When I was a young child, I used to go out in my backyard and play whiffleball with my brothers. I'd always pretend I was Jose Canseco. I'd try to mimic his violent swing, which isn't really a very effective strategy in whiffleball.
I'd even scream, "Canseco hits one outta here" whenever I'd actually connect on one of my brother's hanging curveballs. I'd even pretend to give the Bash Brothers forearm salute. I thought the world of Canseco.
I can't believe how far the man with the chemically-enhanced arms has fallen. And now, he's trying to pull down everyone else into his downward spiral.
Everyone knew this book was coming. Someday. Yet, the reality of its existence and what it says about our beloved Oakland Athletics is just sad. If Moneyball became the A's fans good book, then this will be the Satanic Bible.
There is probably truth sprinkled in Canseco's book. But much like dumpster diving, you've got to get really dirty in order to find it.
Remember Olney's first point, because it's a crucial one:
Canseco has followed a very distinct, almost Shakespearean path. Did it all start with the headbutt home run? Or maybe it started earlier, with the fast cars, spousal abuse and Madonna rumors?
Regardless, even if Canseco has a valid point to this book besides making money and getting his name back out there again, it's hard to take Puck seriously.
Even if the clown was once my hero.
Are you going to listen to Canseco? How much do you believe the former Athletic? I added a poll about his book below. Click on entry link to vote.
0 recs | 115 comments
too much evidence to ignore
it's not just about jose, there's too much evidence to ignore it all. i say keep all these people (mcgwire, sosa, bonds) out of the HoF.xbhaskarx - February 7, 2005
Why are so mad?
Sosa corked his bat..ok. Bonds was good before he put on 200 pounds of bulk, but he openly admitted to taking the cream and the clear...ok But, McGwire is a different story. He has always vehemently denied using steroids and was openly promoting Andro and Creatine(both were not banned substances at the time) during his career. Mcgwire single handedly saved baseball in 1998 and boasts something the previous two players do not...a championship ring. McGwire deserves to be in the hall.Has anyone ever told you not to believe everything you read? (Especially from JOSE CANSECO!!!)
runtru1 - February 7, 2005
I think it's a sad story
He was a 40/40 guy. Our 40/40 guy, ROY, MVP...How the mighty have fallen.
ArakSOT - February 7, 2005
Dave Stewart
i posted this in the first diary on canseco's new book, but i'll post it here as well.stew is the one person quoted in the chronicle article who says something worthwhile (obviously larussa and mckay will protect mcgwire).
this seems to be a diplomatic way of saying "mcgwire is guilty":
However, ex-A's pitcher Dave Stewart wouldn't say Canseco's accusations weren't true.
"I could never say 'Josie' is a liar," Stewart said. "I don't like his work ethic, and I don't like him as a teammate. But one thing I can't say about him is he's a liar.
"As far as what Josie's saying, I can't deny it or verify it. I'm not going to pretend it didn't happen because I don't know. We weren't in the same circles, but I'd have to say he definitely knows what's going on in his circle. Nobody I associated with on the team was a steroid user (among the players Stewart mentioned: Lansford, Rickey Henderson, Dave Henderson and Dennis Eckersley).
"If this is all made up, he'll suffer some serious damages. But if you're an admitted steroid user, believe me, you'd know who uses them."
xbhaskarx - February 7, 2005
No credibility
I won't read this crap, and as far as I'm concerned Conseco has zero credibility. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything he puts in this book for the simple fact that it is appearing in a medium with the purpose of making money.He might be right about some of the players he mentions, but it sounds more like the boy who cried wolf to me.
Jonathon
JLeverenz - February 7, 2005
Just a reminder
but every tell all book is written to make money...Fact!oakwin2004 - February 7, 2005
True, however...
Not all authors of tell-all books have put themselves in a position to have their credibility questioned the way Conseco has.A perfect example is "Ball Four" by Jim Bouton. Even though it's not really a "tell all" by modern standards, it does share a few similarities with the genre (if you consider it a genre) and was very contraversial when published. But Bouton hasn't done anything to make me question his credibility. Do I believe everything in the book? No, but I have no particular reason to disbelieve anything in it either. The same can't be said for Conseco.
Jonathon
BTW, anyone who hasn't read "Ball Four" should do so, it's a great book.
JLeverenz - February 7, 2005
just like
stew says, canseco's poison but he has no reason to think he's lying. I have no personal knowledge but he may be telling the truth, like i said he better be or he'll get sued.. it's called libel and since he's a public figure the truth is an absolute defense..we'll see..oakwin2004 - February 7, 2005
You're a lawyer
you know that to win a libel suit, you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is lying.How are Mac, Juan-Gone, Pudge, et al supposed to prove he was lying? Assuming they didn't realize 12-15 years ago that this would come up and take comprehensive tests back then to prove their innocence in case this happened.
devo - February 7, 2005
Not "beyond a reasonable doubt"
In a civil suit, the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" which is an easier hurdle to clear.Nick - February 7, 2005
exactly, civil not criminal
50%+ of the evidence is not a very high standard.and what evidence could canseco possibly have considering he's a dirty steroid user making up lies to sell books?
considering so many people here see this as a clear case of canseco making up lies about their beloved mcgwire, one would assume mac will sue his ass if he really didn't use steroids.
xbhaskarx - February 7, 2005
Only one who is
____ {fill in less than supportive term here} would assume such a thing, since there is a strong chance that (assuming his name his clearable) it wouldn't clear his name and that it would only continue to drag his name through the mud, further tarnishing it.devo - February 8, 2005
Regardless ...
The burden is still on the plaintiff to prove that the defendent is not only lying, but knew he was lying, and did it with malicious intent. One person's word against another isn't going to cut it.devo - February 8, 2005
Credibility
I agree with Blez that Canseco has no credibility.What I find particularly hard to swallow is his claim that 80% of ballplayers use steroids (Yahoo says that's in the book, anyway). It can't be anywhere near that many.
atomopawn - February 7, 2005
But...
...he's most likely telling the truth. It'd be a hell of a lawsuit and he seems to specific about incidents if it didn't have some grain.baseballgirl - February 7, 2005
No it wouldn't
Slander and lible lawsuits are incredibly hard to win. You have to prove that the accused 1. was lying (impossible) 2. knew he was lying (hard, he could shift his story slightly, ie "I heard ..." and be safe) 3. told these lies with a malicious intent and forethought (difficult)No one is going to bring suit, because these suits are nearly impossible to win. In a case of he said, she said, without any evidence, whatsoever, anyone can say anything without any risk.
devo - February 7, 2005
Winning a lawsuit
A lawsuit would easily be won if a majority of stars that Canseco accused of taking these drugs testified that he was not telling the truth. I have a feeling this won't happen.jarforcefatherofforce - February 7, 2005
Lawsuits
I do not see it happening, the one problem is I do not see any of the super stars alleged filing a suit for several reasons:ogallalabob - February 9, 2005
Thank you, Devo
I just spent ten minutes trying to compose an e-mail response to some of the above posts by oakwin, then gave up, and here you said what I wanted to say.It's a silly argument: The guys whose names Jose named can simply sue if they're innocent, and the truth will set them free? Well, yeah, but it's not as if the truth is a matter of public record; it's not as if Jose is accusing McGwire of only having hit 10 homers in '87; the falsity of that accusation could be easily determined.
Essentially, these guys probably can't prove their innocence, but they shouldn't have to. Funny thing is, there are guys in baseball whose word would go so much further than Jose's. Jose's accusations carry so little credibility that McGwire & Co. are best off ignoring them.
rubin sierra - February 8, 2005
Trashing the messenger
I have noticed, in the past few years, a great way that politicians and pundits have come up with to avoid potentially embarrassing claims against them. If someone writes a book about you, you simply trash the person's "credibility" rather than actually addressing the charges. (Richard Clarke, you have a serious credibility problem.) Of course, this is a logical fallacy (ad hominem, I believe), but has risen to the level of "the ultimate slam."The so-called logic goes something like this: Once, this person made an off-hand remark that I will now refute (or lives a particular lifestyle I disagree with, holds other views that I disagree with, or, god forbid, has just written a book.) Therefore, everything this person says can be safely disbelieved without any further examination of the facts.
Seymour Hersh (investigative journalist extraodinaire) was recently asked (paraphrase): "who are your sources? Honest whistleblowers or unhappy ex-employees with an axe to grind?" His response was "well, both." The point is that, just because someone is trying to sell a book, you can not automatically discount everything they say within its pages.
I'm not trying to say that Canseco's word is gospel (I haven't read the book and I don't personally like Canseco, though I did love the Bash Brothers when I was 11). In fact, I will purposefully refrain from making a judgement about the validity of Canseco's claims altogether because I am not sufficiently knowledgeable. As Americans who have the right and ability to read what we choose and think critically about what we read, we need to move away from the trend of using someone's "credibility" to determine whether we agree with them or not. Instead, we should exercise our rights to examine the evidence and arguments on all sides of an issue and come to a conclusion. If we allow others to tell us what to read and believe, we might as well live in Nazi Germany.
deadmeat - February 8, 2005
Everyone actually involved
said it flat out wasn't true - Mac, LaRussa, McKay, Steinbach ... while it's true about Bush and his buddies, it isn't true in this case.devo - February 8, 2005
bizarre logic...
let's use this bush analogy..."canseco is disgruntled and trying to sell his book":
like saying "rumor X about the bush administration isn't true because it's from a disgruntled former cabinet member selling a book."
"mac, larussa, mckay, and steinbach said it wasn't true":
like saying "bush, rumsfeld, karl rove, and tom delay said it wasn't true."
what's the alternative?
mac: "ok, i'll admit it, i used steroids. now let me go from being considered a hero, holder of baseball's most prestegious record, the guy who saved baseball, sure hall of famer...
to ... canseco/giambi."
larussa: "yes, mac would have his ass injected with roids for years while i managed him in both oakland and st. louis, and i did nothing about it, and told no one, even when he was chasing the sacred home run record. but now i will admit it and be forever tainted for being so closely associated with mac, and maybe keep my best player and myself out of the hall of fame. considering how loved mac is in st. louis and all the negative publicity this will bring, they'll probably fire me and i'd never get another job in baseball, but i 'dare to truth' as canseco would say."
mckay: "i'm larussa's right hand man for NINETEEN YEARS, and headed the STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING PROGRAM in oakland. the bash brothers and mac's breaking the home run record had nothing to do with me, it was all due to roids. i'd rather be an unemployed pariah like canseco than hold this secret any longer."
steinbach: "sure i hate canseco, he's a complete bastard, but i'll break the baseball players code and get blacklisted as a "rat" (to quote olney) as long as it helps jose sell a few books. sure, no one will ever speak to me again, and people will probably dig up all sorts of dirt from my past to discredit me, but i've got nothing better to do."
again, i'll listen to stewart:
"We weren't in the same circles, but I'd have to say he definitely knows what's going on in his circle."
"...if you're an admitted steroid user, believe me, you'd know who uses them."
xbhaskarx - February 8, 2005
did you even read the above posts?
If someone writes a book about you, you simply trash the person's "credibility" rather than actually addressing the charges.If the person denies it, then this makes it untrue.
I'm not saying that others might not have reason to lie TOO, I'm just saying that his analogy doesn't fit.
While we're on the subject, everyone has reason to lie if the truth doesn't conform to what they actually said (except for Stew who didn't actually say anything except that he didn't know what the truth was - though in his new business as an agent, such a diplomatic stance might be a necessity for him as well) yet some among us choose to believe Canseco who has just as much reason to lie as anybody else. I don't pretend to know what the truth is, I'm just giving Mac the benefit of the doubt until I do.
devo - February 8, 2005
stew
your take on stew's comments baffles me."didn't actually say anything except that he didn't know what the truth was"
what is your interpretation of the two quotes from stew in the post you responded to?
xbhaskarx - February 8, 2005
I'm sure
what he said is largely true - nothing about it relates to Mac, though. He and 'Seco weren't close friends, and 'Seco probably knows much of what the truth is - that doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination mean that he's actually tellign the truth.I'm pretty sure Stew is lying, though, when he says he didn't know who was or wasn't using.
devo - February 8, 2005
You make excellent points
You put the counter-argument very concisely, deadmeat, although I'm sure your argument doesn't sit well with some.LD - February 9, 2005
Canseco apparently...
...says he slept with hundreds of women, but not Madonna. Someone had to not do it. ;)Stew noted that Canseco, for all his many, many flaws, isn't a liar. You combine that with the evidence of McGwire's physique and accomplishments, and with the way steroids got passed around in a sub rosa, you're-in-the-club kind of way, and yeah, I believe what Canseco wrote. I'd bet my mortgage that McGwire used steroids, and, as I pointed out in another thread earlier, McGwire's response in th "Chronicle" is a cleverly crafted non-denial denial.
Frankly, I'll take Canseco over McGwire. Canseco's story is the stuff of Shakespearean tragedy, as blez so nicely puts it, and also therefore profoundly human.
McGwire's story is cold and icy; he's no less of a cheater and a sleazebag than Canseco is, but continues to shut himself off and pretend that he's above scrutiny. And he's sullied the most beloved record in baseball. Canseco, though, seems to be compelled to live out loud, to tell us exactly who he is and what he did. He's honest, to a certain extent, and is, at the very least, coming clean about it.
I really, really don't want to hear any more about Canseco's motivation for writing the book, by the way. All writers are motivated by the desire to make money: blez is, Shakespeare was, I am, Tennessee Williams was, Joe Namath was. OK?
jrbh - February 7, 2005
wow
very well put.
Eric in Atlanta - February 7, 2005
Your'e Right!
If we follow the steroid issue to its logical conclusion, McGwire shouldn't be considered off-limits. Sure, when he and Sammy were dueling it out, it captured our collective imagination...But if these guys were juiced (and we know they were) MLB has once again spit in the face of Roger Maris. Maris suffered for attempting to break a valued record. Now when that record was threatened we now know that McGwire cheated to acchieve it and Bonds desicrated it. What a shame.Baseball has always had difficulty comparing one generation to the next. With the abuse of anabolic steroids, there is no way we can look at any power output by the sluggers and not have a jaundiced eye.
Frankly, I agree with Dave Stewart, except that Canseco was my favorite player. We'll never forget the Bash Brothers and what identity they brought to the A's. Thank God it's a team sport and they wouldn't have won it without the talents of Stewart, Lansford and Eck. Generally speaking every team has there few fringe players who don't play by the rules. Maybe we can live with it, but if Commissioner Bud has a soul, HE WOULD BAN ALL PLAYERS WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR STEROIDS AND CLEAN UP THE GAME!
If you think this is tough, hey, the players chose this route, no one forced them, just like Shoeless Joe. Sure they weren't betting on the game, but they were betting on themselves by changing the rules and hoping no one would care enough to find out.
Gerard - February 7, 2005
Wait a second ....
On what basis do "we now know that McGwire cheated to acchieve it"? On the basis that Jose Canseco says so? Why do we believe Canseco whose profit laden statements directly contradict other teammates of McGwire? Why do we believe him over his Manager and his trainer?This is bullshit, it's a witchhunt and certain among us will grab any headline to attack McGwire. I'll also remind you that it's only headlines that you guys are attacking him based on, since this rag of a book hasn't even been released, nor have any passages been published.
devo - February 7, 2005
I believe him...
...if only for the fact that he's setting himself up for a hell of a lawsuit if it's not true.baseballgirl - February 7, 2005
Not a Witchunt, Devo.
MLB essentially endorsed steroid use which were used by McGwire. Don't get me wrong, I loved watching McGwire play. I will never forget watching his game ending HR to beat the Dodgers in '88. McGwire's work ethic is well documented as well as his injuries. If you recall, he developed ruptured tendons in his foot and missed significant playing time for our A's in the early 90's. Let's assume that he was using "supplements" at that time that are now banned for obvious reasons. Generally speaking it is not uncommon to see ruptured tendons in athletes who use steroids as part of their training regimen. I have discussed this in previous posts. The extent of McGwire's plantar fasciitis as well as his healing time lends credence to the argument that he was "enhanced" with supplements and suffered an injury that may have been avoided.These athletes do things as many people do in their athletic prime that they wouldn't do later, usually learning from the 'school of hard knocks.'
Do you think that they think about the consequences of what they're doing? Heck no, and they rarely listen to those who, before them did the same thing and suffered. I don't buy into the ignorance theory with McGwire jsut as I don't with Bonds. This problem is way bigger than McGwire and how many more stories such as Ken Camminiti's are out there just waiting to happen?
Gerard - February 7, 2005
I totally agree with jrbh.
baseballgirl - February 7, 2005
JRBH sadsadsad
Why are you so bent on destroying Mac? He has stood everything good in baseball...remember he signed his final contract w/o an agent. Canseco has written this book for people like you...easily manipulated...so he can make a quick buck. Remember now, this is the AN and the only player to "betray" the A's is Jose...don't follow suit.runtru1 - February 7, 2005
Whoa!
I'd like to disagree with the 'easily manipulated' part of that. I've NEVER been a McGwire fan. Do I think Canseco will do anything to make some money? Of course he will. But I'm not willing to go to the mat and say that McGwire is the innocent party and just a baseball player who worked "really really hard without taking anything". I happen to disgree with that.baseballgirl - February 8, 2005
Lawsuit
What is really painful about this as clearly Giambi, BigMac, and the rest have enough stuff in the closet to hide that they will never be able to file suit.Oh well. it is what it is.
novaoakland - February 7, 2005
I'll Buy It...
Even though I fully understand that it'll be equal parts truth, lies and sensationalism, I'm curious what he has to say about those late '80s A's teams and his nomadic career after he was dealt to Texas in '92.I'm not sure I understand all the indignation over this. Every athlete "written" book is a grab for a quick buck...Canseco's motives aren't anything new.
The book will be one-sided and narrow in its focus and isn't likely to win any awards for literature. (See: Pete Rose, Rickey Henderson, Lenny Dykstra autobios...)
Does Canseco have any credibility when he names names? Probably not. But, neither do guys like LaRussa who say "I know Mac and he'd NEVER take them. He was all-natural."
Please.
Aaron C - February 7, 2005
I think the point is...
that in order to increase book sales and interest and buzz around the book, one has to get publicity. If this was a bland, expose no one but himself kind of book, no one would be interested. And he certainly wouldn't be getting the advance hype he is now.So, I'm not putting him down for trying to make a buck, but he makes a lot more bucks by saying whatever he can to be controversial.
Tyler Bleszinski - February 7, 2005
Canseco is out to make money
Granted, all (well, most) authors are, but that doesn't change the fact that his SOLE motivation is money. Truth, honorability, legality and doings what's best for the game clearly have never been among his priorities.If what he is saying is a lie, it is in his financial interest to lie. His book wouldn't sell if it didn't include juicy steroid stuff, since nobody, anywhere actually cares about Jose Canseco anymore.
I'm adament about giving Mac the benefit of the doubt - others are convinced he did it. That's fine, reasonable, considerate people can disagree on things like this.
It would be completely unreasonable, however, to consider this to be anything more than it is - a grab for money by someone who has shown, time and again, that his only priority is money. It might be true, it might not - but there is absolutely no way of knowing.
devo - February 7, 2005
well he better hopeHE'S TELLING THE TRUTH
BECAUSE JOSIE will get slapped with a libel suit quicker than byrnsie runs from 1st to home.oakwin2004 - February 7, 2005
Isn't it just as accurate to say...
...that if what Canseco is saying is true, it's in his financial interest to tell the truth?It's not like this guy is an accountant whose big story is that he once slept with a hooker at a convention in San Antonio. Is there any way Canseco could write an honest account of his life without being sensational?
Finally, yeah, he's exposed some other people. If they didn't want to be exposed as lying cheater, probably they shouldn't have become lying cheater.
jrbh - February 7, 2005
Absolutely
but since his incentive is to say what he said, regardless of what the truth was, there is no reason to believe him, unless he has earned credibility over the years ....Perhaps beating women, destroying their cars, flaking on his team, and ruining his career earned some credibility in your book, JRBH, but, I can assure you, he has none in mine.
devo - February 7, 2005
It's remarkable to me...
that anyone would be willing to take Canseco at his word. Really.I mean, Giambi admitted to steroid use, but if I remember correctly, he only admitted to using it around the 2001 season. And he was on the stand facing penalty of perjury if he lied. Even though he's a cheat, he was forced to tell the absolute truth or face jail time. Canseco doesn't have to face up to that same penalty if he lies.
I might not remember this exactly accurate, but that's what I seem to recall about his testimony.
That also seems in direct contradiction with some of Canseco's claims.
But some people really just want to believe in the worst in people. I happen to be the opposite. Maybe that makes me naive, but that's just the way I feel.
Tyler Bleszinski - February 7, 2005
I hear what you are saying...
...but Canseco could be sued for slander. He already has nothing more to prove, I just see his pending book as a sign of the times in MLB and if not Jose, someone else would have or will write more about this subject.Sure it's hard to believe a guy who's ruined his reputation, but in light of the Grand Jury leaks, it certainly offers plausibility to his statements.
Gerard - February 7, 2005
I believe Giambi told the truth
in his leaked testimony. What he said was far too damning and just plain embarrassing to be false.But he never denied using steroids before 2001, IIRC. The questioning only addressed his usage in the context of his relationship with Anderson, the target of the investigation. So when he met Anderson is when he got "scientific" in drug usage; whether he'd used it before that in a more off-the-cuff way was not addressed at all. Again, that's IIRC, I haven't bothered to dig up and slog through the Chron story so I could be mistaken.
Faust - February 7, 2005
yes
he was only asked questions related to the subject of the grand jury, which was balco. that's how grand juries work.xbhaskarx - February 7, 2005
How does he make money
if he lies? Isn't his only capital true, candid story-telling? If his book is some sensational caricature, it won't sell. So doesn't his ability to make money rest on the legitimacy of what he says? As I recall, Pete Rose's book didn't do much for his financial state. Didn't it sort of flop, since all the juicy details were printed in advance of its release?Also, doesn't lying make him vulnerable to significant financial hardship thru litigation? If you accuse a bunch of people of doing something they didn't do...wouldn't you expect to get sued? Is he safe from lawsuits because, as someone suggests in a later post, it's nearly impossible to prove whether these things happened?
I don't know here, I'm just asking questions. Blez, as I recall, Giambi's testimony was vague on when he started taking steroids.
Dog Days - February 7, 2005
Are you kidding me?!?!?!
No, of course not. Sensationalist stories that might be true are his bread and butter. If we knew for fact that these were lies, it might hurt initial sales. We know nothing as a fact, however, so all he has going for him is sensationalism.Rose's book didn't do well because there was only 1 juicy detail "I did it". Once that was read, there was not point in continuing to read it. That juicy detail also ruined all sympathy and interest that people had for Rose.
No, it doesn't make him vulnerable to litigation, because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and Mac, et al cannot possibly prove that they weren't using steroids 10 years ago, regardless of guilt/innocence.
devo - February 7, 2005
Headlines lie all the time
It is sensational bullsh*t that sells to the masses. The best way for Canseco to make money is to sensationalize the hell out of his story, and yes that includes lying.Read "The Culture of Fear" by Barry Glassner. All about how the media creates news out of nothing in order to sell. Quick example: Summer of 2000, dubbed the Summer of the Shark. Time and other news mags devote cover articles to the shark attack "epidemic," when really shark attacks were much less frequent that year.
nickolai - February 7, 2005
Lance Armstrong
It has been written in books and said in the media a number of times that Lance Armstrong has used Performance Enhancing Drugs. However, Armstrong has defended himself very outwardly and has sued numerous publications for slander.If Mark McGwire doesn't sue Jose Canseco for slander, in my mind, McGwire is guilty as charged.
If you were innocent, wouldn't you sue for slander? Wouldn't you be in the public eye defending your legacy? I know I would be...especially with my Hall of Fame ballot coming up in the next couple of years.
Colorado Fan - February 7, 2005
No ...
Because in slander lawsuits the impetus is on the plaintiff to prove that he/she did not do what he/she is accused of. How is Mac supposed to prove, beyond a doubt, that he did not use steroids 10 years ago? A lawsuit would just submit him to more scrutiny and would most likely not result in any sort of positive outcome.devo - February 7, 2005
i too
used to look up to canseco as a kid...that is until my mom sat me down and told me about his domestic violence. ever since then i hated him...hated his guts for ever laying a hand on a woman, and hated the fact that i was decieved...that said, just because i dislike the guy doesn't make him a liar....i doubt that his book is all truth, but i also doubt the entire book is false...my guess is a lot of exaggerated truths and manipulated stories so that the press will latch on and give him exposure...and thus more sales for his book.
i have no interest in reading it however, for the same reasons i wouldn't read a book by say, kobe bryant. i plain don't like those guys, and won't waste my time with their writings....
high street - February 7, 2005
Steroids
I would tend to believe that he is telling the truth. The people he pointed out Gonzales, Palmiero, Giambi or Mcgwire would not shock me in the least if they had used steroids. In fact even before the book if I had to bet on it I would have bet they did use steroids.But, it is also important to keep in mind that back in the 80's and early 90's it is not like steroids were illegal and to my knowledge most of them were not against the rules of baseball at that time. I can fully see players talking with Jose after his 40-40 season and getting his training methods etc., and doing what it took to improve.
ogallalabob - February 7, 2005
Mark McGwire
has always been careful to say that he never used any illegal substances, not that he never used any performance-enhancers.kkdaz - February 7, 2005
A sad story
In his day he was a great ball player. Personally I never enjoyed his chest-beating macho stuff as much as I enjoyed watching Rickey steal those bases, Stew and Eck, Hendu, Carney, etc. etc. etc.But he could hit homeruns.
Drugs tear people up, tear people down. They really do stunt your growth, and I don't mean forearm size. You know this isn't just about steroids, it's probably as much about cocaine or whatever else he partied (parties?) with.
I have compassion for the man, but I don't trust much of what comes out of an addict's mouth. If you know some, you'll know what I mean.
eck767 - February 7, 2005
It's hardly "believing the worst...
...in people" to think that McGwire cheated and took steroids. Besides that we know that he took a "supplement," and that an eyewitness (Canseco) has now come forward and claimed that he has personal knowledge of McGwire's steroid use, there's his body. I don't know how you could look at his puffed up, acne-ridden visage without saying, "Geez, steroids."Yeah, Canseco is a troubled guy. Yeah, I wouldn't want him to date my sister. Yeah, his word should not be taken for granted. But this doesn't come in a vacuum. It comes in the middle of a flood of evidene that the top HR hitters in the game over the last 15 years got that way by cheating. Wishing that McGwire and Sosa, et. al. were hard-working, honest guys who wouldn't dream of cheating doesn't make it so, and pointing it out doesn't make me or anyone else a pessimist.
jrbh - February 7, 2005
Look at the pictures
The guy has and always has had pudgy cheeks - that's not steroids, it's a baby face. He also always had acne - he was a pizza faced kid, stop teasing him about it already, geez. (all of the pictures are touched up, so you can't see the acne)pictures: http://www.athleticsnation.com/story/2005/2/7/42245/39097
It comes in the middle of a flood of evidene that the top HR hitters in the game over the last 15 years got that way by cheating.
That is a flat out lie. There is evidence that the some of the top homeruns hitters of the past 3 years (after Mac retired) got that way by cheatting. There is evidence that two top players in the 90s got that way by cheatting. That is all that there is evidence for.
devo - February 7, 2005
devo,
you might find it better when we're talking about this stuff to lay off the personal crap.As for the cheating thing, you take your position, I'll take mine. I feel a lot more comfortable with mine; yours strikes me as rather legalistic.
jrbh - February 7, 2005
Legalistic?
Saying that you are lying is legalistic? Umm ... okay.All that exists is accusations. No evidence, whatsoever, has ever been presented against Mac, except, allegedly, a tell all book by someone whose credibility is only slightly less questionable than Pete Rose when he said he didn't bet on baseball. Seriously, believe what you want, but don't lie about it and don't act like this book changes anything.
devo - February 7, 2005
Hero status was long gone before this
When I first became an A's fan I loved Canseco. He was my favourite. When we played ball I was always Jose Canseco. When we went to Tiger Stadium to see the A's play I always took about a roll of film of just him.Then in 1989 I had gone on a family trip to Chicago, my parents planned the trip around Oakland being there so I could see a couple more games. We were staying at the same hotel as the team but if you wanted autographes you had to stand outside so that is what I did. I was able to get autographs from every Athletic that came out the door including players/coaches that normally didn't give autographs (Reggie Jackson and Rickey Henderson). I was shocked when Reggie came out the doors, I didn't even know he was involved with the team at the time.
Then it happened, like it was slow motion, the doors opened and Jose Canseco came out. I was so excited, picture this, a 12 year old kid wearing an A's shirt and hat holding a deck of cards in his hand in downtown Chicago. I said Mr. Canseco can I have an autograph. He looked at me and kept walking, I began to walked behind him a few steps and said please Mr. Canseco can I have an autograph. He turn to me and said "Don't you dare follow me kid or I will beat you up".
My heart sunk, I was so upset, I couldn't even cry. In a matter of 12 words he had gone from my hero to the worst person I could have imagined.
From that day on I know him for who he really was.
CDN Athletics Fan - February 7, 2005
Steroids and anger
It is well known that steroids contributes to aggressive behavior. Canseco has had some violent incidents in the past, and although it is probably impossible to prove if steroids played a role, it makes me wonder if steroids did contribute to it.kaweahkaweah - February 7, 2005
Ouch
Reading your retelling of Cnaseco almost brought a tear to my eye. I was in elementary school during the '89 season. Second Grade I think? I also used to idolize the Bash Bros. In fact, I always used to believe that the A's player on the Battle of the Bay posters was modeled after Jose.I don't know what to think anymore of the Juiced Era of Baseball. I really can't claim a morel high ground when I idolized these guys when I was a kid. Perhaps it's best to just not think about the Bash Bros. thorugh the lens of today and just look back with the innocence of being a little kid.
I still think McGwire is too smart and calculating to ever actually take steroids. He always gave out the measured response of "I've never done an illegal substance." (Similar to Bonds', "I've never knowingly took illegal substances."?) When asked about 'roids. It's public knowledge that Mac was into performance enhancing supplements...but then so was Bill Romanowski...and he tested positive for THG.
I'm confused.
secret ASian man - February 7, 2005
the player
on the Battle of the Bay poster was McGwire...hands down. i've still got it hanging in my room....high street - February 7, 2005
But let's not pretend...
...that Mac is a nice guy. He comes about as close to fitting that description as Canseco himself.baseballgirl - February 7, 2005
He was nice to me
when I met him.Despite being the biggest star on the team, he was the only one who would ever stop an sign autographs after the game.
He wasn't much of a husband to his first wife, but he has been, by all accounts, a hell of a father to his son.
He gave a ton of money back to his community and took significantly less to stay in St Louis than he could have gotten on the open market.
He wasn't perfect, but, everything considered, he is a good guy.
devo - February 7, 2005
My friend saw a different side...
He was in the clubhouse with him for a year of Spring Training & said Mac's attitude towards women, including the one he'd been with the night before training started was just disgusting. And he's not easily shocked.baseballgirl - February 7, 2005
I'm not easily shocked ...
I don't think that makes me a bad guy.Perhaps he wasn't always a gentleman, we know that he wasn't a good husband to his first wife - but I'm reasonably certain he never did anything that compares to what Canseco did.
While they certainly don't make the bad things he did right, he did do a lot of good things to balance out his kharmic scale a bit.
out of curiousity, when was your friend's experience with Mac?
devo - February 7, 2005
What an asshole
rubin sierra - February 8, 2005
Canseco
- Canseco is unreliable.
- Canseco wrote a book to make money.
- If Canseco didn't say he used steriods, his book wouldn't sell as well.
- Canseco never used steroids.
"We weren't in the same circles, but I'd have to say he definitely knows what's going on in his circle." Dave Stewart"But if you're an admitted steroid user, believe me, you'd know who uses them." Dave Stewart
xbhaskarx - February 7, 2005
jesus, you guys are missing the point
i wrote about this on another diary, i'ii try again.i find all this poetic justice. MLB and the MLBPA had their chance to deal with PED use during the past CBA processes. and now we have guys like canseco as "the drug abusers are us" beacon. it looks good on everyone involved. in my mind THEY are all guilty by assocation..thats the price they'ii pay for sticking their head's in the sand.
speed use is rampant in mlb. expect the next book to come out-probably authored by someone like byrnes-"revealing" he gave hudson speed.
the emperor wears no clothes on this one.
bigelephant - February 7, 2005
The Numbers Don't Lie
Canseco may be a drug-addled moron looking to make a quick score, but I have to think a lot of what he says is true. The only proof I need is the mockery MLB made of Roger Maris' homerun record back in 1998. What I don't understand are the steroid apologists...the people out there all too willing to cut these cheating bums some slack. How much evidence do they need? 80 homeruns in a season? Another Ken Caminitti?Mission1929 - February 7, 2005
Any fucking evidence at all
would be a hell of a start.Rickey must have been on something because he blew away that stolen bases record ... some sort of magic walking potion too.
A perfect game at that age, yep, the Unit's gotta be using something.
Nobody has ever done what Ichiro did last year ... must be using mini'roids.
Just because someone achieves something remarkable doesn't mean they were cheatting. Some players are just really friggin' good.
devo - February 7, 2005
Huge Difference
between stealing bases and hitting home runs. Huge difference between swatting singles to the first baseman and hitting home runs. Huge difference between one amazing night by an older pitcher and hitting home runs. Everybody get on board - let's take another leap into logical fallacy land.You're right, there's no hard evidence that Mac did anything against the law. Hell, it wasn't even against the rules of MLB if he did it. But there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to go on, including the incredible spike in numbers over anything that had been done before, the fact his "little buddy" and protege, who credits him with teaching him everything he knows about the game, has admitted using them, the fact he got massively huge, which admittedly could have been achieved without cheating.
None of us knows what Mac put into his body. But a smoking gun is not always available. To say there is "no fucking evidence" in such a condescending way actually kind of pisses me of. There is evidence. You just don't choose to look at it as evidence. You want a smoking gun. We all know there isn't one, so you win. But guess what? I still have my doubts.
Dog Days - February 7, 2005
Huge difference?
Of course there is - but one certain female Olympic sprinter who has actually been linked to the BALCO scandal used steroids to get really fucking fast ... remember? Or does that not fit conveniently into this witch hunt? HGH is used for what legitimite purpose? Oh yeah, to slow or reverse the effects of aging ... hmm, who might that have helped? What's not only naive but also proven flat out wrong is the belief that only big sluggers use and can benefit from steroids.the incredible spike in numbers over anything that had been done before
49
32
33
39
22
42
~snip~ (injured for 2 years)
39 (104 games - strike, projects to ~55)
52
58
70
65
So, yes, he did reach record setting heights when he set the record ... but then so did the guys who previously held the record, that's kind of how records work. While those two seasons were dramatic, they weren't all that far out of line with what he had done over the course of his career.
devo - February 7, 2005
Huh?
How aren't they far out of line with what he did over the course of his career? He averaged 36.6 HRs over his first five years. After he was injured for a few years, he averaged 60 HRs a year (assuming that 55 number you project to in the year he played 104 games). That's a 65% increase over his first few years in the league. Granted, all things weren't equal - he was traded to a division with more hitter-friendly ballparks, for one, he became a more intelligent hitter, for two - but that's a HUGE increase.And you totally missed the point on the other feats. For one, I don't think Rickey Henderson broke the stolen base record because he was faster than everybody else. He broke it because he was a better base stealer, and he focused on stealing bases. Nowhere did I say steroids don't make you faster, yet you went off on that tangent because it was convenient to your argument. In fact, I don't think steroid use is confined to sluggers. You assumed that I was saying that, because I said that hitting home runs was different than stealing bases. But it is, and increased strength means more bat speed means more power means more home runs. Just being faster doesn't mean you'll get a better lead and break on a certain pitcher. And Ichiro and the Unit...seriously, you have no point there.
Sure, smaller parks could be the reason bigger HR numbers were put up. And a guy like McGwire was always a home run hitter (more than we can say for Sosa), but you can't deny the statistical spike and the other circumstantial evidence. I would love to find out he never did anything wrong, but to say there isn't any evidence is just not true.
Dog Days - February 7, 2005
1 other neat little "coincidence"
Mac made his biggest jumps in performance in expansion years. Granted, in '93 he missed most of the season, but he did post a .726 slg over very limited ABs.If you break his career into smaller chunks, you see something very different
'87: 49 jacks, freaky rookie year
'88-89: 32, 33 jacks, good, but not quite great
'90,'92: 39, 42 ('91 was clearly an aberration, largely due to personal problems) becomes a top power hitter
'93-94: Injured
'95-97: ~55 (proj), 52, 58 moderately historical
'98-99: 70, 65 incredible
So, if we break it into these 2-3 year spans we see a pretty smooth progression:
Avg
32.5
40.5
55
67.5
He got better over time ... looking at it that way works too.
devo - February 7, 2005
Absolutely
He definitely got better over time. The question is whether he got better completely due to hard work on the up and up, or whether that hard work was illegally supplemented.None of us knows. Which brings us back to Canseco and his allegations. The next few weeks will be interesting. I happen to be more convinced that Mac used 'roids than that he didn't, but I obviously can't say either with certainty. I'll just say that Canseco has HUGE balls if he prints a book based completely on lies. Maybe his next career is as a fiction writer?
Dog Days - February 7, 2005
Well I think
it's pretty clear that Canseco has little tiny shriveled up balls ... but that's neither here nor there.devo - February 7, 2005
As far as those other feats
My point was that remarkable achievements do not, by default, indicate steroid use - even if the vissage of the man achieving the remarkable more closely mirrors our opinion of what 'roid users look like. Believing that because they weren't huge they probably didn't use 'roids is shortsighted ignorance or naivette.devo - February 7, 2005
I agree
No doubt about it. Ichiro and the Unit could be on the juice, too. I highly doubt it, though.Dog Days - February 7, 2005
There's no way...
...I'm going to look at Pudge Rodriguez and say to myself, "Canseco said he took steroids, so it must be true."As everyone has already mentioned, there's going to be truth and sensationalism in this book. The problem will be trying to tell the difference(apart from the 80% thing). I'm not going to bother. This is an issue that people are going to argue about forever...
Sharon - February 7, 2005
He's Telling the Truth
But he's still an ass and I won't give him any of my money.I maintain that it is very naive to think that McGwire didn't tread the narrow (and oft-changing) line between banned and unbanned substances in his bodybuilding. I also still don't care much that he did. Steroids are unsafe and shouldn't be used, but I don't see the need to reverse records or other things of that nature. It's common knowledge, in some cases, and commonly assumed in others that these guys juiced. Public opinion is punishment enough, in other words.
Look at OJ...I don't know anyone who truly thinks he was innocent, but he walks free anyway. True justice isn't always possible, and sometimes life just isn't fair.
LD - February 7, 2005
Public opinion is punishment enough
I reluctantly agree. Part of me would like to reverse records, but that would be denial; Maris' record has been broken. I also think it's a waste of time to put an asterisk in the record book; nobody cares. The asterisk will always be in my mind, though; Roger Maris has the non-juiced single-season home run record in my mind.I still do kind of wish they would suspend Bonds to keep him from Breaking Hank's record. At least with that record it's not too late ... yet.
rubin sierra - February 8, 2005
It will only get worse......60 Minutes - Feb 20th
MLB is very worried about what to do about Barry Bonds as he approachs Aaron's record. February 20th will have a 60 Minutes piece with Canseco according to the NY Times. This could get very ugly with teammates accusing each other. LaRussa doing his self righteous act of denial adnauseam.The real problem is the name of the Oakland A's is at ground zero for this sleazy circus....how would you like to be Jason Giambi on opening day? The NY press has already harpooned him over the winter...........a 60 Minutes story will get them licking their chops...........unless George uses it as the basis of his push to have the contract voided.
McGuire needs to hire Karl Rove to take care of this.
Aparicio11 - February 7, 2005
A deal with the devil....
About a year ago I came across highlights of the 1985 NL Championship Series (Dodgers-Cardinals) on ESPN Classic. I was stunned at how physically small the players were; Jack Clark, one of the pre-eminent sluggers of the 80's, looked like a high-school kid compared to the bulked-up sluggers that would dominate the game less than a decade later.You can call Canseco a money-grubber, a fool, a bitter, self-centered jerk who frittered away a Hall of Fame career. But to dismiss everything he writes would be like believing Pete Rose when he said he never bet on baseball.
When steriods began creeping into baseball, the stupid white men who run this sport looked the other way. Baseball was just coming off another drug scandal (the cocaine trials of the mid-80s) and they weren't prepared to deal with another substance-abuse problem.
Then after the '94 strike, the owners effectively made a deal with the devil. Attendance and interest were cratering; the answer, as with other pro leagues, was offense. Baseball erected a series of cookie-cutter bandboxes--more theme park than ball park--and ignored the bulkier bodies that reported every spring.
It was as if baseball was saying, go ahead, get as juiced as you want. In the meantime, we'll shrink the strike zone to the size of a belt buckle and we'll all make potfuls of money.
Be careful what you wish for. If Canseco is anywhere close to telling the truth, the home-run totals of the past ten years will have all the legitimacy of pro wrestling.
bakedzito - February 7, 2005
Good points
Smaller ball parks, smaller strike zone, non-enforcement of 'roid rules, more HRs. It all makes sense. Many people say that MLB has finally recovered from the strike 10 years ago.It really makes sense. Excellent post.
secret ASian man - February 7, 2005
Here's the problem
Up until the late 70s, baseball players believed in the conventional wisdom that lifting weights gave you bulk but made you stiff, slowing your bat and ruining your fielding. Brian Downing was the first guy to start lifting weights seriously, and his career took off when he bulked up. After that, more players started to lift, but it still wasn't common.A great deal of the power explosion over the last 10 years is due to weight lifting. The question is, how much of the weight lifting was dirty? Even without any steroids, players today would still be bigger and stronger than they were 25 years ago, simply because they lift weights. How much stronger are they due to steroids? No one can really answer that.
Nick - February 7, 2005
comparing mcgwire and bonds
both are guys baseball can't afford to turn against.when there are rumors he's on steroids, mcgwire puts some legal stuff in his locker, let's everyone see it, and can now say that he's never used anything "illegal."
when all the balco-related rumors start flying around, bonds claims that he thought the thc was flaxseed oil, and his buddies cover for him, and now he can say that he never "knowingly" took steroids.
meanwhile canseco, caminiti, and giambi go down because they're expendable to baseball. they're sacrificed for the greater good, and people like mcgwire and bonds can escape because they're "innocent until proven guilty."
i say guilty based on circumstantial evidence and until i see a lie detector test that tells me otherwise.
xbhaskarx - February 7, 2005
Giambi, Canseco, Caminiti
Those guys "took the bullet" not because they were expendable to baseball but becauase they were expendable to themselves; that is, they no longer had enough interest in their own careers to keep the lie going. I say that because these guys weren't outed by baseball; they outed themselves, they went to the media, or in Giambi's case, he was honest with the grand jury, rather than trying to sell a silly story like Bonds'.rubin sierra - February 8, 2005
Okay, someone get the book...
And we'll pass it around. I'm tremendously curious, but do not want him to get a cent for it.baseballgirl - February 7, 2005
thirteen of us so far
i pre-ordered it on amazon yesterday.i only wish he had kept the original name.
"dare to truth," jose, "dare to truth!"
xbhaskarx - February 7, 2005
Canseco
...is old news. I don't care about his book. What I do care about is MLB's lack of attention to this problem. Selig's act of indignation just highlights his, and other's, lack of attention to this drug problem. Virtually everyone with any authority in baseball is to blame, i.e., owners, general managers, managers, trainers, coaches, the union and even the fans for being willing to accept the obvious bulking up as normal, when common sense tells us that it wasn't. They still haven't solved the problem and won't until the money stops flowing their way. When would that happen? When the fans laugh at them as they do at wrestling, when baseball becomes a joke!doubleplayer - February 7, 2005
If bonds and giambi
were using why not mcgwire? i mean, the guy was soooo huge by the time he started chasing the record. obviously mcgwire gets the kid gloves with all this because of his paul bunion type of persona. but he was using, and if anybody knew who was using it was canseco. canseco was like the victor conte of his time sort of. i wonder if they ever crossed paths. perhaps mcgwire would like to go before a grand jury if he is so concerned with his rep.as far as i'm concerned, my nostalgia for him went out the window when he said he'd go in the hall as a cardinal. that's crap. he played less than one third of his career there. and since when are palmerio, juan gonee and pudge off limits. i think dave stewart is the best barometer of canseco's truthfulness. people can question canseco, but stew is beyond reproach. when i think back to those times, he and not mcgwire or canseco was the backbone of the team much like tim hudson was from 99 - 04.
mcbronsh - February 7, 2005
regretably
My impression of the MLB has fallen to the point where I suspect that Jose's cursed memoirs have a great deal of truth to them. I might buy the book, since all the proceeds are going to defend liable suits. There is just too much money to expect that people are being moral. Or ethical. THey are not policed, and a young player is left with a bleak choice- use and give it your best shot, or don't and you will never know. The answer could mean the difference between tens of millions and supporting a family on 30K a year while you travel the minors. They are wrong if they use, plain wrong, but the temptation is there none the less. I can, confortably from my office, say they should never venture those paths, but what if my only trade was baseball, and all I had was a high school education and a lifetime of making ends meat. when trainers say that whey protein isolate is OK...hormal precursers are ok, creatine is OK. Ma Huang, guanrine, ECA stacks, cafeine, is ok; fluid replacement are OK; L-tyrosine is OK; Zn/Ma stacks are ok---but Don;t touch this stuff. Dont toch the HGH and the androgen. Noone is checking, and you are so stuffed from protein powders and creatine that you havent taken a crap in a week, but stay away form this sstuff that might just make you a star. I just think the temptation is too great.mikedaviswhereareyou - February 7, 2005
temptation
i completely agree, the question no one is answering is WHY WOULDN'T he do it?olney writes that "the stuff had become part of the game's competitive fiber and culture."
maybe mcgwire lovers should explain this anomaly: mac NOT being on roids when pretty much every power hitter from the last twenty years seems to be.
i think the bigger lesson in all this for baseball fans is to not build up any baseball player too much. it's probably healthiest to not hero-worship / idolize anyone at all, but if you need that in your life for some reason, an athlete is no nelson mandela or vaclav havel...
xbhaskarx - February 7, 2005
Evidence?
Well, Canseco says he personally shot up McGwire. It's hard to believe he's the only one; I bet he knows some other people who did. I bet he knows some suppliers, how much McGwire paid for the stuff, and who he paid. I bet he knows the dates McGwire started using, and I bet medical experts studying pictures of McGwire -- there's probably some every single day of the baseball season for years -- could correlate the dates Canseco provides with evidence of physical changes.If McGwire used, he would have to be crazy to sue Canseco. I'm betting we see some sort of statement at some point saying that "Of course Canseco is making these things up about me, but I'm going to take the high road and protect my family and not take this to court."
jrbh - February 7, 2005
wow
I can't believe the unyielding support for Cansecos claim...sure McGwire bulked up and hit a ton of home runs....is it a suprise if he juiced up? No. But to just believe what a guy like Jose says without hearing anything else is just silly. C'mon guys. Taking one persons word for it is not exactly good decision making.McGwire was always bigger, what about 220-225 as a rookie when that was considered huge in MLB. This isn't a Bonds or Sosa where he went from 175 to 240. 49 homeruns back then too...he hit more later on yes. If he did use you mean to tell me that his moonshot homeruns were mostly due to steriods? Not sure if a drug can cause the ball to travel 50 feet farther but I'm getting off the point here...
McGwire was my favorite player growing up by far, maybe my only idol if I ever had one. Does that make me blind to the fact he might of used? Nope. It crossed my mind over the last couple years with whats been going on in baseball. If its true it doesn't change his status with me totally although I would definately look down upon him for it. Like I said, it wouldn't suprise me....either way.
But to just take Cansecos word for it from this book right away I just can't do. And his word vs. other players/people with a bit more credability is a tough sell. And you have to realize some of what he is saying is pure b.s., while some is true...just have to sift through it. Please, take it with a grain of salt. JMHO.
WiscoFan - February 7, 2005
My take
Jose is a cuckoo bird. Documented cuckoo bird.But, as the old saying goes, "just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not out to get you."
Is it reasonable to suspect that there were lots of players using steroids from the 90s on? Yeah.
But just because Jose says so isn't enough for me to believe that any particular player was a user. It adds fuel to the fire of speculation, certainly. Coupled with some other evidence, it could be compelling enough.
Oh, and lastly, the "Jose's just trying to make money" isn't a good way to go about this. As someone said above, everyone who writes a book is trying to make money. Jose has a history of doing weird, destructive, and stupid things. That's the reason I doubt him.
Hegenberger Road - February 7, 2005
I still have my 33 jersey
When i was a kid Canseco was my favorite player. And to be honest he was my favorite player until a i read the article about his book today. Man talk about a fallen idol. The worst part of it all isn't that he might be lying to sell books which is bad enough but the fact that there is a big chance that Big Mac also was on the juice and as for Giambi well he made his own mess. I mean even if Canseco is trustworthy its hard not to believe certain things when i suspected them all along.OakAs33 - February 7, 2005
Just want to clarify the money issue
Olney and others have suggested that money is Canseco's chief motivation for writing this book. I've worked in some part of the publishing industry almost my entire life, and I'd like to clarify this -- whatever money Canseco gets for this book is already in his bank account. He likely received an advance for the book -- probably less than $2 million. Sales will be dead by August -- most likely earlier. I'd guess by May, meaning that any royalties he receives will be miniscule and won't last. I doubt he's getting more than $1.50 or $2 per copy sold, if that. The print run is probably in the neighborhood of 10,000 to 20,000. so at best he's getting his advance plus $40,000. All estimates are rough, but based on my experience with minor celebrity tell-alls, it is probably close.My point is that $2.04 million is not much for Canseco. I think he needs the attention more than the money.
ToddyBaseball - February 7, 2005
80%
He also is the guy that claimed 80% of MLB players are on steroids. C'mon. No doubt a significant percentage were on it, but I don't believe even 1/4 of that were.It was touched on in a previous post, regardless of steriods and other supplements, players in the last 20 years lifted weights...look at the NBA. Guys used to be skinny now so many are very built. Steriods? No...much better eating/work out habits. Same with baseball, steroids or not.
McGwire certainly used supplements, until I have some real evidence or at least one other player step up to back up Jose, I think he just used supplements, perhaps some were borderline steriods but I think hes smarter than Jose in what he chose to put in his body.
I wouldn't neccessarily knock having idols either...when you are a kid and love sports/certain players there is nothing wrong with that. Parents should help their kids pick who to idolize if anyone, choose the right players. Don't idolize guys like Jose, who were known to be doing stupid things when he was in his prime.
WiscoFan - February 7, 2005
To expand on weightlifting's impact
1- NFL used to have a major steroid problem.2- NFL now has what the press seems to think is a serious steroid testing regime.
3- Despite the reduction of steroids in the NFL, players are undisputably much bigger, stronger and faster than they were back when steroids were rampant. Lyle Alzado would look like a fullback comapred to today's 330 lb offensive lineman.
Some of the bulk of today's baseball players is due to steroids, but some, maybe the vast majority, is just due to unadulterated weight lifting.
Nick - February 7, 2005
This is so sad.....
I hate steroids. I really, really do. Ugh. It just destroys the game. I... can't even explain how against I am steroids. It just... upsets me how people can disrespect the game and use steroids. Nowadays, people accomplish something big and there are whispers of steroids. Sometimes, it ends up being true. Other times, it's just jealousy. I'm just getting angry. Steroids are crap. I hate them. I hate what they do to people. I just.... Ugh...GreenNGoldGirl - February 7, 2005
Who Do You Believe?
The honorable Terry Steinbach says Big Mac was not juicing. Soon-to-be HOF manager Tony LaRussa says McGwire didn't use steroids and TLR managed Big Mac during the majority of his big league career. I interacted with TLR on several occasions and I can say that he is as straight a shooter as you will find in sports...Or are you going to take their word or a guy who so abused his talents that he ended up a baseball laughstock. Someone who squandered his millions. Someone who beat up his wife. Someone busted for bar fights and arrested for leaving a gun in his unlocked Ferrari. Someone who Dave Stewart says was seen with contempt by his 24 teammates. Someone Stew said was so unreliable that he told TLR that he won't pitch in a WS game if Canseco was in the lineup.
So, At the risk of being redundant, who are you gonna believe?
As has been noted, Canseco is virtually broke. Now if he didn't make his steroid accusations, would anyone buy a book by that ignoramus?
reztips - February 7, 2005
Don't misrepresent Stew's comments
You're making it sound like Stew doubts Jose. Steward explicitly says that Jose isn't a liar, and that a steroid user would know who else "in his circle" is doing steroids. It sounded to me like Stew was trying to give credence to Jose's accusations without coming right out and saying that.I agree that Steinbach seems like a decent guy. LaRussa, however, is obsessed with "protecting his guys." Frankly, he's been acting like a burned-out, defensive hot-head for the last few years. I could definitely see Tony covering up for one of his players whom he likes.
It sounds like Canseco tells very specific stories about steroid usage with times, places and descriptions. Rather than just discussing everyone's innate character, I think it makes more sense to see if any of the details of these stories can be corroborated or disproven.
Nick - February 7, 2005
Stew said
that Stew wouldn't call Josie a liar. He didn't say he wasn't a liar. He also didn't say that Mac did use them, he said that he didn't know and had know way of knowing what was true and what wasn't.devo - February 8, 2005
Jose's "Cred"
Arn Tellum said it all when it comes to Jose's credibility:"In the last few years, Jose's name has appeared more often in police blotters than line-ups."
As for TLR's defense of McGwire, Big Mac is retired and TLR has no untoward reason for defending him. Again, those of us who have dealt with this exception manager and definitive future HOF'er know what a staright-shooter he is. Tony knows just how hard Big Mac worked to condition himself and the fact that Mac as a raw rookie hit 49 dingers speaks to the likelihood that his experience enabled him to ultimately hit 70 HRs sans what baseball then demeaned illegal substances.
What has Tony to gain from his defence of McGwire. TLR reached the WS again last year and has a contract extension. And Big Mac is no longer on his roster...
Canseco is a scumbucket, a lazy SOB held in contempt by Dave Stewart and just about everyone on the team with the possible exception of the A's other Mr. Ego, Rickey Henderson. Indeed, in his autobiography "Loose As A Goose," the great Goose Gossage says Rickey ("the worst, the most selfish teammate I ever had") was a bad influence on Canseco, leading to Jose's lousy team attitude and, perhaps, lazy work ethos whereby he got bigger not through working out but rather, through chemistry.
Who can doubt TLR when he said that Jose would have been bound for greatness if his arrogance and ego didn't get in the way...
And now Jose doesn't care if he burns the bridges for any friendships he might have had left after nearly two decades in baseball. Jose is a whore...
he'll do anything for money and his self-serving ego. Could there be any jock who is a bigger jerk?
reztips - February 7, 2005
Minor Errata
My previous post should read: baseball then deemed illegal substances.reztips - February 7, 2005
The Bash Brothers
I LOVE The Bash BrothersI was living in Washington DC for the first two months of MARK MCGWIRE's rookie year. This was before we had cable, so until we came back to Oakland, I didn't even know what he looked like, and I thought he was black. All I knew about him was that I kept seeing his name in the HR section of the box scores.
JOSE CANSECO was my favorite bash brother until he got traded (for that village idiot guy). I admired his biceps back then, and I was young enough to avoid hearing, too often, that they might be artificially enhanced. Seeing pictures of him swinging a bat in an Oakland A's uniform still brings a smile to my face, and makes me think of that monster shot he hit at SkyDone in the '89 ALCS.
In a way, they both were a disappointment. McGwire's 1987 and Canseco's 1988 seemed to offer us legitimate expectations of multiple 50 homer seasons whicn never materialized in Oakland. And so the Bash Brothers really died back then. These guys in the court of public opinion now--they aren't the Bash Brothers; they're just guys.
Yeah, McGwire resurrected his career by growing a goatee and a mullet and 20 pounds of muscle one offseason, and yes, now there's all this noise about did he or did he not take steroids, and Canseco--who's proved himself over the years to be a total ass--is trying to get in on the action, jumping up and down and saying, "He did, he did, I injected him myself!"
Jose is indeed a fallen hero, and he fell a long time ago. McGwire, meanwhile, is a fallen, and then resurrected hero, except that he was resurrected in another town, and whether he falls again or not is of little import to me; I never really liked the second coming of McGwire; during his '98 record-breaking season I preferred Sosa, who seemed to have fun while McGwire repeatedly said, awkwardly, "I'm an awe of myself. I mean, I just amaze myself."
I guess I am only concerned that I should feel less entitled to my nostalgia about the '86-87 Rookies of the Year. Of course, I don't want to let go, and of course I don't completely have to let go. But it will always cross my mind, all this nonsense about steroids, when I look at my Bash Brothers poster.
How cool was that poster? The huge bats? The police car, the sunglasses, the suits, the hats?! Brilliant! I love that poster. But now, I feel like there should be some bizarro Bash Brothers poster, one with the two of them naked in a locker room, sticking needles in each others' asses.
Oh well.
rubin sierra - February 8, 2005
LaRussa...
...has a long public record of defending the players he likes. It's an honorable thing, and I love LaRussa, and he's a million times the human being Jose Canseco will ever likely be, but when it comes down to this particular matter, I find myself much likelier to believe Canseco than LaRussa.jrbh - February 8, 2005
"I'd always pretend I was Jose Canseco."
Blez, did you go so far as to do his annoying head movement ticks while taking practice cuts when the pitcher was getting his signs?Did you do mock Canseco interview answers by saying this like, "Anybody can hit a homerun but, how many people do you know who can hit the ball 500 feet"?
LowcountryJoe - February 8, 2005
Canseco confessions
I think Canseco is telling the truth about who he used steroids with. Obviously his brother, too. I've been an A's fan since 1970. The first game I attended was in 1968 or so. Harmon Killebrew hit a home run and the Twins won 5-3.But that era of the A's didn't measure up to the 70's teams at all. Dave Steward had it, Carney Lansford had it, Dave Henderson had it, and I think Rickey had the ability to turn it up in big games. The Bash Brothers tended to fail in the big games.
I was standing behind section 122 when McGwire hit the home run off Jay Howell to win game 3 I think. That was a great memory.
I guess I'm a realist. They were just too huge not to notice it whatever the "story" was. When I heard McGwire lifted weights before the game, I knew he had to be juiced. How else could you recover fast enough? Look at Chavez. I bet he's NOT on steriods. He looks athletic and strong, not puffed out. It's obvious once they get that big. I think anyway.
Gain on 10 - February 8, 2005
McGwire is a dirtbag
Canseco is clearly out for a dollar, sensationalizing his career and other peoples as well, but McGwire is a complete douchebag, and Canseco's missteps shouldn't allow one to deflect that fact. McGwire juiced, plain and simple; i am so tired of people commenting on how "he was very smart about what he put into his body"... He took andro for god sakes. I thought the comment that McGwire put the andro in his locker to deflect the steroid question was pretty interesting, and I certainly don't buy the assistant coach's claim that "that would be too smart of a move..." Is it just me, or do the people defending these guys come up with the worst f'ing arguments? It always gets reduced to some sort of "he isn't that type of guy" comment. Canseco has the motivation to lie, i'll give you that, but i think its pretty clear what McGwire was doing.slapnuts - February 8, 2005
My take
I've put off posting about this to try and process through some of the emotions to try and keep them out of the post. That may not be possible however.IndianaAsfan - February 9, 2005
I agree
Well put IndianaAsFan.The notion that anyone who DOESN'T believe what Canseco says, that McGwire(not McGuire ;) used steriods is an idiot makes the person saying that sound like an idiot, IMO.
Credibility is huge, sorry...Canseco doesn't have much of it. Sure he played with these guys but he is known to spout his mouth off....I won't use the argument hes saying it to make a buck, as mentioned he probably got most of the book money up front. But you know what his claims do? Puts him in the spotlight, if he doesn't make these claims...its a backpage footnote that his book is coming out, etc.
That said, I wouldn't be suprised if McGwire or some of those other players did use, but I need much more information than whatever comes out of Jose's mouth, I'd hope everyone else does too.
The fact Big Mac hit a ton of homeruns doesn't neccisitate that he juiced up. Babe Ruth hit more homeruns than teams did in his era, he must of used steriods :rolleyes:.
Taking Canseco for his word is foolish.
WiscoFan - February 9, 2005
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.