Jump to content


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

Photo

Schilling: Sox staff encouraged me to use PED's


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
93 replies to this topic

#1 CoolPapaBellhorn

  • 935 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:39 AM

In an ESPN radio interview, he says that people who are no longer with the organization tried to get him to take PED's in 2008:

 

“At the end of my career, in 2008 when I had gotten hurt, there was a
conversation that I was involved in in which is was brought to my
attention that this is a potential path I might want to pursue,”
Schilling told Colin Cowherd.


Asked for more details, Schilling said the conversation occurred in
the clubhouse and involved “former members of the organization — they’re
no longer there. It was an incredibly uncomfortable conversation.
Because it came up in the midst of a group of people. The other people
weren’t in the conversation but they could clearly hear the
conversation. And it was suggested to me that at my age and in my
situation, why not? What did I have to lose? Because if I wasn’t going
to get healthy, it didn’t matter. And if I did get healthy, great.


“It caught me off guard, to say the least. That was an awkward situation.”

 

If this is main board material, please move.


Edited by CoolPapaBellhorn, 07 February 2013 - 10:40 AM.


#2 Jungleland

  • 559 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:46 AM

What's the financial motive here?



#3 John Marzano Olympic Hero


  • has fancy plans, and pants to match


  • 15078 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:49 AM

I moved this to the main board, it's probably more appropriate here. And I wouldn't be surprised if this blew up in the next few days.



#4 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8382980 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 10:53 AM

My first thought was, if he's going to talk about this but not mention the names, where is he going with this and what's his goal?



#5 Alternate34

  • 2461 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:00 AM

My first thought was, if he's going to talk about this but not mention the names, where is he going with this and what's his goal?

Trying to bolster his Hall of Fame chances maybe? Functionally, it is an argument responding to the Jay Jaffe's of the world that say it was the Wild West out there, and we shouldn't penalize people for using PEDs that used prior to their regulation by the league. Schilling stands in for all of the players who refused to use even in the face of organizational pressure, demonstrating that there was, in fact, a choice to be made and there were clean guys who made the right one. More cynically, it could also function as an excuse for his lack of career Ws. He had a chance to extend his career a few years and rack up maybe 240-250 Ws rather than 216, but he turned it down. 



#6 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11196 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:02 AM

Would anyone agree that the language "members of the organization" strongly suggests non-uniformed personnel, or at least, not players?



#7 xpisblack

  • 2658 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:03 AM

That's how I read it.



#8 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8382980 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:04 AM

Trying to bolster his Hall of Fame chances maybe? Functionally, it is an argument responding to the Jay Jaffe's of the world that say it was the Wild West out there, and we shouldn't penalize people for using PEDs that used prior to their regulation by the league. Schilling stands in for all of the players who refused to use even in the face of organizational pressure, demonstrating that there was, in fact, a choice to be made and there were clean guys who made the right one. More cynically, it could also function as an excuse for his lack of career Ws. He had a chance to extend his career a few years and rack up maybe 240-250 Ws rather than 216, but he turned it down. 

 

That's a reasonable explanation.  I hadn't thought of that.

 

Would anyone agree that the language "members of the organization" strongly suggests non-uniformed personnel, or at least, not players?

 

I assumed that as well.



#9 MiracleOfO2704


  • not AWOL


  • 2599 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:04 AM

My first thought was, if he's going to talk about this but not mention the names, where is he going with this and what's his goal?

 

Exactly. This is a damning statement and implies that, at some level, an organization encouraged PED use knowing well that it's illegal. This has potential to be the Juventus Calciopoli of North America if he's telling the truth, and he's pulling the same stunt he did at the Congressional hearing: "Bad things are happening, but I don't want anyone to get in trouble."

 

Bad news, Curt. If you're this willing to let the cat out of the bag, you either have to provide evidence that corroborates your story or point out that your definition of "organization" is misleading (i.e., some assistant equipment manager suggested he juice so he doesn't suck vs. an assistant to Lucchino saying that we can get the stuff and the ability to bypass testing).

 

 

 

Would anyone agree that the language "members of the organization" strongly suggests non-uniformed personnel, or at least, not players?

 

I'd be surprised if it were someone uniformed. The wording suggests FO.



#10 Drocca


  • darrell foster wallace


  • 15131 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:05 AM

My first thought was, if he's going to talk about this but not mention the names, where is he going with this and what's his goal?

He has attempted to get his name on the front page or side-bar of ESPN.com for as long as I can remember. A few days ago he told reporters that he knew of gay teammates that he played with but wouldn't name names.

 

He wants relevancy. He wants to be seen as the 'truth' within the game. He doesn't have much left but his stories and so I imagine they will all come out, in one form or another, as he trudges through a retirement without grace.



#11 lexrageorge

  • 3004 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:06 AM

Would anyone agree that the language "members of the organization" strongly suggests non-uniformed personnel, or at least, not players?

 

That's one way to read it.  It could also have been players; they are technically "members of the organization", and if Schilling was indeed trying to be vague, that's one way to phrase it.  Or could be both players and non-players.  Seems like the conversation(s) may have happened in the locker room ("midst of group of people"), which is why I'm not ruling out it was former players.



#12 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4818 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:06 AM

My first thought was, if he's going to talk about this but not mention the names, where is he going with this and what's his goal?

Listening to the whole interview, Cowherd asked him if he'd ever been tempted or offered PEDs and Schilling answered. Cowherd pressed for details, and what is quoted in the OP is the extend of his answer. They then moved on to discussing Braun and ARod and the Miami clinic. I think the fact that Schilling said it was during his Red Sox tenure is the only reason it's a story at all. Had he said someone in Phoenix had offered while he was a Diamondback, it would have been the same interview and there'd be no headlines.

#13 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8223 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:08 AM

well...if true (and there is not reason to believe it isn't), then its a huge black eye on the franchise. and would imply either medical personnel or front office members

#14 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25339 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:08 AM

In 2008? Wasn't Schilling angry that he wanted surgery (which would have ended his career immediately) and the Sox told him to try rehabbing the shoulder first? This could be his attempt to further strengthen his own position regarding the treatment of his injury after 2007.



#15 Rudy Pemberton


  • Just a string of characters


  • 27861 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:09 AM

His motive? I don't think he has one, other than that he loves to talk. I don't really think it's that surprising or damning at all. I would suspect that those who would have suggested he used PED's would likely be members of the training / medical staff, no? To suggest this is a black eye on the organization seems like an overreaction to me, this kind of thing was happening with every team. Let's not pretend the Sox were any more innocent or guilty than anyone else.


Edited by Rudy Pemberton, 07 February 2013 - 11:10 AM.


#16 behindthepen


  • SoSH Member


  • 5897 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:12 AM

It should be a story because he is implying that he got the advice from the FO. Of all the players implicated over the years, they have all been categorized as individuals pursuing their own course, and MLB and the teams have been portrayed as naive bystanders. This opens up many cans of worms.

#17 crow216


  • SoSH Member


  • 5611 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:13 AM

He refused when learning that the state of Rhode Island would not finance his treatment.



#18 MalzoneExpress


  • Thanks, gramps.


  • 659 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:14 AM

well...if true (and there is not reason to believe it isn't), then its a huge black eye on the franchise. and would imply either medical personnel or front office members

Not necessarily. It could have been Bartolo Colon or Manny Ramirez or a member of the training staff. There are a lot of people who are part of the organization. And I seriously doubt this front office would bring PEDs up in a very public clubhouse. They are too image conscious for that.



#19 John Marzano Olympic Hero


  • has fancy plans, and pants to match


  • 15078 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:15 AM

I think the fact that Schilling said it was during his Red Sox tenure is the only reason it's a story at all. Had he said someone in Phoenix had offered while he was a Diamondback, it would have been the same interview and there'd be no headlines

.

Really? You think that if, say, Bob Brenly told Curt Schilling that he should do steroids that it wouldn't be a huge story? Like at all?

 

Wow.



#20 xpisblack

  • 2658 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:16 AM

I don't really believe this to be the case, but if the medical staff had recommended a technical PED under the Therapeutic Use Exemption to aid his recovery from injury and planned to get permission from the League etc., would that still count as being offered a PED by members of the organisation?



#21 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4818 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:20 AM

.
Really? You think that if, say, Bob Brenly told Curt Schilling that he should do steroids that it wouldn't be a huge story? Like at all?
 
Wow.

He said member of the organization, not the manager or front office personnel. For crying out loud, it could have been a clubhouse attendant or a fucking bat boy for all we know. I think people are reading into this that it was someone important in the organization and reacting to what they're imagining rather than what Schilling said.

So let me re-phrase...if the team isn't the Red Sox, WE aren't reacting to this, nor is EEI reporting on it as "breaking news" and it's much more of a non-story.

#22 lexrageorge

  • 3004 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:25 AM

There's plenty of reasons this could be false, or an exaggeration.  Everyone knows that Schilling loves to step in it, and he doesn't really care how outrageous he sounds.  So let's not just automatically assume the "he has no reason to lie" defense applies here.

 

But, even if he's telling the truth, for all we know it could have been a Matt Walsh-level intern on the training staff.  That's hardly an official voice of the organization.  



#23 MiracleOfO2704


  • not AWOL


  • 2599 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:29 AM

His motive? I don't think he has one, other than that he loves to talk. I don't really think it's that surprising or damning at all. I would suspect that those who would have suggested he used PED's would likely be members of the training / medical staff, no? To suggest this is a black eye on the organization seems like an overreaction to me, this kind of thing was happening with every team. Let's not pretend the Sox were any more innocent or guilty than anyone else.

 

Again, look at Juventus in the 2006 Calciopoli case. It's been known that European soccer, Italy included, had major corruption issues. It was only when evidence made its way to the police that it got to a point where a team paid the price, though in typical Italian fashion, even that was mitigated to cushion the blow. Just because it's well-known to just about everyone doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean it shouldn't be punished if actual evidence of the act comes to light.

 

And no, Schilling's use of "member of the organization" doesn't imply something sinister by the front office at the time. That's the other big question. He could be referencing a kid that rolls the laundry baskets to the washers suggesting he could get him some stuff, or he could be talking about an assistant to one of the primary players, such as Lucchino or Epstein, suggesting the front office wants him to take something to help the team. Hell, even xp's idea that the medical staff said that they can get an exemption from MLB to have him take something that's on the list in order to avoid surgery is a logical explanation to "a member of the organization pressuring [him] to take PEDs." The problem is, Schilling will likely never identify just who approached him with the idea, nor the context.



#24 CoolPapaBellhorn

  • 935 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:31 AM

He said member of the organization, not the manager or front office personnel. For crying out loud, it could have been a clubhouse attendant or a fucking bat boy for all we know. I think people are reading into this that it was someone important in the organization and reacting to what they're imagining rather than what Schilling said.

So let me re-phrase...if the team isn't the Red Sox, WE aren't reacting to this, nor is EEI reporting on it as "breaking news" and it's much more of a non-story.

 

I think it's pretty safe to assume that if it was a bat boy or the like, he wouldn't have even mentioned it. Or he at least would have said it differently. Let's not totally bury our heads in the sand here.



#25 HillysLastWalk

  • 3771 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:33 AM

I clicked on the link yesterday, and the only thing I got from it was the wonderment of how people on this earth could listen to Colin Cowherd for more than 5 minutes.  Ick.

 

Though I do think:

 

"members of the organization" was said in an attempt to be vague (when pressed by Colin).  What you are seeing in this thread is what happens when you try to interpret a vague statement.

 

And his motive is nothing more than the guy talks.  Which, I personally love.

 

Lastly, this would be a big deal if this was Arizona.  PEDs is big news these days.


Edited by HillysLastWalk, 07 February 2013 - 11:35 AM.


#26 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41499 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:34 AM

I have nothing against him saying what happened, but he can't be this mysterious. If you're going to out it, then out it. It's not fair to those who were not involved to have this hanging over their head. I read it as not being a player as well, but it would be a hoot if it was Manny.

#27 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 4818 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:36 AM

I think it's pretty safe to assume that if it was a bat boy or the like, he wouldn't have even mentioned it. Or he at least would have said it differently. Let's not totally bury our heads in the sand here.

Or he did just to have a story to tell Cowherd and fill 90 seconds of the interview.

I'm not burying my head in the sand about this, but at the same time I think it's ridiculous to take his vague statements about a "member of the organization" (one he also says is no longer with the team) as some sort of indictment of the whole organization or an implication that teams have been complicit with PED use all along (rather than semi-blindly looking the other way).

#28 cornwalls@6

  • 205 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:39 AM

He has attempted to get his name on the front page or side-bar of ESPN.com for as long as I can remember. A few days ago he told reporters that he knew of gay teammates that he played with but wouldn't name names.

 

He wants relevancy. He wants to be seen as the 'truth' within the game. He doesn't have much left but his stories and so I imagine they will all come out, in one form or another, as he trudges through a retirement without grace.

 

 

This. Given the failure of his company, he may very well need a high-profile media job for financial reasons. Increasingly the way people remain viable in those jobs, particularly at the 4-letter network, is to say controversial things, get side-bars, page-hits, become the manufactured story of the day/week on talk radio, various other platforms, etc. There is virtually no down-side to doing it in the less than honorable way he's chosen to do it: Throw out the bombshell insinuation, provide no names or evidence, and smear by association anyone who was with the Red Sox, uniformed or not, in 2008. The rest of the media will, already has, swarm onto the story and report/discuss it as gospel.  Mission accomplished for the big fella.  And I say all of that with full acceptance that his claims could very well be true. 



#29 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 10960 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:47 AM

He said member of the organization, not the manager or front office personnel. For crying out loud, it could have been a clubhouse attendant or a fucking bat boy for all we know. I think people are reading into this that it was someone important in the organization and reacting to what they're imagining rather than what Schilling said.

So let me re-phrase...if the team isn't the Red Sox, WE aren't reacting to this, nor is EEI reporting on it as "breaking news" and it's much more of a non-story.

Really?  As JMOH said, if Schilling implicated Brenly then it's logical to assume, based on the plethora of evidence, that other teams management were complicit in PED use no matter if they were prescribing or just looking the other way.  This is a story.

 

'Members of (all levels of) the organization ' was also the phrase used when Tito was trashed on his way out of town.  Somehow, I don't think it matters in this context.


Edited by Dogman2, 07 February 2013 - 11:48 AM.


#30 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11196 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:53 AM

I think it's pretty safe to assume that if it was a bat boy or the like, he wouldn't have even mentioned it. Or he at least would have said it differently. Let's not totally bury our heads in the sand here.

 

I agree. "Members" has connotations that would rule out a batboy or an intern. If it had been somebody like that I would expect him to have said "employees." "Members" implies status, not necessarily top-brass kind of status, but not bottom-of-the-ladder status either. Of course it's possible that Schilling just picked the wrong word to express his thoughts, but he's a pretty articulate guy and I'd bet against it.

 

Besides, would a batboy or an intern even dream of bringing up a subject like that to a respected veteran like Schilling? The very topic of the conversation implies that the mystery "members" were not fringe or junior people.



#31 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22159 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:57 AM

My guess is it was a member of the training staff.

 

Of course there's one other member of the Organization, one who doesn't get mentioned much here, but who many folks have commented has a disturbingly large head.

Spoiler


#32 Mugsys Jock


  • Longtime Member


  • 3901 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:03 PM

I don't really believe this to be the case, but if the medical staff had recommended a technical PED under the Therapeutic Use Exemption to aid his recovery from injury and planned to get permission from the League etc., would that still count as being offered a PED by members of the organisation?

This is along the lines of what I thought too... he had an injury and somebody on the medical staff informed him that taking HGH or the like would be the best course of treatment for his recovery.  That may or may not have included a "hey, but that would run afoul of the league's PED policy so you probably don't want to go there" kind of wiggle room.



#33 Mugsys Jock


  • Longtime Member


  • 3901 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:03 PM

My guess is it was a member of the training staff.

 

Of course there's one other member of the Organization, one who doesn't get mentioned much here, but who many folks have commented has a disturbingly large head.

Spoiler

Also has brutal back-ne.



#34 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25339 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:05 PM

This is along the lines of what I thought too... he had an injury and somebody on the medical staff informed him that taking HGH or the like would be the best course of treatment for his recovery.  That may or may not have included a "hey, but that would run afoul of the league's PED policy so you probably don't want to go there" kind of wiggle room.

 

 

His entire statement is so vague as to be pretty meaningless in terms of real discussion. Who were these people? Coaching staff, medical, other players, the batboys? What exactly did they suggest? Did they really want him to try PEDs/HGH? Were they, in fact, fucking with him?



#35 Steve Dillard


  • wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour


  • 3663 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:17 PM

.

Really? You think that if, say, Bob Brenly told Curt Schilling that he should do steroids that it wouldn't be a huge story? Like at all?

 

Wow.

 

Who said anything about steroids?  Put this in the context of shoulder injury surgery vs. rehab, and the borderline issues associated with PRP, is it possible they were encouraging use of unproven medical non-steroid treatments that HE might have associated this with improper "performance enhancement"?  Why else would the front office discuss it in the public in front of others?



#36 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 11708 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:28 PM

This is a big nothingburger until and unless he provides details.  Which he won't, because he hasn't shown any interest in being MLB's PED whistleblower.  What he wants is to have it both ways--be seen as edgy and critical of the PED era, but to not burn any bridges he hasn't already set alight.



#37 Nuf Ced


  • stupidity monitor


  • 9210 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:38 PM

This is a big nothingburger until and unless he provides details.  Which he won't, because he hasn't shown any interest in being MLB's PED whistleblower.  What he wants is to have it both ways--be seen as edgy and critical of the PED era, but to not burn any bridges he hasn't already set alight.

Schilling makes outrageous statement. Gets attention. Realizes there are consequences. Backpedals. Rinse, repeat.



#38 xpisblack

  • 2658 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:42 PM

This is a big nothingburger until and unless he provides details.  Which he won't, because he hasn't shown any interest in being MLB's PED whistleblower.  What he wants is to have it both ways--be seen as edgy and critical of the PED era, but to not burn any bridges he hasn't already set alight.

I'd hope so, but I fear his vagueness makes speculation the story.  He says "members of the organisation," and suddenly every hack reporter with web access starts accusing the Red Sox of pushing drugs, and then it blows into speculation about the rest of the league, and so on.  His unwillingness to burn bridges is effectively burning bridges: he brings up being offered PEDs by unnamed members of the organisation, and suddenly every member of the organisation is under a bus of suspicion driven by a hack with a lead.  He's lobbed Eris's apple into the gaggle whilst trying to remain aloof; it can't work.  So he'll back down at some point and say it wasn't anyone in the front office or in uniform, and then everyone will get frustrated again and back down and it will go away.  But that doesn't stop it being a distraction and an AW move right the now.



#39 jacklamabe65


  • A New Frontier butt boy


  • 5977 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:44 PM

I wonder if he would be willing to testify about in Congress.  :)


Edited by jacklamabe65, 07 February 2013 - 12:46 PM.


#40 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25339 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:45 PM

Schilling makes outrageous statement. Gets attention. Realizes there are consequences. Backpedals. Rinse, repeat.

 

Gets on ESPN to clarify his positions. Gets check for appearance. Signs check over to state of RI. Rinse and repeat.



#41 Buck Showalter


  • SoSH Member


  • 5002 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:47 PM

Would anyone agree that the language "members of the organization" strongly suggests non-uniformed personnel, or at least, not players?

 

And a trainer would fit this description here.

 

Paul Lessard was the trainer at the time and he remains in MLB and with another franchise - correct?



#42 Stuart Scott's Lazy Eye


  • Sad Sack


  • 1655 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:48 PM

Lest we forget what Merloni said about spring training in 2009

 

 

 


"There's a doctor up there and he's talking about steroids, and everyone was like, 'Here we go, we're going to sit here and get the whole thing — they're bad for you.'

"No. He spins it and says, 'You know what? If you take steroids and sit on the couch all winter long, you can actually get stronger than someone who works out clean. If you're going to take steroids, one cycle won't hurt you; abusing steroids it will.'

"He sat there for one hour and told us how to properly use steroids while I'm with the Boston Red Sox, sitting there with the rest of the organization, and after this I said, 'What the heck was that?' And everybody on the team was like, 'What was that?' And the response we got was, 'Well, we know guys are taking it, so we want to make sure they're taking it the right way.' ... Where did that come from? That didn't come from the Players Association."



#43 John Marzano Olympic Hero


  • has fancy plans, and pants to match


  • 15078 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:50 PM

So let me re-phrase...if the team isn't the Red Sox, WE aren't reacting to this, nor is EEI reporting on it as "breaking news" and it's much more of a non-story.

 

No shit. Last I checked this is the Sons of Sam Horn, not the Sons of Luis Gonzalez. Much like I don't care that Jesus Montero is connected to BioGenesis.

 

Who said anything about steroids?  Put this in the context of shoulder injury surgery vs. rehab, and the borderline issues associated with PRP, is it possible they were encouraging use of unproven medical non-steroid treatments that HE might have associated this with improper "performance enhancement"?  Why else would the front office discuss it in the public in front of others?

 

Isn't that the implaction that Schilling gave to Cowherd that someone in the Red Sox organization advised him to use PEDs, which are code for steroids or HGH. Why is this far-fetched to you? But if you want to believe that Curt Schilling (who is a lot of things, but not totally stupid) completely misunderstood what somone is telling him to do, I guess that's on you.



#44 JimD

  • 4517 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:00 PM

My guess is that he is referring to some lower or mid-level member of the training or medical staff.  Those were the people who could move throughout the organization and have easy access to users yet remain below the radar of the FO and ownership.  To read Schilling's comments and immediately leap to the conclusion that the RS organization as a whole condoned and/or encouraged PED usage is a ridiculous leap of logic.



#45 xpisblack

  • 2658 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:01 PM

My guess is that he is referring to some lower or mid-level member of the training or medical staff.  Those were the people who could move throughout the organization and have easy access to users yet remain below the radar of the FO and ownership.  To read Schilling's comments and immediately leap to the conclusion that the RS organization as a whole condoned and/or encouraged PED usage is a ridiculous leap of logic.

...which all too many will make in public fora.



#46 Comfortably Lomb


  • Koko the Monkey


  • 6635 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:07 PM

well...if true (and there is not reason to believe it isn't), then its a huge black eye on the franchise. and would imply either medical personnel or front office members

 

Why is there no assumption this wasn't a conversation taking place in 29 other MLB clubhouses as well?  This is how the game was played during this era--why wouldn't some guy in each clubhouse be talking to aging, broken-down veterans about their PED options?  It's just how things were during the PED era.



#47 Steve Dillard


  • wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour


  • 3663 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:19 PM

Isn't that the implaction that Schilling gave to Cowherd that someone in the Red Sox organization advised him to use PEDs, which are code for steroids or HGH. Why is this far-fetched to you? But if you want to believe that Curt Schilling (who is a lot of things, but not totally stupid) completely misunderstood what somone is telling him to do, I guess that's on you.

 

Because he was never asked about PEDs, steroids or HGH.  The actual question was whether he was ever encouraged to do "sketchy substances."  So when he says "this is a potential path I might want to pursue," who knows what he is referring to -- does he think stem cells are sketchy, does he think embrionic cells are sketchy because of his views on abortion.   That RPR is a quack/sketchy treatment?  To suddenly limit the conversation to steroids is a huge leap, one that makes no sense in the context of a staff member having a conversation in front of many other people.



#48 xpisblack

  • 2658 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:25 PM

Why is there no assumption this wasn't a conversation taking place in 29 other MLB clubhouses as well?  This is how the game was played during this era--why wouldn't some guy in each clubhouse be talking to aging, broken-down veterans about their PED options?  It's just how things were during the PED era.

"Was played"?  "How things were"?  So, when "did" the Steroid Era end, then?



#49 nvalvo


  • SoSH Member


  • 7525 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:27 PM

My guess is that he is referring to some lower or mid-level member of the training or medical staff.  Those were the people who could move throughout the organization and have easy access to users yet remain below the radar of the FO and ownership.  To read Schilling's comments and immediately leap to the conclusion that the RS organization as a whole condoned and/or encouraged PED usage is a ridiculous leap of logic.

 

Well, what about Merloni's testimony that Stuart Scott's Lazy Eye quoted above? 

 

I don't think we should "leap to the conclusion" either, just based on remarks from Schilling, of all people. But there's getting to be an awful lot of smoke, not about the Red Sox specifically, about about MLB franchises; at a certain point it isn't a "ridiculous leap of logic" anymore to imagine that a franchise was actively involved in PEDs.

 

The story that Selig wants us to buy about how steroids were brought into the game by some of the players without any complicity from clubs has never added up. From McGuire's bottle of Andro sitting in his open locker to Barry Bonds' changing hat sizes to the entire career of Jose Canseco (who has a spell in Boston on his CV, remember), it has never been credible that clubs weren't at least aware of what was going on, if not participants. Think about the teams Tony LaRussa was involved with. Are we seriously to imagine that he didn't know about PEDs?

 

Now as I said, I don't think Schillings remarks are, alone, worth getting too upset about. As others have pointed out, he was not terribly specific about the proposals. Maybe they were talking about something in more of a grey area, like what Bartolo Colon had done. Who knows? We will need to wait for more facts. But I don't think the club's hypothetical involvement in PED use is as hard to believe as you seem to. 



#50 mt8thsw9th


  • anti-SoSHal


  • 13837 posts

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:34 PM

.

Really? You think that if, say, Bob Brenly told Curt Schilling that he should do steroids that it wouldn't be a huge story? Like at all?

 

Wow.

 

That's under the assumption he'd ever throw Brenly under a bus. He's shown he's fiercely loyal to those he's "cool" with, and goes out of his way to throw everyone which he's not under the bus. The latter is great for him as he can become the story. 

 

The other side of this story is Schilling scurrying to sign a contract right after the end of the season likely knowing he was hurt. It astounds me that the medical staff didn't catch anything on his physical. He struggled with it all 2007, and was shelved before even reporting to Spring Training in 2008. I'd be curious to hear him actually speak about that prior to blowing up this story about his rehab.

 

 


No shit. Last I checked this is the Sons of Sam Horn, not the Sons of Luis Gonzalez. Much like I don't care that Jesus Montero is connected to BioGenesis.

 

Yeah, Red Sox fans don't care for Luis Gonzalez one bit. :)


Edited by mt8thsw9th, 07 February 2013 - 01:36 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users