Palmerio Suspended

[Buccaneer]

Oh, I know (about playing the curmudgeon card). It's fun to be a cynic when there is so much to be cynical about.

90-95% of baseball fans believe this to be the greatest offensive era, when the 30's were higher

90-95% of fans are right. Average OPS:

1927-1933 NL: .737
1927-1933 AL: .746

1998-2004 NL: .752
1998-2004 AL: .767

Steroids and supplements play a part, how much? I don't know, could be minor, could be significant.

My point has not so much against a so-called "steroids era" but against an era where commercialism, marketing and broadcasting hype and spotlight-driven/highlight-reel antics become the focus. ESPN and FOX seem to be fueling that where the attention becomes themselves and the games just becomes an entertainment back drop. It can't be an age/generation issue but more of a culture gap no matter the age.

Edit: Needed to complete the ESPN sentence.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Average OPS:

Can we PLEASE have some park effects? Please? One should know by now that comparing different eras by stats like OPS without normalization is futile.

[Maple Leafs]

Let's try another "fact pattern"...

Palmeiro is/was one of baseball's top sluggers in an era in which we know that steroid use was common

He is one of the only top sluggers in baseball history who's HR-per-at-bat rate from age 31-37 is actually higher than from 23-30. In fact, he has the greatest jump in that category of anyone in baseball history other than Bonds (admitted steroid use) and McGwire (all but admitted steroid use).

Jose Canseco has said that he showed Palmeiro how to use steroids after being dealt to the Rangers in 1992, which happens to coincide with Palmeiro's transformation into a top power hitter. Palmeiro's career best for HRs prior to Canseco joining the Rangers was 26 -- other than one injury-shortened season, he never hit fewer than 35 HRs after the Canseco trade.

He has now failed a steroid test.

Other than a surprise marriage to Marion Jones, what exactly else do you need to see from this guy?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Can we PLEASE have some park effects? Please? One should know by now that comparing different eras by stats like OPS without normalization is futile.

I know, but you can't do OPS+ for a league, just showing the highs (and lows). There were some notable highs during 1927-1933 but also some lows.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Oh, I know (about playing the curmudgeon card). It's fun to be a cynic when there is so much to be cynical about.

90-95% of fans are right. Average OPS:

1927-1933 NL: .737
1927-1933 AL: .746

1998-2004 NL: .752
1998-2004 AL: .767

Steroids and supplements play a part, how much? I don't know, could be minor, could be significant.

My point has not so much against a so-called "steroids era" but against an era where commercialism, marketing and broadcasting hype and spotlight-driven/highlight-reel antics become the focus. ESPN and FOX seem to be fueling that where the attention becomes themselves and the games just becomes an entertainment back drop. It can't be an age/generation issue but more of a culture gap no matter the age.

Edit: Needed to complete the ESPN sentence.

Runs per game:
http://pages.istar.ca/mbein/baseball.html

The above is a great site fyi. And I was wrong - I meant to refer to the early 20's, not the 30's - my fault. This is not the highest scoring era.

As for ESPN - yeah, I agree with you. When Stephen A Smith is preferred to David Aldridge, there's something wrong - but I guess that's a change, for better or worse.

[Buccaneer]

Damn. I had never seen that site before. So much for using a calculator with baseball-reference.com

But the .806 by the NL in 1930 certainly does skew the results. The jump you see from 1995 on has been more consistently high than the up and down of the 20s and 30s, esp. AL - using OPS, of course, not OPS+.

[Buccaneer]

In looking at the graphs more, I think it comes down to whether you like an OBP-driven game vs a SLG-driven game (in comparing the two eras).

[clintl]

I think Raffy (and the others mentioned) most likely were steroid users for a while. However, up to 2003, I don't think you can say that they cheated, because using steroids wasn't against the rules in baseball, just like it wasn't against the rules in the NFL until 1987. People might not like it, but that's the reality. Baseball management clearly new it was going on and tolerated it, and if management is going to tolerated it, players are going to use. I'm not at all in favor of holding suspected steroid use against players through 2003. If people want to apply an era adjustment to the stats when looking at Hall of Fame credentials, that's appropriate. Witch hunts are not.

2004 and beyond, it's cheating, and should be viewed as such.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by clintl

I think Raffy (and the others mentioned) most likely were steroid users for a while. However, up to 2003, I don't think you can say that they cheated, because using steroids wasn't against the rules in baseball, just like it wasn't against the rules in the NFL until 1987. People might not like it, but that's the reality. Baseball management clearly new it was going on and tolerated it, and if management is going to tolerated it, players are going to use. I'm not at all in favor of holding suspected steroid use against players through 2003. If people want to apply an era adjustment to the stats when looking at Hall of Fame credentials, that's appropriate. Witch hunts are not.

2004 and beyond, it's cheating, and should be viewed as such.

But it was illegal, and my mind that is still cheating. I don't need a rule to tell me not to do something illegal to win.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by clintl

I think Raffy (and the others mentioned) most likely were steroid users for a while. However, up to 2003, I don't think you can say that they cheated, because using steroids wasn't against the rules in baseball, just like it wasn't against the rules in the NFL until 1987. People might not like it, but that's the reality. Baseball management clearly new it was going on and tolerated it, and if management is going to tolerated it, players are going to use. I'm not at all in favor of holding suspected steroid use against players through 2003. If people want to apply an era adjustment to the stats when looking at Hall of Fame credentials, that's appropriate. Witch hunts are not.

2004 and beyond, it's cheating, and should be viewed as such.

What a pantload, why do people keep taking this stance?

So it's okay (not cheating) if Palmeiro goes out and kills the opposing pitcher before the big game because there's no MLB rule about killing other players... right?

[TroyF]

One other thing I thought about today. . .

Raffy was dragged under the bus by Canseco. Called out in his book and on 60 Minutes. But he never filed a defimation lawsuit. Now we know why.

And QS pretty much nailed my feelings on the history of Raffy.

Very few things in sports surprise me much anymore. Sadly, this was one of those things. I just didn't think Raffy was a user. Oh well. . .

[clintl]

But management knew players were using and did nothing to stop them. We know that because Tony LaRussa has admitted he knew some of his players were using when he managed the A's. It was not even a topic of discussion within the game between management and the players until the press started raising suspicions. Management knew about it and tolerated it, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if in some cases, certain members of management actually encouraged it. That has happened in every other sport.

As for the legality - amphetamines are illegal and have been for decades, and yet they are widely used by players and still not against the rules. And the team trainers used to set out a bowl of them before games for the players. The culture has been that it is permissible if it's not against baseball's rules.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

What a pantload, why do people keep taking this stance?

So it's okay (not cheating) if Palmeiro goes out and kills the opposing pitcher before the big game because there's no MLB rule about killing other players... right?

I'm sure there's a rule that covers that. And read my response to Homer about baseball and how it has dealt with other commonly used illegal drugs (amphetamines). Teams actually supplied them to players in the past, and they're still not against the rules today, although they are illegal. And everyone knows they are being used.

[hoopsguy]

Couple of things I haven't seen while reading through this thread.

1.) Since baseball doesn't do blood tests, why would anyone cheating with reasonable funds (I would think a 15-20 year guy like Raffy would qualify) at their disposal not do something like human growth hormone instead of detectable steroids or a crappy over-the-counter supplement?
2.) Why in the world would Palmeiro be using at this stage in the game? He is in his swan song and about to put up historic numbers (3,000/500). If he did use in the past - very hard to believe he didn't at this point - then why keep using at this stage in the game? There is nothing for him to gain and everything to lose.

I'm not surprised people are getting caught, but I am surprised that a guy like this is allowing this to happen to him. It doesn't seem like it should be that hard, under the current rules, to have your cake (steroid cake - bleh) and eat it too.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

2.) Why in the world would Palmeiro be using at this stage in the game? He is in his swan song and about to put up historic numbers (3,000/500). If he did use in the past - very hard to believe he didn't at this point - then why keep using at this stage in the game? There is nothing for him to gain and everything to lose.

On ESPN radio today they were answering this question by saying that perhaps (1) steroid perhaps are physically addictive and may be difficult to quit (I have no idea if it's true or not, but that's what they were musing...)
(2) motivated by fear, like "I've been getting by on this stuff for decades, if I stop now, I'll hit like .129 and everyone will then know I'm a fraud"

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

(2) motivated by fear, like "I've been getting by on this stuff for decades, if I stop now, I'll hit like .129 and everyone will then know I'm a fraud"

ping: Sammy Sosa.

[Klinglerware]

I'm sure this has been answered in a previous steroids and baseball thread, but just what is the mechanism that allows steroid users to increase their home run power? I'm under the impression that the strength of one's wrists and their ability to generate bat speed is the main predictor of home run power, and I'm not sure how much steroid use would help that. I would love to see an accounting of the causal pathway of steroids to physical ability to home run power, if someone can point out where, if anywhere, something like that is published.

I have heard the alternate steroids and physics theory: increased steroids use in pitchers have led to higher velocities in pitched balls--those higher velocities, via the laws of physics, result in higher velocities when those balls are batted--resulting in more home runs.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I'm sure this has been answered in a previous steroids and baseball thread, but just what is the mechanism that allows steroid users to increase their home run power? I'm under the impression that the strength of one's wrists and their ability to generate bat speed is the main predictor of home run power, and I'm not sure how much steroid use would help that. I would love to see an accounting of the causal pathway of steroids to physical ability to home run power, if someone can point out where, if anywhere, something like that is published.

I have heard the alternate steroids and physics theory: increased steroids use in pitchers have led to higher velocities in pitched balls--those higher velocities, via the laws of physics, result in higher velocities when those balls are batted--resulting in more home runs.

power is derived from the legs/torso. quick wrists have more to do with contact/singles hitting i believe. same is true for pitching, yes the arm is important but the power comes from your lower half

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Chubby

power is derived from the legs/torso. quick wrists have more to do with contact/singles hitting i believe. same is true for pitching, yes the arm is important but the power comes from your lower half

Gotcha--similar is true in golf and karate punches: power is derived by hip/trunk rotation/weight shifting...

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

And the fact that you, and plenty of other fairly reasonable people, find this "highly plausible" is exactly why it's the first thing used by pretty much every guilty party who gets caught and publicly embarassed.

I understand your point Quik, but this is a highly cynical viewpoint. I guess I choose to hold out the possibility that he might be telling the truth since there is still a plausible reason to do so. I think there's a pretty good chance he's lying, but I don't feel comfortable condemning him unless I'm absolutely sure he's lying. I will (and have) condemned him for poor judgement though, regardless of whether the source of the positive test was intentional steroid use or inadvertant use from a legal supplement - at this point, players should be more careful (especially with someone with the resources Palmeiro has).

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I understand your point Quik, but this is a highly cynical viewpoint. I guess I choose to hold out the possibility that he might be telling the truth since there is still a plausible reason to do so. I think there's a pretty good chance he's lying, but I don't feel comfortable condemning him unless I'm absolutely sure he's lying. I will (and have) condemned him for poor judgement though, regardless of whether the source of the positive test was intentional steroid use or inadvertant use from a legal supplement - at this point, players should be more careful (especially with someone with the resources Palmeiro has).

so unless he shoots himself in the ass with a needle in front of you then you won't believe he's juicing, right?

[MikeVic]

I don't feel like reading three pages of posts... but I had to chime in with my opinion...

I thought Raffy was one of the truthful guys.. a guy who never took steroids. Now that he's found guilty, I don't know who out there HASN'T taken steroids. This player specifically really has tainted my view of baseball even more. I love watching the sport, and the stats behind it. To think that steroid use was really THIS bad hurts my love of the game and the stats.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

so unless he shoots himself in the ass with a needle in front of you then you won't believe he's juicing, right?

You're a complete fucktard Chubby. I've said repeatedly it wouldn't shock me if Palmeiro is lying; I also don't think it's inconceivable that he's not. You don't know if he juiced and neither do I; there's very few people, possibly only Palmeiro himself who know for sure.

And really, I guess I just don't care all that much if he did or not.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Sorry dawgfan, referring to your earlier post, it is you that has not thought it through. As long as Palmeiro has a reasonable basis (not anywhere near a lock), he can sue the supplement maker without fear of a defamation suit. Filing a lawsuit is not defamation. In fact, he can then use the legal discovery process of depositions and document requests to get a look at the supplement maker's files and employees to see if in fact they include steroids (without listing it as an ingredient) or their product results in false positive tests. Believe me, I have seen lawsuits filed on thinner grounds than that.

The simple fact is he won't file a lawsuit because he doesn't have any case period. And most of us know it.

Did you not read where he already made his case to the arbitrator and failed to prove he did not intentionally take steroids?

He won't sue the supplement maker, and we know why. It's the same reason he didn't sue Canseco after claiming he had been defamed -- the truth would come out against him. I mean seriously people, how many people have been accused of steroid use and not a single lawsuit for defamation??

Liars and cheaters lie and when caught, lie again. And with each lie, fewer and fewer people believe them. Go ahead and add even 1% of credibility to Palmeiro new claim -- he never intentionally took steroids. Of course, that one can almost never be disproved, so it is pretty convenient. But if that lie gets uncovered, the next one will be "I'm addicted, pity me."

[korme]

Dammit Raffy!

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Sorry dawgfan, referring to your earlier post, it is you that has not thought it through. As long as Palmeiro has a reasonable basis (not anywhere near a lock), he can sue the supplement maker without fear of a defamation suit. Filing a lawsuit is not defamation. In fact, he can then use the legal discovery process of depositions and document requests to get a look at the supplement maker's files and employees to see if in fact they include steroids (without listing it as an ingredient) or their product results in false positive tests. Believe me, I have seen lawsuits filed on thinner grounds than that.

The simple fact is he won't file a lawsuit because he doesn't have any case period. And most of us know it.

Did you not read where he already made his case to the arbitrator and failed to prove he did not intentionally take steroids?

He won't sue the supplement maker, and we know why. It's the same reason he didn't sue Canseco after claiming he had been defamed -- the truth would come out against him. I mean seriously people, how many people have been accused of steroid use and not a single lawsuit for defamation??

Liars and cheaters lie and when caught, lie again. And with each lie, fewer and fewer people believe them. Go ahead and add even 1% of credibility to Palmeiro new claim -- he never intentionally took steroids. Of course, that one can almost never be disproved, so it is pretty convenient. But if that lie gets uncovered, the next one will be "I'm addicted, pity me."

Good points, but I have thought about that. I'll be more convinced if nothing like this happens in the next few months. If Palmeiro and his team had filed suit as part of his appeal of the steroid test, that would've made public his positive test sooner; why do that if there was a chance he could get that ruling thrown out by the arbitrator. And if he takes multiple supplements, I would think that complicates things for him in trying to prove the source of the positive result.

Lets remember that this news just came out, and that there may be more on the way from Palmeiro's camp in trying to explain his denial. I would agree that if all we get is the public statements we've heard so far with him hiding behind the "confidentiality agreement" (which is ludicrous, since the agreement is there for his sake, not that of MLB or the MLBPA) and no actions by his team in implicating a supplement maker as the source of his positive test, that such non-action will speak volumes. That would have me 95% convinced he's lying.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Agreed, I will give it some time, but based on his statement, I no longer see any of the righteous indignation he displayed previously to think that anything other than public comments will be forthcoming.

Perhaps we'll get you past the 95% threshold after that.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

And the fact that you, and plenty of other fairly reasonable people, find this "highly plausible" is exactly why it's the first thing used by pretty much every guilty party who gets caught and publicly embarassed.

I don't find it the most likely scenario. I do think yours is more likely.

And, oddly, I find myself only finding it plausible with Palmeiro. The others who have used that excuse were never as adamant in their denials as Palmeiro, and most of them were only lying to the press. The fact that Palmeiro made the denials in front of congress made them more believable to me. Naiive on my part I suppose.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by TroyF

No, they were never legal. They weren't banned from baseball, but they were against US law.

But BigMac didn't tell the truth. He didn't lie. He just kept sidestepping question after question.

Palmero came off as convincing because of how he answered the questions. That's certainly ruined now, but it does nothing to save BigMac from the shame he put himself in that day.

The sad thing? The only person who was probably telling the truth to the senate that day was none other than Jose Canseco. At its face, he was the least believable guy in that room. But nothing he said that day (I'm not talking about the book where there were lies and errors) in front of congress seems to be pretty dead on.

Actually Troy, back in the 1970's and 1980's, federal regulation of anabolic steroids came under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Anabolic steroids were required to be prescribed and dispensed by licensed physicians but were not scheduled as controlled substances.

It was only in 1988 that criminal penalties were specifically set forth for traffickers in anabolic steroids for non-medical reasons.

McGwire started playing in 1986. Therefore, he could have easily had a legal prescription from a doctor. Therefore, they were legal when he started his career.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You're a complete fucktard Chubby. I've said repeatedly it wouldn't shock me if Palmeiro is lying; I also don't think it's inconceivable that he's not. You don't know if he juiced and neither do I; there's very few people, possibly only Palmeiro himself who know for sure.

And really, I guess I just don't care all that much if he did or not.

Again, fucktard, unless you see him shoot up you will still think he's innocent. It's the same old argument, "I don't know for sure so I can't think he's guilty" grow a fucking set, get off the fence, and actually look at the evidence

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You're a complete fucktard Chubby. I've said repeatedly it wouldn't shock me if Palmeiro is lying; I also don't think it's inconceivable that he's not. You don't know if he juiced and neither do I; there's very few people, possibly only Palmeiro himself who know for sure.

And really, I guess I just don't care all that much if he did or not.

No, we do know he juiced. We just don't know with any certainty whether he intentionally juiced himself.

[Chubby]

I don't think Pete Rose bet on baseball either. I mean, I never actually SAW him bet and he never placed any bets through me so I can't be sure.

I guess I choose to hold out the possibility that he might be telling the truth when he said he didn't bet on babeball since there is still a plausible reason to do so. I think there's a pretty good chance he's lying, but I don't feel comfortable condemning him unless I'm absolutely sure he's lying. I will (and have) condemned him for poor judgement though, regardless of whether the source of the betting slips was his or someone using his name - at this point, players should be more careful (especially with someone with the resources Rose has).

I mean, if I saw betting slips with his name on it I'd be 95% sure he's lying. Of course, that 5% would still be there for me to sound like a moron defending him til the end of time.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No, we do know he juiced. We just don't know with any certainty whether he intentionally juiced himself.

We know he took something that caused a positive on the steroid test. What we don't know with absolute certainty is if he was intentionally juicing with steroids or whether a legal supplement he was using contained enough trace elements to cause a positive on his test. That's an important distinction IMO - it's not just the intentionality of it, it's the amount.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by clintl

I'm sure there's a rule that covers that. And read my response to Homer about baseball and how it has dealt with other commonly used illegal drugs (amphetamines). Teams actually supplied them to players in the past, and they're still not against the rules today, although they are illegal. And everyone knows they are being used.

People in the past did lots of horrible things, does that in turn make it ok to do now? I'm sure some manager would look the other way while you slipped exlax in the water cooler of the opposing team. Does that make it right, or you justified in your actions? No, it makes you both wrong.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Again, fucktard, unless you see him shoot up you will still think he's innocent. It's the same old argument, "I don't know for sure so I can't think he's guilty" grow a fucking set, get off the fence, and actually look at the evidence

You continue to prove not only what a complete asshole you are, but also your complete lack of reading skills, rendering the description "fucktard" quite applicable in your case. Nice repetition of the insult by the way - very 3rd grade.

I'm sure you won't grasp the difference because it's a subtle one and you don't seem to understand subtlety, but here goes nothing: Obviously there's a lot of evidence pointing to Palmeiro juicing. We know he took something that caused a positive on his steroid test. What we don't know for certain is what it was that caused that positive, since it's a known that legal nutritional supplements sometimes contain elements that will cause a positive when tested for steroid use.

Simple-minded people who seem to get off on tar and feathering others with righteous indignation will immediately jump up and say "He's a liar! Burn the cheating motherfucker at the stake to satisfy my bloodlust!"

Others looking at it more rationally will say "Looks bad, but there's still a possibility he's telling the truth. His actions and responses over the next several weeks will go a long way towards revealing whether he's telling the truth or not."

In other words, I'm not yet convinced that he's guilty of intentionally taking steroids, but it's leaning strongly in that direction. That doesn't mean I'm convinced he's innocent either - I'm just pointing out reasons why it's not a slam-dunk that he's not, despite the zeal of some to do so.

And your Pete Rose example is shit - Rose admitted his gambling on baseball.

So basically Chubby, grow a brain.

[rkmsuf]

how do you non-intentionally juice yourself?

[stevew]

Im guessing that Palmerio was using a "cutting edge" supplement which promised huge gains. And when all was said and done, it was actually just another Steroid derivative. Sucks for him if thats the case, people should watch which supplements they use.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by stevew

Im guessing that Palmerio was using a "cutting edge" supplement which promised huge gains. And when all was said and done, it was actually just another Steroid derivative. Sucks for him if thats the case, people should watch which supplements they use.

that's not non-intentional. that's called being a careless moron.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

that's not non-intentional. that's called being a careless moron.

A lot of these guys are careless morons.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

how do you non-intentionally juice yourself?

Why just the other day I was sitting in a fine diner drinking coffe, when a man with a camera and microphone said, "We have switched your coffee with anabolic steriods. How does it taste?"

I don't think they thought that through very well, though, because in a state of roid rage I then ripped his head off with my bare hands.

[stevew]

How is it that every single trial detail, etc, of any criminal case is leaked, other stuff is leaked, but yet apparently Palmerio tested positive for roids several weeks(?) or more ago, and it wasnt leaked?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

Why just the other day I was sitting in a fine diner drinking coffe, when a man with a camera and microphone said, "We have switched your coffee with anabolic steriods. How does it taste?"

I don't think they thought that through very well, though, because in a state of roid rage I then ripped his head off with my bare hands.

that would be the only way

with all the money and trainers these guys have I don't buy any of it for a second that they are indiscriminately stuffing supplements in them unknowingly

[Maple Leafs]

If this is some sort of fluke false-positive caused by a supplement, Palmeiro's next course of action is clear. He needs to come forward and tell the world specifically what he was taking leading up to the test. Not just "supplements" but specific brand names, how much, how often, etc.

Once he's done that, we can let impartial medical experts tell us whether any of those supplements can cause a positive steroid test. If they confirm his story, then he can proceed to sue the holy hell out of the manufacturer and perhaps be vindicated.

If he doesn't do that -- if he just makes vague references to some mystery supplement that causes the positive test -- then he's clearly full of it and is just throwing out a weak excuse to give his defenders something (anything) to hang their hat on.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

If this is some sort of fluke false-positive caused by a supplement, Palmeiro's next course of action is clear. He needs to come forward and tell the world specifically what he was taking leading up to the test. Not just "supplements" but specific brand names, how much, how often, etc.

Once he's done that, we can let impartial medical experts tell us whether any of those supplements can cause a positive steroid test. If they confirm his story, then he can proceed to sue the holy hell out of the manufacturer and perhaps be vindicated.

If he doesn't do that -- if he just makes vague references to some mystery supplement that causes the positive test -- then he's clearly full of it and is just throwing out a weak excuse to give his defenders something (anything) to hang their hat on.

They all do this. Every guy says it was from "something" but nobody ever specifically says what. A bunch of the ones caught in this new testing said the same thing as Palmero but never elaborates.


They are all full of it. Whenever someone says they are going to spend the time with their family regrouping and such they are definately full of it. I heard no mention of what actually happened which would be important to detail if he could really clear his name.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by stevew

How is it that every single trial detail, etc, of any criminal case is leaked, other stuff is leaked, but yet apparently Palmerio tested positive for roids several weeks(?) or more ago, and it wasnt leaked?

Because MLB and the ownership had incentive to keep it quiet so they could hype the 3000 hit milestone, and so it wouldn't overshadow the HOF induction.

I listened to ESPN radio for a little bit this morning and whoever was ranting at the time made a good point: the baseball writers are also complicit in hiding the steroid problem. If the writers and the commissioners office went after the steroid story as hard as they did against Pete Rose, this would have been unmasked a decade or so ago instead of now. The difference between Rose and steroids is that it was in the ownership's best interests to ignore steroid abuse, if it could be kept quiet; since steroids, at the very least, could keep stars on the field for longer periods.

The baseball writers, much like the white house press corps, are in a symbiotic relationship with MLB--they wouldn't have the cojones to search too hard and bite the hand that feeds them the stories. It was only when (as the radio commentator pointed out) Canseco had the guts to take the arrows of ostracism, and when the feds got involved, did the baseball beat writers finally begin get the courage to cover the story. And as the Palmeiro situation is demonstrates, the beat writers still seem willing to acquiesce to not digging too deeply (I find it hard to believe those Orioles beat writers were kept completely in the dark).

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

They are all full of it. Whenever someone says they are going to spend the time with their family regrouping and such they are definately full of it. I heard no mention of what actually happened which would be important to detail if he could really clear his name.

Exactly. It's the same story from every athelete in every sport, and some people just keep on buying it.

And the whole "spend time with my family" is just thinly-veiled code for "don't forget I have a kid, so don't rip me too much or else you'll make him cry".

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

If this is some sort of fluke false-positive caused by a supplement, Palmeiro's next course of action is clear. He needs to come forward and tell the world specifically what he was taking leading up to the test. Not just "supplements" but specific brand names, how much, how often, etc.

Once he's done that, we can let impartial medical experts tell us whether any of those supplements can cause a positive steroid test. If they confirm his story, then he can proceed to sue the holy hell out of the manufacturer and perhaps be vindicated.

If he doesn't do that -- if he just makes vague references to some mystery supplement that causes the positive test -- then he's clearly full of it and is just throwing out a weak excuse to give his defenders something (anything) to hang their hat on.

Bingo - that's exactly the kind of action I would expect to see from Palmeiro's camp if he's telling the truth. Actions will speak louder than words, and so far Palmeiro's words on this positive test have been pretty weak. I still think there's a possibility he's telling the truth, but as the next several weeks go by that belief will dwindle to basically zero if he doesn't follow-up with actions similar to what you've described.

[rkmsuf]

Why would he not spell it out yesterday? Why won't anyone ever spell it out?

Guy wouldn't even get up for a press conference. It was on the phone. Yeah he was really pissed about the injustice of it all.

I'd bet big money nothing will be said and he'll just return in 10 days.

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

Why just the other day I was sitting in a fine diner drinking coffe, when a man with a camera and microphone said, "We have switched your coffee with anabolic steriods. How does it taste?"

I don't think they thought that through very well, though, because in a state of roid rage I then ripped his head off with my bare hands.

There's a lot of FOFC-related decapitation lately...

[Pacersfan46]

Originally Posted by Psmith

There's a lot of FOFC-related decapitation lately...

We don't know what you're talking about ......