Who from your favorite team will be on the Mitchell Report?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You're grouping a problem with steroid use in the NFL with the NFL's ability to PR the situation. The NFL doesn't have a problem with steroids in the court of public opinion. The NFL does have a problem with players using. Just the same as baseball, the difference is they've PR'd the situation immeasurably better than baseball has.

The NFL has the weakest union in all of sports and one that would be a joke outside of sports. Baseball has to fight tooth and nail to get anything done while the NFL can go to Gene Upshaw, ask him anything, and he'll bend over backwards to help the commissioner. Baseball proposed steroid testing in 1994 and the talks based around that collective bargaining agreement led to the season being canceled. To get baseball on the field again they just dropped steroid testing from the collective bargaining talks.

Instead of blaming all of baseball, people should be looking directly at the player's union and asking them why they continue to defend and protect criminals.

The NFL is far from a model league in how they delt with steroids. They've delt with them as public has knowledge increased. They had their eyes on dollars, not protecting players.

You are missing the point. This is ONLY a PR problem. That's all it's ever been. Do I care about the cheaters ruining the games? Sure. But I think leagues can only do so much. There is no test for HGH. Players are going to cycle through. All you can do is catch the guys you can and put a good PR spin on it.

The NFL got it. Baseball didn't. This isn't only about the union either. Selig could have made this an issue at multiple points over the years. The PR on this spins in the leagues favor. The players union would have been shredded in the court of public opinion and if they hadn't done anything and this came out, the players would be getting shredded right now.

It doesn't matter whcih league has more users. It matters what the league does to try to control it. If a guy comes out in ten years and says "I beat the NFL's system" he's going to be looked at as a cheater and a scumbag. The NFL won't be blamed because they'll say "look at all the things we tried to do, we can't be everywhere all the time"

I have no sympathy for the MLB in this one. Owners, players, anyone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Even Kevin Brown (not named in the report but.....).

Umm ... yeah, he's in there.

In the report: Brown was placed on the disabled list in June 2001 with a neck injury and in July 2001 with an elbow injury. After Brown got hurt, he called Radomski and asked for human growth hormone. Radomski sent HGH to Brown and in return received a package containing $8,000 in cash. According to Radomski, over the next two or three years he sold performance enhancing substances to Brown five or six times. Radomski recalled that Brown usually purchased multiple kits of HGH, paying with cash. At one point, Brown asked Radomski for Deca-Durabolin to help with an ailing elbow, and Radomski sold it to him.

[Anthony]

i wish someone would ask Clemens' attorney:

"if McNamee's (Clemens' trainer) allegations are false, are you going to bring a libel or defamation of character suit against him? because, you know, that's what people do when lies are said."

i knew Clemens was juicing, and i knew it 2 seasons ago. i knew there was a reason why he would "retire" then come back during the middle of the season. it was so he could juice during the offseason then give his body time to eradicate any trace of it. Clemens is more of a moron than Canseco or Bonds - when he initially retired from the Yankees had he just stayed retired he would likely have flown under the radar. but no, he had to keep on coming back. got too greedy and that was his undoing. i'll be happy if he is prevented from going to the HoF. moreso him than Bonds.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

but no, he had to keep on coming back. got too greedy and that was his undoing. i'll be happy if he is prevented from going to the HoF. moreso him than Bonds.

If Clemens and Bonds should be kept out of the hall of fame, everyone who played a game at any point between 1995 and now should be ineligible. Everyone who played during the 60s and 70s should be ineligible (amphetimines).

Everyone was doing them. There was no real competitive advantage.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Synovia

If Clemens and Bonds should be kept out of the hall of fame, everyone who played a game at any point between 1995 and now should be ineligible. Everyone who played during the 60s and 70s should be ineligible (amphetimines).

Everyone was doing them. There was no real competitive advantage.

well, obviously there was, or else everyone would have hit 40+ HRs and every pitcher would have struck out 300+ batters. and if doing roids extends the amount of time you have in the league, letting you remain in baseball for years after when most others have faded and allowing you to break records because of your artificial longevity - there's a competitive advantage.

amphetimines aren't performance enhancers, in the sense that if you can hit 20 HR's with out them you're gonna hit 40 HR's with them. they helped you bounce back for the next game and helped keep your energy levels up through the course of a long season. but they didn't make power pitchers out of weak arms and they didn't turn singles hitters into Willie Mays.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

well, obviously there was, or else everyone would have hit 40+ HRs and every pitcher would have struck out 300+ batters. and if doing roids extends the amount of time you have in the league, letting you remain in baseball for years after when most others have faded and allowing you to break records because of your artificial longevity - there's a competitive advantage.

When you've got drugs making the pitchesr AND batters better, the stats should stat about the same. It was on BOTH sides.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by TroyF

You are missing the point. This is ONLY a PR problem. That's all it's ever been. Do I care about the cheaters ruining the games? Sure. But I think leagues can only do so much. There is no test for HGH. Players are going to cycle through. All you can do is catch the guys you can and put a good PR spin on it.

The NFL got it. Baseball didn't. This isn't only about the union either. Selig could have made this an issue at multiple points over the years. The PR on this spins in the leagues favor. The players union would have been shredded in the court of public opinion and if they hadn't done anything and this came out, the players would be getting shredded right now.

It doesn't matter whcih league has more users. It matters what the league does to try to control it. If a guy comes out in ten years and says "I beat the NFL's system" he's going to be looked at as a cheater and a scumbag. The NFL won't be blamed because they'll say "look at all the things we tried to do, we can't be everywhere all the time"

I have no sympathy for the MLB in this one. Owners, players, anyone.

Baseball attempted to implement steroid testing as far back as '84, the players were for it then, but the Union itself shot it down. You don't seem to understand exactly how powerful the MLBPA was in the '80s and '90s. Baseball didn't have revenue sharing so the small market clubs would have been destroyed by an extended work stopage and the Union knew it. Thats why the union fought absolutely everything and every time there was any time of work stoppage the owners went crawling back to the players.

Selig also doesn't have the power that commissioners in other sports have since he isn't a real commissioner. He represents the weakest group of owners in all of sports. They have a history of backing down from the player's union since it was formed.

Steroids didn't become an issue with baseball fans until Bonds hit 73 and even then most fans were in awe of Bonds' season as it happened. Before that baseball had McGwire taking andro during a the homerun chase and the public didn't care. No one would have shredded the union for being against steroid testing then. Tony LaRussa and a lot of Cardinal fans actually ripped the guy that wrote the story about McGwire having Andro in his locker because "he was being nosy".

A lot of the stuff the player's union did is in the Mitchell report and the fans don't care. All they are about is names and its a shame. There's some great info in the report. There's details about baseball's attempts to implement steroid testing at multiple times and fighting with the union over it. There's quotes from Donald Fehr saying baseball doesn't need strict drug testing like the Olympics because Olympic athletes don't depend on their sport for their livelihood the way baseball players do. Hell, there's details about Gene Orza tipping off players to tests.

Also, the point of my original post was that it is mostly a PR problem. The NFL probably has more users than baseball and always has. They just actually PR'd their steroid problem better than MLB. However, its not like MLB completely turned their back on steroids and that is what I was also pointing out. Their attempts to to implement testing go back further than the NFL and switch Union reps between the two sports and I guarantee the NFL is sitting in MLB's shoes right now.

[QuikSand]

I keep hearing this statement, or the same essence:

There is no test for HGH.

Isn't the truth of the matter that there is no urine test for HGH, and since the MLB program calls only for urine testing, they shrug their shoulders and say that it's not something that they can test for.

But isn't it also true that there *is* in fact a blood test for HGH? I don't know about its reliability or ability to discern original versus synthetic or imported HGH, but I'm pretty sure that some sort of test does exist. Whether it is approved for use by a certain labor union or collectively bargained contract is another question.

[rkmsuf]

literally there is a test for HGH but I don't think it's realistic to blood test players.

I think the spirit is there in no feasible test for HGH.

[st.cronin]

There is a blood test for hgh, and from what I'm told it is as reliable as any other steroid test.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I keep hearing this statement, or the same essence:



Isn't the truth of the matter that there is no urine test for HGH, and since the MLB program calls only for urine testing, they shrug their shoulders and say that it's not something that they can test for.

But isn't it also true that there *is* in fact a blood test for HGH? I don't know about its reliability or ability to discern original versus synthetic or imported HGH, but I'm pretty sure that some sort of test does exist. Whether it is approved for use by a certain labor union or collectively bargained contract is another question.

There is a blood test for HGH and Selig took it to the player's union to discuss and Fehr has attempted to discredit the test as inaccurate and also stated that he "refuses to allow his players to become pin cushions" while also adding that some players are deathly afraid of needles.

[Klinglerware]

I don't think you could pin this entirely on the player's union. The ownership did not particularly care about this issue either. Most of the drug testing proposals you mentioned were simply throwaway positions, meant primarily to enhance the ownership's overall bargaining position (i.e. drug testing was a meaningless chip that the owners could give up, so that they could keep their "chips" on issues that truly mattered to the owners).

Reportedly, Mitchell faced a lot of resistance from several MLB front offices during his investigation. That seems pretty telling to me--the ownership shouldn't exactly be sainted here.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Atocep

some players are deathly afraid of needles.

lol

[CU Tiger]

ok my knowledge of HGH is nowhere near as comprehensive as several other common roids or IGF, but it is my understanding that HGH is detectable for only 5-7 days after a cycle is stopped (cycles range from 5 days to 10 weeks) and it is a "culture" test that requires 21 days to incubate (I have no idea why, just what I have beeen told by testers)
Sooooo...

Since all leagues require a retest in the event of a positive...


BTW Reggie Jackson WAS CAUGHT AND ARRESTED for possession of steroids. Lyle Alzado killed himself with his abuse in the late 70s (I know different sport) with HGH.

lets not pretend like steroids were invented in 94.
I wouldnt be too shocked to learn that Aaron, Mantle, Ryan or any other generation of stars was using anabolics

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... yeah, he's in there.

My bad, I missed that part then....

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Just fold the league already and start a new one with new records from scratch. Imagine every night with headlines like "ARod breaks the career HR mark with 5 HR."

LOL.

That is hilarious. Guys like Carl Pavano could pitch one great game and be headed to the HOF. Of course, he probably took 'roids too......

[rkmsuf]

Ricky Vaughn had to be on roids to throw that hard.

[Maple Leafs]

When you get into "my word against yours", as you almost do in steroid discussions, it's always important to consider the source. What's their credibility? What do they have to gain? What do they have to lose?

The guy who named Clemens and Pettite isn't exactly a saint, so that hurts. But he was also speaking to Mitchell under an agreement with federal law enforcement officials. He had immunity if he told the truth, but could go to jail if he said anything that wasn't true.

So on the one hand, you have a guy who faced jail time if he lied, but apparently he just went ahead and made up a detailed story about Clemens using steroid because.... well, we don't know why he would do that, maybe just because he's a jerk. On the other hand you have Clemens, who stands to lose his reputation, millions of dollars and potentially a spot in the Hall of Fame, saying he didn't do it.

Hmm....

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I don't think you could pin this entirely on the player's union. The ownership did not particularly care about this issue either. Most of the drug testing proposals you mentioned were simply throwaway positions, meant primarily to enhance the ownership's overall bargaining position (i.e. drug testing was a meaningless chip that the owners could give up, so that they could keep their "chips" on issues that truly mattered to the owners).

Reportedly, Mitchell faced a lot of resistance from several MLB front offices during his investigation. That seems pretty telling to me--the ownership shouldn't exactly be sainted here.

I agree, what I'm getting at is Selig actually has attempted to get steroid testing in on his own at multiple times and implemented it in the minors without public pressure or a congressional hearing. What it comes down to is the individual owner's inability to plan ahead and the player's union seeing everything the owner's present during collective bargaining as an attempt to steal power away from them.

The NFL handled things better because they can actually work with their union. Give baseball that same union and they would have probably had testing in after the 1984 talks, 1994 at the latest. Give the NFL the MLBPA to work with and the NFL would be dealing with baseball's issues right now.

Did the owners do everything they could? No. Would they be in this situation if they weren't dealing with Gene Orza and Donald Fehr? Hell no.

[RomaGoth]

Ultimately, this situation is a result of what mirrors society as a whole: money. The bottom line is what matters now, has always mattered in the past, and will always matter in the future. The owners knew what was going on but didn't care because these players were making money for their team. The players obviously did these things to make more money with bloated stats. The commissioner knew what was going on, but once again, money talks and you-know-what walks. The players union of course swept this under the rug and "encouraged" Selig to do the same because of: you guessed it, money $$$$$$. Everyone was getting paid, so nobody cared about the ramifications. Well, now the proverbial %#@* is hitting the fan, and they all look like the liars, cheaters, and moneygrubbers that we always knew they were.

I feel kinda bad for the 5-10% of players that actually did nothing wrong through all of this.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

The same can be said for Randy Johnson. Take a look at his numbers leading up to the mid-90's and then his numbers beyond that, leading up to around 2004-2005 and then his numbers since. For his first ten years from 1988-1997, Johnson threw 300+ K's once. Starting in 1998 (at age 34) he threw 300+ K's for five straight seasons (from age 31-40, Nolan Ryan did not hit 300 K's in any season). Do we hear anything about Johnson?

Everyone in baseball for the last decade+ should be considered as a potential juicer.

That said, Randy Johnson's career doesn't strike me as one that necessarily screams "juicer". Yes, he had tremendous performances into his late 30's and into his early 40's. But he didn't magically start throwing the ball harder in the early '90's - the abilities that propelled him to greatness were always present: the high 90's fastball, the wicked slider, a deceptive delivery and his height and length that meant his 97 MPH fastball arrived at the plate quicker than anyone else's due to it having a shorter path getting there.

What transformed Johnson's career in 1993 was a long talk with Nolan Ryan and a changed approach on the mound - he dramatically cut his walk rate and his strikeout rate jumped, because he started trusting his stuff more, throwing more strikes and taking a more intelligent approach in attacking hitters. That trend started in '93, and by '95 or so he'd refined his approach to near perfection, and his subsequent seasons were basically repeats of that season. The aberrations from that point were due to injury ('96, '03) and a combination of bad luck and his head being messed-up over contract issues ('98).

Does that mean that he didn't at some point in there also start juicing to counteract the effects of aging, or to recover from injury or fatigue quicker? Not at all. But unlike someone like Joel Pineiro (who is widely considered locally to have been a juicer) who gained a significant bump in velocity, Johnson always had the fastball, and I don't recall ever hearing that his velocity jumped in his later years - in fact it clearly started to fade a bit, and he relied more and more on his slider and developed a forkball/changeup to add to his repertoire.

I think you can look at his career progression and find a plausible explanation that doesn't include performance-enhancers.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

(i.e. drug testing was a meaningless chip that the owners could give up, so that they could keep their "chips" on issues that truly mattered to the owners).

I think this is true, but was it so unreasonable? What's more important to the game, fixing the steroid issue or trying to restore competitive balance (granted, they didn't really accomplish either).

What if the owners said, "players, we'll give you everything you want, but we want a legitimate steroids program". Maybe a deal gets done. But would you want to be a fan of that MLB?

The early hard-line in the last strike was the oppositte - "players, help us fix the payroll disparity and we'll give you most of what you want otherwise". Eventually, of course, the owners caved.

[Logan]

Yeah, although there has to be a belief of "anyone can be on steroids, we just don't know," Randy Johnson is probably one of the few "stars" that never popped into my mind. I think he's clean.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by molson

I think this is true, but was it so unreasonable? What's more important to the game, fixing the steroid issue or trying to restore competitive balance (granted, they didn't really accomplish either).

I'm not disagreeing with you here. My point was that the owners' motivations on the steroid issue should be interpreted as a short-term tactic in the context of bargaining and negotiation, rather than any idealistic desire to "clean up the game" long-term or whatever.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I wouldn't be surprised if Manny Ramirez did, but for some reason I doubt it.

I agree. Let's be realistic here. Manny would have injected the oral treatments, drank the injected treatments, put "The Cream" on his glove and "The Clear" on his shoes and wonder why the hell nothing was happening.

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

literally there is a test for HGH but I don't think it's realistic to blood test players.

Why?

Plenty of regular people get regular blood tests. Diabetics, for one. Anyone on statin therapy drugs, for another.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

My bad, I missed that part then....

No need for the , I had to go back & doublecheck to make sure myself.

There were so many names flying around yesterday between the "leaked" list that wasn't accurate & the actual list at the end of the day, it was hard for a lot of people, including me to keep up with who was mentioned when.

The only reason I was pretty sure about Brown was because I was watching for his name in the report because of his Georgia Tech background.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I agree. Let's be realistic here. Manny would have injected the oral treatments, drank the injected treatments, put "The Cream" on his glove and "The Clear" on his shoes and wonder why the hell nothing was happening.



Why?

Plenty of regular people get regular blood tests. Diabetics, for one. Anyone on statin therapy drugs, for another.

it's realistic for individuals yes. for the whole of major league baseball this seems a bit unrealistic.

you can yes though.

[dawgfan]

For those that haven't seen it yet, Shysterball is in the midst of analyzing and commenting on the Mitchell report. Some good stuff in there and definitely worth the read:

Shysterball fisks the Mitchell report

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

it's realistic for individuals yes. for the whole of major league baseball this seems a bit unrealistic.

Are you saying it's unrealistic logistically?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I agree. Let's be realistic here. Manny would have injected the oral treatments, drank the injected treatments, put "The Cream" on his glove and "The Clear" on his shoes and wonder why the hell nothing was happening.

OMG Funny Stuff that is. From what I have seen of him (which is as little as possible since I loathe the Dead Sox), he 1) does not seem the cheating type because of his apparent "I don't care if we win or lose, there is always next year" attitude; and 2) his numbers have been pretty steady throughout his career. I mean, c'mon - his fielding is still horrible, so wouldn't 'roids and/or HGH help to alleviate that a little?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Are you saying it's unrealistic logistically?

kind of

and in the fact that it's something unlikely to be collectively bargained

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

kind of

Well, I disagree with you there. I don't think it would be all that difficult, logistically, especially with the amount of money MLB has at its disposal.

and in the fact that it's something unlikely to be collectively bargained

Now that I'll agree with.

[Izulde]

Sucks about Clemens, because he was one of my favorite pitchers to watch play, but Ankiel hurts worse.... I really rooted for his comeback

[Thomkal]

Don't have links for you but just saw on ESPN that David Justice has denied the accusations in the Mitchell Report-only saw the tail end of the report-sounds like he asked about it and chickened out when he heard it involved needles.

FP Santangelo has come forward to say that he did indeed use HGH over a two year period, but denies using anything else.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Don't have links for you but just saw on ESPN that David Justice has denied the accusations in the Mitchell Report-only saw the tail end of the report-sounds like he asked about it and chickened out when he heard it involved needles.

FP Santangelo has come forward to say that he did indeed use HGH over a two year period, but denies using anything else.

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Don't have links for you but just saw on ESPN that David Justice has denied the accusations in the Mitchell Report-only saw the tail end of the report-sounds like he asked about it and chickened out when he heard it involved needles.

FP Santangelo has come forward to say that he did indeed use HGH over a two year period, but denies using anything else.

Can correct myself concerning Justice. Was approached by Clemens trainer (when Justice was a Yankee?) who told him about steroids or HGH that would help him recover from an injury. Justice claims he had never heard of the stuff until that trainer told him about it. The trainer put some in his locker for him to take a look at Justice said, but when he saw it involved needles he wanted nothing to do with it. Says if it was a pill he probably would have taken it though. Also said to look at his stats the year after this conversation with the trainer happened-they weren't good so he couldn't have been on steroids.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Can correct myself concerning Justice. Was approached by Clemens trainer (when Justice was a Yankee?) who told him about steroids or HGH that would help him recover from an injury. Justice claims he had never heard of the stuff until that trainer told him about it. The trainer put some in his locker for him to take a look at Justice said, but when he saw it involved needles he wanted nothing to do with it. Says if it was a pill he probably would have taken it though. Also said to look at his stats the year after this conversation with the trainer happened-they weren't good so he couldn't have been on steroids.

Because steroids is a guarantee to improve his stats, right?

[rowech]

So if everyone had to pick a year as the last "clean" year, what would it be? Let's say "clean" is stuff being used by less than 20% of the players or what would amount to about 5 players per team.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Because steroids is a guarantee to improve his stats, right?

yeah he's not exactly the brightest bulb on the christmas tree.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rowech

So if everyone had to pick a year as the last "clean" year, what would it be? Let's say "clean" is stuff being used by less than 20% of the players or what would amount to about 5 players per team.

Do greenies count?

If so, I'd say 1951.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It doesn't matter whcih league has more users. It matters what the league does to try to control it. If a guy comes out in ten years and says "I beat the NFL's system" he's going to be looked at as a cheater and a scumbag. The NFL won't be blamed because they'll say "look at all the things we tried to do, we can't be everywhere all the time"

I have no sympathy for the MLB in this one. Owners, players, anyone.

I think the perception that the NFL has made more of an effort to control it is probably a bunch of false advertising on its part more than anything else. I have few doubts that the NFL is just as guilty, if not more so, of looking the other way, all the while spouting the nonsense that it took care of the problem in 1987.

[Young Drachma]

What's worse. Baseball in the steroid era or major league baseball pre-1947?

[miami_fan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3155168

ESPN.com asked Baseball Hall of Fame voters, "If the election were held today, would you vote for Roger Clemens?'' Here are some of their responses -- pro, con and undecided -- in the aftermath of the Mitchell report:


"Yes, I would vote for him on the first ballot. If, as Brian McNamee says, he started using steroids in 1998, he already had 213 wins, four Cy Youngs and a 3.00 ERA at the time. Without the steroids he wouldn't have won 350 games, but I do think he would have been a double-digit winner for many seasons, boosting his win total close to 300, and he was a dominant pitcher, unlike some other pitchers who might have racked up a lot of wins.''
-- Steve Krasner, Providence Journal

"No way he gets my vote. If you cheat, or even if I highly suspect you do, I'll fight letting you ever get in. Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, it's the same to me. I recognize there will be some players who will probably slip in who used illegal performance-enhancing drugs, but I'll be as consistent as I can.''
-- Steve Dilbeck, Los Angeles Daily News

"I will never vote for anyone associated with steroids on any ballot -- first or 15th. And, if the report is true, I put him in the same category with Barry Bonds, as a person with enormous talent who did not need to cheat.''
-- Hal Bodley, USA Today

"At this point, I would vote for Clemens to go to Cooperstown. I know what is in the Mitchell report, but I wouldn't hold him out of the Hall of Fame until there is stronger evidence against him and more of the story is heard.''
-- Mel Antonen, USA Today

"Yes on Roger Clemens. God forbid we mix the guys rubbing cream on their body with the racists, wife beaters, bat-corkers, adulterers and murder suspects that currently reside in a collection of dust and baseballs that is the Baseball Hall of Fame. It's a freakin' museum, and the last 20 years is a part of that history that was allowed to happen, no matter how badly people want to deny it.''
-- Joe Cowley, Chicago Sun-Times

"I vote yes. I'm to the point now where I'm just assuming that a majority of players over the past 20 years have at least dabbled in steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs, and I don't know if there is any way of knowing definitely who did and didn't. Thus, I'm just looking at everyone and their numbers through the same prism. I don't know if that is the right or wrong thing to do, but that is the only way I can do it in my heart.''
-- John Perrotto, Beaver County (Pa.) Times

"I like to keep three words in mind when I hear of things like this. (Duke, rape, lacrosse.) So the allegations -- which of course is what they are -- don't change my stance on Clemens as a Hall of Fame player. I would vote for him were he on the ballot.''
-- Bill Ballou, Worcester (Mass.) Telegram and Gazette

"I'm leaning toward voting yes. My basic feeling is that this is undeniably an era that will be defined by steroids. Like the deadball era, the stats are skewed by outside factors. Walter Johnson and Cy Young won 30 games a year while Bonds and McGwire had 70-homer seasons. In the end you have to judge players against their contemporaries. And Clemens was the best pitcher of his generation. The fact that steroids appear to have been widespread, in a way, makes it easier to vote for Clemens. His unfair advantage may not have been all that unfair if you look at it that way, because more than half the league may have been juicing.''
-- John Romano, St. Petersburg Times

"I regard Clemens in the same light as Barry Bonds. Neither one will get my vote. My position is based on ethics, not legality. The evidence is that they cheated; they turned themselves into something they weren't created to be by altering their bodies in a significant, chemical way at a time when baseball players normally wear out instead of getting better. Because of this, their achievements and records are tainted, even though both had careers worthy of first-ballot induction into Cooperstown before they ever began juicing. The Hall of Fame is no place for them.''
-- John Erardi, Cincinnati Enquirer

"I would vote no, now and forever. If I have a reasonable belief that a player cheated, I will not vote him in. Bonds, McGwire, now Clemens … I'm not talking about expunging their records or throwing them out of the game. I just don't have to give them the sport's highest honor.''
-- Ron Cook, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

"Undecided. Let's have some consistency. If we draw the line at inducting Mark McGwire, then let's avoid having double standards by giving the free Cooperstown pass to other suspected or alleged drug cheats.''
-- Bernie Miklasz, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

"I'd vote no. I just finished a column recalling Clemens striking out 15 Mariners in Game 4 of the 2000 ALCS, and how Joe Torre compared him to Bob Gibson in the 1968 World Series against the Tigers. That's bull. Clemens cheated.''
-- John McGrath, Tacoma News Tribune

"Yes on both Clemens and Bonds for the Hall of Fame. In fairness, both Barry and Roger should be viewed in the same light as hundreds of other guys. Tons of guys were doing something, and they were just the best of a rotten and tainted era. We're singling them out because they set records, but they were hardly alone in this thing.''
-- Kevin Roberts, Courier Post (South New Jersey)

"No. I did not vote for Mark McGwire and, unless new information emerges in the next few years to change my mind, I intend to withhold my vote from players with known steroid ties or with heavy allegations against them. This is the worst stain on the game since the 1919 Black Sox scandal, and somebody somewhere has to stand up for what's right. Just because baseball failed to do this for far too long doesn't mean the rest of us should give everybody hall passes.''
-- Scott Miller, CBSSportsline.com

[bulletsponge]

Originally Posted by rowech

So if everyone had to pick a year as the last "clean" year, what would it be? Let's say "clean" is stuff being used by less than 20% of the players or what would amount to about 5 players per team.

i predict 2040. when players start getting genetically enhanced without the need for roids or hgh

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

David Ortiz has a huge melon. Griffey, with all of his injuries, probably juiced at some point in his career. I wouldn't be surprised if Manny Ramirez did, but for some reason I doubt it. I am sure Ivan "Pudge" Rodriguez did. Ditto for Frank Thomas. Not sure about Pujols. We already know about Clemens. That leaves A-Rod. After seeing pictures of him when he was with Seattle compared to pictures of him last year, I would not at all be surprised to see his name surface at some point. His arms, neck, and thighs are huge compared to a decade ago. The thing that would cause me to pause with him is the fact that his numbers have remained constant throughout. It's not like he hit 10 homeruns in 2000, then all of a sudden started hitting 50 every year. But by his looks, it would not surprise me. Otherwise, he might really just have an intense workout....

It's not like there aren't legal supplements. There are lots of ways to bulk up that aren't against the rules so just because a player gets bigger doesn't mean they were 'roiding up. If they put it on all at once, over a winter, that looks quite insinuating. But, for instance, Frank Thomas was always big. It's not like he came into the league as a beanpole.



SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Ultimately, this situation is a result of what mirrors society as a whole: money. The bottom line is what matters now, has always mattered in the past, and will always matter in the future. The owners knew what was going on but didn't care because these players were making money for their team. The players obviously did these things to make more money with bloated stats. The commissioner knew what was going on, but once again, money talks and you-know-what walks. The players union of course swept this under the rug and "encouraged" Selig to do the same because of: you guessed it, money $$$$$$. Everyone was getting paid, so nobody cared about the ramifications. Well, now the proverbial %#@* is hitting the fan, and they all look like the liars, cheaters, and moneygrubbers that we always knew they were.

In the end, I just can't put nearly as much on the owners as on the players and to suggest it seems ludicrious to me. One party actively participated in the crime while the other stood by and tacitly watched it. It's a completely different level of participation and should be judged as such. Did the owners benefit from it? Yes. Did they actively encourage it? No. Were they the ones doing it? No.

So all this nonsense about parties being *equally* to blame is academically lazy, at best.

SI

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In the end, I just can't put nearly as much on the owners as on the players and to suggest it seems ludicrous to me. One party actively participated in the crime while the other stood by and tacitly watched it. It's a completely different level of participation and should be judged as such. Did the owners benefit from it? Yes. Did they actively encourage it? No. Were they the ones doing it? No.

So all this nonsense about parties being *equally* to blame is academically lazy, at best.

SI

How sure are you that the owners did not actively encourage it?

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

What's worse. Baseball in the steroid era or major league baseball pre-1947?

what worse. baseball now or baseball to the groin

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It's not like there aren't legal supplements. There are lots of ways to bulk up that aren't against the rules so just because a player gets bigger doesn't mean they were 'roiding up. If they put it on all at once, over a winter, that looks quite insinuating. But, for instance, Frank Thomas was always big. It's not like he came into the league as a beanpole.



SI

How many people do you know or have you met that have actually gotten bigger as they get older? The only ones I know that fit that description took something....and well, it wasn't legal.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In the end, I just can't put nearly as much on the owners as on the players and to suggest it seems ludicrious to me. One party actively participated in the crime while the other stood by and tacitly watched it. It's a completely different level of participation and should be judged as such. Did the owners benefit from it? Yes. Did they actively encourage it? No. Were they the ones doing it? No.

So all this nonsense about parties being *equally* to blame is academically lazy, at best.

SI

To not lay equal blame on both the owners and the players is just naive. Why would the owners NOT encourage it? They had everything to gain by doing so, and nothing to lose. The players took all the risk and got the reward, the owners took no risk by encouraging yet still got the reward as well. It was a win-win situation for the owners. Take a look at some of the notes in the Mitchell report taken by the Dodgers. The proof is in the pudding.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

How many people do you know or have you met that have actually gotten bigger as they get older? The only ones I know that fit that description took something....and well, it wasn't legal.

I know quite a few folks who have never taken anything illegal, who use legal supplements and work out, who have gotten bigger as they've gotten older.

I don't know where this mythology of people not getting bigger as they age -- and we're not talking 40 to 50 or 60, but 20s into their 30s...it's not that unprecedented or even that unusual.

Not saying pro athletes fit this mold, but...if I've seen it from folks who don't have close to the financial wherewithal of pro athletes, I'm sure it's doable among those who have the money to get world class everything.