UPDATE: A-Rod confesses.
Not very often I find myself agreeing with Curt Schilling who had this to say on his latest blog entry:
"I'd be all for the 104 positives being named, and the game moving on if that is at all possible...In my opinion, if you don't do that, then the other 600-700 players are going to be guilty by association, forever...It appears that not only was it 104, but three of the greatest of our, or any, generation appear to be on top of this list."
The news of Alex Rodriguez' alleged steroid use in 2003 was met with a collective shrug around here (first report was hidden in a weekend DLD) which further illustrates that there isn't much left that shocks or surprises us. Or maybe it's just that our jadedness is surpassed only by our apathy.
Well, I care.
And let's not go there with the "there are bigger fish to fry than a bunch of doped up ballplayers" rhetoric. I mean, well, duh. But this is a baseball blog, and we should care about this issue. Baseball as a business is hardly in any trouble; fans continue to flock to stadiums in record numbers. But the black eye persists. Won't it be nice when we can refer to the Steroid Era in the past tense, rather than 19(whenever)-to-(current year)? What's the cut-off point anyway? Is it when the last Steroid Era player, dirty or otherwise, retires? How will we know?
I care that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids, after telling Katie Couric in 2007 that he was never even tempted to use:
"I've never felt overmatched on the baseball field...I didn't have a problem competing on any level."
Why do players do this? Why wag a finger and defiantly state your innocence when chances are the facts will surface leak eventually? Karma might be patient but it isn't biased.
I care that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids because now we have to hear how he's ruined baseball; how the future (home run) king is as "tainted" as the one who currently wears the crown. What? First of all, in an era where players are guilty by association, why would A-Rod be presumed innocent? Because he looked in the eyes of Couric and didn't blink? (Though his lip does twitch after the first denial). Were we that desperate to have the home-run record held by a "non-cheater" that we thrust Rodriguez to the front of the line to "save" us? Now what do we do? Who do we hang our hat on? Don't tell me it's Pujos. What are those lyrics by The Who?
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changedI'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around meThen I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
I care that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids. Maybe not for the same reason Jayson Stark does (gawd, as if ESPN really needed another excuse to talk and write about anything Yankee):
He was a special player, with a special gift -- and an even more special opportunity: He was the man with the opportunity to reconnect baseball's once-indelible dotted line between past and present, between great-grandsons and great-grandfathers, between his home plate and your hometown.
Hey, I'm a nostalgic-kind-of-dude, but geez, that's a little too much syrup, even for my pancakes.
I care that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids because thanks to this latest news, steroids are still news six years after the testing took place.
Baseball needs no savior from steroids; there are so few saviors left anyway, except baseball itself. And steroids need to be no one's concern but baseball's. So with Spring Training on the horizon, it is time for baseball to wipe the slate clean; to wash the yolk off its own face. Tell the Feds and Congress you'll take it from here. Don't sit and wait for the "other 103" to step forward and confess, and even more importantly, don't let your biggest stars continue to make fools of themselves by proclaiming their "innocence". No more leaks. Get it all out in the open. Lay down the law, however late, and hand out your sentences. Don't look back. Admit your mistakes, and then learn from them. Let's move on, once and for all. It's high time the post-Steroid Era begins.
And let's face it; you're a lot more attractive without the Tony Conigliaro impression.
0 recs | 228 comments
So, what are you suggesting be done?
And let’s not go there with the “there are bigger fish to fry than a bunch of doped up ballplayers” rhetoric.
Who are you suggesting do the frying?
The problem with performance enhancing sustances is, is that some players will always seek new and innovative ways to gain an edge that haven’t even ben thought of yet. I wrote roughly the same three years back. Will anyone atempt to argue this?
LowcountryJoe - February 9, 2009
What I meant
Is that there are some who dismiss this issue as unimportant because it pales on a grander scale, which is probably overstating the obvious (twice). But for us baseball folk, I think we should care, we should want a solution, we should want it to go away…permanently.
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
+1
kaweahkaweah - February 9, 2009
Count me in as one of the some.
I care about baseball but do the players themselves care about the game? If they cared about the/their image, they would have collectively done something about it through their union decisions.
But maybe they do care about the game (and making money) and look for edges in order to play better and win — the costs of being caught not eclipsed by the benefits of finding the edge. Who knows? All I really know is that fans are still spending money following the games so the sanctimonious amongst us are only willing to pay their disgust lip-service only.
LowcountryJoe - February 9, 2009
so i'm guessing that MLB probably isn't allowed to release the results.
as part of their deal to test everyone, anonymity was guaranteed.
but what is to stop them releasing a list of everyone who has never tested positive?
or is that trying to be a bit too cute?
alea iacta est - February 9, 2009
conversely, gentlemen,
what if we threw a war, and everyone came?
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
It would be a world war...
nevermoor - February 9, 2009
That's exactly the problem
“Organized Baseball” (i.e. Bud Selig and the owners) have a seemingly infinite talent for taking things that are already screwed up and making them worse. It was obvious that the supposedly anonymous drug testing program would result in huge numbers of positives and that some of those names would leak. But now MLB is in a lose-lose position. What 67Marquez wants to happen would be great….except that it would violate the terms of the anonymous testing, so it can’t (and shouldn’t) happen. Anonymous testing managed to make it harder for baseball to clear the air.
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
Those names would not have leaked if the tests were destroyed
thejd44 - February 9, 2009
I still dont understand
Why, if the point fo the test was to determine the percentage of MLB players who were using, or were using in a way that would return a positive, in order to force the MLBPA into a mandatory drug testing program, the player identifications were kept in the first place. Seems unnecessary if all you need is a percentage.
mikedaviswhereareyou - February 9, 2009
To assess the accuracy of the tests
Apparently the list wasn’t destroyed because MLBPA was looking for enough false positives to cross the threshold.
nevermoor - February 9, 2009
I'm still amazed
that the guys who used don’t simply admit it. If most/all of the guys under suspicion did the “Andy Pettite” thing … “Yes, I used — sorry I did it — I feel bad” … the issue would’ve gone away a long time ago.
I’m on record … I have very little issue with steroid use (I don’t think it’s a good thing, necessarily – I’m just not sure how much impact steroids have on performance). However, denying it when asked is much worse, in my opinion … this (the denial) is what reveals the character of the athlete, not the steroid use.
If you’re man enough to stick that needle in your ass, then you ought to be man enough to tell the damn truth. “Keeping your mouth shut” is the same thing as denial, by the way. It’s sad … not the steriod use so much, but the lack of integrity after the fact.
Vacafan - February 9, 2009
I agree with you, partly
But to the extent there might be legal implications for admitting use, I can understand why some players zip their mouths.
kaweahkaweah - February 9, 2009
So perhaps baseball (and the fed govt) should set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Give everyone one year to come clean and receive amnesty. And then throw the book at everyone who hasn’t come forward.
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
In Soviet Russia, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reconciles you.
nevermoor - February 9, 2009
wow
Wow, Schilling thinks Cust is one of the top three players of our/any generation?!
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Adam Piatt is another
kaweahkaweah - February 9, 2009
No way.
Larry Bigbie, Adam Piatt, and Armando Rios.
thejd44 - February 9, 2009
Schilling the 15 minutes are up
Curt is a first class low life. He faked that injury in the world series and now talking about steroids when he most likely was using too. Yes they should come clean about taking steroids but they will not because of the players union. The blame should be on Bud and his buddies for knowing what was happening and profiting off it.
Arcman - February 9, 2009
Do you have any proof the injury was faked?
Seems you’re casting a few stones without anything to back it up. And Schilling is the lowlife?
Flashfire - February 9, 2009
Well, aside from the blood being fake...
thejd44 - February 9, 2009
According to whom?
Flashfire - February 9, 2009
Interesting that no one took him up on his testing bet.
nevermoor - February 9, 2009
And I've seen no proof whatsoever of it being fake
Flashfire - February 9, 2009
even if it's real (which i think it is)
i think it was a bit overblown. and schilling is certainly brash with his opinions.
travdog6 - February 10, 2009
I don't care
FreeSeatUpgrade - February 9, 2009
mikev - February 9, 2009
double that
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
+ twenty-twoity billion!!!2two
oakinboston - February 9, 2009
Now times it by seven,
subtract the year you were born, divide by pie, take it to the seventeenth decimal point, add the number of paternal cousins you have and subtract the number of times you’ve either been married to a hermaphrodite or spent time in a prison abroad.
Amazingly, the results mean nothing. Scientists have yet to explain this.
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Felix, or cherry?
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
African.
No wait, European….AAAHHHHHH!
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Actually, the result I got was "42."
FormerHuntsvilleStar - February 9, 2009
So says Marvin.
alox - February 10, 2009
Exactly, exactly, exactly
Also:
1. Read Nick. I can’t quite unpack the psychology behind this double standard, but I think it’s kind of fascinating.
2. Read King Kaufman:
3. Knowing Alex Rodriguez (or whoever) took steroids does not degrade my enjoyment of the game even a tiny bit. I woke up today liking baseball precisely as much as I did a week ago. In a high pressure, high reward environment such as professional athletics (an environment we shape, by the way), competitors will seize every edge they can. Period. If it’s not steroids or amphetamines or whatever, it’ll be something else. It is what it is. That’s not a cop out. It’s simply the reality of the situation. These guys are not greedy detestable sinners, their moral sense isn’t any more or less suspect than yours or mine or anyone else’s, and all this manufactured outrage makes me sick, frankly.
74mk - February 9, 2009
I think what I tried to convey- and failed miserably-
is that while agree with FSU and yourself, none of these other methods to gain an edge has been so singled out over a long period of time. It is not the steroid use itself that bothers me (I was careful not to judge or go on about the game’s intergrity); it’s that it won’t go away.
The only such “era” that I can think of would be the “Spitball Era”. And while that had no bearing on a player’s health, baseball made a decision on it, allowed a handful of pitchers to continue using it, and once those players retired, no one else could use it without consequences (ok, Gaylord got away with it for some reason).
The “news” itself doesn’t change my views on baseball; I just don’t want it interrupting the real “news”, which, to me, are the games themselves. And because that’s not the case, I “care” about it. But not because I want to.
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
I think that's because they were ignored.
There is no “greenies era” because there probably hasn’t been a time when they weren’t used.
mikev - February 9, 2009
That makes sense.
Is it fair to say, then, that your central criticism is of persistent media hyperventilation over PEDs?
If so, I agree. Alas, I do not agree that there will ever be a moment of come-clean clarity from which baseball can proceed unfettered (see FSU’s second and third bullets). This is why it’s important to wrench ourselves from this sad cycle wherein we harbor delusions of gladiator purity which, when shattered, beget demonizing outrage.
Perhaps if we stopped pretending athletes were heroes, we’d be able to cope with their flaws more constructively.
74mk - February 9, 2009
That's pretty much where I was going
The hyperventilation part.
And yeah I do agree that a come-clean clarity moment is only wishful thinking on my part to rid ourselves of this period, not because this period happened, but because it caused such outrage to begin with.
Stark says A-Rod ruined everything. For who? For the ones who (wrongfully and unfairly) annointed him Baseball’s Savior in the first place?
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
I can’t turn this post green on my own, but I’m doing my part.
PaulThomas - February 9, 2009
if Genesis was about pro wrestling ...
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Did you write this?
If not, you might like to read it.
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
I could give a damn about athletes' (or anyone else's) purity.
The Michael Phelps thing is entirely ridiculous, IMO, as was the cocaine-in-baseball nonsense from the early 1980s.
The problem with certain performance enhancing drugs is that they turn baseball into Home Run Derby. And that’s bad for the game. And, no, amphetamines never had such a great impact on the game.
The issue is not purity but competitive balance.
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
so, you have no problem with greenies because very nearly everyone was taking them?
And how come all the AAAA scrubs who get busted for roids aren’t HR mashers? And what about pitchers?
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Nope
Steroids were responsible for the home run becoming far too common in the 1990s. That altered the game fundamentally in a way that greenies never did. More importantly, it made the game less interesting (IMO), though obviously many casual fans disagreed (which is why Selig and Co. looked the other way).
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
I think it's open to debate whether it was roids or the Wabbit Ball
I’m not opposed to the idea that it might have been both (AWA smaller stadiums,), but I find it highly unlikely that it was roids and roids alone.
And above you said “the issue” was competitive balance — now you’re saying the issue was an increase in HRs, which increased across the board for all teams and most players … in other words, in a competitively balanced fashion.
See, this is the sort of thing that prompts me, a steroid ostrich, to launch into verbose screeds — your argument is only about aesthetics. Which is fine — if you’d only admit that it’s so.
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
I think you're misunderstanding...
…what I meant by “competitive balance.” I meant the balance between offense and defense.
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
so, again, what about the pitchers?
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
While steroids probably helped pitchers...
…they seem not to have helped pitchers as much as they helped power hitters. Moreover, steroids make one form of offense—power—much more important relative to other offensive skills. Is that “aesthetics”? Perhaps, but then all sports fandom becomes “aesthetics” so “aesthetics” are all important in discussions of sports.
Steroids are sort of the opposite of the spitball. I think it’s good that the spitball is illegal, not because doctoring balls is absolutely bad (it works in cricket) but because giving pitchers an additional advantage would be bad for the game.
Baseball at the height of the steroid era sucked. And it sucked largely because of steroids (though I’m perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that other factors were at play, too).
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
I remain highly skeptical that the #1 outcome of 'roids was an increase in power numbers ...
… and/or that the #1 cause of the increase in power numbers was ‘roids. From the putatively informed sources hereabouts, it seems as if ’roids (if used smarlly) mostly benefit players simply staying on the field, remaining more durable, and recovering from injury more fully and quickly (someone please do correct me if I’m wrong) — which, on balance, would seem to favor pitchers more than hitters.
Now, I’m prepared to be 100% wrong on that, and it certainly could be that I’m blind to counterfactual evidence due to my biases.
I’m curious, though, as to your opinions regarding the lowering of the mound and the introduction of the DH — were those as pernicious as PEDs?
Also, who’s to say we’ve already seen the height of the steroid era?
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
and, for that matter, the rabbit ball?
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Rules are also important in and of themselves.
Sports are all about following rules. Without them, sports cannot exist. So condoning systematic violations of the rules is bad in and of itself. Whatever the merits of the rule in question, accepting its violation undermines the integrity of the sport.
I think a distinction should thus be made between steroid use before then Commissioner Fay Vincent’s 1991 memo and after it.
Before the memo, the status of steroids in baseball was arguably unclear. After it, they were clearly against the rules
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
Now you're just playing Calvinball
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Just the opposite, actually.
People shouldn’t be punished for following the rules. That’s the one, tiny way in which I feel sorry for Barry Bonds. If Game of Shadows is accurate (and I have no reason to think it isn’t) Bonds started using ’roids because he felt he was, in effect, being unfairly disadvantaged by following the rules that others were flouting.
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
Totally disagree.
1. Nick’s right that there’s a double standard between baseball and football. But I think baseball is right and football is wrong (and two wrongs don’t make a right). The origins of the double standard are both rational (baseball is a much more statistically stable game that is more similar to the way it was played fifty years ago than football is) and purely historical (the history of the spitball and the Black Sox scandal are very important here). I agree that the double standard is fascinating. I don’t agree that it’s an argument not to be concerned about steroids.
2. King Kaufman. Much as I love King Kaufman, Giants fans writing about steroids are like Yankee fans writing about money in baseball. They’re interested parties and their opinions should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
1. It isn’t an argument not to be concerned about steroids. It is, however, illustrative of the erratic, often nonsensical, way we (fans, sportswriters, etc.) channel our outrage. Also, I think the origins are neither rational nor historical, but rather perceptual.
2. This would be more convincing if you actually grappled with what he wrote.
74mk - February 9, 2009
Fair Enough
1. Outrage is, pretty much by definition, irrational. So to the extent this is about toning down the outrage, that’s fine. But there are perfectly rational reasons for wanting to clean baseball up that don’t rely on outrage.
2. I’ll concede this point, in part because Kaufman in this piece ends up basically where I am: have a truth a reconciliation commission and work to clean up baseball for the future.
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
I hartely thanke you of your good wil. I haue herkened to your wordes, and marked wel your counselles.
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
awesome
iglew - February 9, 2009
Cycling off the drugs doesn't mean you won't test positive.
thejd44 - February 9, 2009
Yeah, that's a good post
baseballgirl - February 9, 2009
If I were a player...
…especially after this current stuff, I wouldn’t be talking to anybody about anything, unless it was under subpoena. Guilt or innocence would be irrelevant. I’d be pulling a George Hendrick. It’s clear that even things that are “guaranteed” to be anonymous aren’t necessarily so. And yes, I understand that neither MLB nor the union ratted anybody out, but it’s clear they cannot protect them, either.
UncleLeo - February 9, 2009
For what it is worth...
I was listening to ESPN radio and their company line is that SI has 4 individual sources and all 4 were confirmed by ESPN before they went on attack mode. ESPN is stating that there is no “if A-Rod is guilty”, it has been confirmed.
I hate all the steroid era as much as the next but if I’m Alex Rodriguez, I take one for the team right now and use my hundreds of millions of dollars to sue everyone involved. First up, MLB and the players union- this was an anonymous test, no names were attached to the samples and these are blood test, covered by privacy laws. These test should never have been turned over to the government, they should have been destroyed, as promised when they were administered. I would sue the U.S. government, SI, ESPN- anyone and everyone.
I want A-Rod to be the face of steroids, but more than that, the face of the players standing together for their rights. This announcement cost A-Rod tens if not hundreds of millions in future earnings as the home run champ/MLB great. Sure, he is probably guilty but equally important in this situation is his right to privacy under U.S. laws. I don’t want to see the other 102 names- an eighth grade math class could do statical analysis and narrow the field to a 150 or so. I want to see a player turn the tide, shut up the talking heads and get paid from the people who were supposed to protect him. I’m sure this isn’t the popular opinion but it’s mine.
jjham15 - February 9, 2009
Interesting take...
…but why sue everybody?
- SI, ESPN, etc.: They’re just reporting. They never had an anonymity agreement with anybody. They didn’t do anything wrong. They would only be liable if it is wrong and they knew it was wrong.
- Government: In a great sense they’re the main culprits here as they seized the samples (as I understand it), but again that’s what prosecutors do when evidence is available. They’d probably be immune from lawsuits, anyway.
- MLB and/or the union: This is probably the only reasonable course of action, as they should have destroyed the evidence long ago. Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a clause in contracts that precludes players from suing.
UncleLeo - February 9, 2009
You are correct in all points.
The gov’t issued an injuction forbidding MLB from destroying the test results if I recall correctly. What MLB should have done is obvious. Set their tests up anonymously, so the results couldn’t be traced back to a specific player.
alox - February 10, 2009
Well A-Rod won't sue
Why? Because he got caught 9 ways to Sunday. That’s the only reason he said anything. He is at least smart enough to learn from Pettite and Giambi and not Clemens. Bottom line, Jose had the goods on him and probably other people did too.
And this did cost him millions. So he should send himself the bill. Dumbass.
Buck Turgidson - February 9, 2009
Er, I meant A-Rod=dumbass
of course
Buck Turgidson - February 9, 2009
"Karma might be patient but it isn't biased"
That’s a gem that shines in this piece. Well done, 67.
princemilo - February 9, 2009
I was about to dismiss this story out of hand based on the subject matter, but the deployment of a Curt Schilling quote really made me stop, think, and change my mind about the entire matter.
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Putting some light on the truth would be helpful, but
1. I don’t believe that that alone would move us past the “Steroid Era.” I still believe we are very much in the Steroid Era, though I also think there is some evidence for declining use.
2. Besides the players, it would be great if Selig, owners, GMs, managers etc who looked the other way would come forward and take their lumps too. Selig’s feigned innocence schtick is almost insulting.
kaweahkaweah - February 9, 2009
"almost"?
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Yeah...I'm being too nice by using "almost'"
kaweahkaweah - February 9, 2009
What's wrong with Pujols?
I still don’t get the constant scrutiny of Pujols. The guy’s been under the microscope for 7 years now and is still clean as a whistle. I still hear a lot of “he has to be older than he says he is” nonsense based on the fact that he looks older.
VORP is too nerdy - February 9, 2009
Not meant as a knock or an accusation
Just rather not have the press hail him as the next baseball savior, only to have some “dirt” found on him.
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
Why constant scrutiny?
Well he’s all right by me, I love Pujols. But this story has “roids” written all over it (mind you, I’m of the steroids-dont-help-that-much camp): a guy who was drafted out of community college in the 14th round, goes through 3 levels of pro ball in his first year. He comes back in March 2001 and has a ridiculous Spring Training, forcing STL’s hand. He wins ROY with a 1.013 OPS. Link I mean…circumstantially, I can see a steroid story, and I understand scrutiny.
dscel - February 9, 2009
Why are the posts from the people that don't care the longest posts?
Sorry, but I find that both funny and ironic. LOL!!!
“I don’t care, but I feel the need to explain to everybody in excruciating detail why I don’t care.”
UncleLeo - February 9, 2009
1. If you think “excruciating detail” describes FSU’s post above, I’d say you should consider ways to bolster your attention span.
2. I comment because a) I find Jayson Stark-ish PED sanctimony irrational, myopic, and hypocritical (in a nutshell, insufferable), and b) I lack self-control.
74mk - February 9, 2009
I must've hit a nerve. ;-)
UncleLeo - February 9, 2009
Now expect a 500-word response explaining how folks don't care about your post
kaweahkaweah - February 9, 2009
No, not at all
Well, I take that back. Sort of.
I agree that my contributions to this thread could fairly be called “excruciating”. But hell, that’s nothing new. You should know just to skip those by now.
But I don’t see any other examples. And I’d really like some of those who do profess to care deeply about the scourge of steroids abandon the crossed-arm, finger-wagging pose long enough to specifically address FSU’s points.
74mk - February 9, 2009
To be fair, I had other threads and forums in mind when I made the observation, also...
…it wasn’t just this thread. Personally, I tend to vacillate between caring and not caring.
Why should anybody address FSU’s points… he doesn’t care, remember? LOL!!!
UncleLeo - February 9, 2009
Sorry I tried to read this response 74mk
but noticed there were not 1, but 2 points (and one of them even had subpoints!) so I had to just give up. Please try to limit responses to “+1” and “this” in the future.
AsFanInLA - February 9, 2009
This
+1
mikev - February 9, 2009
Speaking of bolstering my attention spa...
HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THAT SHINY OBJECT!
mikev - February 9, 2009
I told you not to go into that drawer
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
+1,00,000
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
Well, for my part, there are three reasons
FreeSeatUpgrade - February 9, 2009
I care more about steroid use and not very much about sanctimony.
See. That was short.
WaddellCanseco - February 9, 2009
Are they really the longest posts?
Or are they just the most irritating for you to have to slog your way through and therefore just seem longer to you?
On the other hand, maybe they really are longer. Could there also be more reasoning contained within them? Sometimes it takes more provocation (thus words) to break through conventional wisdom or to sell another to one’s own point of view on a topic.
Whew!
LowcountryJoe - February 9, 2009
I don't care, and for the most part my contributions to steroid threads are tied for shortest with a bunch of other people who don't care
mikeA - February 9, 2009
[moseys on in an uncaring state]
nevermoor - February 9, 2009
Frank Thomas
in contrast, is looking rather good in this whole mess.
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/02/08/mystery-player/#more-1603
kaweahkaweah - February 9, 2009
That does give me some hope
Thanks for linking this
ATarHeel - February 9, 2009
For 5 years now I've been saying that.
People here might not know, but in 2003 Frank Thomas tried to get the White Sox to boycott this baseline testing because that would mean they all would have a positive test. He wanted testing that badly. The Union stepped in and said that they had to take the tests, but Thomas has always been pro-testing and anti-PEDs.
thejd44 - February 9, 2009
Frank always has looked good.
Frank’s very easy to root for. He was screaming for steroid testing in the mid-90’s, no?
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Yep, he was
He was willing to address the issue directly when few others would.
kaweahkaweah - February 9, 2009
am I the only one not so impressed by Frank's stand?
A massive genetic anomaly decries licit (albeit, in many/most cases, illegal) efforts by other players to match his innate physique?
The whole thing’s a little too Harrison Bergeron for my tastes.
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
I'm not so sure how innate that physique is.
I think he works on it, no?
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Great Link!
somebodyelse - February 10, 2009
My feeling: I dont really know how I should feel about all this
sometimes it makes me sad and confused, sometimes I want to brush it off and ignore it with disgust, sometimes it makes me slightly bitter toward baseball, sometimes I just dont care.
what’s right? i dunno. I pretty much agree with EVERYBODY’s posts above mine. even the ones that take opposite stances.
oakinboston - February 9, 2009
nothing to do with baseball
don’t get swept up by the hype, this recent A-rod story is just more distraction cooked up by NESPN and the rest of the pro-New England sports writers who’ll find any way to make the Yankees look bad.
They’re taking advantage of the sour grapes around the country for all the spending the Yanks did this offseason. Then they give Torre’s book wayy more attention than it deserves, and create this non-story about A-rod, all to create DRAMA. It’s very childish, it’s what chicks do in high school to ruin the repututation of girls they don’t like. Don’t fall for it!
I’m not a Yankee sympathizer, but their fans are wayyy less obnoxious than the people and so-called sports writers from New England. Until we see more objective sports reporting for all 30 baseball teams, screw NESPN and all other Boston-biased media.
charm3x - February 9, 2009
This whole situation reminds me
that the only way to get anything right is to do it right the first time.
The very sad thing is that I don’t think baseball CAN work its way out of the past sins. There is no way they can / will release the whole list. Thanks for the nice idea, Curt, but it’s unworkable. The taint will simply hang over the sport for the steroids era, and that era will last until baseball proves to a hypercritical public that it’s doing anything reasonably possible to prevent cheating.
Firing bud selig would probably be the necessary first step in showing us it’s relevant. And a resignation won’t do it – a firing is needed.
eastcoasta'sfan - February 9, 2009
In case you missed my update
A-Rod confessed.
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
Did we have to put him on the rack?
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
He turned me into a ...
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
GRAVY!
Very small rocks! Cherries! Mud!
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
If it weighs the same as a duck ...
doctorK - February 9, 2009
It's a fair cop.
This concludes abridged Monty Pyton Theater.
FormerHuntsvilleStar - February 9, 2009
DINSDALE! DINSDALE!
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
I don't get it
You want baseball to “not look back” and to “move on.”
Yet you also want baseball to reveal all 103 names (expressly violating the CBA) and to retroactively punish the 103 players (expressly violating the CBA). That seems about as far from not looking back and moving on as possible.
Danny - February 9, 2009
Hmm
I do see the contradiction there. I think mainly I didn’t want A-Rod singled out, and with a thorough cleansing, we could then move forward, which turned out to be a pipedream on paper. Or something to do with a pipe.
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
I actually prefer using a drillbit.
because you can scrape the edge for resin. But I’m a bit of a fiend. Or I was.
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
drill, baby, drill
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
It definitely sucks that A-Rod was singled out
But it wasn’t MLB or the the 103 other players that singled him out; it was the two SI reporters and the 4 anonymous sources who did.
And while it sucks that A-Rod was singled out, it sucks even more that his bargained labor rights (anonymous testing), possibly—depending on how the 9th Circuit decides—his constitutional rights (the feds seizing his sample without a warrant), and his legal rights (his name leaked from a sealed document) were violated.
Putting all the other players in the same crappy situation A-Rod’s in doesn’t make anything better.
Danny - February 9, 2009
Agreed.
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Why do you think he's not a nice guy?
Especially relative to the other 103 players who tested positive in 2003.
Danny - February 9, 2009
Hmm.
I’d say the most damning piece of evidence was his eagerness to sign a ten-year contract with Texas and then look for any way out when he suddenly “realized” he cared about winning.
But there are a lot of reasons to think he’s not such a nice guy, no?
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
That said,
I like him more that he’s coming clean.
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Texas wanted him to go,
their payroll couldn’t support the rest of the team. They were going to be losers as long as he was there.(and still are). I have never really liked the guy. Something about him is just off- putting to me. But I agree that I like him a little more for addressing the issue head- on. Like Giambi, only on a broader scale.
somebodyelse - February 10, 2009
There's a good reason why the Constitution prohibits post facto punishments
Namely, it’s very tempting.
To forestall the inevitable reply: yes, I am fully aware that that protection does not per se apply here. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea to pay attention to it.
PaulThomas - February 9, 2009
Was hoping you'd show yesterday.
And I wasn’t the only one. This was my first AN-related gig; good times. I was also hoping for a glimpse of monkeyball. Maybe the next AN day, hmm?
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
I was boycotting because of the testing requirements
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
I even secured kraut for you.
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Is it safe?
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Is it secret?
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Apparently, it's no longer a secret.
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Having a 20-page paper due in two days kind of put a damper on my travel plans
PaulThomas - February 9, 2009
steroids and greenies would have gotten that paper done in time for you to attend
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
With time to wash the cat
and clean out the car’s box.
Or something like that.
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Baseball is being punched in the face
And it’s also hurting me
God I feel so bad right now. As much as I hated A-Rod before, I respected him for being a good decent classy face for baseball, now this….
ATarHeel - February 9, 2009
a good decent classy face who committed adultery with mannish strippers?
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Ah yes, I can see his obituary now...
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
I was talking about you
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Probably a real bad place to admit this
But I love when you two are together.
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
we're AN's William Powell and Myrna Loy
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
I GET TO BE MYRNA THIS TIME!
You always get to wear the dress.
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
I'd say, "Awww..." but
awwws never did give nothin’ to the Thin Man …
Ice Cream - February 9, 2009
bra-freakin-vo
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
it’s funny to go back and read all the old threads, when most people were still in denial even when it came to an obvious juicer like mark freaking mcgwire!
(and why doesn’t devo post in these steroids threads anymore?)
xbhaskarx - February 9, 2009
Hall of Fame?
So what does this do to A-Rod’s hall of fame chances?
Eggman - February 9, 2009
I think he still makes it in because he confessed
plus he said he only used it for 3 seasons and he obviously had great years previous and after those PED years.
I think if McGwire would confess he would have a better chance of getting in as well. I think most voters have already decided that he is guilty and maybe some are just looking for an apology.
micdog2001 - February 9, 2009
right, and why would he lie about how long he used steroids?
also andy pettitte only used them once or twice. and bonds thought it was flaxseed oil.
xbhaskarx - February 9, 2009
he could be lying about how many years he took them
but at least he confessed to that much. I don’t remember any other player admitting to that much use (does anyone know if there have been others?). I’m not saying I 100% believe him either because there is no way to know for sure unless he was tested previous to 2001. He obviously has been tested since then and unless someone covered it up he hasn’t tested positve since the failed test. I just think the HOF voters might be more likely to vote in someone who is “honest” or at least honest enough. Only time will tell if that is true.
micdog2001 - February 9, 2009
Better than his True Yankee® chances! n/t
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
Well, unlike McGwire, Bonds and Sosa...
…he apparently will get 9-plus years to put up a hell of an argument and sway those who would banish him now. To put it mildly.
FormerHuntsvilleStar - February 9, 2009
I don't think it is a non-story as some posters have suggested
but I am not really sad that A-Fraud has been called out. Maybe it is petty but I have never like Rodriguez. He seemed stuck up but i guess I would be too if I had his talent. I’m surprised he admitted and apologized so quickly but it is the smart chocie.
I still fondly look back at the steroid era. If most players were doing it then it was close enough to an even playing field for me.
micdog2001 - February 9, 2009
uhh...
whether most players were using steroids or just a few were using them, the era certainly wasn’t an even playing field for the players who were NOT using them.
xbhaskarx - February 9, 2009
Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the essential
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Politics aside,
I thought I always heard that differently—namely that good is often the enemy of great.
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
I always heard it differently
Let’s not make the percoset the enema of the sentient
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
mmmm....
percoset….(Homer-like drool forms in LB’s mouth…)
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
mmmm ...
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
mmm....
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
mmm.....
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
Gah!
FormerHuntsvilleStar - February 9, 2009
mmmm ...
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
mmmm....
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
My teacher used to tell me that
perfection is the enemy of art.
I love that.
iglew - February 9, 2009
I said "close enough" for me xbhaskarx
it still entertained me. I understand why some people are upset that players “cheated” and that is fine but I just don’t feel as strongly about it. I guess I’m easy to please.
micdog2001 - February 9, 2009
they say in watergate the big deal wasn't the break in, it was the coverup.
all you people who don’t care about steroid use, what about the allegations that the players union tipped off certain players to upcoming drug tests?
xbhaskarx - February 9, 2009
I don't care about steroid use, and I applaud the MLBPA for looking out for its members' interests
Why would I be opposed to their doing so?
I also don’t especially care that Selugworth et al. turned a blind eye to the entire phenomenon from the outset, except insofar as that makes them more rank hypocrites than any other parties involved (and ditto their deployment of Buds Bunny’s Wabbit Ball).
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
I don't believe in Watergate.
It was a government conspiracy, a cover-up, a…what? Really? He did?
Never mind.
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
I think it is a little shady
but I’m not going to lose sleep over it. If it is true maybe the MLBPA shouldn’t know exactly when and to whom the test will be administered.
micdog2001 - February 9, 2009
Overwrought analogy alert
Really, Watergate?
I’m unfamiliar with those particular allegations (do you have a link?), but I can tell you that I’m shocked, just shocked. Mortified, really. Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me that high school football players take money from recruiters, or that my dad actually ate all those cookies I left out for Santa Claus.
74mk - February 9, 2009
Dude, your dad ate Santa's cookies?
That’s pretty fucked up.
mikev - February 10, 2009
Yeah, but his mom alerted his dad in advance of the cookie testing, so she's complicit as well
monkeyball - February 10, 2009
xbhaskarx - February 9, 2009
He's obviously looking for the reply button
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
I presume that your post-JD career will involve only ever counseling your clients to do what’s moral and lecturing them about their health, rather than presenting them with advice that keeps them out of legal jeopardy.
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Here's something we agree about!
The MLBPA did exactly what they should have done under the circumstances they faced.
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
absolutely!
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
right, as a lawyer i would look out for my client's best interests
if they were involved in any illegal activity, i would sit outside with a police scanner and tip them off to any police presence in the area so they could escape undetected.
xbhaskarx - February 9, 2009
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
He's got a point monkeyball
“presenting advice that keeps them (the client) out of legal jeopardy” … how about suggesting the client doesn’t do really stupid things to their bodies that might get them into big trouble both physically and legally down the road?! Sounds like a pretty good attorney to me.
Look, I don’t think steroids are all that big a deal … but union reps “alerting” players to upcoming tests is unethical — shady as hell, really.
Vacafan - February 9, 2009
this makes no sense whatsoever
According to you and xbx, it is legally and morally imperative for the MLBPA to tell its members not to do steroids (I disagree, but will accept the premise).
So: in order to avoid testing positive, what’s the easiest thing for a player to do if he knows well in advance of the test? Stop taking the steroids. Which is likely what the reps told them: If you’re doing anythign that would show up on this test, stop doing it. How in the bloody hell is that not exactly what you two seem to have wanted them to do?
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
What's more ...
… you both seem to presume that the MLBPA reps know/knew which players are and aren’t roiding — so if they knew which players were roiding, and knew when the tests were, didn’t they have a moral imperative to tell the players “Please, for the love of God — what you’re doing is wrong! This is your last chance to stop your evil ways! I beg you! Stop, and you’ll be SAVED!!!”
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Those are good points monkeyball
Let me see if I can address them … I don’t think it’s necessarily “legally imperative” for the union to tell its members not to do steroids — whether it’s “morally imperative”, I don’t know, man, that’s a great question.
What I do know (or think) is this — if the players union is supposed to have the best interests of its members at heart, then YES, by all means, it should do all it can to discourage/dissuade/eliminate steroid use. Period. Therefore, only telling its members to stop using in order to pass a test is a little shady, that’s all. It ought to be telling its members to stop using because it has really, really, really bad physical and psychological side effects that can greatly harm a human being.
I do take a little offense (probably too dramatic a word, but for lack of a better one) at your second post above, however. I understand that you probably find the “steroid-hunters” to be a tad too moralistic and holier than thou for your taste. That’s fine. But I feel like you’re implying that discouraging harmful behavior is the wrong thing to do. It isn’t. In fact, it’s always a good thing. Just because someone wants to do something they feel doesn’t harm them or others, doesn’t mean a friend/family should let it slide. The world needs lots more people having the guts to stand up and say “This hurts you — stop it.” Sorry if that isn’t post-modern enough, but it’s the right the thing to do.
Vacafan - February 10, 2009
All fair responses
I should clarify my position: the job of the MLBPA is to represent its members’ best interests against the competing interests of MLB ownership.
Yes, in the larger sense, from both a “moral” and marketing perspective, it’s probably always been in the deeper interests of both parties to have (an illusion of) effective PED testing. But it’s virtually impossible for that to happen without both (a) a public relations crisis (which I don’t believe we’re actually experiencing … yet) and (b) a massive shift in the balance of power between the union and the owners necessitating one side or the other to unilaterally cave (either on the PED issue or on another unrelated issue, with PED testing as an unrelated negotiating point).
The MLBPA may not always be “right” in every instance, but I will always side with the MLBPA against the owners.
monkeyball - February 10, 2009
I see what your sayin' - thanks.
Vacafan - February 10, 2009
you know what?
I think we’re all ready for daily DLDs.
Leopold Bloom - February 9, 2009
yes
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
pitcher catchers and dumpers
report next week?
Future Ed - February 9, 2009
I agree with Vacafan on this.
I’m not particularly outraged about the steroid use, but I really really hate the culture of dishonesty that has built up around players denying it. I wish they’d all just man up and say, “yeah, everyone was juicing and I did, too. I know it sucks, but that’s how it was.”
Although I’d love for the truth to be out on the other 103, I don’t see how the results get released. By agreement they’re not supposed to, and if the names do come out it will probably without proof, which means half the guys will be pussy jackasses and continue to deny it.
Good for A-Rod for coming clean. Sure, it’d be nicer if he’d done it sooner, but better late than never. My preference ranking for steroid users goes something like this:
1. Admitted it openly before he was caught.
2. Admitted it openly after he was caught (eg, A-Rod)
3. Wishy-washy admission (eg, Giambi)
4. Explicit non-denial
5. Shut the hell up and don’t say anything (eg, Tejada)
6. Wishy-washy non-denial denial (eg, Bonds, McGwire)
7. Continue to deny it vigorously in spite of ample evidence (eg, Cust)
I’m not sure if anyone really qualifies for #1. #4 is my imaginary category for anyone who wants to fess up but is worried about legal consequences. He could say something like, “Because of potential legal issues, I cannot confirm anything about my use of PEDs. But you’ve all heard the rumors and I choose not to deny any of them.”
iglew - February 9, 2009
uh, please point to the non-Bigbie "ample evidence"?
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
Well, OK, maybe "ample" is in the eye of the beholder
but I find Jeff’s case convincing, and I believe Bigbie, too.
So rewrite #7 as “Continue to deny it even though you’re really guilty” and we’ll say that it remains to be seen whether Cust is really in that category (but I believe he is).
iglew - February 9, 2009
do you believe windyfelix?
monkeyball - February 9, 2009
So, I'm assuming "denying it and actually telling the truth while doing so" comes in at about #6
PaulThomas - February 9, 2009
Except that they wouldn't be actual steroid users
JediLeroy - February 9, 2009
Does it matter?
It’s clear that the purpose here is self-flagellation. Does it really matter if the monks actually lusted after pleasures of the flesh? The point is to leave blood on the streets.
PaulThomas - February 9, 2009
How many times do we
have to mention monk’s lust around here?
somebodyelse - February 10, 2009
About half as often as monkey's lust
PaulThomas - February 10, 2009
Or 1/8 as often as Goats.
mikev - February 10, 2009
My list was just for users
If you deny truthfully then you’re not a user and I’m not talking about you.
iglew - February 9, 2009
I'm torn too...
I don’t know how to solve it. I don’t know how to feel about it. I don’t know who to blame, or who to point fingers at, or even why I should care.
Good conversation though…
baseballgirl - February 9, 2009
I'm with you,
not enough info and I feel like there never will be.
lynnzgal - February 9, 2009
the only person that would crush me if he had done steroids
at this point would be Cal Ripken. That would be hard to take. Everyone else, wouldn’t be much of a shock.
The others that would make me say “oh boy” would be Nolan Ryan and Derek Jeter. I would imagine we would never even know even if Ripken and Ryan did use.
closetasfan - February 9, 2009
really?
ripken is like my all time least favorite player, i would laugh so hard if he or jeter got busted…
xbhaskarx - February 9, 2009
well
not that I particularly like Ripken. But that record would be the most tainted of them all. I don’t enjoy seeing people flat on their face usually. And that would be a really big fall.
closetasfan - February 9, 2009
what a lame record to begin with
he passed a guy who had ALS.
xbhaskarx - February 9, 2009
And a bitter irony that was, too!
What were the odds that a guy named “Lou Gehrig” would end up getting Lou Gehrig’s Disease?!?
[/snark]
GreenNGoldSooner - February 9, 2009
I would too.
Especially would take glee in Jeter’s guilt because thery have him on such a pedestal. But if Ripken were guilty oooh la la…that would mess with the baseball historians bigtime and open a HOF can of worm that I would like to see opened.
IM4Oakgal - February 9, 2009
Do you want to know the terrifying truth?!?!?!?
OR DO YOU WANT TO SEE ME SOCK A FEW DINGERS?!!!!!!!
ATarHeel - February 9, 2009
xbhaskarx - February 9, 2009
JediLeroy - February 9, 2009
Son, we live in a world that has...
“You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me playing ball, you needed me playing ball.”
LowcountryJoe - February 9, 2009
I hope that they keep shining a light on this issue.
Marquez I disagree. It is not enough. They need to put a spotlight on the vast number of users so that this era is put in the proper perspective. Only then should they move on. This is the tip of the iceberg.
IM4Oakgal - February 9, 2009
Any way back
I agree with some of the previous posters in that there will constantly be players, trainers, etc. looking to push the edge of the rules. Part of my cynical side can’t believe that organizations weren’t more actively involved then they are letting on. These teams employ trainers and doctors, who report to them. I am sure that general managers and owners were much more aware and possibly in cahoots then they want to admit.
Aside from all of the controversy, I wander if the game has a way back as a game. The home run became the big ticket item, but the quality seemed to suffer. Defenses have had to suffer in the name of getting Manny Ramirez, Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, etc in the lineup. Also, the big swingers have quashed what could have been a continuing growth of the game in the skill and speed aspects. Coming out of the 80’s, Rickey Henderson was considered one of, if not the most dynamic players of the time. Jose Canseco, for all his power, was viewed as more of a weapon because of his ability to steal a base before he Hulked out. A-Rod could have been a true offensive force with his bat, power, speed combo, but instead has greatly sacrificed for the dollar the home run has provided. Last year, players like Jimmy Rollins, BJ Upton, and Jose Reyes gave a good glimpse of what the game could turn to. I just wonder if we can get back there any time soon, or if there will be a continuing insistence on focusing mostly on the ower aspect of the game.
mojodev1 - February 9, 2009
My 1.82 yen
I don’t really know how I feel about steroids. There are several opinions bouncing around in my head, but I can’t really latch on to any one of them more than the others. Sometimes it feels like you have to be on one side of the fence or another. I’m neither for them nor against them.
I don’t currently condone steroid usage. I think that, for the most part, the side effects outweigh the benefits. If they could develop steroids that had absolutely no side effects, I would actually encourage steroid use for health’s sake.
What I want to know is, why are the players accountable to us? Yeah, I’ve paid for a few tickets, but I received value for what I paid. They don’t owe me anything. People feel cheated that they put money into watching something fraudulent? Man, you’ve gotta pick your battles. The memories I have of watching the A’s in the late 80s and early 90s are just as real and special to me, even with the knowledge that multiple players were juicing.
As an avid baseball fan, I do revere records, but not for their purity. While I feel the records are a sight to behold, they aren’t paramount. If the Hall of Fame decides to put an asterisk next to Bonds or A-rod, I won’t lose any sleep. They still hit the homers, steroids or not, and I still enjoyed them.
I don’t understand the obsession with the integrity of the game. While personal integrity is very important to me in my associations, it’s much less important in my entertainment. That said, it seems that every era seems to have some stain. People are expected to uphold some mythical standard that seemingly never existed. Like 74mk said, things would be a lot easier to explain if we thought of baseball players as normal human beings, and not role models.
JediLeroy - February 9, 2009
Frankly I don't give a damn about steroids.
To me it’s just a false flag. The thought that steroid tests were given in private and suppose to be anonymous but were not is more disturbing to me than the story. Is everybody just suppose to give up their privacy to big brother and assume everything will be alright? Little by little the powers that be will be able to assume that we are all guilty of the crime du jour until proven innocent. Who are we not to submit to the will of the people?
Ran - February 9, 2009
I could care less about whether they all did steroids
so what!!!!!!
It’s the fact that they are lying sacks of shit after the fact that shows they have no integrity. You would think by now that those caught would just come clean. All is forgiven for the most part but when you lie (Take Roger Clemens who is guilty unless proven innocent then you deserve to be ridiculed in my opinion.
Actually hyprocrite or not, I have more respect for Barry Bonds than Roger Clemens, at least he didn’t go to the lengths to make a fool of himself as Clemens did and no doubt will be proven to be.
Trainman - February 9, 2009
Added to that
just release the list of 104 so that the innocent ones can have the cast of doubt lifted from them. Even though it was meant to be confidential, I agree that it’s not fair to the hundreds of others who didn’t do them.
Trainman - February 9, 2009
Just because they weren't on the list of the 104
doesn’t mean that they didn’t use. It only means that they weren’t detected on that test. Or that they cycled off in time to be clean.
IM4Oakgal - February 9, 2009
Hey Marquez 67?
Please don’t quote Schilling . I can’t stand the guy and it sickens me to even see his name. Thank You.
IM4Oakgal - February 9, 2009
Reason #88
Why I adore you. I had to take three showers today. And the Schilling stench still lingers.
67MARQUEZ - February 9, 2009
Yeah his pompous ass stink has a way of ...
sticking around. Even if I don’t like him I still heart you a plenty. You’re a good guy and your posts are from the heart. That’s what I love about your writing.
IM4Oakgal - February 9, 2009
Aww...thanks ;)
67MARQUEZ - February 10, 2009
Marquez,
Please consider updating the link to Schillings blog entry in question. There’s more recent entries listed now and the blog entry you wanted to link to has been pushed downward.
LowcountryJoe - February 9, 2009
The only way we'll be using the Steroid Era in the past tense...
is when we’re using the HGH Era in the present tense. And really, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Cutthemullet - February 9, 2009
as A's fans, who we hang our hat on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Thomas_(AL_baseball_player)
scroll down to section 9
Cutthemullet - February 9, 2009
I post this after...
initially accusing him of being a PED user in NSJ’s DLD, heh. I had remembered his name being associated with steroids in some way…as it turned out, his name was associated with the Mitchell Report…as the one active player who spoke with George Mitchell.
Cutthemullet - February 9, 2009
Yay, Big Frank!
One of my favorite ball players ever. Let’s sign him again. Yeah, I know, he doesn’t fit, but I just love having him on the team anyway. (Heck, sign Rickey, too.)
iglew - February 9, 2009
I was just looking at my DVDs
and I saw “MLB Superstars”, a DVD that trys to show why the best players are so great at baseball. 3 of the 4 guys on the front cover; Bonds, Clemens, and A-Rod. Doh! Ivan Rodriguez was the 4th guy on the cover, was he ever linked to PEDs?
micdog2001 - February 10, 2009
Yes
By Canseco. Yeah, like we can trust him…oh.
67MARQUEZ - February 10, 2009
that's awesome, good job MLB productions
I bet they won’t be making any more of those DVDs.
I just hope Jennie Finch (the “host” of the DVD) is all natural ;-)
micdog2001 - February 10, 2009
another case where I don't object to enhancement ...
monkeyball - February 10, 2009
Steroid Twins
Here’s some steroid look-a-likes of before-and-after pictures of Mark McGwire and Jason Giambi: http://morehardball.blogspot.com/2009/02/twins-other-than-minnesota-super-sized.html
GMCarson - February 10, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.