hot topics, to come forward 8 years after the fact and say, "I was aware that something might've been happening," and act like you were powerless to stop it - an accomplice is an accomplice, regardless of actual involvement in the "crime".

But, of course, (I think someone else made this point, probably Alex) as long as you're not officially breaking the rules, anything's fair game, and any advantage that can be exploited will be exploited for the sake of making the big bucks and winning the big game, whether it be hitters erasing the back line of the batter's box or GMs looking the other way when players are supposedly using not-yet-illegal performance-enhancement drugs.

David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 17:29 (twenty years ago)

but at the very least, as a GM you have what I would call a very vested interest in the long-term health of your players - if only as trade-bait! jeopardizing that for a few dingers (maybe) is what I would consider criminal negligence.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 17:50 (twenty years ago)

he never said he knew... he said that he "felt like he knew", with much of his knowledge/guilt aided with the benefit of hindsight of course.

gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 17:55 (twenty years ago)

right, so hunches aren't enough to go on for anything these days? or eight years ago?

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 17:57 (twenty years ago)

OTM! It's not like Caminiti was taking Dr. Spalding's New & Mysterious Wormwood Wonder Tonic - like, hi Mr. Towers, I think the dangers of steroid abuse where well-documented back then - and it's 100 types of stupid to spend millions of bucks on a guy and not worry about how he lives his life (even if there are clauses in the contract to make the deal null & void if certain things happen). Go w/ God (or the red guy) if you, Mr. General Manager, want to treat your ballplayers like Plug & Play computer parts.

[x-post]

Yeah, I conveniently forgot that bit about him saying he "had a feeling". Still, I'd love to know what this "feeling" consisted of - whether it was him eyeballing Caminiti in the locker room, or players and coaches whispering about needles and vials. And, regardless, what's the point of coming forward like this if you have no damn proof (and no book to sell)? And, again, if you have this "hunch", and you're concerned (as he should've been), why not follow it up? Coming forward like this, acting powerless and distraught, when you were in a position to affect change, is not the brightest thing one could do.

David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 18:04 (twenty years ago)

I really hope some reporter out there lets go of the EVIL STEROIDS BAD bone and bothers to follow this up.

David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 18:12 (twenty years ago)

On Letterman, Wilbon also made the "baseball is all abot cheating" point -- corked bats, spitballs (Gaylord Perry is in the HOF even though it was widely known that he cheated ... even when he was playing), pine tar, etc. In other words, stories about cheating are well entrenched in baseball lore.

It's impossible to say whether Towers knew about Caminiti's cocaine habit. Did he ever show up to the park high, or in no condition to play? It's not that hard to keep a drug addiction secret from the people you work with.

if it was really a big deal to Towers, the Padres could've done some tests on their own to make sure this shit wasn't going down.

I don't think so. A ballclub can't just pull a player aside and force him into doing medical tests of their own choosing. I'm fairly sure that the MLBPA's CA doesn't allow that. In the 80's, everyone was worried about cocaine, and the drug testing policy was basically nonexistant. I think guys like Steve Howe kept getting suspended due to things like prior probations, or disappearing on two day drug binges. MLB was doing very little to keep drugs out of the game, because the policies weren't in place.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 18:24 (twenty years ago)

"A ballclub can't just pull a player aside and force him into doing medical tests of their own choosing."

MiR OTM. Of course, most ballclubs wouldn't want to either, but even if they did I don't think an individual ballclub could have administered a testing program without it going to court and causing a huge union stink.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 19:02 (twenty years ago)

so barry and alex you don't think steroids clauses existed in contracts before it was technically illegal? i'm not sure if that's true, but i'd have no idea whether or not. it just seems to me that if the union can be okay with, say, "no basketball playing," well...

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 19:07 (twenty years ago)

There may have been steroid clauses in contracts, but testing for them was obv a big union deal (see: humongous ridiculous problems with union TEN YEARS LATER getting an even marginal testing program in place!)

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 19:17 (twenty years ago)

well yeah but there might be clauses in contracts for all sorts of things, is my point. doesn't erase culpability, since a contract is legally binding, duh.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 19:40 (twenty years ago)

then again i'm sure both the mlb main office and the mlbpa vet contracts, but anyway. the point stands, if towers suspected, he should've done something.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 20:00 (twenty years ago)

If you put a "no basketball" clause in a contract, and a guy gets hurt playing basketball, then it's a cut and dry case. We've seen players use carwashing and tobagganing lies to try and circumvent these clauses, but the truth normally comes out because there's a clear connection between engaging in the prohibited activity and getting hurt. Play basketball -> get hurt, it all happens in the same day.

That's not the case with steroids, because steroid-related health issues take years to develop. Degenerative injuries get worse over months or years, and it's impossible to prove definitively whether they're naturally occuring or a result of steroid use.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 23:10 (twenty years ago)

oh give me a fucking break. ask lyle alzado if his death was "naturally occurring."

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 23:57 (twenty years ago)

are you insinuating that professional athletes used steroids prior to 1985*?!?!?!?!?!

I WILL NOT HEAR OF IT!!! STEROIDS HAVE ONLY BEEN IN BASEBALL SINCE 1999-2000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(*year of Alzado's retirement from the NFL)

gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 00:08 (twenty years ago)

It doesn't matter what Lyle Alzado believed was the cause of his brain tumour, the point is, that connection can't be proven. We're not talking about smoking and lung cancer here.

If a guy signs a contract and three years into it he develops some freak degenerative hip or back injury like Belle/Vaughn/Giambi did, there's no possible way to conclusively connect such an injury to steroid use in a way that is legally binding. You could never firmly say "steroids caused this injury" in a way that would convince an insurance company.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 00:14 (twenty years ago)

Lyle Alzado admitted in a Sports Illustrated article that he began using anabolic steroids in 1969 while attending (East German NAIA powerhouse) Yankton College in South Dakota, which we all know now must have been a chief distribution center of the steroids in North America, if not the world.

Major League Baseball players of course stayed far away from the chemicals for almost 20 years*.

*except for Ken Caminitti and Jose Canseco.

gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 00:23 (twenty years ago)

Hasn't steroid abuse has been linked to kidney and liver damage as well as a whole host of degenerative muscle disorders?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 00:48 (twenty years ago)

There's definitely a link.
But suppose a player had a steroid clause in his contract. He comes down with a degenerative condition and his ballclub suspects steroids were involved. In order to get out of paying the rest of his contract, they'd have to prove that he was taking steroids. Without a rigourous drug testing policy, they can't prove anything. They'd have to know what drugs he was taking, how often he was taking them, and for how long he took them in order to have a case.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 03:04 (twenty years ago)

The cocaine and booze probably had as much, if not more influence on Caminiti's downfall as the roids. Alzado like Caminiti also lived pretty hard off the field.

Earl Nash (earlnash), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 14:04 (twenty years ago)

well sure and gms couldn't have been happy about that stuff either! that's why, duh, they eventually instituted drug testing! obv. without drug testing policy nothing can be proved, but barry's just being pollyann-ish. 'roids do long term damage, and that's as much a reason why they're taboo in sports along with the so-called "performance enhancing" factor.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 16:11 (twenty years ago)

hstencil, you do realize that this is Bonds' 20th season full season in the majors and that he ranks 24th in MLB history in total games played? He trails only ONE current active player (Raffy) by FIVE games in games played. He has had ONE season in the past 19 cut short due to injury. If anything, Bonds has shown much more resiliency to injury which separates him from admitted steroid/andro users like McGwire, Canseco, Giambi, Caminitti.

gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 16:40 (twenty years ago)

yes, gygax! I know that! like most all drugs, though, I think it would be a bit simplistic to say that 'roids will have the same effect on every single user. not saying bonds has done it, i dunno, but i also doubt that he's punished his body in the ways that canseco and caminitti did. don't know about giambi and mcgwire (the latter doesn't seem like a partyer to me).

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:02 (twenty years ago)

f'instance, i take two prescription drugs. there are a host of side effects associated with them, but most of them i've never experienced, even at a high dosage! omg everybody's physiology is different!

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:03 (twenty years ago)

also using raffy as an example is kinda, uh, dumb considering canseco named him too.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:03 (twenty years ago)

and we all know about Raffy's "dysfunction"

Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:26 (twenty years ago)

I'm not being pollyann-ish, I know that steroids can cause long-term damage. That's not the issue though, the issue is "what could Kevin Towers have done"? He had no legal recourse (i.e. he couldn't void KC's contract or get him tested), and no proof of anything beyond suspicion. Also, it's clear that no steroid clauses in previous years could have possibly had any teeth. The only way to act upon a steroid clause would be for the player's body to fall apart and for him to admit that he did steroids -- and even then, that's exactly what happened to Giambi AND he has a steroid clause in his contract and the Yanks STILL couldn't do anything about it.

If Bonds isn't juiced, then he's a freak of nature. And as gygax said, if he is juiced then he's still a freak of nature because his body hasn't disintegrated like the body of every other steroid user has. (granted, if he didn't start taking steroids until he was 35 or so, then it's different from the more typical cases, i.e. where guys start in their 20's and fall apart by age 35).

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:40 (twenty years ago)

fuck "legal recourse" for a second, he could've just talked to Caminiti! Jeez.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:42 (twenty years ago)

also i thot the point with giambi is that the steroid clause was excluded? or maybe i'm getting the whole brouhaha wrong.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 17:43 (twenty years ago)

I thought the clause re: performance-enhancing drugs in Giambi's contract was written so that the word "steroids" wasn't used? (Which is what stencil is saying, dur.)

This has little to do w/ the steroid thing, but since I thought of it: has Bonds had back problems? I know Canseco & McGwire (& other power hitters) have had back issues up the wazoo because of the way they swing & the stress their technique caused. They were fine early on, but I know both Bash Brothers were waylaid by back problems (& other things) later on, especially McGwire (who was all sorts of busticated before he retired). The only Bonds injuries I can recall involve his hammies & ankles...?

David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:03 (twenty years ago)

yeah, tho barry said in his last press conference that his legs are the strongest part of his body...

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:08 (twenty years ago)

don't forget getting your knee 'scoped so you can show up late to spring training, dave!

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:08 (twenty years ago)

McGwire had ankle and knee issues too. The was a lot speculation when he started to get REALLY big that he was carrying too much weight for his legs.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:11 (twenty years ago)

McGwire actually had injuries all throughtout his career too.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:12 (twenty years ago)

don't forget getting your knee 'scoped so you can show up late to spring training, dave!

Hey, you're right!

David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:27 (twenty years ago)

fuck "legal recourse" for a second, he could've just talked to Caminiti!

And said what? Make accusations? Offer assistance? Obviously Caminiti would have said that everything was fine, denied everything, said that there were no problems, etc. What would have been accomplished?

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 19:41 (twenty years ago)

I dunno Barry but let's pretend for a second that Ken was a human being, and not just some abstract discussion on an internet message bored.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 20:02 (twenty years ago)

also if gms aren't good at negotiating with people or getting concessions or whatnot, they probably shouldn't be gms! TALKING TO PEOPLE IS THE JOB. obv. having concern for your players isn't (tho maybe it should be) (but obv. it doesn't have to be to post to ILB!).

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 20:03 (twenty years ago)

I'm being realistic. Towers and Caminiti weren't poker buddies. Realistically, when management asks if you're OK then you say yes even if you aren't. Realistically, teammates don't rat on other teammates (did Caminiti's teammates even know the full extent of his drug intake, both the steroid and recreational kinds?). So again, what would have been accomplished by Towers -- who had nothing but rumour and speculation to go on -- approaching Caminiti or any of the players and coaching staff?

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 21:11 (twenty years ago)

What about moderate (i.e. non-abusive) steroids use as a sanctioned practice? There haven't been any clinical studies re: long term (detrimental) effects of moderate use, after all.

Leeeter van den Hoogenband (Leee), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 21:12 (twenty years ago)

Of course, a GM's job in general is to talk to people and concern themselves with the well-being of their players. But in this particular instance, with a player going to great lengths to keep certain things a secret from his team, the GM is nearly powerless.

xpost

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 21:15 (twenty years ago)

"realistically," maybe if somebody gave a shit about caminiti he wouldn't be dead now.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

Those "somebody"'s would be his close friends who knew what he was doing. Not his bosses from whom he was going to great lengths to hide the truth.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 22:29 (twenty years ago)

if towers suspected, how did caminiti go to "great lengths?"

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 3 March 2005 06:39 (twenty years ago)

well then this explains this a little better, but still it is stupid:

Schuerholz has suspected Braves of steroids use

> By GUY CURTRIGHT
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> Published on: 03/01/05

Lake Buena Vista, Fla. -- John Schuerholz admits he suspected over the years that a few Braves players were using steroids. He even confronted several, he said Tuesday.

"Yes, I was in that position, and yes I did," Schuerholz said, not divulging names. "But I suffered the same frustrations that all other general managers did.

"If we had our suspicions, all we could do was ask the player, and if the player said no, we were done. We had nowhere to go. Our hands were tied behind our backs.

"We had no capability of testing a player to validate or verify whether a guy needed help to get off performance-enhancing drugs."

Schuerholz's revelation comes after San Diego general manager Kevin Towers said he thought Ken Caminiti, briefly a Brave in 2001 at the end of his career, was using steroids when he won the National League MVP award with the Padres in 1996.

"I want to make this clear: As general managers, we didn't turn our heads away from players who might be using steroids because it was a benefit to us," Schuerholz said. 'No, if we turned our heads, it out of frustration because there was nothing we could do about it. Sadly, we didn't have the authority to test players or fix the problem."

Now, baseball does have a drug testing policy with meaningful penalties, and Schuerholz thinks that management and players alike will benefit.

"It's the best thing that could have happened for the integrity of the game," he said. "It's too late coming, but I'm glad that we've finally got here. It's the right path.

"Sure, it could be stronger, but it's a good start. I think the players and the union will realize how beneficial it is. We had to clean things up."

The new drug agreement goes into effect on Thursday with random year-round testing. First-time offenders will be suspended for 10 days without pay, although the public outing might be the greater penalty.

Catcher Johnny Estrada, the Braves' player representative for the union, is confident that the new policy will work, and he said that general managers shouldn't be blamed for anything that happened in the past.

"It was out of their hands," Estrada said. "They didn't have any right to do anything. It was against the agreement between the union and management."

hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 3 March 2005 09:30 (twenty years ago)

but there is evidence that steroids will fuck you the fuck up if you take them -- which i maintain is the bigger issue and always has been, sportswriters' bs notwithstanding.

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 22 April 2005 00:45 (twenty years ago)

I agree with that aspect of it.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 22 April 2005 00:48 (twenty years ago)

isn't that enough reason for banning them? i mean who cares about "performance?" certainly nobody on ilb.

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 22 April 2005 00:52 (twenty years ago)

There has yet to be a field study that proves one way or another how steroids taken under medical supervision, i.e. not abused, affect one's health.

Organized Crime (Leee), Friday, 22 April 2005 01:07 (twenty years ago)

I'm not referring to the BP article, Barry. Rather, I find Dr. Morbius's standard steroid song-and-dance (cf. earlier this thread) tiresome and pointless. Everyone with half a brain understands that saying 'steroids kill' is a broad generalization referring to abuse, not ALL STEROID USE EVER, which would include things like bronchitis patients taking prednisone (or prednisalone, whatever).

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 22 April 2005 01:15 (twenty years ago)

isn't that enough reason for banning them?

Of course. Is anybody here saying that they shouldn't be banned? The disagreement is to what degree steroids can affect performance.

Milo -- fair enough, then you could have just said so and not directly criticized the BP article that Morbs cited.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 22 April 2005 02:07 (twenty years ago)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was referring to his opening sentences (with the '20%' and 'steroid statements are the equivalent of anti-pot propaganda').

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 22 April 2005 02:14 (twenty years ago)

Of course. Is anybody here saying that they shouldn't be banned? The disagreement is to what degree steroids can affect performance.

there's no disagreement here as no one on ilb has said steroids affect performance! man we do this everytime, it's tedious.

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 22 April 2005 03:35 (twenty years ago)

Actually I have said many times that steroids affect performance.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 22 April 2005 03:48 (twenty years ago)

you're the only one, i think.

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 22 April 2005 04:10 (twenty years ago)

he's not the only one

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 22 April 2005 04:28 (twenty years ago)

NAME NAMES LIKE YOU ARE SELIG

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 22 April 2005 04:40 (twenty years ago)

"I'm not here to talk about the past"

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 22 April 2005 04:47 (twenty years ago)

name names like you are NED YOST:

"wes helms didn't play well tonight, not that i want to name names."

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 22 April 2005 04:59 (twenty years ago)

steroids DON'T affect performance? AT ALL?

huh.

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Friday, 22 April 2005 11:51 (twenty years ago)

It's a question of degree. There's a difference in the talk-radio "Barry Bonds never would have gotten out of triple-A without 'roids" and "gee, drugs that increase muscle mass and/or shorten muscle recovery times might help a player out."

Or, as one of the BP guys said (quoted earlier in the thread), steroids might make the difference between a few warning-track flyouts and home-runs over a player's season. You have to be able to regularly hit them to the warning track for that to matter.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 22 April 2005 17:09 (twenty years ago)

sure. i think the "negligible effect" and "destroying the game" arguments are equally fatuous, granted, for different reasons.

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Friday, 22 April 2005 17:18 (twenty years ago)

there's fact...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-roids0422,1,1187727.story?coll=bal-sports-baseball

and idle speculation (bob ryan has written a column making not so veiled suggestions that nomahhh is the latest victime of 'roid decline).

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Friday, 22 April 2005 17:28 (twenty years ago)

If Nomar was using steroids I am going to be very disappointed in Mia.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 22 April 2005 17:30 (twenty years ago)

former dykstra associate: j'accuse!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13894-2005Apr24.html

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Sunday, 24 April 2005 20:07 (twenty years ago)

i would like to see a james-ian analysis combined with a up-to-date and credible medical analysis. so far i haven't seen that out there.

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 25 April 2005 04:59 (twenty years ago)

Dykstra did have a fucking monster year in '93. His final three seasons after that were mediocre at best.

Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Monday, 25 April 2005 05:31 (twenty years ago)

I'm curious in the Nomar case about whether those injuries he had were steroid-related/induced injuries, or whether they were just the type of injuries that so damaged/altered/otherwise fucked with his mechanics as a hitter that a large decline was the only reasonable expectation. Given his legendary OCD-ness regarding routine, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that an Achilles injury or wrist problem that would be considered minor for many other players would be a monster hurdle for a player so consumed by regularity to overcome. And if his mechanics were really out of whack because he couldn't make post-injury adjustments, further injury should be expected as well. Of course, Nomar did get much bigger starting around 2000, so who knows?

rasheed wallace (rasheed wallace), Monday, 25 April 2005 11:13 (twenty years ago)

for comparison:

will saletan on the nfl hearings and the cluelessness of congress...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2117568/

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Thursday, 28 April 2005 14:43 (twenty years ago)

Former Mets hurler/stoner Grant Roberts was in the latest bunch of minor-league positives.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 28 April 2005 14:49 (twenty years ago)

Will Carroll on the general silence over the "no-star" steroid violators:

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/carroll/radio-silence.htm


"The screeching voices of talk radio were left silent, the witches not worth the wood to burn them. Instead of changing the story’s plotline or changing their now-challenged opinion of how ‘their game’ had ‘lost its integrity’ due to these ‘juiced-up sluggers,’ they merely ignored the evidence and looked for other witches.

On the night the first suspension was announced, while most of America was trying to watch baseball’s best rivalry, Joe Morgan, lead analyst for ESPN’s national telecasts and the author of the oh-so-appropriately titled 'Baseball for Dummies', was pointing out that baseball was not releasing the type of substance that resulted in the positive test. Morgan ignored the fact that he couldn’t tell Winstrol from Winn-Dixie and once again railed against common sense, personal privacy, and anything else that didn’t fit the approved storyline of 'steroids is bad.'

...As fans watched the Red Sox and Yankees play in high definition, as they saw more home runs in the first week of 2005 than they had in years previous, and as they bought more jerseys, hats, and tickets than they had in history, it was hard to say that the offseason cloud of steroids, the so-called 'weak policy' that came in an historic agreement between the owners and players, and positive tests had hurt the game. It barely seemed to hurt Alex Sanchez or any of the minor league players that came up positive under an admittedly confusing minor league testing program...

If the fans don’t care, why do journalists, talk radio hosts, and TV personalities? The steroid controversy has never been about the health of players, the integrity of the game, or even saving our children from the dark cloud of illegal substances. It’s been about telling a story they controlled. They just didn’t get the casting right this time."

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 29 April 2005 19:47 (twenty years ago)

As fans watched the Red Sox and Yankees play in high definition, as they saw more home runs in the first week of 2005 than they had in years previous,
Er, aren't home runs down this year?

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 29 April 2005 21:40 (twenty years ago)

Juan Rincon BUSTED!

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 2 May 2005 16:00 (twenty years ago)

that gets a big fat "WTF?!" from yours truly.

i mean...seriously.

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Monday, 2 May 2005 16:16 (twenty years ago)

A response to Beelzebud's latest panicky, Congress-directed "zero tolerance" propaganda:

"Put me on the record as saying that's ridiculous--I mean, until they come up with a list of banned substances. They still don't know what you can buy over the counter and what you can't buy."
--Dodgers catcher Jason Phillips

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 2 May 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

fuck, rincon is on my fantasy team!

hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 2 May 2005 16:38 (twenty years ago)

Has there been ANY criticism of Selig's 50-100-OUT proposal? I never thought I'd see the day when Bud would a) have a good idea, b)have everybody agree with him.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:33 (twenty years ago)

One criticism: it's PR bullshit. Bud just wants to bust Fehr's balls while looking righteous.

On top of that, it's unnecessary (we're up to what, five major-leaguers who tested positive? do we need to up the punishment on them?) and doesn't address the real problem with all American professional-sports testing, which is that they're not thorough enough and in baseball's case ill-defined.

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:39 (twenty years ago)

MIR, see Jason P above. Also, Jeter-Clutch himself said something like "give the system in place time to work." Which ain't gonna happen while pols (who voted for the fucking bankruptcy law) are hyperventilating.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 2 May 2005 20:07 (twenty years ago)

Agreed that the first order of business *must* be a well-defined list of banned substances.

Another criticism (and I'm surprised that people aren't making a bigger deal of it): Bud wants amphetamines on the banned list. Essentially, he's outed baseball's not-so-carefully-kept amphetamine secrets. What will the old-timers have to say about *that* when questioned about "the way things were in their day"?

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 2 May 2005 20:27 (twenty years ago)

I want to hear about how they are going to "test" for "amphetamines".

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 2 May 2005 20:45 (twenty years ago)

So Taguchi hit his second home run of the year tonight. Test him!!!

boldbury (boldbury), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 00:42 (twenty years ago)

>What will the old-timers have to say about *that* when questioned about "the way things were in their day"?<

Full denial? That is, if the media even dares to broach the topic and pierce the hallowed aura of Willie, Hank, Schmidt, etc.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 12:42 (twenty years ago)

actually, brooks robinson was straight up talking about greenies the other day, of course it was couched in a "no big deal" manner and he was bothered that roided up dudes are breaking records. i guess that makes sense, though...who doesn't like a speed freak?

jonathan quayle higgins (j.q. higgins), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 12:48 (twenty years ago)

Tom House talks about steroids in baseball during the 60's and 70's

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:17 (twenty years ago)

two months pass...
2 events to note:

Vic Conte is to plead guilty to Steroid distribution/trafficking

Barry Bonds changed his opinion to doubtful for his return this season.

gygax! (gygax!), Friday, 15 July 2005 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

here's hoping the son of a bitch is cooked (sorry g)

John (jdahlem), Friday, 15 July 2005 17:08 (nineteen years ago)

And Giambi (who seems to have found his *ahem* swing all of the sudden) and Sheffield are kool and the gang just so you, John D, can do cartwheels through the heather if Bonds goes down alone. The end.

gygax! (gygax!), Friday, 15 July 2005 17:16 (nineteen years ago)

Pinstripes, the equalizer! Barry's clearly the baser SOB, he pissed off Ron Kittle.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 15 July 2005 18:16 (nineteen years ago)

it's over, conte's plea means no one has to testify.

hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 15 July 2005 19:25 (nineteen years ago)

here's hoping the son of a bitch is cooked

OMG I JUST AGREED WITH JOHN ON SOMETHING

Rock Hardy (Rock Hardy), Friday, 15 July 2005 19:32 (nineteen years ago)

gygax = OTM

Everybody in MLB could confess to using steroids tomorrow and there would still be people saying "I'm glad Bonds is gone -- let's play ball".

30 Bangin' Tunes That You've Already Got ... IN A DIFFERENT ORDER! (Barry Brune, Friday, 15 July 2005 19:39 (nineteen years ago)

three months pass...
Mets reliever Heredia suspended for steroids

October 18, 2005
NEW YORK (AP) -- New York Mets reliever Felix Heredia was suspended for the first 10 days of next season for violating baseball's steroids policy.

Heredia became the 11th major league player suspended for steroids. The announcement came Tuesday.

Traded from the Yankees to the Mets during the offseason, Heredia appeared in only three games before going on the disabled list in April with a strained left thumb. Doctors then found an aneurysm in his left shoulder after he began having circulation problems and he missed the rest of the season following surgery.

Heredia is 28-19 with six saves in 511 career games -- all but two in relief.

gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:54 (nineteen years ago)

Steroids NOT performance-enhacing *QED*

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 19:04 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.yesnetwork.com/images/news/heredia_inline0704.jpg

[ADMIN: Thread continues here: http://ilx.wh3rd.net/thread.php?msgid=6219556 ]

gear (gear), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 20:46 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.