Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

McGwire admits using steroids


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
229 replies to this topic

#151 BoSox Rule

  • 1,444 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 12:30 PM

I'm sure he meant 1993

#152 cannonball 1729

  • 2,035 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 12:42 PM

QUOTE (BoSox Rule @ Jan 12 2010, 12:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm sure he meant 1993

Ah, that makes more sense.

#153 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 12:54 PM

This is funny, for those who remember him interviewing A-Rod last year.

#154 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16,961 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 12:59 PM

Of course, one article at ESPN.com, today, quotes an FBI agent to the effect that they had McGwire dead to rights for having used steroids, not as an experiment or one time thing but as a serious regimen in much of the period from '88 to '93. But the FBI guy says they were only going after distributors, not users at the time.

So, McGwire's "oh, dear me, I only got into it because I was so hurt in '93 and '94!" is bullshit.

From today's piece by Mike Fish:

QUOTE
Stejskal said federal authorities, through their undercover operation, learned of McGwire's steroid usage by 1993. A year later, Stejskal recalled that he shared information from the investigation related to baseball players with Major League Baseball's then security boss, Kevin Hallinan, though the sport had no drug testing program at the time.

"We had two sources that told us they personally had seen [McGwire] use steroids," Stejskal told ESPN.com. "Not to mention the fact that Canseco said it as well, which gives you a third source. But we knew it before Canseco said it. And we knew specifics, too. We knew this wasn't a one-time shot or an experimental thing. This guy had a regimen and stuff."

Stejskal has steadfastly refused to identify the sources, though Curtis Wenzlaff has previously been reported to have been a supplier to several Major League Baseball players in the early 1990s, including McGwire. Asked about the sources Monday, Stejskal said, "They were steroid dealers and users who provided information to us that McGwire was a user of steroids." He added that one "was present when he used steroids."


#155 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,211 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 01:07 PM

QUOTE (Rough Carrigan @ Jan 11 2010, 08:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Verducci making another great point that, his professed fear of prosecution as a result of testifying in front of congress in 2005 doesn't square with loud and proud steroid advocate Jose Canseco not being prosecuted for his admissions.


Aside from CL's point (that McGwire consulted a competent attorney), there's the question of timing. If McGwire admitted or denied use without giving specifics, that would put the latter part of his career under scrutiny-- because the statute of limitations had not run for those years at the time.

Whether by design or coincidence, most of Canseco's anecdotes were from 1987-95; he couldn't be prosecuted for those stories, unless it was proved that he lied. Also, Canseco was called before the committee as a friendly witness; McGwire was not. That matters.

What McGwire said about the congressional hearings made perfect sense to me. From a PR standpoint, he should have underlined that he was responsible for putting himself in that position, but if I found myself in a similar position, I'd probably do exactly what Mac did.

Edit: Didn't read Rough's post immediately above before posting this. Informants are inherently untrustworthy, but this story has the ring of truth. Ultimately, the story's credibility rests entirely on the credibility of the FBI agent. I'd like to believe he wouldn't share what the informant said if he wasn't reasonably sure it was true. That said, there are fame-seekers in every line of work, and that FBI agent will get his 15 minutes from sharing this tidbit.

Edited by maufman, 12 January 2010 - 01:12 PM.


#156 kneemoe

  • 1,920 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 01:38 PM

QUOTE (InsideTheParker @ Jan 12 2010, 09:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
According to the NYTimes, yesterday's confession was part of a carefully plotted (one-month) strategy by Ari Fleischer, the former White House Press Sec'y and the St. Louis Cardinals:Times Unfortunately, the writer Richard Sandomir doesn't tell how he knows about Fleischer's firm's involvement. His business is this: Fleischer Sports


So I may have actually been right about something?
Hot damn!

#157 Guapos Toenails

  • 1,855 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 01:49 PM

QUOTE (cannonball 1729 @ Jan 12 2010, 12:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
McGwire retired in 2001. I'm not sure what the question is.

I meant 1993. I'm dumb.

#158 There is no Rev


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 24,185 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 01:52 PM

QUOTE (Fred not Lynn @ Jan 12 2010, 01:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In his defense...that's EXACTLY why you take steroids; To make you heal, faster, so you can work out again, sooner and more often.

This is true, but on the other hand, isn't that also a description of how you get stronger with or without steroids? You're body works. The work damages the muscle. When your body repairs the muscle, it makes it stronger to handle the work that damaged it. That's the heart of the absurdity of McGwire's position to me, he said he used steroids not to get stronger but to recover better when those two statements refer to the same biological process.

And in keeping with Lowetek's excellent post above, that's why, to me, McGwire has not come clean. He may well be sincere, but if he is, he is suffering from serious self-delusion about what he did and how he benefited from it. So he may be sincere, but if so, it's only because he hasn't come clean with himself.

Anyone else notice he's dropped "bat speed" from his spiel about the things that lead to hitting home runs that steroids can't help with?

QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Jan 12 2010, 08:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It was a total embarrassment. Despite having parents of kids who'd died from steroid abuse present in the senate chamber, that session was nothing but a dog & pony show. And only a couple of the committee members did any actual "grilling" designed to get to the root of the issue rather than pompous grandstanding. The majority of those fucking phonies spent the day sucking up to their baseball heroes, telling America how much they admired them and enjoyed watching their majestic achievements.

Isn't it even more embarrassing if we now have reason to believe that McGwire may have suggested he would come clean if he were granted immunity?

I mean, that should have been something of a clue that he might have something else he wasn't telling them, no?

#159 LoweTek

  • 792 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 03:27 PM

Canseco now on MLB-XM says both McGwire and LaRussa are lying, McGwire about not being injected by him, LaRussa about not knowing all along. Says it was all out in the open and accepted by everyone including MLB. "It was endorsed by Major League Baseball."

#160 BucketOBalls


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,644 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 03:49 PM

QUOTE (LoweTek @ Jan 12 2010, 03:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Canseco now on MLB-XM says both McGwire and LaRussa are lying, McGwire about not being injected by him, LaRussa about not knowing all along. Says it was all out in the open and accepted by everyone including MLB. "It was endorsed by Major League Baseball."


Eh. Canseco is up in arms bc this calls into account his credibility about baseball's sordid past, which is all he has left.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if LaRussa knew then...and doesn't now. Either McGwire or Canseco could be lying, both have their motives, and I'm not sure it really matters that much weather Canseco suck a needle in Big Mac or he did it himself.

#161 LoweTek

  • 792 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 04:52 PM

QUOTE (BucketOBalls @ Jan 12 2010, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Eh. Canseco is up in arms bc this calls into account his credibility about baseball's sordid past, which is all he has left.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if LaRussa knew then...and doesn't now. Either McGwire or Canseco could be lying, both have their motives, and I'm not sure it really matters that much weather Canseco suck a needle in Big Mac or he did it himself.
I post it only because it potentially speaks to the credibility of McGwire's and LaRussa's recent claims as well as the credibility questions brought up here. Despite what we may read into his motives, Canseco is the only unrefuted information source throughout the ordeal. I don't know about others but like acknowledging Bonds' excellence despite his motive and personal traits, Canseco has held his line and never been proven a libel source. If I have to choose between Jose's version or anybody else's, I'm going with Jose, as distasteful as it is. McGwire may be the first to outright state publicly that one of Canseco's assertions is untrue. The guy with the least to lose usually speaks the most truth. Canseco qualifies there.

#162 JimD

  • 4,794 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 05:17 PM

QUOTE (LoweTek @ Jan 12 2010, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Despite what we may read into his motives, Canseco is the only unrefuted information source throughout the ordeal.


Jose was right about the presence of steroid use in baseball. He may still be full of shit on many of the details.


#163 graffam198


  • pink hat


  • 826 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 05:31 PM

I agree that siding with Jose is distasteful, but a lot of the information that he has presented has come to fruition. Remember how much crap he took for aleging A-Rod took steroids when he published his second book? Not that I like the guy at all, but it is hard to ignore him when he has been saying the same thing for many years now.

#164 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 3,805 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 06:52 PM

QUOTE (Reverend @ Jan 12 2010, 11:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is true, but on the other hand, isn't that also a description of how you get stronger with or without steroids? You're body works. The work damages the muscle. When your body repairs the muscle, it makes it stronger to handle the work that damaged it.

Steroids simply make this happen faster. A clean athlete may go into the gym and do a nasty lower body workout on Monday, and then need until Thursday, to go back and do it again. A steroid enhanced athlete will be ready to go back on Tuesday or Wednesday.

That's why Clemens' explanation that he just worked out more than everyone else is so amusing...

#165 The Belly Itcher

  • 2,660 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 06:59 PM

Well, I certainly believe that McGwire was doing this before 1993. Don't forget that his 1993 HR/AB ratio was pretty damn high, albeit he had something like ~ 125 PA. Nevertheless, his Ruthian performance started that year.

#166 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16,961 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 07:38 PM

McGwire's on espn news right now being interviewed by Bob Lee and he's still putting forth absolute denial that steroids improved his performance. c070.gif

#167 Morning Dewey

  • 156 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 08:15 PM

QUOTE (Rough Carrigan @ Jan 12 2010, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
McGwire's on espn news right now being interviewed by Bob Lee and he's still putting forth absolute denial that steroids improved his performance. c070.gif
As always, just a great job by Bob Ley! McGwire is in complete and utter denial. He tells Ley he kept using the 'roids from '96-'99 to "stay on the field" because he "was breaking down". Ley says, "But weren't those your best years?".

"Well yeah, but..."

YEAH BUT NOTHING ....they're called "Performance Enhancing Drugs" for a reason, Mac! What a phony!

Edited by Morning Dewey, 12 January 2010 - 08:16 PM.


#168 There is no Rev


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 24,185 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 08:40 PM

QUOTE (LoweTek @ Jan 12 2010, 04:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I post it only because it potentially speaks to the credibility of McGwire's and LaRussa's recent claims as well as the credibility questions brought up here. Despite what we may read into his motives, Canseco is the only unrefuted information source throughout the ordeal. I don't know about others but like acknowledging Bonds' excellence despite his motive and personal traits, Canseco has held his line and never been proven a libel source. If I have to choose between Jose's version or anybody else's, I'm going with Jose, as distasteful as it is. McGwire may be the first to outright state publicly that one of Canseco's assertions is untrue. The guy with the least to lose usually speaks the most truth. Canseco qualifies there.

I agree on the Canseco issue and think there is a time to move past our distaste for him as a person and realize that the man may be questionable, but that is not a reason to reject the message.

Canseco's motives may have been monetary and maybe he didn't care about the game. Fine. But what excuse is there for all the people who claim to care about the game to do nothing once the worms had been let out of the can?

QUOTE (Fred not Lynn @ Jan 12 2010, 06:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Steroids simply make this happen faster. A clean athlete may go into the gym and do a nasty lower body workout on Monday, and then need until Thursday, to go back and do it again. A steroid enhanced athlete will be ready to go back on Tuesday or Wednesday.

That's why Clemens' explanation that he just worked out more than everyone else is so amusing...

I would like to hear more about this because this does not completely match what I thought I understood--though I agree about the hilarity of the ridiculousness of Clemens's argument.

Do not some steroids mimic testosterone (though with varying impact on secondary sex characteristics)? All things being equal (e.g. the same routine) wouldn't someone with more testosterone build more muscle than someone with less testosterone? Why would this not be the case with certain steroids as well?

Basically, it was my understanding that the faster and the more with respect to muscle building in the recovery phase came hand in hand. It may depend upon the steroid of course, but if my understanding is flawed, can you explain?

#169 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 3,805 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 09:45 PM

QUOTE (Reverend @ Jan 12 2010, 06:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I would like to hear more about this because this does not completely match what I thought I understood--though I agree about the hilarity of the ridiculousness of Clemens's argument.

Do not some steroids mimic testosterone (though with varying impact on secondary sex characteristics)? All things being equal (e.g. the same routine) wouldn't someone with more testosterone build more muscle than someone with less testosterone? Why would this not be the case with certain steroids as well?

Basically, it was my understanding that the faster and the more with respect to muscle building in the recovery phase came hand in hand. It may depend upon the steroid of course, but if my understanding is flawed, can you explain?

Mine was a VERY simplified explanation...I'll defer to some in here who know more for the details.

#170 barbed wire Bob


  • crippled by fear


  • 3,368 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 10:02 PM

Some info on PEDs from the Mayo Clinic

Mayoclinic

#171 Gdiguy

  • 495 posts

Posted 12 January 2010 - 11:53 PM

QUOTE (Fred not Lynn @ Jan 12 2010, 09:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Mine was a VERY simplified explanation...I'll defer to some in here who know more for the details.


I believe the 'helping recovery more than anything else' was more for the discussion of HGH, and that steroids help both recovery and actual muscle building, but that's just off of articles from the last few years I've read and not really any medical knowledge

#172 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 16,227 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:19 AM

QUOTE (accidentalsuccess @ Jan 11 2010, 11:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
epic yawn, really. No one is shocked or even mildly surprised. The timing obviously is set to minimize the distraction in spring training. Whatever. I also totally agree with the upthread post about 'roids since BEFORE the 80's (the east german swim team was the 1976 olympics). There are scattered quotes (unsubstantiated) about a certain 70's football dynasty, too. This stuff has been part of pro sports for a LONG time. It probably still is, unfortunately.


The 49ers are the team with the earliest players currently linked to steroid use (in 1962), but the Chargers are the first to do it institutionally and are widely believed to be the team that really introduced steroids to the major pro football leagues. HOFer Ron Mix on the training regimen for the 1963 Chargers:
QUOTE
I still remember his* speech, almost verbatim....He said, 'Because you're going to be lifting weights in addition to working out twice a day, you're going to need more protein.' And he said, 'When I was a trainer for the U.S. team in the Olympics, I learned a secret from those Rooskies.' And he held up a bottle of pink pills, and he says, 'This stuff is called Dianabol and it's going to help assimilate protein and you'll be taking it every day.' And, sure enough, it showed up on our training tables in cereal bowls


Then-head-coach Sid Gillman has admitted as much, and linebacker Paul Maguire said he thinks 95% of the Chargers team took what they were told was mandatory (ie anabolic steroids). By the beginning of the 1963 season, though, Mix objected and steroid use was made optional. The Chargers went on to destroy the Patriots in the AFL title game.

*The "his" here refers to Alvin Roy, the strength conditioning coach responsible for the explosion of steroid use in the US in the 1950s-70s. He worked with LSU in the 1950s (and had been training their Heisman winner, Billy Cannon, since high school) and went on to work with the late-60s Chiefs and the 1970s Cowboys and Raiders.

If we want to play guess the "certain 1970s dynasty" that you refer to as having unsubstantiated use, the hard part is finding teams that don't have substantiated use.

Just going by the San Diego Union-Tribune report, use by the pre-1980 Broncos, Colts, Cowboys, Browns, Packers, Steelers, Vikings, Jets, Giants, 49ers, Cardinals, and Bills are all substantiated by players' personal admissions of use.

So I go with the Raiders as the most rumored but unsubstantiated pre-1980 team: they brought Alvin Roy in as strength coach, and all the other teams he worked with point the finger at him as the steroid guru of the era. Raider John Matuszak has been dogged by persistent rumors of use (including a possible link to his early death)--he's best known in later years as Sloth from the Goonies.

Realistically, I'd guess almost every team in the 70s had at least a few users, though.

A couple links for those interested:
http://bleacherrepor...-misconceptions
http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=3866837
http://legacy.signon...9-1s21list.html

The first link notes:
QUOTE
Steroids aside, Roy was admittedly a great man and an innovator. He was a decorated war veteran. He was a pioneer in desegregation. And he had the right intent and philosophy regarding health and conditioning. He unfortunately lived during a time of steroid ignorance and adoption.


Steroid use wasn't banned in the NFL until 1983, so Roy's actions were within the rules of the game. LSU still hands out an annual "Alvin Roy Award" to a player who shows year-round commitment to strength and fitness.

#173 JAF1970

  • Pip
  • 115 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 12:55 AM

Great article here:

http://blogs.houston...ds_bullshit.php

My favorite part:

"It was the era that we played in. I wish I never played in that era. I wish we had drug testing. If we had testing when I was playing, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation today. I guarantee you that."


BULLSHIT-O-METER SCORE: 10.0
In 1992, the year before he claims he started using steroids regularly, Mark McGwire was 27 years old and hit .205 with 22 home runs and 75 RBI's. Baseball-reference.com says this season most closely mirrors Nate Colbert's season when he was 27 years old. Who was Nate Colbert? Exactly.

So if there were drug testing, Mac, you would have been Nate Colbert. Nate Colberts don't make $10 million per year.

Oh and bonus points for blaming your problems on the era in which you lived, Mac. McGwire blaming his problems on the Steroid Era is like Tiger blaming his issues on the Adultery Era or me blaming my problems on the invention of the kolache.

And you do realize that in most of the eras before the Steroid Era, players had to get second jobs in the offseason or go fight to defend our country. You do realize this, right Mac?....Mac?....Oh sorry, you're still sobbing. Jackass.

#174 Mike Greenwall

  • 1,314 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 01:01 AM

Great post Sumner! I had no idea about the NFL, though I'm not surprised.

#175 Wade Boggs Hair

  • 1,391 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 02:02 AM

JoePos has two McGwire-related articles up on SI.com right now. The second of which apparently stems from a telephone conversation he and McGwire had after McGwire's interview with Bob Costas.

http://sportsillustr....html?eref=sihp

JoePos told McGwire that he thought most of the negative reaction came from McGwire's denial that the PEDs helped him in the HR chase. Here is Mac's reply:

QUOTE
I did say to him that many people were bothered -- angry, in fact -- by his refusal to link his own massive power numbers to steroids. He acknowledged that but did not back away from his own viewpoint that he would have been the same hitter without steroids had he been able to stay healthy.

"It's my opinion," he said, "and it's something I believe deeply. With the walking MASH unit that I was, sure, steroids benefited me. They got on the field to play more games and get more at-bats.

"But I became a better hitter. If you look at the evolution of my swing change, nobody ever analyzed that. I was a back-legged hitter, I would hit these towering fly balls that went over walls by five feet. But I started learning how to drive through the baseball and create backspin. ... Hey, I acknowledged that I used steroids for health purposes, to get back on the field, get more at-bats, play in more games. It allowed my body to recover and feel like it used to feel."


One of the points JoePos makes in the first article is that people should really just want McGwire to be sincere, not tell the story that they want him to tell. Even if he's wrong as a matter of science in trying to bifurcate the recovery benefits of PEDs from his training and mechanical adjustments, the question shouldn't be whether he's right scientifically but whether he believes what he's saying.

Maybe I'm just biased because I always liked McGwire (and because I like JoePos and appreciate that he isn't really motivated by the faux bombast of the BBWAA sanctified gatekeeper tards like Jay Mariotti), but I think he's at least being sincere about what he believes his PED use did or didn't do.

Edited by Wade Boggs Hair, 13 January 2010 - 02:03 AM.


#176 JAF1970

  • Pip
  • 115 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 02:11 AM

You honestly think he DABBLED in 1993, stopped, then used it later not because he helped him but it felt good?

Yeah, sure.

EDIT: Question: if McGwire was inducted into the Hall, or gotten 40-50% of the votes, you honestly think he speaks? And he didn't even speak. He gave a bullshit answer saying, "Well, I did some, but it didn't help me much".

Edited by JAF1970, 13 January 2010 - 02:14 AM.


#177 Wade Boggs Hair

  • 1,391 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 02:23 AM

QUOTE (JAF1970 @ Jan 13 2010, 02:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You honestly think he DABBLED in 1993, stopped, then used it later not because he helped him but it felt good?

Yeah, sure.

EDIT: Question: if McGwire was inducted into the Hall, or gotten 40-50% of the votes, you honestly think he speaks? And he didn't even speak. He gave a bullshit answer saying, "Well, I did some, but it didn't help me much".


I assume that's not a question to me, since I didn't say that I thought McGwire dabbled in '93, stopped and then resumed use later.

But don't let me or anyone else get in the way of the angry pitchfork stampede. I would just like the witchhunt to end and I would like some of the pressure being put on the individual players who did what was tacitly endorsed by MLB and the Players' Union refocused on Bud Selig and Don Fehr.

#178 threecy

  • 1,081 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 06:49 AM

QUOTE (JAF1970 @ Jan 13 2010, 12:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In 1992, the year before he claims he started using steroids regularly, Mark McGwire was 27 years old and hit .205 with 22 home runs and 75 RBI's. Baseball-reference.com says this season most closely mirrors Nate Colbert's season when he was 27 years old. Who was Nate Colbert? Exactly.

So if there were drug testing, Mac, you would have been Nate Colbert. Nate Colberts don't make $10 million per year.


I know what you're getting at, but in his defense, he had constant heel injuries during the early 90s - I believe that was when the A's were grooming Troy Neel to be his heir apparent.

#179 someoneanywhere

  • 3,181 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 08:12 AM

Memo to those clean ballplayers now howling, now wailing, that they shouldn't be lumped in with the abusers, that their careers shouldn't be diminished by calling this period The Steroid Era (Krukie, here's looking at you):

You cannot now howl and wail, when then you were silent. The only people who knew the extent of the abuse were the players, clean and unclean. The abuse existed because the clean allowed the unclean to do it -- because no one said anything.

I know why -- you're making millions of bucks, life is good, you don't want to lose that and get blackballed. Which is another way of saying: you may not have taken the drugs, but you benefitted by those who did. I would have done the same thing, maintained the same silence, most probably.

So, yes, you did play in the Steroid Era. You played the game in silence.

Now is the time for you to keep quiet. You can't do now what you deliberately refused to do then.

#180 CoRP

  • 4,264 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 08:34 AM

Canseco's "There's no crying in baseball" comment about McGwire's weepy confession was great.

#181 Rocco Graziosa


  • owns the lcd soundsystem


  • 11,339 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 09:36 AM

Like Mark McGwire's neck this whole thing is strange. He completely cops to the steriods but will not admit they helped him hit home runs. How does everyone involved in this scandal continue to fuck this up? From Bonds and Clemens needlessly stonewalling everyone to the guys "admitting" they did but with absurd caveats. And how about MLB? They seem to almost revel in these scandals even hiring George Mitchel to out their own players. (could you imagine David Stern handling this? he would have bitch slapped the first few that reported on it, conducted an "in house investigation" and it never would have been mentioned again. Ever) Save the old fart scribes, and baseball historians concerned about statistical ramifications, no one cares about steriods in sports and hasn't for about 5 years. But whoever is advising these people doesn't get that......they think half assed admissions and claims that the drugs actually do nothing help the player perform help public perception. They don't. It just makes them look foolish. Andre Aggassi admitted to taking CRYSTAL METH while losing tennis matches on purpose and I'll bet he didn't hurt his popularity with the public one iota. In fact I bet he's MORE popular.

And as for credibility in this "scandal" I'm reminded that in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. In this case thats Jose Canseco.

Edited by Rocco Graziosa, 13 January 2010 - 09:39 AM.


#182 JAF1970

  • Pip
  • 115 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 11:00 AM

An FBI informant is stating that McGwire is lying through his teeth.

QUOTE
The Daily News reported McGwire's regimen consisted of: one-half cc of testosterone cypionate every three days; one cc of testosterone enanthate per week; the veterinary steroids Equipoise and Winstrol V, one quarter cc every three days, injected into the buttocks, one in one cheek, one in the other.


QUOTE
Dan Gwartney, a physician in Columbia, Mo., told the Daily News that the testosterone injections McGwire received were two to four times as strong as those a patient would receive at a clinic. "It would aid in recovery but goes above that range," Gwartney said. "There would be performance enhancement for sports that depend on power, mass, an aggressive mind-set and endurance. Whether or not that was his intent, I don't know. But that dosage would enhance performance."

Trainer Anthony Roberts told the Daily News that Winstrol actually increases joint pain, rather than alleviating it. "Winstrol would literally be your last choice steroid-wise, if you were trying to rehab or prehab an injury," Roberts says.


EDIT: Lying during your "confession". INTEGRITY!

EDIT 2: http://sportsillustr...wire/index.html

QUOTE
SI: What do you make of McGwire's contention that steroids did not help his performance?

Yesalis: To me, he's lost any credibility he might have had in regard to his sincerity. It appears he's trying to have his cake and eat it too, to still have his stature as a player and do a mea culpa at the same time. You can look at how his body morphed from post collegiate to early major league play, to the point where his arms are as big as the thighs of most men.


EDIT 3: http://sportsillustr...ussa/index.html

QUOTE
McGwire said he took steroids to help him recover because his body was breaking down. But those of us who covered that Oakland A's team in the late 1980s and early '90s remember a different scenario.

McGwire was a durable player in his early years. He played 155 games in 1988, 143 in 1989, 156 in 1990. His body swelled, getting bigger and bigger -- while steroid rumors were being whispered about the entire team. And then McGwire's body started to break down.

So which came first: the steroids or the breakdowns? McGwire would like us to believe it was the health problems which led him down the wrong path. But for most of us watching, the enormous growth appeared to come first and was followed by chronic breakdowns, such as his battle with plantar fasciitis. Back then the standard observation was that McGwire's body had gotten too big for his vulnerable feet to handle.


EDIT 4 (I'm on a roll this morn): http://www.nydailyne...mer_lawyer.html

QUOTE
Jose Canseco and his former attorney received a call as they were driving to the Rayburn House Office Building on St. Patrick's Day in 2005, just before the start of the congressional hearing on steroids and baseball.

Rep. Tom Davis, the chairman of the committee conducting the hearing, was on the phone.

"We received a call from Tom Davis telling us that (Mark) McGwire's attorney was requesting immunity," Robert Saunooke, who represented Canseco at the time, told the Daily News late Tuesday. "I don't know why he would be requesting immunity because we weren't aware that he had committed a crime."

* * *

Saunooke said that before the hearing, he believed Major League Baseball supported Canseco's efforts to confront the truth about steroids. But McGwire refused to talk about the past, Rafael Palmeiro denied ever using steroids, Sammy Sosa forgot how to speak English and anti-steroid advocate Curt Schilling unexpectedly toned down his rhetoric, and Saunooke said he sensed something was wrong. He believes MLB officials told the other players to make Canseco look bad. The lawmakers, meanwhile, shot hostile questions at his client.

During a break, Saunooke told Davis that they would leave and risk a contempt of Congress charge if the attacks continued. After that, everything changed. The lawmakers hit McGwire for his refusal to talk about steroids and Schilling for his flip-flops. One representative said MLB owed Canseco a great deal of gratitude "because he saved baseball."

Edited by JAF1970, 13 January 2010 - 12:15 PM.
Added Daily News quote


#183 Wade Boggs Hair

  • 1,391 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 01:30 PM

Sir Charles chimes in on Dan LeBatard's Miami radio show (selected excerpts):

QUOTE
"If somebody told me that they could stick something in my ass to get me making 100 or 200 million dollars, Iím gonna be the first in line."


QUOTE
On Mark McGwire using steroids:

ďI was listening to a little bit of your conversation when you came on about the baseball situation. Thereís two things that bother me about writers. Number one when they act like they are holier than thou. But also this notion where this guy hasnít been nice to us. I donít judge basketball players by whether theyíre nice to me or not. When I go on television my job is to talk about their basketball. You have too many reporters and youíre definitely not one of them, crying like a little girl talking about well he hasnít been very nice to the press. So what? Thatís not your job. Do your job. Donít act like your holier than thou and youíre protecting every detail of the game or the guy hasnít kissed up to you all these years.Ē

On whether or not he thinks guys who used steroids in baseball should be Hall-of-Famers:

ďI think that Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Roger ClemensÖI think those guys should all go into the Hall-of-Fame and let me explain why. We know there is at least one list that has 104 people right? (Host: Yes) Clearly there was more than 104. My problem with the whole era is these are the only guys that are going to get penalized, the Hall-of-Famers. All the other guys played in that era and I heard John Kruk and I like John Kruk he said Ďwell I was clean.í Well he still benefited by the financial structure. All the players during that era all benefited through the financial structure. But my biggest problem is, like I was saying, to penalize four guys and keep them out of the Hall-of-Fame when clearly a bunch of guys were doing it - we know of at least 104 and clearly there was more - to penalize four guys and donít put them in the Hall-of-Fame when a bunch were doing it, I think thatís totally unfair.Ē


Full summary: link

#184 xjack


  • Futbol Crazed


  • 5,162 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 03:32 PM

QUOTE
But my biggest problem is, like I was saying, to penalize four guys and keep them out of the Hall-of-Fame when clearly a bunch of guys were doing it - we know of at least 104 and clearly there was more - to penalize four guys and donít put them in the Hall-of-Fame when a bunch were doing it, I think thatís totally unfair.Ē

Barkley's got a point. The only reason we're talking about McGwire and Bonds and Clemens is because either they got caught or they admitted it. Well, what happens next year when Jeff Bagwell becomes eligible for the HOF? Or four years later when it's Randy Johnson's turn?

While they've never been caught or admitted using PEDs, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that Bagwell and Johnson used PEDs. Bagwell's physical breakdown paralleled McGwire, and we know how much Bagwell's body changed and his power emerged once he got to the majors and became best buds with Ken Caminiti. As for Johnson, he became better in his mid-30s, only to become mortal again once testing began in 2005.

Maybe the HOF should require everyone on the ballot to take a lie detector test before the vote.

#185 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2,076 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 06:05 PM

We can only punish the ones that are caught, that's the way it is. It's unfair, but it's better than punishing everyone, and better than punishing no one. We don't let murderers go just because OJ got off.




#186 xjack


  • Futbol Crazed


  • 5,162 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 06:19 PM

QUOTE (Ananti @ Jan 13 2010, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We can only punish the ones that are caught, that's the way it is. It's unfair, but it's better than punishing everyone, and better than punishing no one. We don't let murderers go just because OJ got off.

Entry to the HOF is not life and death.



#187 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16,961 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 07:26 PM

Thanks JAF1970.
I was sympathetic during his interview with Costas but his refusal to admit that his numbers, like he himself, were artificially inflated is just too much. And his patently false chronology of the whole thing just takes the whole thing from sad to aggressively insulting.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 13 January 2010 - 07:28 PM.


#188 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38,592 posts

Posted 13 January 2010 - 11:43 PM

Colbert tonight (after showing a clip of MM getting choked up during the Costas interview):

"Hey McGwire! You might want to inject some steroids into your tear ducts to get rid of that annoying case of pussy-eye!"

laugh.gif

#189 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 11,194 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 12:26 AM

QUOTE (xjack @ Jan 13 2010, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Entry to the HOF is not life and death.


Yeah but the fact is, McGwire got caught. And while Barkley's take is interesting, its also wrong. Perhaps John Kruk benefited financially from the PED era but its unclear. That said, its certain that McGwire made some significant portion of his money because he was one of the biggest hitting stars of the 1990s. Unless you buy Mark McGwire's take on their effects, it follows that many of his home-runs came off the back of his use of PEDs.

Tears aside, his equivocation about the effects of his steroid usage almost negates the admission. In the end, his coming clean was mostly remarkable because it revealed McGwire to be completely self-deluded.

#190 JAF1970

  • Pip
  • 115 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 02:05 PM

QUOTE (DeJesus Built My Hotrod @ Jan 14 2010, 12:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah but the fact is, McGwire got caught. And while Barkley's take is interesting, its also wrong. Perhaps John Kruk benefited financially from the PED era but its unclear. That said, its certain that McGwire made some significant portion of his money because he was one of the biggest hitting stars of the 1990s. Unless you buy Mark McGwire's take on their effects, it follows that many of his home-runs came off the back of his use of PEDs.

Tears aside, his equivocation about the effects of his steroid usage almost negates the admission. In the end, his coming clean was mostly remarkable because it revealed McGwire to be completely self-deluded.


I'd hate to have LaRussa as a friend. If you were an alcoholic, he'd deny to everyone that you were, saying you liked the occasional snifter of port, then pretend not to notice when you're passed out in the bathroom with an empty bottle of Cold Duck in your hand.

#191 JAF1970

  • Pip
  • 115 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 02:07 PM

Friends of mine who cover baseball tell me that McGwire is as dumb as a bag of hammers. No, seriously, which explains a lot.

#192 xjack


  • Futbol Crazed


  • 5,162 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 03:47 PM

QUOTE (DeJesus Built My Hotrod @ Jan 14 2010, 12:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah but the fact is, McGwire got caught. And while Barkley's take is interesting, its also wrong. Perhaps John Kruk benefited financially from the PED era but its unclear.

How many times have we heard over the past few years -- or over the past few days -- that it was obvious the players were juiced? That all McGwire did was confirm what we already knew?

Well, if you look at Randy Johnson's career trajectory, there's never been another top pitcher in the history of baseball (other than maybe Roger Clemens) who had the best stretch of his career after age 34. Five of Johnson's top seven seasons (as ranked by ERA+) occurred between age 35 and 40. All seven occurred after he turned 31. There may be no admission from Johnson or no failed drug test (at least so far), but to me, there is clear statistical evidence and that evidence is damning.

So either you let everyone in (which is what Barkley is saying), or voters have to make some tough but obvious choices on their on. Personally, I'd like to see players on the HOF ballot take lie detector tests -- not so much because I care about the HOF but I want to know exactly what I was watching back then.

Edited by xjack, 14 January 2010 - 03:52 PM.


#193 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16,961 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 03:51 PM

QUOTE (xjack @ Jan 14 2010, 03:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How many times have we heard over the past few years -- or over the past few days -- that it was obvious the players were juiced? That all McGwire did was confirm what we already knew?

Well, if you look at Randy Johnson's career trajectory, there's never been another top pitcher in the history of baseball (other than maybe Roger Clemens) who had the best stretch of his career after age 34. Five of Johnson's top seven seasons (as ranked by ERA+) occurred between age 35 and 40. All seven occurred after he turned 31. There may be no admission from Johnson or no failed drug test (at least so far), but to me, there is clear statistical evidence and that evidence is damning.

So either you let everyone in (which is what Barkley is saying), or voters have to make some tough but obvious choices on their on. Personally, I'd like to see the likes of Johnson and Bagwell take lie detector tests -- not so much because I care about the HOF but I want to know exactly what I was watching back then.

Dazzy Vance? Of course he didn't even have a career before age 28.

Also Johnson didn't become more powerful. He just developed control of the power that he had when he was younger. And he did have some mild erosion of base talent. He wasn't Bonds who got clearly better than ever in his late 30's.

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 14 January 2010 - 03:52 PM.


#194 barbed wire Bob


  • crippled by fear


  • 3,368 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 04:21 PM

QUOTE (Rough Carrigan @ Jan 14 2010, 01:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Dazzy Vance? Of course he didn't even have a career before age 28.

Also Johnson didn't become more powerful. He just developed control of the power that he had when he was younger. And he did have some mild erosion of base talent. He wasn't Bonds who got clearly better than ever in his late 30's.



Another possible example would be Satchel Paige. In his "rookie" season with the Indians he had a ERA of 2.48. Regardless, there is no proof that Randy Johnson ever used PEDs, although I would not be surprised if it was shown that he did.

Edited by barbed wire Bob, 14 January 2010 - 04:21 PM.


#195 kneemoe

  • 1,920 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 04:22 PM

QUOTE (xjack @ Jan 14 2010, 03:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So either you let everyone in (which is what Barkley is saying), or voters have to make some tough but obvious choices on their on. Personally, I'd like to see players on the HOF ballot take lie detector tests -- not so much because I care about the HOF but I want to know exactly what I was watching back then.


If there were some evidence that polygraphs were actually useful in ascertaining the truth I'd agree with you.
http://antipolygraph.org/
or

"A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance"

Don't want to derail the thread here, but do some web searches on polygraphs and I think you'll find a startling amount of data shows its just not accurate.

Edited by kneemoe, 14 January 2010 - 04:23 PM.


#196 EdRalphRomero


  • wooderson


  • 2,444 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 04:36 PM

QUOTE (barbed wire Bob @ Jan 14 2010, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Another possible example would be Satchel Paige. In his "rookie" season with the Indians he had a ERA of 2.48. Regardless, there is no proof that Randy Johnson ever used PEDs, although I would not be surprised if it was shown that he did.


But Paige was, of course, 42 and was not able to play in the major leagues prior to that because of segregation. I imagine you know this (thus the quotes around rookie) and are joking with this reference, but it sort of obscures the more important point. Paige isn't an argument for improvement at an advanced age. He's an argument for why black guys should be allowed to play in MLB.

#197 barbed wire Bob


  • crippled by fear


  • 3,368 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 05:26 PM

QUOTE (EdRalphRomero @ Jan 14 2010, 03:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But Paige was, of course, 42 and was not able to play in the major leagues prior to that because of segregation. I imagine you know this (thus the quotes around rookie) and are joking with this reference, but it sort of obscures the more important point. Paige isn't an argument for improvement at an advanced age. He's an argument for why black guys should be allowed to play in MLB.


Point taken. I was trying to use Paige as an example of a remarkable athlete who is an outlier on the age curve. Which brings up a big problem that I have with PEDS: how do you tell the difference between a true outlier and a guy who gets his performance out of a bottle?

Edited by barbed wire Bob, 14 January 2010 - 05:31 PM.


#198 threecy

  • 1,081 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 07:04 PM

Two notes.

1) Johnson saw dramatically improved performance when he started using the ball of his landing foot more, rather than heel. I believe the suggestion came from Nolan Ryan.

2) In regard to players who were better in their 30s than 20s, I think a glaring example would be Dwight Evans. I doubt very many people would accuse him of using steroids.

#199 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16,961 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 10:03 PM

QUOTE (barbed wire Bob @ Jan 14 2010, 05:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Point taken. I was trying to use Paige as an example of a remarkable athlete who is an outlier on the age curve. Which brings up a big problem that I have with PEDS: how do you tell the difference between a true outlier and a guy who gets his performance out of a bottle?

Exactly. You can't.
Brady Anderson has his fluke 50 hr year and simply must have been roided up.
Davey Johnson has hs fluke 43 hr year in 1973 but that was just good clean fun.

People talk as though they *know* that Anderson was doing steroids. But this begs a pretty obvious question. If Anderson had found the way to hit 50 homers courtesy of a syringe, then, uh, why didn't he do it again? Did he just like hitting 19 homers more than hitting 50 out of some obscure personal code of modesty? Was it some sort of affection to the writings of Epictetus that he shared with Davey Johnson or something? If it was simply steroids, why didn't he keep doing them and make himself much much more money as a good fielding centerfielder who regularly hit 50 homers, like Willie Mays, instead of going to contract negotiations as a good fielding centerfielder who could be counted on for 19 homers?

It was just a fluke, just like Davey Johnson's 1973 season, just like -gasp- Roger Maris's 1961 season. Flukes happen, with or without chemical enhancement. And it may be hard to distinguish between a fluke and the results of chemical enhancement.

#200 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 11,194 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 10:08 PM

QUOTE (xjack @ Jan 14 2010, 12:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How many times have we heard over the past few years -- or over the past few days -- that it was obvious the players were juiced? That all McGwire did was confirm what we already knew?

Well, if you look at Randy Johnson's career trajectory, there's never been another top pitcher in the history of baseball (other than maybe Roger Clemens) who had the best stretch of his career after age 34. Five of Johnson's top seven seasons (as ranked by ERA+) occurred between age 35 and 40. All seven occurred after he turned 31. There may be no admission from Johnson or no failed drug test (at least so far), but to me, there is clear statistical evidence and that evidence is damning.

So either you let everyone in (which is what Barkley is saying), or voters have to make some tough but obvious choices on their on. Personally, I'd like to see players on the HOF ballot take lie detector tests -- not so much because I care about the HOF but I want to know exactly what I was watching back then.


While I agree that virtually every player from the past 15 or 20 years is suspect, HOF voters cannot rule out candidates absent proof that they used PEDs. Its imperfect but its also somewhat consistent with the idea that the most recent crop of PED users are not the first "cheaters" in baseball. And there are likely more than a few in the HOF who simply weren't caught with cork, greenies, vaseline and nail files back in the day.

Edited by DeJesus Built My Hotrod, 14 January 2010 - 10:09 PM.