The Mitchell Report: Steroids Run Rampant

[JasonEvans]

Will anyone else be watching at 2pm when the report is released? They say 60-80 names will be named. We all know some names that will be on the list, but what if your favorite player who you thought was clean is named-- will that change your opinion of him/her? Would you want your team to deal/drop players who were 'roiding?

What if Chipper Jones is named?
What if Roger Clemens is named?
What if Cal Ripken is named?

What should baseball do? Should records be re-set?

--Jason "lets make this thread our collection point for steroid stuff today" Evans

[wilson]

Will anyone else be watching at 2pm when the report is released? They say 60-80 names will be named. We all know some names that will be on the list, but what if your favorite player who you thought was clean is named-- will that change your opinion of him/her? Would you want your team to deal/drop players who were 'roiding?

What if Chipper Jones is named?
What if Roger Clemens is named?
What if Cal Ripken is named?

What should baseball do? Should records be re-set?

--Jason "lets make this thread our collection point for steroid stuff today" Evans

Funny you should pose your question like that. In the long run, I think this process can only be good for baseball, but my first thought this morning as I listened to the sportscenter Mitchell Report pregame was worry.
I am terrified of two people's names being on the list: Chipper Jones and John Smoltz. Please note, I am not insinuating that I believe either guy is/was a user, but if it comes out that one of them was, it would genuinely rock my baseball fanhood, not to mention destroying any shred of respect/affinity I ever had for either. I am virtually positive that there will be some names on the list that I will find sorely dismaying, but if either of my above-mentioned favorites end up on there, I'll seriously question whether I want to have anything to do with baseball anymore.
This probably shouldn't worry me as much as it does, but I'm definitely a bit on edge.:o

[billybreen]

Will anyone else be watching at 2pm when the report is released? They say 60-80 names will be named. We all know some names that will be on the list, but what if your favorite player who you thought was clean is named-- will that change your opinion of him/her? Would you want your team to deal/drop players who were 'roiding?

I'll be hoping that my least favorite players (Curt Schilling) are on the list.

[riverside6]

I'll definitely be listening on my XM Radio. I think it will be interesting to see what happens and who is named. Just heard on my XM that several prominent Yankees are named and that it will be a rough day in the Bronx.

Whoever is named the bigger question will be, so what? What will happen to the names?

[Bostondevil]

For a long while, steroid use was illegal but not banned by baseball. If some folks used steroids then, for me as a fan, I just don't care that much. I kind of feel that yeah, maybe they should have known better but since use was probably rampant and not specifically prohibited by MLB, well, that's the way things were done. Now, baseball has banned it, it's a rule, you gotta follow the rules. I care more about future steroid use than past stuff.

[cspan37421]

Records will not be re-set, for better or worse. That's my prediction. You can't take away some records without affecting the outcome of some of the games they were played in, nor the records of those who played clean (if there are any).

I think records will just be relative to an era - the dead ball era, the steroid era, etc. Maybe if the sport ever gets cleaned up, i.e., they can and do test for all known performance-enhancing drugs, then 40 hr will again be the sign of a great slugger. And comparisons will just be made to the then-current testing regime.

There's going to be a lot of players tarred as frauds, but in the end, I still enjoy the game. I enjoyed it before the drugs too, and in fact, I rather prefer the small ball. Single, stolen base, hit & run, etc. Homer after homer, the boring trot around, it isn't very exciting. Close plays at the plate, at 2nd, working a walk after a lot of foul balls, turning a critical dp - that's all exciting to me.

[cspan37421]

I do find it a bit ludicrous that performances using something "not banned" by MLB but illegal under the laws of the USA are considered legit by many (e.g., players' union?).

But as I said above, one cannot easily remove them from the historical record.

[wilson]

There's going to be a lot of players tarred as frauds, but in the end, I still enjoy the game. I enjoyed it before the drugs too, and in fact, I rather prefer the small ball. Single, stolen base, hit & run, etc. Homer after homer, the boring trot around, it isn't very exciting. Close plays at the plate, at 2nd, working a walk after a lot of foul balls, turning a critical dp - that's all exciting to me.

Amen to that. But to me, illegal or not, against the rules or not, performance-enhancing drugs were and are cheating, and that's something I just can't abide. I don't even cheat at Monopoly (I will, however, kick your I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.), and I don't think it's asking a lot to hope that multimillionaires with already extraordinary physical gifts approach their game with the same respect. It would really bother me if some of my favorites turned out to be cheaters.

[mr. synellinden]

Will anyone else be watching at 2pm when the report is released? They say 60-80 names will be named. We all know some names that will be on the list, but what if your favorite player who you thought was clean is named-- will that change your opinion of him/her? Would you want your team to deal/drop players who were 'roiding?

What if Chipper Jones is named?
What if Roger Clemens is named?
What if Cal Ripken is named?

What should baseball do? Should records be re-set?

--Jason "lets make this thread our collection point for steroid stuff today" Evans

I will definitely be watching. This will be the biggest sports story of the year and possibly of many years if, as we've been hearing, there are prominent names - MVPs, All-Stars, potential hall of famers - on there besides Bonds. I have my ideas regarding some of them, including those on the Yankees. I have a hunch that some of the most recent MVPs in both leagues will be on the list including one who won a World Series title recently. I think this has the potential to shake the foundations of the sport. I am particularly interested in the MLBPA response to the report and to calls for third party testing.

[JasonEvans]

ESPN is reporting that Clemens is on the list. Not a shocker but still a huge blow to baseball. The greatest pitcher of the past 30 or so years... sad.

The best pitcher and best hitter in the game both were using. This is a huge blow to baseball.

-Jason "Roger and Barry both had a shot at being the first unanimous HOFers... now they will likely not even go in on the first ballot" Evans

[mr. synellinden]

ESPN is reporting that Clemens is on the list. Not a shocker but still a huge blow to baseball. The greatest pitcher of the past 30 or so years... sad.

The best pitcher and best hitter in the game both were using. This is a huge blow to baseball.

-Jason "Roger and Barry both had a shot at being the first unanimous HOFers... now they will likely not even go in on the first ballot" Evans

Agree that it is a huge blow to baseball and Clemens's legacy but I would be more surprised if he were not on the list. It also makes it very likely that Pettitte is on the list which would be far more disturbing to me as a Yankee fan and a baseball fan.

I suspect several other prominent Yankees are on the list. I wonder if there will be more National Leaguers due to the bulk of the information coming from the Mets clubhouse attendant.

[DUKIECB]

I agree with everyone that the record books will not be altered. It's just going to be a sad, sad day for the fans of the sport. It's ashame because it didn't have to come to this.

It will be interesting to see how the game is affected beginning next year. I think I read where baseball made something like 6 billion in revenue this year. Will the fans as a whole continue their support after a bomb like this. Only time will tell.

[hurleyfor3]

The existence of the entire field of sabermetrics is pretty much predicated on the belief that stats in different circumstances (eras in this case) need to be interpereted in context. I can't be convinced one era's batch of numbers is better or worse than any other's.

What if the list includes... Cal Ripken? His head got bigger too, just like Barry's.

[rthomas]

ESPN is reporting that Clemens is on the list. Not a shocker but still a huge blow to baseball. The greatest pitcher of the past 30 or so years... sad.

The best pitcher and best hitter in the game both were using. This is a huge blow to baseball.

-Jason "Roger and Barry both had a shot at being the first unanimous HOFers... now they will likely not even go in on the first ballot" Evans

a. This doesn't surprise me a bit.
b. I don't agree that Clemens is the greatest pitcher in last 30 years.
c. Best pitcher in last 30 years is Maddox.
d. I would be highly suprised if Maddox was on this list.

[Bostondevil]

Ah, cheating. Define it. Is stealing signs cheating? Everybody tries to do it, some succeed. How about spitballs, Gaylord Perry is in the HOF if I'm not mistaken. How about ARod yelling at that third baseman on a pop-up? How about Ty Cobb going in spikes up? Where do you draw the line? Do you draw the line at things you put in your mouth or inject under your skin? Why? What's the real difference? Thirty years ago, according to interviews I've read, all the guys took amphetamines, that was the performance enhancing drug of choice at the time. Ten years ago, it was steroids. What makes steroids any different? Was absolutely everyone in a major league uniform taking drugs at any given time? No, but when enough guys around you are doing it and your livelihood depends on it and MLB doesn't have a official policy, I mean, why wouldn't you?


MLB is not the Olympics where they've been trying to root out the performance enhancing abusers for years. If as many as 80 players are on that list it's because MLB turned a blind eye to what was going on. When the culture implicitly condones the behavior, I just can't consider it cheating.

[riverside6]

Well, Maddux (sorry had to do it) has really bulked up over the years :).

[Tommac]

If there are up to 80 names that are going to come out, then I believe that there are probably hundreds of players who have used performance enhancing drugs in the past 10-15 years. With so much contract money riding on performance, it only stands to reason that many players would try to gain an edge or just keep up with other players to protect their livelyhood. I'm not condoning what had been done, but it is understandable and these 60-80 names are probably the tip of the iceberg.

[TillyGalore]

If Cal is on the list I will be GREATLY disappointed!!!

I don't need that today. It's been bad enough that today is HUGE milestone b-day, but for Cal to be on the list would really put this day in the toilet for me.

[bdh21]

A guy in my office just passed out "Mitchell Report Bingo" cards.

I think my best chance is on the "John Kruk-Kerry Woods-Barry Bonds-Joe Borowski-Paul LoDuca" row...

[Shammrog]

A guy in my office just passed out "Mitchell Report Bingo" cards.

I think my best chance is on the "John Kruk-Kerry Woods-Barry Bonds-Joe Borowski-Paul LoDuca" row...


That is HILARIOUS! Know where I can get one to print online?

[MulletMan]

In 2005 I had the pleasure to travel to Cooperstown, NY to see my favorite player of all time, Ryne Sandberg get inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame along with Wade Boggs and Peter Gammons. On a wonderfully sunny day, I sat in the grass along side my dad and watched many of his childhood heros take the stage and welcome mine into thier special fraternity. A conspicuously quiet player, Sandberg made one helluva speech that day. Although it recieved little attention, it recieved a standing ovation from the living HOFers on hand... and it was for more than just the parts where he thanked his family.

On a day like this, I think people should read it and understand that what went on in baseball was not OK with a lot of people. (http://www.cubsnet.com/node/526)

[rthomas]

Well, Maddux (sorry had to do it) has really bulked up over the years :).

Then I'm right that Maddox won't be on the list.:)

[Jumbo]

Will anyone else be watching at 2pm when the report is released? They say 60-80 names will be named. We all know some names that will be on the list, but what if your favorite player who you thought was clean is named-- will that change your opinion of him/her? Would you want your team to deal/drop players who were 'roiding?

What if Chipper Jones is named?
What if Roger Clemens is named?
What if Cal Ripken is named?

What should baseball do? Should records be re-set?

--Jason "lets make this thread our collection point for steroid stuff today" Evans

Did you really just use Larry Jones' name in the same group as Clemens and Ripken???

[wilson]

In 2005 I had the pleasure to travel to Cooperstown, NY to see my favorite player of all time, Ryne Sandberg get inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame along with Wade Boggs and Peter Gammons. On a wonderfully sunny day, I sat in the grass along side my dad and watched many of his childhood heros take the stage and welcome mine into thier special fraternity. A conspicuously quiet player, Sandberg made one helluva speech that day. Although it recieved little attention, it recieved a standing ovation from the living HOFers on hand... and it was for more than just the parts where he thanked his family.

On a day like this, I think people should read it and understand that what went on in baseball was not OK with a lot of people. (http://www.cubsnet.com/node/526)

That's a great speech, and I do remember Sandberg's impassioned delivery of it. While there was widespread condoning of steroids, it was not universal. That's why it's still cheating.

[Shammrog]

Did you really just use Larry Jones' name in the same group as Clemens and Ripken???

You gotta be fair; Jason is from Atlanta...

(do Hooter's wings contain banned substances?)

[snowdenscold]

I rather prefer the small ball. Single, stolen base, hit & run, etc. Homer after homer, the boring trot around, it isn't very exciting. Close plays at the plate, at 2nd, working a walk after a lot of foul balls, turning a critical dp - that's all exciting to me.

I agree - I would rather watch a game full of singles and doubles without a single HR then one with a couple HR's and nothing else but flyouts, groundouts and strikeouts.

[Duvall]

Did you really just use Larry Jones' name in the same group as Clemens and Ripken???

That's a good point. Ripken was deeply overrated.

[yachtrock]

Ah, cheating. Define it. Is stealing signs cheating? Everybody tries to do it, some succeed. How about spitballs, Gaylord Perry is in the HOF if I'm not mistaken. How about ARod yelling at that third baseman on a pop-up? How about Ty Cobb going in spikes up? Where do you draw the line? Do you draw the line at things you put in your mouth or inject under your skin? Why? What's the real difference? Thirty years ago, according to interviews I've read, all the guys took amphetamines, that was the performance enhancing drug of choice at the time. Ten years ago, it was steroids. What makes steroids any different? Was absolutely everyone in a major league uniform taking drugs at any given time? No, but when enough guys around you are doing it and your livelihood depends on it and MLB doesn't have a official policy, I mean, why wouldn't you?



It's illegal. Does your office have a specific policy on every law? Do you feel that anything not covered in the employee handbook is fair game? What if a colleague is preventing you from getting your work done, or a better job than you are, and as a consequence you could be fired. I bet you could just tie him up and stuff him in a drawer somewhere, seeing as how there is probably not an official policy against it, and its your livelihood and all....

It makes me sad that there is cheating in baseball, and I think the league should have been actively trying to root out the problem. But the players still cheated, and knew they were cheating.

[DUKIECB]

Ah, cheating. Define it. Is stealing signs cheating? Everybody tries to do it, some succeed. How about spitballs, Gaylord Perry is in the HOF if I'm not mistaken. How about ARod yelling at that third baseman on a pop-up? How about Ty Cobb going in spikes up? Where do you draw the line? Do you draw the line at things you put in your mouth or inject under your skin? Why? What's the real difference? Thirty years ago, according to interviews I've read, all the guys took amphetamines, that was the performance enhancing drug of choice at the time. Ten years ago, it was steroids. What makes steroids any different? Was absolutely everyone in a major league uniform taking drugs at any given time? No, but when enough guys around you are doing it and your livelihood depends on it and MLB doesn't have a official policy, I mean, why wouldn't you?


MLB is not the Olympics where they've been trying to root out the performance enhancing abusers for years. If as many as 80 players are on that list it's because MLB turned a blind eye to what was going on. When the culture implicitly condones the behavior, I just can't consider it cheating.

I sort of subscribe your "enough guys around you are doing it and your livelihood depends on it" theory. It just stinks that it came to this.

Cheating is cheating no matter what form it is in. That's my $.02 cents anyway.

[hurleyfor3]

I agree - I would rather watch a game full of singles and doubles without a single HR then one with a couple HR's and nothing else but flyouts, groundouts and strikeouts.

The latter describes Game One of the 1988 World Series. Most people consider it one of the better games in history.

[hurleyfor3]

Apparently WNBC (the affiliate station in New York) just posted a list and pulled it down. This was the list but MLB HAS SAID IT MAY CONTAIN ERRORS

Brady Anderson
Manny Alexander
Rick Ankiel
Jeff Bagwell
Barry Bonds
Aaron Boone
Rafael Bettancourt
Bret Boone
Milton Bradley
David Bell
Dante Bichette
Albert Belle
Paul Byrd
Wil Cordero
Ken Caminiti
Mike Cameron
Ramon Castro
Jose and Ozzie Canseco
Roger Clemens
Paxton Crawford
Wilson Delgado
Lenny Dykstra
Johnny Damon
Carl Everett
Kyle Farnsworth
Ryan Franklin
Troy Glaus
Rich Garces
Jason Grimsley
Troy Glaus
Juan Gonzalez
Eric Gagne
Nomar Garciaparra
Jason Giambi
Jeremy Giambi
Jose Guillen
Jay Gibbons
Juan Gonzalez
Clay Hensley
Jerry Hairston
Felix Heredia, Jr.
Darren Holmes
Wally Joyner
Darryl Kile
Matt Lawton
Raul Mondesi
Mark McGwire
Guillermo Mota
Robert Machado
Damian Moss
Abraham Nunez
Trot Nixon
Jose Offerman
Andy Pettitte
Mark Prior
Neifi Perez
Rafael Palmiero
Albert Pujols
Brian Roberts
Juan Rincon
John Rocker
Pudge Rodriguez
Sammy Sosa
Scott Schoenweiis
David Segui
Alex Sanchez
Gary Sheffield
Miguel Tejada
Julian Tavarez
Fernando Tatis
Mo Vaughn
Jason Varitek
Ismael Valdes
Matt Williams
Kerry Wood.

[DUKIECB]

A lot of the obvious one are present...Bonds, Sosa, Palmero. Some surprises in there too. A lot of guys who maybe you wouldn't of thought of because of their size as well. I guess you don't have to look like a freak of nature to take steroids though.

[mr. synellinden]

Apparently WNBC (the affiliate station in New York) just posted a list and pulled it down. This was the list but MLB HAS SAID IT MAY CONTAIN ERRORS

Brady Anderson
Manny Alexander
Rick Ankiel
Jeff Bagwell
Barry Bonds
Aaron Boone
Rafael Bettancourt
Bret Boone
Milton Bradley
David Bell
Dante Bichette
Albert Belle
Paul Byrd
Wil Cordero
Ken Caminiti
Mike Cameron
Ramon Castro
Jose and Ozzie Canseco
Roger Clemens
Paxton Crawford
Wilson Delgado
Lenny Dykstra
Johnny Damon
Carl Everett
Kyle Farnsworth
Ryan Franklin
Troy Glaus
Rich Garces
Jason Grimsley
Troy Glaus
Juan Gonzalez
Eric Gagne
Nomar Garciaparra
Jason Giambi
Jeremy Giambi
Jose Guillen
Jay Gibbons
Juan Gonzalez
Clay Hensley
Jerry Hairston
Felix Heredia, Jr.
Darren Holmes
Wally Joyner
Darryl Kile
Matt Lawton
Raul Mondesi
Mark McGwire
Guillermo Mota
Robert Machado
Damian Moss
Abraham Nunez
Trot Nixon
Jose Offerman
Andy Pettitte
Mark Prior
Neifi Perez
Rafael Palmiero
Albert Pujols
Brian Roberts
Juan Rincon
John Rocker
Pudge Rodriguez
Sammy Sosa
Scott Schoenweiis
David Segui
Alex Sanchez
Gary Sheffield
Miguel Tejada
Julian Tavarez
Fernando Tatis
Mo Vaughn
Jason Varitek
Ismael Valdes
Matt Williams
Kerry Wood.

Wow.

Pujols and Clemens are the guys that are going to cause the most consternation I believe. For his age Pujols had to be the one of the most likeliest HOF candidates ever. How would this affect him? What about Clemens. My goodness, this opens up so much debate about records and HOF it's crazy. It's hard to even think about.


Other gut reactions:

Bagwell is disappointing but not a complete shock. Pettitte is devastating and a complete shock. Prior and Wood are unexpected. Varitek - big name but not a total surprise. Surprised Schilling is not on there despite his emphatic denials. Nomar is not totally surprising to me as a guy trying to recapture old glory and get over injuries (although of course there is no time frame - it could be during his Red Sox days for all I know).

But other than that, there aren't as many "Holy ___!" names on there as I thought.

[Cavlaw]

I don't have much of an interest in baseball, but I'll be curious about the methodology of the study and whether or not any lawsuits for defamation result from names being released.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

My buddy from Boston is sad about Trot and Varitek, but pretty excited about Damon, Clemens, Pettitte, and Giambi.

He was really hoping for ARod however.

[mr. synellinden]

My buddy from Boston is sad about Trot and Varitek, but pretty excited about Damon, Clemens, Pettitte, and Giambi.

He was really hoping for ARod however.

I should have added I was releived to see Posada not on the list and indifferent about ARod.

[dcarp23]

They mention Troy Glaus twice and misspell a number of names. That list looks like a collection of a) people that have been caught, b) people that have been strongly suspected and c) people who suffered a rash of injuries just after testing began.

[wilson]

Confirmation that this list is at least incomplete (to say nothing of any possible erroneous inclusions): Jon Heyman of SI is reporting Mike Stanton and Chuck Knoblauch (insert joke about infield overthrows here), who do not appear here, as well:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/12/13/mitchell.news/index.html?bcnn=yes

[Bostondevil]

It's illegal. Does your office have a specific policy on every law? Do you feel that anything not covered in the employee handbook is fair game? What if a colleague is preventing you from getting your work done, or a better job than you are, and as a consequence you could be fired. I bet you could just tie him up and stuff him in a drawer somewhere, seeing as how there is probably not an official policy against it, and its your livelihood and all....

It makes me sad that there is cheating in baseball, and I think the league should have been actively trying to root out the problem. But the players still cheated, and knew they were cheating.

And I say that TPTB knew it was going on and perhaps didn't actively encourage it, but sure as heck let it be known nothing was going to happen as long as the ticket and television money kept rolling in. Remember when McGwire and Sosa saved baseball? The owners and everyone else down the line dependent on these guys did not only not root out the problem, they covered their eyes and said do what you have to do. And my question is who exactly did they cheat? Us, the fans? Some guys work harder in the off season than others, some guys lift weights more than others, if steroids were available to anyone who wanted them (and they were, don't be naive about that) then it's just one more thing on the list. It came down to what a player was willing to do, some wouldn't take them, many did.

I always liked that SNL skit for the all steroid Olympics.

And if steroids were all it takes, there would be a lot more than one Barry Bonds.

Your office analogy breaks down for me somewhere, what are we equating with steroid use, stuffing the other guy in a drawer or sabotage by my fellow coworkers? Besides comparing professional athletes to the rest of us plebes never works. They live in a different world from the time they are teenagers, nowadays even sooner. Regular rules do not apply to them, unless they kill a dog, then all bets are off.

[TillyGalore]

I am disappointed to see Brian Roberts's name on this list. Not because he's on Oriole but because he had a heart issue when he was a child. I would think he would take better care of himself given his medical history.

But that's just me. :confused:

[wilson]

Heyman is now reporting David Justice as well, the most disappointing name yet for me.



And if steroids were all it takes, there would be a lot more than one Barry Bonds.


And I find this to be a facile and in the end only marginally useful assessment of the situation. Hand-eye coordination, etc. is of course part of it, but painting steroids as cheating is not the same as insinuating it's the only reason for these players' success. Cheating on top of good skills and however much hard work is nevertheless lazy and still cheating.

[riverside6]

I am disappointed to see Brian Roberts's name on this list. Not because he's on Oriole but because he had a heart issue when he was a child. I would think he would take better care of himself given his medical history.

But that's just me. :confused:

Well, in high school Brian hit a triple off of me. Now I know why. :)

Of course this isn't an official list yet, so hopefully he doesn't belong on the real list.

[Bostondevil]

And I find this to be a facile and in the end only marginally useful assessment of the situation. Hand-eye coordination, etc. is of course part of it, but painting steroids as cheating is not the same as insinuating it's the only reason for these players' success. Cheating on top of good skills and however much hard work is nevertheless lazy and still cheating.

Fair enough, point taken.

I don't know though. I don't feel cheated. But then again, much as I love sports, I have really low expectations of character on the part of athletes.

[dbb03]

i don't feel cheated either. hundreds of guys use(d) the stuff. some got caught, some didn't.

what exactly is this list based on? it seems like it wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

[TillyGalore]

Well, in high school Brian hit a triple off of me. Now I know why. :)

Of course this isn't an official list yet, so hopefully he doesn't belong on the real list.

LOL. Realizing this list isn't official I am hoping he truly is not on the list.


I don't feel cheated.

I do feel cheated! The rest of us do our job day in and day out and don't cheat. Why should they be allowed to cheat?:mad:

[tombrady]

what exactly is this list based on? it seems like it wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

i'm pretty sure all those photocopies of checks in the report would stand up just fine.

no varitek or trot nixon, mostly lots of yankees.

[allenmurray]

professional athletes . . . Regular rules do not apply to them

I believe that a persons reaction to this statement is probably a good indicator about whether or not they are bothered by steroid use in sports. Those of who thing that the regular rules should apply to professional athletes are bohtrered by steroids. those who don't thingk the regular rules should apply (or to be fair, have given up on the "regular rules" ever being enforced) for professional are not bothered by steroids.

[riverside6]

Well, Brian Roberts made the list...

Brian Roberts

Brian Roberts is an infielder who has played for the Baltimore Orioles since 2001.
He has been selected to two All-Star teams.
Roberts and Larry Bigbie were both rookies in 2001. According to Bigbie, both
he and Roberts lived in Segui's house in the Baltimore area during the latter part of that season.
When Bigbie and Segui used steroids in the house, Roberts did not participate.
According to Bigbie, however, in 2004 Roberts admitted to him that he had
injected himself once or twice with steroids in 2003. Until this admission, Bigbie had never
suspected Roberts of using steroids.
In order to provide Roberts with information about these allegations and to give
him an opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me; he declined.

[riverside6]

Anyone found a straight list of names yet? Call me lazy but I don't feel like reading through the entire report!

[Olympic Fan]

Add me to the list of those who think these guys (the ones who really did it) are cheaters and should be banished from the game. I agree that you can't change their records, but you can keep them out of the Hall of Fame and treat their careers with the contempt they deserve.

As a Duke guy, sorry to see Scott Schoenweis mentioned ... interesting that he's countered by UNC's Brian Roberts.

As a Yankee fan, I expected Giambi on the list. God, that was a given. I'm upset to see Pettite listed. He's the only Yankee on the list that bothers me. As for Clemons -- screw him, he's no longer a Yankee (besides, he pitched longer for the Red Sox than the Yankees). I kind of feel the same way about Damon -- I'd be glad to see the team dump him.

Glad to see A-Rod dodge the charge ... interesting that his biggest rival as the greatest hitter in this era (post-Bonds) was on the list -- Pujols. Also glad to see Posada not named.

However, I would have been crushed if Jeter was listed.

As a Braves fan (my No. 2 team), I am also delighted that Chipper, Smoltz and Maddux (I know he's no longer a Brave) appear to be in the clear. Any of those would have left me in depression.

Maddux has been one of my all-time favorites, but as much as I admire him, I have to admit that based on on-field performance, Clemens has been a slighty better pitcher -- a better winning percentage (playing on teams with comparable records) and a better ERA compared to league average.

However, if true that Clemens was a steroid user -- and Maddux wasn't -- then we have a whole new ballgame.

It will be interesting to see how this impacts future HOF debates. McGuire, Palmero and Bonds were always going to be controversial -- now we can add Clemens and Pudge Rodriguez to the mix.

[DUKIECB]

It will be interesting to see how the fans in Houston treat their new stud Tejada they just traded for since he seems to have been in on the fun.;)

[Bostondevil]

I believe that a persons reaction to this statement is probably a good indicator about whether or not they are bothered by steroid use in sports. Those of who thing that the regular rules should apply to professional athletes are bohtrered by steroids. those who don't thingk the regular rules should apply (or to be fair, have given up on the "regular rules" ever being enforced) for professional are not bothered by steroids.

Note: I didn't say the regular rules shouldn't apply to them, but in all pratical applications, they don't. If enough people can make money off of you, even if they have to pay you a big chunk of it, you are somewhat protected from misbehavior in this society. And yes, you may call me cynical.

[mr. synellinden]

From the NYT:

Clemens had a 40-39 record from 1993 through 1996 and was not re-signed by the Boston Red Sox. The next year, he signed with the Toronto Blue Jays and began working out with McNamee.

Clemens had two of the best years in pitching history in 1997 and 1998, winning the Cy Young Award in both seasons and also led the league in wins, earned run average and strikeouts. He then went on to pitch for the Yankees from 1999 through 2003.

After Clemens declined to 14-10 with a 4.60 ERA in 1999, New York hired McNamee as assistant strength coach. During one stretch after that, Clemens won 27 games against three losses for the Yankees.

Clemens, who retired last season, has been considered one of the best pitchers in baseball history. Information and evidence from McNamee could raise questions about whether Clemens should be elected to the Hall of Fame.

McNamee, 40, of Breezy Point, N.Y., worked as a strength coach for the Blue Jays and the Yankees. He was also the personal trainer for Clemens and Pettite. McNamee, who holds a master’s degree in sports science from Long Island University, has also taught at St. John’s University.


That is very compelling evidence of the advantage he gained while/because of using steriods.

[DUKIECB]

From the NYT:

Clemens had a 40-39 record from 1993 through 1996 and was not re-signed by the Boston Red Sox. The next year, he signed with the Toronto Blue Jays and began working out with McNamee.

Clemens had two of the best years in pitching history in 1997 and 1998, winning the Cy Young Award in both seasons and also led the league in wins, earned run average and strikeouts. He then went on to pitch for the Yankees from 1999 through 2003.

After Clemens declined to 14-10 with a 4.60 ERA in 1999, New York hired McNamee as assistant strength coach. During one stretch after that, Clemens won 27 games against three losses for the Yankees.

Clemens, who retired last season, has been considered one of the best pitchers in baseball history. Information and evidence from McNamee could raise questions about whether Clemens should be elected to the Hall of Fame.

McNamee, 40, of Breezy Point, N.Y., worked as a strength coach for the Blue Jays and the Yankees. He was also the personal trainer for Clemens and Pettite. McNamee, who holds a master’s degree in sports science from Long Island University, has also taught at St. John’s University.


That is very compelling evidence of the advantage he gained while/because of using steriods.

Pretty damning!

[aimo]

Anyone found a straight list of names yet? Call me lazy but I don't feel like reading through the entire report!

Try this . .

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=3995430&page=1

[billybreen]

Pretty damning!

Wow, I wish they made steroids for my profession. What a testimonial!

[mr. synellinden]

Try this . .

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=3995430&page=1

That list is a lot more dull than the one that was making the rounds earlier. Of all the people I thought might be on the list and aren't, Pujols is the most surprising to me. If he's clean, great but I have a very hard time believing that.

[YmoBeThere]

Interesting some of the names not on the list like Sheffield...

[hurleyfor3]

I liked the first list better.

[billybreen]

Try this . .

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=3995430&page=1

There's a second page:
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=3995430&page=2

Assuming those lists are complete, Damon is off the hook as well.

[YmoBeThere]

Me too...more salacious. A lot of the players here didn't amount to much...

[Ben63]

This isn't as big of a bombshell as i orginally thought. Clemens and Tejada are the biggest names but are we really surprised they are on there. Tejada got huge and Clemens is 45 and still throwing heat.

Keep in mind this list is far from complete (IMO) and just because someones name isnt on here soesnt mean they are home free. Remeber all the names in Cansecos book that didnt make this list. Canseco isnt as credible as Mitchell but I dont see why we can just dismiss Canseco.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

As for Clemons -- screw him, he's no longer a Yankee (besides, he pitched longer for the Red Sox than the Yankees).

It looks like Clemens didn't pick up the juice until he was with the Blue Jays.

[YmoBeThere]

It certainly explains his "longevity" well past the normal pitching prime. I guess everyone from Texas can't be Nolan Ryan.

[hc5duke]

My script is still a bit buggy but the following is what I compiled from baseball-reference.com:

Teams vs # of players breakdown
BOS = 16
CLE = 15
BAL = 13
TEX = 13
CHC = 12
NYM = 11
KCR = 10
STL = 10
FLA = 10
LAD = 9
ATL = 9
NYY = 9
CHW = 9
OAK = 8
SDP = 7
SEA = 7
TOR = 7
MON = 7
ANA = 6
HOU = 6
DET = 6
COL = 5
ARI = 5
SFG = 5
CIN = 5
MIN = 4
TBD = 4
PHI = 4
PIT = 4
MIL = 4
CAL = 3
LAA = 1
WSN = 1

Basically, each player who has been on a team adds to that team's total. So Roger Clemens would add 1 to BOS, TOR, NYY, HOU. This is of course assuming Roger was juicing while he was with all four teams. My script ignores trading years, but that should only matter if a player was with a team less than 2 years.

Next up, linking these with managers in charge at the time. I'm guessing OAK (8) and STL (10) are going to add up to some large numbers for LaRussa.

[billybreen]

My script is still a bit buggy but the following is what I compiled from baseball-reference.com:

Teams vs # of players breakdown
BOS = 15

Sox win! Sox win!

[YmoBeThere]

Sox still on top with 16, getting a little worried about you BB. You hadn't posted for a few minutes.

[billybreen]

Sox still on top with 16, getting a little worried about you BB. You hadn't posted for a few minutes.

Shoveling. Sorry. Just trying to pick up the posting slack for EJ, who appears to have disappeared, perhaps as a result of credit card denial shame.

[YmoBeThere]

I appear to have been the only engineer who posted in that thread, I was more focused on the denial of the transaction than anyone's feelings.

[tecumseh]

Speaking of longevity how clean do you think the Pats are. I winced when someone talked about how Seau, Harrison, and Bruschi have found the fountain of youth. Call be cynical but Harrison got caught for HGH which is almost impossible. Seau is 38 yrs old whenever an athlete...like Clemens performs well beyond the sell by date I get suspicious. I was not surprised by the Clemens news.

[tombrady]

you guys all realize that just because someone was not in this report doesn't make them "clean" -- it just means that they were not a part of this specific investigation.

Mitchell found a few distributors and gathered names of people in that roid "cell."

Look at the people not on the list (Sheff) that we KNOW took steroids. That right there shows just because someone was not on this list, doesn't mean they are "in the clear."

Its not like he did blood tests for every single major leaguer the last 15 years.

[billybreen]

you guys all realize that just because someone was not in this report doesn't make them "clean" -- it just means that they were not a part of this specific investigation.

Yep, clearly it's a less reputable report than when it was 'mostly lots of Yankees.' ;)

[Lavabe]

Shoveling. Sorry. Just trying to pick up the posting slack for EJ, who appears to have disappeared, perhaps as a result of credit card denial shame.

How soon we forget! You'll recall from another thread that Earl of Jam is in DC/NoVa. Perhaps he will meet greybeard ... :confused:

Cheers,
Lavabe

[tombrady]

Yep, clearly it's a less reputable report than when it was 'mostly lots of Yankees.' ;)

what does this even mean?

[tecumseh]

Tom Brady remarks it's not like they blood tests on everyone. But the reality is as we all know even that would not catch every (most?) of the cheaters. Like I mentioned Harrison of the Pats was caught by records for buying HGH but HGH is undetectable at present and you have to believe a lot of baseball and football players are taking it. Not to pick on the Pats but you gotta believe Harrison's good buddy Juinor Seau is taking something. There is so much money in baseball and football and juicing can buy you an extra five years and a big contract who can blame them.

[tombrady]

Tom Brady remarks it's not like they blood tests on everyone. But the reality is as we all know even that would not catch every (most?) of the cheaters. Like I mentioned Harrison of the Pats was caught by records for buying HGH but HGH is undetectable at present and you have to believe a lot of baseball and football players are taking it. Not to pick on the Pats but you gotta believe Harrison's good buddy Juinor Seau is taking something. There is so much money in baseball and football and juicing can buy you an extra five years and a big contract who can blame them.

first off, everyone in football is on something. its not (naturally) humanly possible to be 6'7", 280 lb, and run a 4.6 40. its a whole different animal than baseball. hell, last year the NFL Defensive MVP won the award in season he was suspended for 25% of for steroids. (merriman). you think ARod could win MVP if he was out for 40 games for steroids? Whole different game.

that said, HGH is not currently detectable because they only test urine. you CAN detect HGH in blood (like WADA does)

[tecumseh]

There is a lot of debate about the HGH blood tests and whether they are reliable, notice how few positives there have been.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/front_page/7096221.stm

[CameronBlue]

post removed

[throatybeard]

I better juice the year before I go up for tenure.

[YmoBeThere]

I switched to the less detectable HGH, it lets me price auto insurance risks better...and you never know when you have to throw your LCD screen down the hall.

[tecumseh]

Not sure I buy this "whole different game" attitude. For one thing there are some positions, kickers, QBs, even wide receivers and D backs where if you are not old..HGH might not help you that much. Also pitching a baseball is very unnatural and a tremendous strain on your arm, I think HGH might help a lot here. I agree there are some positions like offensive linemen where I suspect juicing is the rule.

[captmojo]

As a Braves fan, I was saddened to not see the name Kent Hrbek. CRAP!

[JasonEvans]

Here is an excellent column (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AuvSTQ6OJNwVYeYoPcSq35M5nYcB?slug=dw-clemenssteroidsearly121307&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)on Bonds and Clemens.


Baseball has its white Barry Bonds.


It is Clemens and his arrogance through the years that makes this one so distasteful. Just like Bonds, he relished in his greatness, seemed to mock all the other mortals who couldn't keep up with his workout regimens, his off-season drive, his freak of nature physical abilities.

He liked to convey that maybe anyone could do this, if they just were as tough as the Texas Con Man.

And just like Bonds, you have to wonder why it was ever necessary. Clemens was an all-time great back in the 1980s and early 1990s, when he was presumably clean. He had three Cy Youngs and a MVP by 1991, when he was just 28. He didn't need to cheat to become rich and famous.


Anyone who spent years spewing contempt at Bonds needs to do the same to Clemens, because there is no difference between them.

They are just two guys who had it all, foolishly went for more, and have now lost everything.

--Jason "that last line is so telling... and so sad" Evans

[Lavabe]

Basically, each player who has been on a team adds to that team's total. So Roger Clemens would add 1 to BOS, TOR, NYY, HOU. This is of course assuming Roger was juicing while he was with all four teams. My script ignores trading years, but that should only matter if a player was with a team less than 2 years.

Next up, linking these with managers in charge at the time. I'm guessing OAK (8) and STL (10) are going to add up to some large numbers for LaRussa.

IIRC, from what I read Clemens allegedly began juicing in Toronto. His Sawks days shouldn't count. Likewise, it was reported last night here that David Justice didn't allegedly begin using substances here in Atlanta, but only afterwards.

Is Denny Neagle really on the list?!?!?! When he was with the Braves, wasn't he better known as the guy who could do a mean train whistle? Looks like I'm going to have to youtube him.

The report might be right, but I am waiting for the first law suit. Were players given chances to respond (either by themselves or through legal representation)?

Cheers,
Lavabe

[Tommac]

I haven't read the report, but is the only evidence against Clemens and Pettitte the comments by this McNamee personal trainer? I would hope that there was more evidence that the word of one witness.

[tombrady]

The report might be right, but I am waiting for the first law suit. Were players given chances to respond (either by themselves or through legal representation)?

Cheers,
Lavabe

Yes, included in the report he asked each player if they wished to respond -- all declined.

There won't be any lawsuits -- this was simply a fact-finding mission. Selig will now hand out punishments if he sees fit. No one's going to court.

[tombrady]

I haven't read the report, but is the only evidence against Clemens and Pettitte the comments by this McNamee personal trainer? I would hope that there was more evidence that the word of one witness.

The witnesses testified in the presence of federal investigators, and were made aware that any dishonesty would result in jail time.

McNamee has no reason to make stuff up.

[mehmattski]

The witnesses testified in the presence of federal investigators, and were made aware that any dishonesty would result in jail time.

McNamee has no reason to make stuff up.

Actually, both McNamee and Radomski were facing jail time if they did not testify. Radomski had been prosecuted on possession charges and they had searched his home, turning up all the cancelled checks that appear in the report. His testimony was in exchange for reduced jail time. McNamee was facing the same.

There is no physical evidence linking Clemens, Pettitte, or any of the McNamee suspects to steroids, HGH, or any PED. I should hope that the court of public opinion would be smart enough to avoid accepting slanderous hearsay as evidence.

[tombrady]

Actually, both McNamee and Radomski were facing jail time if they did not testify. Radomski had been prosecuted on possession charges and they had searched his home, turning up all the cancelled checks that appear in the report. His testimony was in exchange for reduced jail time. McNamee was facing the same.

There is no physical evidence linking Clemens, Pettitte, or any of the McNamee suspects to steroids, HGH, or any PED. I should hope that the court of public opinion would be smart enough to avoid accepting slanderous hearsay as evidence.

First off, saying "I injected roger clemens in the butt" isn't hearsay, its evidence. Its an eye-witness account.

Saying "John told me he injected RC in the butt" is.

Second, it appears you're willing to ignore the mountain of evidence against Clemens. I wonder how you feel about Bonds? And if you feel differently, I wonder why?

Dude, the guy was throwing 90-91 in his early 30s. By his late 30s/early 40s, he's throwing 97? Give me a break.

[mehmattski]

First off, saying "I injected roger clemens in the butt" isn't hearsay, its evidence. Its an eye-witness account.

Saying "John told me he injected RC in the butt" is.

Second, it appears you're willing to ignore the mountain of evidence against Clemens. I wonder how you feel about Bonds? And if you feel differently, I wonder why?

Dude, the guy was throwing 90-91 in his early 30s. By his late 30s/early 40s, he's throwing 97? Give me a break.

The evidence against Bonds comes from multiple verbal accounts, from former trainers to BALCO employees to discussions between Brian Sabean and Greg Anderson about the steroid culture in the locker room.

The case against Clemens is the word of this one man, whose credibility I feel is compromised due to the circumstances under which he gave his testimony. It is certainly more detailed about Clemens than any other player discussed by McNamee, but does that really mean anything?

I feel even worse for players like Eric Gagne, who have been slandered on the basis of a rumor in the Dodgers front office and an e-mail discussing that rumor sent around the Red Sox front office. And then there's Brian Roberts, whose allegations involve, exclusively, the "guess" of another player (that word is actually in the report).

Finally, the evidence from Radomski, suspect to begin with due to the circumstances of his testimony, is indeed physical. There are cancelled checks and there are shipping receipts and there are personal notes (like from Paul LoDuca) thanking Radomski for... something. We assume that there is no other reason why all of these players would be paying Radomski $1500 at a time. We assume that the shipments sent from Radomski to some of the players (like Kevin Brown) contained steroids and not anything else.

Reading through these posts on this thread, I honestly am shocked: I would have expected better from a Duke board, who supposedly should have learned from experience that the testimony of one questionable witness does not evidence make.

[Tom B.]

I always liked that SNL skit for the all steroid Olympics.


Yup, a classic. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrCGYtFAQ2U)

[tombrady]

Reading through these posts on this thread, I honestly am shocked: I would have expected better from a Duke board, who supposedly should have learned from experience that the testimony of one questionable witness does not evidence make.

Well, Jason Grimsley also named Clemens and Pettitte, so thats two. How many more do you want?

[mehmattski]

Well, Jason Grimsley also named Clemens and Pettitte, so thats two. How many more do you want?

I've read through the Mitchell Report, and I cannot find any evidence for this claim. Clemens' name was on the affidavit in support of the warrant for searching Grimsley's house, only because Radomski said that he had been supplying steroids to Clemens as well. Clemens' name is not mentioned in the Mitchell report outside of the pages discussing him and the pages discussing Andy Pettitte.

Further, some interesting notes from page 221:

"McNamee was quoted in a December 10, 2006 news article on steroids as reportedly having said: “I never, ever gave Clemens or Pettitte steroids. They never asked me for steroids. The only thing they asked me for were vitamins.” McNamee told us that he was accurately quoted but that he did not tell the truth to the reporter who interviewed him. He explained that he was trying to protect his reputation."

Wouldn't you question the credibility of a witness who had lied to suit his selfish purposes once already? And even under the supposedly truthful guise of an interview with federal prosecutors hanging on his every word, he said this:

"Clemens never gave money to McNamee specifically to buy performance enhancing substances."

The allegations against anyone associated with McNamee's testimony are dubious at best.

[tombrady]

"McNamee was quoted in a December 10, 2006 news article on steroids as reportedly having said: “I never, ever gave Clemens or Pettitte steroids. They never asked me for steroids. The only thing they asked me for were vitamins.” McNamee told us that he was accurately quoted but that he did not tell the truth to the reporter who interviewed him. He explained that he was trying to protect his reputation."

Wouldn't you question the credibility of a witness who had lied to suit his selfish purposes once already? And even under the supposedly truthful guise of an interview with federal prosecutors hanging on his every word, he said this:

"Clemens never gave money to McNamee specifically to buy performance enhancing substances."

The allegations against anyone associated with McNamee's testimony are dubious at best.


Dude, he explained it himself -- he was accurately quoted but didn't tell the full truth (sin of omission if you will) -- he never claimed to had supplied those guys with steroids. Which is exactly what he says. Which is true.

He DID however, talk with them about them and INJECT THEM IN CLEMENS' BUTT. 3 TIMES.

WITH A REALLY LONG NEEDLE. WHICH MO VAUGHN WAS AFRAID OF.

[mehmattski]

Dude, he explained it himself -- he was accurately quoted but didn't tell the full truth (sin of omission if you will) -- he never claimed to had supplied those guys with steroids. Which is exactly what he says. Which is true.

He DID however, talk with them about them and INJECT THEM IN CLEMENS' BUTT. 3 TIMES.

WITH A REALLY LONG NEEDLE. WHICH MO VAUGHN WAS AFRAID OF.

Fine. I'm clearly not going to convince a Boston fan that the allegations against Clemens are suspect, because that would so clearly take away your schadenfreude. However, if you haven't read the report, I suggest that you do, and take a long look a the allegations levied against other players. Some is based on very very scant evidence.

And so I would guess that my ire about the report is not directed against Senator Mitchell. It is directed against media, and fans, who insist on finding "lists" of players who used PEDs so that they can be burned at the stake of public opinion. I am extremely upset with anyone who has published such a list, since it does a disservice to the report: the allegations against Roger Clemens and Paul LoDuca are way more substantive the allegations against Matt Williams and Brian Roberts. To put them in the same "list" is disingenuous and suggests that all we're interested in is tattling, name-calling, and finger pointing.

If the media would, instead, focus on the recommendations of the report, the forward-looking suggestions made by Mitchell upon observation of the pervasive steroid "culture," we would be a lot better off. "Non-testing physical evidence," and better policing of the minor leagues, are two things he calls for. Another is better communication between the NCAA and MLB regarding college players, many of whom suspiciously lost some mph on their fastball or swing speed after being drafted.

The allegations against specific players are not absolute and, as others have suggested, would not hold up if any criminal or civil charges were brought against the players. The intent of the sections naming players is to observe a general pattern of drug distribution from trainers to players.

That's the point of the Mitchell report, and all the finger-pointing is just a modern version of the Salem Witch Trials.

[tombrady]

That's the point of the Mitchell report, and all the finger-pointing is just a modern version of the Salem Witch Trials.

its exactly like the salem witch trials, except for the fact that witches don't exist.

steroid users do. so then i guess its nothing like a witch trial.

if you want to go on living in your fairy dream land where roger clemens is a hero even though his career does not match the performance of any single baseball player (out of tens of thousands) in the last 100 years, thats fine.

I, however, will take a more rational look at it. The first player that brings someone to court for libel or slander will be a point in your favor. Until then, all the non-denial denials won't matter a bit.

[tecumseh]

Tom Brady we all turn a blind eye to things when we want. Remember how the US press and TV announcers slammed the East German women but thought Flo Jo was so great. Anyone who follows juicing knew that Clemens performance was suspect. Now like I mentioned before I hear how the Pats defense has found the fountain of youth and you don't think the Pats are dirty? Wonder where your bias is "Tom Brady"?

[tombrady]

Now like I mentioned before I hear how the Pats defense has found the fountain of youth and you don't think the Pats are dirty? Wonder where your bias is "Tom Brady"?

what? I completely agreed with you -- steroids are everywhere in football. Including the Patriots. Hell, there were 2 players on the 2007 Red Sox championship team that were named in the report (gagne and BD)

I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with people ignoring the obvious.

[JasonEvans]

I just heard David Justice with a passionate defense of himself on The Heard on ESPN Radio. It was very compelling.

Justice pointed out that the guy who testified against him, McNamee, approached him and that Justice told McNamee he did not want any HGH.
McNamee alleged that Justice had told him he had taken steroids from Radomski but Radomski never made that allegation himself.
Radomski has canceled checks linking him with many players, but has no check or other evidence against Justice.
McNamee alleges that Justice took HGH after the 2000 season to prepare for 2001. Justice points out that 2001 was the worst season of his career and that he could not get over a grain pull all season long. Justice said, "if I took steroids or HGH, I must have gotten a bad batch cause it sure didn't help me get over that injury."
Justice further points out that in 2001 and 2002, the seasons he supposedly was taking steroids, he had horrible years compared to earlier in his career when he was supposedly clean (many of them years before steroids supposedly became common in baseball). He hit 18 homers in 2001 and 11 in 2002 and then his career was over. This from a guy who hit 20 homers in 1993, 33 in 1997, and 41 in 2000.


I must admit, listening to Justice's description and explanation of the events, I found his case very compelling. He said he has no plans to sue because lawyers have told him it would cost something like $300-$500 grand to mount a lawsuit and they are not sure he would win or how much he could get in damages. Plus, he says the people who matter to him (his family and friends) all know he was not taking steroids or HGH and that he is innocent. He said that even if he won a lawsuit, many in the public would not believe him anyway so why bother going to court to fight it.

I also heard Justice say something very telling that made me believe him even more. He said that when he was hurt, if McNamee had come to him and told him that he could take a pill or drink something that would make him better, he would have taken it. But, McNamee said the only way HGH would work was if Justice took it injected through a needle. David says that he is terrified of needles and he told McNamee, "no needles!" and that is why David did not take HGH. He said he did not know it was a competitive advantage to take it back then and that McNamee said it was common for doctors to prescribe HGH to help people get over injuries. In other words, David said he would have done it if he could but his fear of needles made it impossible.

I found his case very compelling, in no small part because the numbers from his career seem to support him... unless you think he was juicing all the way back into the early 90s when he was in his mid-20s and hitting 40 homers for the Braves. I think the guys who suffer a career revival in their mid-30s or beyond are the guys who seem really suspect. Someone like Justice, whose career went south to injury and weaker production in his mid-30s seems like someone who was NOT on the juice.

--Jason "I hate the way these names came out and how obviously incomplete and inaccurate the list is... but it is progress and it seems baseball can begin to deal with this horrid stain upon the game" Evans

[pfrduke]

That's the point of the Mitchell report, and all the finger-pointing is just a modern version of the Salem Witch Trials.

I would have used McCarthy and the Red Scare as the comparison. The public is willing to believe pretty much any name at this point as being a steroid user, on the basis of any evidence that has even a shred of plausibility to it.

I agree with you that lost in the media giddiness over being able to come out with a big list of people is: a) the extent of the actual evidence against those people and, much more importantly, b) what is going to be done to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

This report, and the whole Mitchell Commission, will be a failure if there is no substantial change going forward. MLB needs to be aggressive about this problem - not just in its own ranks, because it's probably too late to start once someone arrives in the bigs, but in the minors, and in cooperation with the NCAA and with the high school athletic programs. Count me as one who thinks the time and energy being spent by the commissioner's office in determining whether retroactive penalties should be assessed against those named in the report is all a waste. Baseball dropped the ball in the '90s, and it's too late to fix the mistake with regard to those years. Now is the time for ensuring that the steroid era is ending, and that no further PED era arises in its place.

[pfrduke]

He said he did not know it was a competitive advantage to take it back then and that McNamee said it was common for doctors to prescribe HGH to help people get over injuries. I

I'm curious about this point, because it's something that with my limited medical knowledge I've long been confused about. I know that doctors prescribe steroids all the time as treatment for certain injuries and illnesses to help the body heal faster. Are these qualitatively different drugs from what players were using?

[tombrady]

McNamee alleges that Justice took HGH after the 2000 season to prepare for 2001. Justice points out that 2001 was the worst season of his career and that he could not get over a grain pull all season long. Justice said, "if I took steroids or HGH, I must have gotten a bad batch cause it sure didn't help me get over that injury."

taking steroids for the first time and getting too big too fast leads to a lot of injuries. steroids make your muscles larger and stronger, but don't do as much for the tendons and ligaments attaching these muscles to bone and other muscle.

Thus, its easy to seriously pull something because you are putting forces on that part of your body its never experienced.

just sayin'.

[tombrady]

I'm curious about this point, because it's something that with my limited medical knowledge I've long been confused about. I know that doctors prescribe steroids all the time as treatment for certain injuries and illnesses to help the body heal faster. Are these qualitatively different drugs from what players were using?

they are controlled, in small doses, and meant for recovery for normal people.

players take them in massive horse quantities when they are perfectly healthy.

[mehmattski]

--Jason "I hate the way these names came out and how obviously incomplete and inaccurate the list is... but it is progress and it seems baseball can begin to deal with this horrid stain upon the game" Evans

Very nice post... If there are other stories like Justice's, it really takes credibility away from McNamee. Regarding your last comment, I found the list on ESPN.com (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3153646) to be very fair- rather than just rattling off names, it actually indicates which section the player was mentioned under, and the evidence associated, for example, Matt Williams:

"The [San Francisco Chronicle] reported that Williams admitted that a doctor told him that human growth hormone might help him heal from an ankle injury that he had suffered in 2002. "He said he learned about the Florida center from a health magazine and went through a battery of tests before obtaining a prescription for growth hormone in 2002." Williams reportedly said that he did not know that a dentist had written prescriptions for him. He did not comment on whether he had ordered or used steroids or drugs intended for use by women, as reportedly reflected in the records."

Brian Roberts:
"According to Bigbie, however, in 2004 Roberts admitted to him that he had injected himself once or twice with steroids in 2003. Until this admission, Bigbie had never suspected Roberts of using steroids."

Hal Morris:
"Radomski said that he sold Deca-Durabolin and testosterone to Morris in late 1999 when Morris was with the Reds. Morris paid by check. Morris's name, with an address we have confirmed was his, is listed in the address book seized by federal agents from Radomski's residence."

So, a legal prescription for HGH during injury recovery, a player saying "he told me he done it!", and a name in an address book. There's no doubt in my mind that there are innocent names on that list. I hope that Selig and the media continue to realize that, and will act accordingly, looking for future improvement rather than punishment.

[Olympic Fan]

A couple of points ... and my suggestion for how to end the controversy.

-- Testing is not perfect. There is always a war between the testers and the chemists finding ways to mask tests. Baseball testing is pretty much a joke -- but even in sports that test religiously and without the warning that baseball players apparently get, it's often difficult to catch a cheater. For example, Marion Jones never tested positive and for years denied any drug use just as emphatically as Rafael Palmero or Roger Clemens.

-- It's amazing to me how baseball's response to drug use has paralleled almost exactly the sport's response to gambling charges in the first two decades in this century. In both cases, the initial response of the powers that be has been to ignore the problem. Then there were a few face-saving (and inadequate) actions that were designed to give the illusion of a response, rather than deal with it. Finally, after everything blew up ... you have baseball getting on its high horse and adopting draconian rules.

This problem is not going to be easy to sort out. Personally, I think the druggies are scum that should be banned from the game and their records stricken. That's not going to happen. And shaping a future response is going to be difficult with a union trying to protect players condemned by questionable evidence and baseball's own shifting responses to charges.

My suggestion for the best way to cut the Gordian Knot is for MLB and the players to make a two-part compromise:

-- MLB will issue an official amnesty for any action taken before the signing date of the agreement (say Jan. 1, 2008). No player will be banned, suspended or have his records removed (or marked with an askerisk) or be banned from Hall of Fame consideration who may have taken performance enhancing drugs before the date in question.

-- In return, the union will accept a comprehensive testing program (random and without warning) with draconian penalties for players who take such drugs in the future. Obviously, players will have to be protected by due process, but those found guilty of taking steroids or HGH or any other performance enhancing drug in the future will be faced by a lifetime ban.

Now, I know that's not a perfect solution. The testing itself can never be perfect. But it clears the arguments away about who did what and when and whether baseball was complicit in those crimes (by it's actions). We won't have to suffer through endless debates about whether or not Roger Clemens is guilty? Is David Justice? Is Derek Jeter? We'll just accept the last 15 or so years as the "Steroid era" and move on from there.

This won't stop civil authorities for pursuing players who might have bought HGH illegally or lied to a grand jury, but baseball itself will take no action against such players (unless criminal proceedings reveal they cheated AFTER the agreement).

In addition, the agreement won't stop writers and fans from condemning players who they believe might have cheated ... or prevent HOF voters from withholding their votes from such players -- but it will be a personal thing and not a Pete Rose-like ban.

It's the best idea I can think of to put the whole mess behind us and get the union on board to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[tombrady]

Is Derek Jeter?

yes.

[Tommac]

It's the best idea I can think of to put the whole mess behind us and get the union on board to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Since major league owners, players, managers, and the players association are all partly to blame, I agree, just chalk the last 15 years as the steroid era, test going forward and be done with it.

[JasonEvans]

Since major league owners, players, managers, and the players association are all partly to blame, I agree, just chalk the last 15 years as the steroid era, test going forward and be done with it.

Here is the only problem with that... what about the records? What about McGuire and Sosa and Bonds and Clemens setting all kinds of records? Is it fair to every other player outside the steroid era to have to compete with those records?

It is very possible that no one without the addition of steroids/HGH would be able to hit more than 60-something homeruns. The poor guy who comes along in a few years and legitimately hits 67 dingers does not get his name in the record book. His spot in history is denied -- or at least lessened -- by the cheaters whose records still stand and dominate the record book.

It appears that Roger Clemens won an extra 3 or 4 Cy Young Awards thanks to Steroids. Barry Bonds won an extra few MVPs and put up some absurd on-base percentage and slugging records. And then there is the most hallowed number in sports-- the career homerun record that Bonds certainly would not have topped without the assistance of a chemist. I think many of us shrug it off because we think a legitimate A-Rod will someday top Bonds, but all it takes is one ACL tear or muscle pull in his back or who knows what and A-Rod could be removed from consideration. He is, at a minimum 5 --, probably 6 or 7 -- seasons away from where Bonds stands right now (I think Bonds is done and no one will hire him for next season). Anything can happen in that time!!

I don't know what the solution is. It is probably impossible to come up with one. All I do know is that there is something wrong with the baseball record book being re-written over the past decade by drugs and cheaters.

--Jason "delightful of me to suggest a problem that probably has no solution, eh?" Evans

[mr. synellinden]

I think many of us shrug it off because we think a legitimate A-Rod will someday top Bonds,

I think there are a lot of us out there who aren't convinced that A-Rod is legitimate.

Certainly Jose Canseco's comments lend credibility or at least provide a basis for that lack of conviction.

[hurleyfor3]

Here is the only problem with that... what about the records? What about McGuire and Sosa and Bonds and Clemens setting all kinds of records? Is it fair to every other player outside the steroid era to have to compete with those records?

Players compete with each other for roster spots and playing time, and teams compete to win games, but who, in any sport, is in competition with a record? Players may compete with each other for batting titles and MVP awards, but that's still a competition with another person, not a number.

Exactly which records are so precious to you? What exactly is unfair about statistics changing? It's no fair that nobody can drive in 190 runs or hit .406 or win 35 games as a pitcher anymore! Waaaaaah!

This seems to bother you a lot. Why? Try to think outside the last 20 or 30 years.

[JasonEvans]

Players compete with each other for roster spots and playing time, and teams compete to win games, but who, in any sport, is in competition with a record? Players may compete with each other for batting titles and MVP awards, but that's still a competition with another person, not a number.

Exactly which records are so precious to you? What exactly is unfair about statistics changing? It's no fair that nobody can drive in 190 runs or hit .406 or win 35 games as a pitcher anymore! Waaaaaah!

This seems to bother you a lot. Why? Try to think outside the last 20 or 30 years.

If you grew up idolizing Hank Aaron, you might understand where I come from on this.

But, you are right that is does not really matter all that much. It just bothers me a LOT!

--Jason "I feel foolish for ever supporting Barry Bonds... I once, long ago, thought he was wrongly accused" Evans

[hurleyfor3]

If you grew up idolizing Hank Aaron, you might understand where I come from on this.

But, you are right that is does not really matter all that much. It just bothers me a LOT!

--Jason "I feel foolish for ever supporting Barry Bonds... I once, long ago, thought he was wrongly accused" Evans

OK, but baseball (and its fans) have more methods than ever to determine whether Ruth's 714, Aaron's 755 or Bonds' 762 is most impressive. I don't think Aaron hitting 755 made Ruth a worse player, just as Barry hitting 762 didn't make Hank a worse player.

I'd put Aaron above Bonds, not just because of steroids but because Aaron's prime was a lousy period for power hitting, and because Hank had the added distraction of racism.

[YmoBeThere]

I think the guys who suffer a career revival in their mid-30s or beyond are the guys who seem really suspect. Someone like Justice, whose career went south to injury and weaker production in his mid-30s seems like someone who was NOT on the juice.


That is why I found the first/"fake" list so interesting. Brady Anderson hitting 50 HR's. Greg Vaughn doing the same because as he explained it, he used unique exercises to develop his hand-eye coordination...I bought that line for awhile. Which now makes me the sucker.

Also, I think what gets lost here is that this are not all the sources out there to identify who used steroids. These are just a few that talked to Mitchell.

[jma4life]

I understand people's obsession with the integrity of records in baseball. But the bottom line is that you can look at the records from any time and make excuses as to their validity.

I mean, Ruth had his record and put up all his stats when blacks could not play in the big leagues so obviously that made it a lot easier to do what he did because the talent pool was not as strong. You look at each era and there are different factors.

So the fact that some guy might only hit 67 in 50 years and thus not receive the record does not matter that much to me. Sure it's probably unfair. But again, there are plenty of factors at play at all times. And as long as people know that Bonds did it with roids and the new guy did it clean, that's all that really matters.

[tombrady]

Very nice post... If there are other stories like Justice's, it really takes credibility away from McNamee. Regarding your last comment, I found the list on ESPN.com (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3153646) to be very fair- rather than just rattling off names, it actually indicates which section the player was mentioned under, and the evidence associated, for example, Matt Williams:

"The [San Francisco Chronicle] reported that Williams admitted that a doctor told him that human growth hormone might help him heal from an ankle injury that he had suffered in 2002. "He said he learned about the Florida center from a health magazine and went through a battery of tests before obtaining a prescription for growth hormone in 2002." Williams reportedly said that he did not know that a dentist had written prescriptions for him. He did not comment on whether he had ordered or used steroids or drugs intended for use by women, as reportedly reflected in the records."

Brian Roberts:
"According to Bigbie, however, in 2004 Roberts admitted to him that he had injected himself once or twice with steroids in 2003. Until this admission, Bigbie had never suspected Roberts of using steroids."

Hal Morris:
"Radomski said that he sold Deca-Durabolin and testosterone to Morris in late 1999 when Morris was with the Reds. Morris paid by check. Morris's name, with an address we have confirmed was his, is listed in the address book seized by federal agents from Radomski's residence."

So, a legal prescription for HGH during injury recovery, a player saying "he told me he done it!", and a name in an address book. There's no doubt in my mind that there are innocent names on that list. I hope that Selig and the media continue to realize that, and will act accordingly, looking for future improvement rather than punishment.

Well, Pettitte admits to using HGH. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_pettitte_hgh_admission)


now how do you feel about Clemens?

[YmoBeThere]

Like he's been cheating for a long time...

[dbb03]

Well, Pettitte admits to using HGH. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_pettitte_hgh_admission)


now how do you feel about Clemens?

Was someone arguing that Clemens was clean?

How do you feel about a player using a substance they think will help them heal from an injury? I don't have a problem with it at all.

[tombrady]

Was someone arguing that Clemens was clean?

How do you feel about a player using a substance they think will help them heal from an injury? I don't have a problem with it at all.

yeah, mehmatski was.

dude thats what steroids are period. when you work out, your body gets tired, which is actually millions of tiny injuries to your muscle cells. when these muscle cells heal, they get bigger, thus making the overall muscle bigger. when you take steroids (or hgh), your muscles heal faster, allowing you to work out more and get bigger faster. thus, this is helping them "heal faster" also.

not to mention that steroids are ILLEGAL. does that not matter at all to you?

what about a 16 year old who wants to "heal faster" from something to make varsity? is that cool too?

[dukie8]

A couple of points ... and my suggestion for how to end the controversy.

-- Testing is not perfect. There is always a war between the testers and the chemists finding ways to mask tests. Baseball testing is pretty much a joke -- but even in sports that test religiously and without the warning that baseball players apparently get, it's often difficult to catch a cheater. For example, Marion Jones never tested positive and for years denied any drug use just as emphatically as Rafael Palmero or Roger Clemens.

-- It's amazing to me how baseball's response to drug use has paralleled almost exactly the sport's response to gambling charges in the first two decades in this century. In both cases, the initial response of the powers that be has been to ignore the problem. Then there were a few face-saving (and inadequate) actions that were designed to give the illusion of a response, rather than deal with it. Finally, after everything blew up ... you have baseball getting on its high horse and adopting draconian rules.

This problem is not going to be easy to sort out. Personally, I think the druggies are scum that should be banned from the game and their records stricken. That's not going to happen. And shaping a future response is going to be difficult with a union trying to protect players condemned by questionable evidence and baseball's own shifting responses to charges.

My suggestion for the best way to cut the Gordian Knot is for MLB and the players to make a two-part compromise:

-- MLB will issue an official amnesty for any action taken before the signing date of the agreement (say Jan. 1, 2008). No player will be banned, suspended or have his records removed (or marked with an askerisk) or be banned from Hall of Fame consideration who may have taken performance enhancing drugs before the date in question.

-- In return, the union will accept a comprehensive testing program (random and without warning) with draconian penalties for players who take such drugs in the future. Obviously, players will have to be protected by due process, but those found guilty of taking steroids or HGH or any other performance enhancing drug in the future will be faced by a lifetime ban.

Now, I know that's not a perfect solution. The testing itself can never be perfect. But it clears the arguments away about who did what and when and whether baseball was complicit in those crimes (by it's actions). We won't have to suffer through endless debates about whether or not Roger Clemens is guilty? Is David Justice? Is Derek Jeter? We'll just accept the last 15 or so years as the "Steroid era" and move on from there.

This won't stop civil authorities for pursuing players who might have bought HGH illegally or lied to a grand jury, but baseball itself will take no action against such players (unless criminal proceedings reveal they cheated AFTER the agreement).

In addition, the agreement won't stop writers and fans from condemning players who they believe might have cheated ... or prevent HOF voters from withholding their votes from such players -- but it will be a personal thing and not a Pete Rose-like ban.

It's the best idea I can think of to put the whole mess behind us and get the union on board to make sure it doesn't happen again.

why should baseball grant an amnesty? track & field and cycling void everything. ask marion jones to see her 2000 olympic medals. oh, that's right, i forgot that they are gone. even relay results get erased when there is a dirty member. ask michael johnson where one of his 4x1 medals went.

if baseball wanted to deal with this problem head-on, it would void all of the stats for these players after the earliest evidence of use and void the world series titles for teams with dirty players. teams no longer would turn a blind eye to shady characters hanging around the locker room and weight room. bud doesn't have the chutzpah to do that but that's the best route to go if baseball is serious about cleaning up the mess.

[dukie8]

Well, Pettitte admits to using HGH. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_pettitte_hgh_admission)

now how do you feel about Clemens?

pettitte's admission was brutally weak. a written statement through his agent? give me a break. how about holding a press conference and addressing the issue head on? i also don't believe for a second that he only took hgh twice. if you are going to cross over to the dark side and take peds, then there is no way that you would just 2 them twice unless you underwent some massive feeling of guilt -- which pettitte doesn't claim. he also was working out a lot with clemens and it's clear that clemens was on bonds level dosages. does he expect anyone to believe that was he just watching clemens shoot himself up and turning a blind eye? so now we know pettitte is just as much of a liar as palmeiro.

[JasonEvans]

pettitte's admission was brutally weak. a written statement through his agent? give me a break. how about holding a press conference and addressing the issue head on? i also don't believe for a second that he only took hgh twice. if you are going to cross over to the dark side and take peds, then there is no way that you would just 2 them twice unless you underwent some massive feeling of guilt -- which pettitte doesn't claim. he also was working out a lot with clemens and it's clear that clemens was on bonds level dosages. does he expect anyone to believe that was he just watching clemens shoot himself up and turning a blind eye? so now we know pettitte is just as much of a liar as palmeiro.

what is interesting is that Pettite essentially admitted to exactly what was in the Mitchell report. This is confirmation that at least one thing that the "snitches" told Mitchell was true. Obviously, there is no way to know at this time if the other allegations the "snitches" made are also true but it is a lot easier to believe them when we get confirmation that some of what they reported (that had not previously been alleged or said elsewhere) is true.

--Jason "to believe Clemens now is to think that the drug dealers told the truth about Pettite but lied about the Rocket -- why would they do this?" Evans

[dukie8]

this is a great read that explains first hand what all of the cocktails do to your body:

http://www.iaaf.org/antidoping/news/Kind=2/newsId=23876.html

what is interesting is that hgh improves one's eyesight, which clearly helps one hit a baseball coming in at 90 mph.

[tombrady]

this is a great read that explains first hand what all of the cocktails do to your body:

http://www.iaaf.org/antidoping/news/Kind=2/newsId=23876.html

what is interesting is that hgh improves one's eyesight, which clearly helps one hit a baseball coming in at 90 mph.

great link. so does Lasik though, which is totally legal.

Baseball is all (ALL) about timing. The batter's goal is to recognize what pitch the pitcher just threw and to decide whether to swing or not (in about .2 seconds). The quicker a swing you have as a batter, the longer you can wait to swing or not. Being massively huge gives you a much quicker swing, giving you a distinct advantage. This is why Bonds was so sick in the early 2000s -- his swing was probably the quickest ever, he just whipped that bat around so fast that he a) generated tons of force and b) only hit mistake pitches -- usually about 400 feet.

That said, steroids/HGH also allow relief pitchers to add several MPH to their pitches, and to feel better on a day to day basis. Tons of mediocre pitchers magically added 3-5 MPH to their fastball in the late 90s. So maybe it all balances out.

I think thats what surprises people -- people think of steroids and see mcgwire, bonds, sosa etc -- these huge batters. I would expect their marginal benefit helps pitchers a lot more.

[tecumseh]

There is are reports of HGH improving eyesight but whether it does or not is open to debate. I for one am highly skeptical....what is the mechanism? What it does in some individuals is improve their perception of how well they are seeing. (they think they see better) I have not seen one decent study on hgh and eyesight.

As for LASIK, LASIK does not improve "best corrected vision" at least not usually and there are tons of studies for this. In fact LASIK usually decreases your best corrected vision in certain lighting situations especially compared to a hard contact lens.

[tecumseh]

Baseball players (except pitchers) tend to have great eyesight. Now eyesight is measured with an eye chart but it is important to remember this is an imperfect measurement. There was a study done a few years back which tested pro players. 20/20 is considered "normal vision" if the bottom number is higher the vision is worse if it is lower the vision is better. Almost all pro players see 20/15 or better and a good number saw 20/10 and a few even saw better if I remember correctly which is very close to "perfect vision". So in this group of people it is hard to imagine anything which could improve their vision as normally tested. Now if your reaction and processing time improved you would probably report this as "seeing the pitch" better.

Interestingly there is a story out there probably true that Babe Ruth was densely amblyopic (lazy eye) in one eye with 20/400 vision.

[jma4life]

If you were to void the world series, then I don't think a single team would have won a world series in the last 10 years.

Also, I actually do believe Pettite. What reason does he have to lie. First of all, what he said is essentially what was said in the Mitchell report. So it's not like the Mitchell report said he took injections every week for a year and he made this claim. He's basically saying the report was right and just clarifying the contest.

And also, if you're going to lie, then deny it completely.

Anyway, what Petite did does not bother me that much. I mean, right now, if someone told you that by giving Grant Hill HGH, he would have healed better and faster from his ankle injuries, would you be against him taking it? Hell, even if it was illegal, if you told me that he could heal faster and better by taking hgh, I would recommend that he take it.

Now for Bonds and the rocket, I'm totally against what they did, and they deserve all the criticism they have received assuming the allegations are accurate.

[dukie8]

There is are reports of HGH improving eyesight but whether it does or not is open to debate. I for one am highly skeptical....what is the mechanism? What it does in some individuals is improve their perception of how well they are seeing. (they think they see better) I have not seen one decent study on hgh and eyesight.

As for LASIK, LASIK does not improve "best corrected vision" at least not usually and there are tons of studies for this. In fact LASIK usually decreases your best corrected vision in certain lighting situations especially compared to a hard contact lens.

you are skeptical based on what? how many "decent" studies have been done on hgh? i'm not even sure what "decent" means. however, countless people who have used hgh have reported that they see better -- including the author of the article i linked. i'll put my money on the numerous people who have used hgh and have reported a marked increase in eyesight over someone who never has used it but who just thinks that it doesn't happen.

btw, a quick google of hgh and eyesight returns a mountain of links. the very first one states:


Dr. Julian Whitaker, a well-known physician and medical writer, reports that his own eyesight improved to such an extent after he began HGH that he seldom needs his glasses anymore. There has been speculation that HGH strengthens eye muscle fibers, contributing to focus and lessening eyestrain.

http://www.drcranton.com/hrt/hgh_body_of_evidence.htm

[dukie8]

If you were to void the world series, then I don't think a single team would have won a world series in the last 10 years.

Also, I actually do believe Pettite. What reason does he have to lie. First of all, what he said is essentially what was said in the Mitchell report. So it's not like the Mitchell report said he took injections every week for a year and he made this claim. He's basically saying the report was right and just clarifying the contest.

And also, if you're going to lie, then deny it completely.

Anyway, what Petite did does not bother me that much. I mean, right now, if someone told you that by giving Grant Hill HGH, he would have healed better and faster from his ankle injuries, would you be against him taking it? Hell, even if it was illegal, if you told me that he could heal faster and better by taking hgh, I would recommend that he take it.

Now for Bonds and the rocket, I'm totally against what they did, and they deserve all the criticism they have received assuming the allegations are accurate.

he has A LOT of reasons to lie. first off, he signed with the yankees for next season and now is facing the possibility of being suspended. the mitchell report is unprecedented in sports and it is unknown what punishments will follow. clearly baseball will go lighter on someone who fesses up than someone like bonds, vick or palmeiro who refuses to show any form of contrition. second, he is a borderline hall of famer. absent the mitchell report, a few more good seasons would get him over the hump. now that he has been tarred and feathered, his chances of getting into the hof are between slim and none. he is trying to save himself by appealing to people like you who will buy his story that he just took it a couple of times and it was to come back from an injury and it was basically an innocent useage.

i disagree about lying completely. once athletes get nailed, it is very common to admit the useage but try and make it sound like it wasn't the nefarious type (eg, i didn't know what the cream was, my trainer told me it was just vitamins, i only did it a couple of times, i only did it to come back from an injury, etc). as pointed out earlier, his argument that he only did hgh to come back from an ankle injury is complete bunk because that's exactly what happens when u work out -- u cause micro damage to your muscles and it is the recovery that gets you faster/stronger.

it is disturbing that you flat out think that it is okay for injured people to take hgh. ignoring all of the other unknown side effects, what about all of the other positive benefits??? it's not like if you have a hurt ankle and take hgh to speed up your recovery you won't enjoy its benefits on the rest of your body.

[dbb03]

yeah, mehmatski was.
that's not how I read it, but he/she can answer that better.


dude thats what steroids are period. when you work out, your body gets tired, which is actually millions of tiny injuries to your muscle cells. when these muscle cells heal, they get bigger, thus making the overall muscle bigger. when you take steroids (or hgh), your muscles heal faster, allowing you to work out more and get bigger faster. thus, this is helping them "heal faster" also.


not to mention that steroids are ILLEGAL. does that not matter at all to you? they are?


what about a 16 year old who wants to "heal faster" from something to make varsity? is that cool too?
under an appropriate doctor's supervision, to recover from an injury? sure.

[dbb03]

he has A LOT of reasons to lie. first off, he signed with the yankees for next season and now is facing the possibility of being suspended. the mitchell report is unprecedented in sports and it is unknown what punishments will follow. clearly baseball will go lighter on someone who fesses up than someone like bonds, vick or palmeiro who refuses to show any form of contrition. second, he is a borderline hall of famer. absent the mitchell report, a few more good seasons would get him over the hump. now that he has been tarred and feathered, his chances of getting into the hof are between slim and none. he is trying to save himself by appealing to people like you who will buy his story that he just took it a couple of times and it was to come back from an injury and it was basically an innocent useage.

i disagree about lying completely. once athletes get nailed, it is very common to admit the useage but try and make it sound like it wasn't the nefarious type (eg, i didn't know what the cream was, my trainer told me it was just vitamins, i only did it a couple of times, i only did it to come back from an injury, etc). as pointed out earlier, his argument that he only did hgh to come back from an ankle injury is complete bunk because that's exactly what happens when u work out -- u cause micro damage to your muscles and it is the recovery that gets you faster/stronger.

it is disturbing that you flat out think that it is okay for injured people to take hgh. ignoring all of the other unknown side effects, what about all of the other positive benefits??? it's not like if you have a hurt ankle and take hgh to speed up your recovery you won't enjoy its benefits on the rest of your body.

not knowing the specific mechanisms of hgh and/or steroids, here's my take -
If someone is sick and/or hurt and their doctor tells them that by taking pill x, their recovery will be faster, i have no problem with people deciding to take pill x.
that would include heroin for all i care. if it is a licensed medical professional and the person trusts em and wants to try something to alleviate their pain, I'm all for it. that's why we have doctors. they are supposed to be the experts making informed decisions for you. not someone googling the effects of HGH.

Now, in Pettitte's case - he says he was hurt. his career and livelihood depend on him being healthy. IF that is why he took HGH and a doctor prescribed it and he got benefit from it, good for him. I'd say the rules are wrong in that instance. i love how it's okay (even encouraged) for these guys to risk permanent injury every time they play and its okay (and encouraged) to be given mountains of painkillers to "help the team", but someone wants to recover from an injury and it is "illegal".

note - i am not condoning what any of these guys have done, i don't know any of the FACTS as to why they took what they took and under who's care.

Like I originally said, I have a problem with the report more than anything. I would guess that 90%-95% of these guys took something to enhance their performance on the field. BUT, at least some of them didn't and now their reputations are stained forever. See Brandon Donnnelly. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3156636

Also, getting just about all of the information from 2 sources inside 2 clubhouses seems vastly incomplete to me. There are literally hundreds of guys out there that used the stuff (for whatever reasons) that weren't named in the report.

[dukie8]

not knowing the specific mechanisms of hgh and/or steroids, here's my take -
If someone is sick and/or hurt and their doctor tells them that by taking pill x, their recovery will be faster, i have no problem with people deciding to take pill x.
that would include heroin for all i care. if it is a licensed medical professional and the person trusts em and wants to try something to alleviate their pain, I'm all for it. that's why we have doctors. they are supposed to be the experts making informed decisions for you. not someone googling the effects of HGH.

Now, in Pettitte's case - he says he was hurt. his career and livelihood depend on him being healthy. IF that is why he took HGH and a doctor prescribed it and he got benefit from it, good for him. I'd say the rules are wrong in that instance. i love how it's okay (even encouraged) for these guys to risk permanent injury every time they play and its okay (and encouraged) to be given mountains of painkillers to "help the team", but someone wants to recover from an injury and it is "illegal".

note - i am not condoning what any of these guys have done, i don't know any of the FACTS as to why they took what they took and under who's care.

Like I originally said, I have a problem with the report more than anything. I would guess that 90%-95% of these guys took something to enhance their performance on the field. BUT, at least some of them didn't and now their reputations are stained forever. See Brandon Donnnelly. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3156636

Also, getting just about all of the information from 2 sources inside 2 clubhouses seems vastly incomplete to me. There are literally hundreds of guys out there that used the stuff (for whatever reasons) that weren't named in the report.

well every single professional sport disagrees with what you think athletes can and cannot take. the fact that an athlete is "hurt" doesn't all of a sudden make a banned substance legal. there are a ton of drugs that sick people take for medicinal reasons that professional athletes cannot take because they also enhance performance. hgh is perfectly legal for someone to use for medicinal reasons if prescribed by a doctor (kids with stunted growth take it for that reason). even lance took it when he was recovering from cancer treatments. however, that is very different from a professional athlete looking to speed up recovery from an injury who then starts shooting up with hgh given to him by a trainer who got it in mexico. besides being illegal, it also gives him an unfair advantage with the rest of his body. think of the slippery slope there. you can be sure that every single baseball player would be "injured" during the offseason and have mds prescribing them hgh for their "recovery."

also, your comparison of shooting up with cortisone is very different than shooting up with hgh. cortisone merely blocks pain in a specific area and does not enhance performance in any other way.

i also think that the mitchell report is a joke but that was expected. mitchell had no power to compel anyone to cooperate so he basically pinched 2 guys who were facing jail time to cough up names. what about all of the other guys who were juicing who were using different drug dealers (eg, sheffield and giambi)?

[j.j. jones]

... also, your comparison of shooting up with cortisone is very different than shooting up with hgh. cortisone merely blocks pain in a specific area and does not enhance performance in any other way.

It would seem to me that if a pitcher can block chronic pain in his throwing arm via cortisone, that this would enhance his performance and in fact, if the pain were severe enough (without the cortisone) he might not be able to pitch at all. Possibly it's just a case of semantics, but if one is decreasing debilitating pain, most likely the on-field performance will improve (i.e. be enhanced.)

[dukelifer]

It would seem to me that if a pitcher can block chronic pain in his throwing arm via cortisone, that this would enhance his performance and in fact, if the pain were severe enough (without the cortisone) he might not be able to pitch at all. Possibly it's just a case of semantics, but if one is decreasing debilitating pain, most likely the on-field performance will improve (i.e. be enhanced.)

I would like to see any credible peer- reviewed scientific study with proper controls that show HGH or steroids have any measurable effect on performance in a professional sport like baseball. The fact that someone thinks it helps or says it helps in some way (like I think I see better) is not credible- not scientific. These drugs could simply be having a psychological impact on performance. This all needs to be explored using accepted scientific methods and analysis. But I doubt that will ever happen using professional athletes as the subject pool- which needs to be done. Without any credible evidence showing how or if it improves performance, not what people think it does, then the issue should simply be - did the player do something against the rules of baseball. It is like gambling. It is not necessarily illegal but it is against the rules of baseball. If there is evidence that the players broke the rules (however arbitrary they seem)- then punish the athlete for that-but to argue what they took led to improved performance is without any scientific basis and should be left out of the discussion. The talking heads seem obsessed with the performance enhancement component- and miss the point that this has never been proven.

[jma4life]

Yea, if you look at Andruw Jones' season this year, there was actually a strong correlation between him playing well immediately after cortisone shots. So there is no denying that the cortisone was a "performance enhancing" drug. By taking cortisone shots, his performance undoubtedly improved. And yet, the cortisone shots were also bad for his body long term. Sounds similar to certain player's usage of hgh to me.

Again, I'm not some Pettite defender. I hate the Yankees and if there's a team that I had to choose to be hit hard, it would be them. But at this point, assuming he was not lying, Petite's usage does not bother me that much at this point.

I suppose he could be lying based purely on motives but just because someone who was a steroid user could have reason to lie and say what Petite said does not mean that Petite is not telling the truth. I mean, if I am falsely accused of killing someone and I deny it, that does not mean that I killed the person just because someone who did in fact kill that person would have reason to lie about it and similarly deny it.

And once again, what Petite said essentially matched what was in the
Mitchell report. He admitted that what was in the MItchell report was accurate but gave context. So if he were to lie, don't you think he would at least low ball the Mitchell report.


But let me ask you that question once again. Even if hgh use were illegal in the NBA, would you have advised Grant Hill to have taken hgh 5 years ago if it means that he would have healed to a greater extent in a shorter period of time from his ankle injury? (Now consider that question assuming hgh use was LEGAL as it was in baseball)

I mean to be honest, the more I think about it, the more disappointing the Mitchell report becomes in terms of players revealed. The best they could do other than Roger was put things like Petite's use of hgh in there? I mean, given what we know about steroids, you can't tell me there aren't at least 10 bigger named players who were actually on steroids for lengthy periods of time and all we get is that Petite used hgh for two days to heal from an injury.

[jma4life]

dukelifer, with the case of steroids or hgh, I believe that an actual scientific study is impractical, potentially unethical and probably unnecessary.

That being said, there is no denying that various players showed ridiculous improvements after starting steroids/hgh. (That is, the players who are reported to have used them for prolonged periods of time and not just for a short duration to heal from an injury) I mean, if you look at Clemens, the correlation between his supposed use of steroids and his improved performance is shockingly and disturbingly strong.

Finally, there is essentially no doubt amongst any credible scientists/strength and conditioning coaches that steroids do improve athletic ability. Whether increased speed and strength translates directly into improved baseball performance is arguably debatable. But what is not debatable is that speed and strength levels unattainable without steroids can be reached with them. Just ask any track and field coach such as Charlie Francis who led Ben Johnson to the 1988 gold in Seoul.

[dukelifer]

dukelifer, with the case of steroids or hgh, I believe that an actual scientific study is impractical, potentially unethical and probably unnecessary.

That being said, there is no denying that various players showed ridiculous improvements after starting steroids/hgh. (That is, the players who are reported to have used them for prolonged periods of time and not just for a short duration to heal from an injury) I mean, if you look at Clemens, the correlation between his supposed use of steroids and his improved performance is shockingly and disturbingly strong.

Finally, there is essentially no doubt amongst any credible scientists/strength and conditioning coaches that steroids do improve athletic ability. Whether increased speed and strength translates directly into improved baseball performance is arguably debatable. But what is not debatable is that speed and strength levels unattainable without steroids can be reached with them. Just ask any track and field coach such as Charlie Francis who led Ben Johnson to the 1988 gold in Seoul.

I think there is no doubt that muscle size/strength will increase with steroids over time- but baseball is more than just being strong and so whether it can make you hit home runs or throw a slider better is still without proof. For sports like sprinting, the delta effect is likely small- but in that sport that makes all the difference. But again this is all speculation. If it was suspected that drinking alcohol before a game could relax someone - make them less stressed and improve performance beyond what could have happened without the drug- would you call that a performance enhancer? I am sure many a player has played better by drinking before the game. Mickey Mantle was hung over most of the time. If getting a surgery to tighten a ligament would allow you to get to a performance that you could not have attained without it- why is that not cheating? At present, people take the evidence that steroids are shown to make humans bigger and stronger to mean they are thus better- when the biggest and strongest in baseball are already not necessarily the best. I think this should be a question that is irrefutable- you break the rules- you pay the price- whatever that is. But trying to bring in suspected rather than proven enhancement of performance in a skill sport is not relevant.

[dukie8]

I would like to see any credible peer- reviewed scientific study with proper controls that show HGH or steroids have any measurable effect on performance in a professional sport like baseball. The fact that someone thinks it helps or says it helps in some way (like I think I see better) is not credible- not scientific. These drugs could simply be having a psychological impact on performance. This all needs to be explored using accepted scientific methods and analysis. But I doubt that will ever happen using professional athletes as the subject pool- which needs to be done. Without any credible evidence showing how or if it improves performance, not what people think it does, then the issue should simply be - did the player do something against the rules of baseball. It is like gambling. It is not necessarily illegal but it is against the rules of baseball. If there is evidence that the players broke the rules (however arbitrary they seem)- then punish the athlete for that-but to argue what they took led to improved performance is without any scientific basis and should be left out of the discussion. The talking heads seem obsessed with the performance enhancement component- and miss the point that this has never been proven.

are you kidding me??? do you actually have any doubts that steroids or hgh have an enormous positive impact on athletic performance? they even help in golf, which instituted testing this year.

[YmoBeThere]

I am not sure how to interpret dukelifer's post. Do track and field count as professional sports? The effects are probably documented there.

[dukelifer]

are you kidding me??? do you actually have any doubts that steroids or hgh have an enormous positive impact on athletic performance? they even help in golf, which instituted testing this year.

yes- I have doubts that steroids and hgh can make a baseball player better which is why I asked for any credible evidence. I have no doubt that players have taken steroids and never made it to the major leagues even when stronger or more athletic than another who never took it. So why is that? Because baseball is more than that. Will stronger and faster make you a better sprinter- probably a little bit- yes- but baseball is not sprinting- so what have you enhanced? Will a great player in baseball be greater with steroids? How can you know this is true? Was it the drug or the training or the experience that made them better? How can you ever really know.

[dukelifer]

I am not sure how to interpret dukelifer's post. Do track and field count as professional sports? The effects are probably documented there.

I am focused on primary skill sports (e.g. baseball , basketball) - not ones that measure strength or speed which may get some enhancement- but maybe small (weightlifting, running). Until we know how such enhancements in strength and speed improve skill sports- the focus should be on breaking the rules. I am also not sure if HGH has been shown to have the same effects as steroids with regard to strength and speed. I am not sure you can take HGH over long periods without some major damage.

[YmoBeThere]

Was it the drug or the training or the experience that made them better? How can you ever really know.

By that argument, you could argue we haven't made it to the moon You say a small advantage in track and field. Actually quite large...see Ben Johnson from the 1980's. I don't want to dig out data now.

The difference in baseball can be seen in home run numbers. Brady Anderson, Greg Vaughn, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa...and many more. Sure there is more to baseball than just pure strength, but when a doubles hitter is now pounding out home runs, BA goes up, IBB's, etc. No we don't have controlled data on what drugs they were taking and when. So, you could fall back to your argument that without a controlled experiment we don't really know the true effects. In that you are correct, but I would suggest that is a rather naive viewpoint.

[dukie8]

By that argument, you could argue we haven't made it to the moon You say a small advantage in track and field. Actually quite large...see Ben Johnson from the 1980's. I don't want to dig out data now.

The difference in baseball can be seen in home run numbers. Brady Anderson, Greg Vaughn, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa...and many more. Sure there is more to baseball than just pure strength, but when a doubles hitter is now pounding out home runs, BA goes up, IBB's, etc. No we don't have controlled data on what drugs they were taking and when. So, you could fall back to your argument that without a controlled experiment we don't really know the true effects. In that you are correct, but I would suggest that is a rather naive viewpoint.

i'm not going to waste my time debating that PEDs do or not enhance performance in sports. it's all yours ymobethere...

[jma4life]

dukelifer, are you telling me that if you made JJ Redick 10% faster, 10% quicker, 10% stronger, and enabled him to jump 10% higher, he would not improve? And I think you might be under exaggerating the effects of steroids if anything on speed and strength. We're not talking marginal differences here.


Furthermore, do you agree that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens took steroids over lengthy periods of time? Because if you do, then why would they continue to take them for many years. Surely they realize that if they got caught the consequences would be disastrous. So knowing the risk, there must've been a reward. The reward must have been the improvements in their performance that they themselves experienced and witnessed. Why else would they continue to take steroids. I mean, do you think these guys just took steroids for the fun of avoiding being caught?

[dukelifer]

dukelifer, are you telling me that if you made JJ Redick 10% faster, 10% quicker, 10% stronger, and enabled him to jump 10% higher, he would not improve? And I think you might be under exaggerating the effects of steroids if anything on speed and strength. We're not talking marginal differences here.


Furthermore, do you agree that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens took steroids over lengthy periods of time? Because if you do, then why would they continue to take them for many years. Surely they realize that if they got caught the consequences would be disastrous. So knowing the risk, there must've been a reward. The reward must have been the improvements in their performance that they themselves experienced and witnessed. Why else would they continue to take steroids. I mean, do you think these guys just took steroids for the fun of avoiding being caught?

Well, I can probably name 50 players that were 10% faster, quicker, and stronger than JJ who were not better. I could also see that 10% increase in strength in JJ could have impacted his mechanics that he honed over years.


As far as I know, none of those players have been failed a drug test or that there is quantifiable evidence that showed how long they took these drugs. I can also imagine a drug can make you think your performace is enhanced. Sports is as much about confidence and believing in yourself. as it is about physical strength. My point has been that I do not know how a 10% improvement in strength correlates to throwing a fastball in the strike zone better. I can also see it ruining performance,. This 10% improvement argument in one thing leading to a 10% improvemnt in another is not proven.

[dukelifer]

dukelifer, are you telling me that if you made JJ Redick 10% faster, 10% quicker, 10% stronger, and enabled him to jump 10% higher, he would not improve? And I think you might be under exaggerating the effects of steroids if anything on speed and strength. We're not talking marginal differences here.


Furthermore, do you agree that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens took steroids over lengthy periods of time? Because if you do, then why would they continue to take them for many years. Surely they realize that if they got caught the consequences would be disastrous. So knowing the risk, there must've been a reward. The reward must have been the improvements in their performance that they themselves experienced and witnessed. Why else would they continue to take steroids. I mean, do you think these guys just took steroids for the fun of avoiding being caught?

I strongly believe that players will do just about anything if they THINK it will give them an advantage. Wade Boggs used to eat chicken before every game- why would he do that unless he thought it game him an advantage. To take it to real world, a vast majority of students think that pulling an all nighter before an exam will enhance performace. There is evidence to suggest that it does not- but students do it because they think it helps them. It is hard to know how strong the psychological impact is in all this- particularly in sports at the highest level.

Finally, Michael Jordon was arguably a better basketball player later in his career when he was 10% slower, 10% quicker and 10$ weaker than he was in the beginning. Once he believed he was a great player- he became one -regardless of the changes in his body.

[YmoBeThere]

Finally, Michael Jordon was arguably a better basketball player later in his career when he was 10% slower, 10% quicker and 10$ weaker than he was in the beginning. Once he believed he was a great player- he became one -regardless of the changes in his body.

In some aspects yes, there is obviously a mental/experience aspect to this. And this exists in the people viewing the game also. Can't begin to count the times that MJ got calls on fouls "committed" against him and that he committed and was not whistled for.

But this isn't the advantage that steroids would give you...they will overcome that 10% slower, 10% quicker, disadvantage that the more experienced player will face due to age. Case in point is Roger Clemens. He got 2-3 MPH back on his fastball and went from being the Boston Doughboy(with 4 Cy Youngs) to arguably the greatest pitcher of all time with 7 Cy Youngs.

The GM here in Boston has been vindicated by these steroid accusastions. His assessment of Roger was likely correct, past his prime absent the steroids.

[jma4life]

As has already been said, can you imagine how much better JOrdan would have been had he been able to reap the benefits of his improved knowledge without any sacrifice in his pure athletic ability. Your very argument is in many ways, the reason why steroids can be so effective. Players can reap the rewards of increased knowledge of the game without suffering from the normal decline in athletic ability that accompanies this increased knowledge.

Furthermore, no one is denying that steroids alone will not make you a baseball star. Similarly, steroids alone will not make me fast enough to beat Mo Greene. But for the guy whose running a 9.85, Steroids could give you the edge to run a 9.77 and beat Greene or Asafa Powell or Ben Gay. And for the guy whose only hitting the ball to the warning track, steroids could turn him into the guy hitting the homerun. And for the guy whose only hitting 89, steroids could allow him to hit 93. Whether the fact that steroids improve performance is enough to make them illegal is not for me to decide. But all the evidence seems to indicate that they do in fact, improve performance.

[dukelifer]

As has already been said, can you imagine how much better JOrdan would have been had he been able to reap the benefits of his improved knowledge without any sacrifice in his pure athletic ability. Your very argument is in many ways, the reason why steroids can be so effective. Players can reap the rewards of increased knowledge of the game without suffering from the normal decline in athletic ability that accompanies this increased knowledge.

Furthermore, no one is denying that steroids alone will not make you a baseball star. Similarly, steroids alone will not make me fast enough to beat Mo Greene. But for the guy whose running a 9.85, Steroids could give you the edge to run a 9.77 and beat Greene or Asafa Powell or Ben Gay. And for the guy whose only hitting the ball to the warning track, steroids could turn him into the guy hitting the homerun. And for the guy whose only hitting 89, steroids could allow him to hit 93. Whether the fact that steroids improve performance is enough to make them illegal is not for me to decide. But all the evidence seems to indicate that they do in fact, improve performance.

One of the arguments for steroids improving performance is unexplained increases in numbers. For example, if you had a guy that went from 16 to 39 to 61 homeruns in 3 years- would you suspect steroid use? In this era you would- but that is exactly what happened to Roger Marris from 1959- 1961. How did that happen? What could explain it? Did he get stronger in those years- did he get smarter-did he take something - or was it just what happened over three years -something clicked? Unexplained increases in performance are not unusual in sports. Not all can be attributed to steroid use.

[YmoBeThere]

Unexplained increases in performance are not unusual in sports. Not all can be attributed to steroid use.


Yes, but occurences as you note very infrequent. What was going on in the late '90's was rampant. Too many people putting up huge numbers...and a few of them have all but admitted they took steroids, i.e. Sosa, McGwire, Caminiti, etc.

[dukelifer]

In some aspects yes, there is obviously a mental/experience aspect to this. And this exists in the people viewing the game also. Can't begin to count the times that MJ got calls on fouls "committed" against him and that he committed and was not whistled for.

But this isn't the advantage that steroids would give you...they will overcome that 10% slower, 10% quicker, disadvantage that the more experienced player will face due to age. Case in point is Roger Clemens. He got 2-3 MPH back on his fastball and went from being the Boston Doughboy(with 4 Cy Youngs) to arguably the greatest pitcher of all time with 7 Cy Youngs.

The GM here in Boston has been vindicated by these steroid accusastions. His assessment of Roger was likely correct, past his prime absent the steroids.

Clemens was a great pitcher until about 1993 then dipped and then in 1997- there was an unexplained increase in performance- from being washed up to starting to win big again. Then after two dominating years in Toronto with two CYA- be became mortal again for a couple of years and then good again- then average again- then good. So based on what folks are saying here, we can only explain that pattern by surmising that he took steroids for two years- then stopped- then took them again-then stopped- then did so again. Why did he do this? Why not continue to take it if it had such a dramatic effect on his pitching. How do you explain the rise and dips in his performance over the last 12 years. Why such an odd pattern of performance if steroids only enhance performance?

[dukie8]

One of the arguments for steroids improving performance is unexplained increases in numbers. For example, if you had a guy that went from 16 to 39 to 61 homeruns in 3 years- would you suspect steroid use? In this era you would- but that is exactly what happened to Roger Marris from 1959- 1961. How did that happen? What could explain it? Did he get stronger in those years- did he get smarter-did he take something - or was it just what happened over three years -something clicked? Unexplained increases in performance are not unusual in sports. Not all can be attributed to steroid use.

ben johnson
tim montgomery
regina jacobs
cj hunter
marion jones
nina kraft
brady anderson
sammy sosa
barry bonds
mark mcgwire
roger clemens
lenny dykstra
greg vaughn
floyd landis
tyler hamilton
ivan basso

see something in common with all of the above athletes? i am curious, what is your athletic background?

[Lavabe]

i'm not going to waste my time debating that PEDs do or not enhance performance in sports. it's all yours ymobethere...

They didn't seem to help the O's that much (aside from Brady Anderson for a couple of years and maybe Tejada).

I noticed in the O's thread, the observation that LaRussa seemed to look the other way. Fair enough. EVERY team did.

What puzzles me is: How about our current President? :eek: As Texas owner, wasn't he presiding over a number of folks on the list, or was that AFTER he was the owner?

Cheers,
Lavabe

[feldspar]

MLB is not the Olympics where they've been trying to root out the performance enhancing abusers for years. If as many as 80 players are on that list it's because MLB turned a blind eye to what was going on. When the culture implicitly condones the behavior, I just can't consider it cheating.

This pretty much sums up why I can't seem to get myself all worked up about "The Mitchell Report." Just not that big of a deal to me. Baseball itself created this monster.

[dukelifer]

Yes, but occurences as you note very infrequent. What was going on in the late '90's was rampant. Too many people putting up huge numbers...and a few of them have all but admitted they took steroids, i.e. Sosa, McGwire, Caminiti, etc.

Yes- this is true- people may have taken steroids at this time- but did it improve their performance? If you look at many great home run hitters of the past- they often peak about the same time. Willie Mays hit is peak 14 years into the game- when he was 34. Sosa hit his peaks 9-12 years after his debut at age 30-34. Look at Harmon Killibrew hit is peak of 49 twice at and the second time at 33. Aaron hit his pf 47 peak at age 37. It is odd that all these folks hit their peak at the same time in their 30's. All of these old timers must have been weaker than they were at 25. And all these oldtimers may have had a few more- if they played as many games as now. So homeruns are more than just power and strength of youth. Why did Sosa explode at 34? Seems like the right time for a big time home run hitter.

[dukelifer]

ben johnson
tim montgomery
regina jacobs
cj hunter
marion jones
nina kraft
brady anderson
sammy sosa
barry bonds
mark mcgwire
roger clemens
lenny dykstra
greg vaughn
floyd landis
tyler hamilton
ivan basso

see something in common with all of the above athletes? i am curious, what is your athletic background?

Some have tested positive for steroids or admitted using them? I give up

[dukie8]

Some have tested positive for steroids or admitted using them? I give up

all have either tested positive or we know they were using (mcgwire) and all had ridiculous performances that only could be explained by their drug use.

[dukie8]

Why did Sosa explode at 34? Seems like the right time for a big time home run hitter.

you are kidding, right?

[dukie8]

They didn't seem to help the O's that much (aside from Brady Anderson for a couple of years and maybe Tejada).

I noticed in the O's thread, the observation that LaRussa seemed to look the other way. Fair enough. EVERY team did.

What puzzles me is: How about our current President? :eek: As Texas owner, wasn't he presiding over a number of folks on the list, or was that AFTER he was the owner?

Cheers,
Lavabe

they helped brady go from 21, 13, 12 and 16 hrs to 50 and he only got to 24 again. they helped tejada win the mvp in 2002. they helped palmeiro get to 500 hrs. they helped gibbons get 100 rbis in 2003. they helped bigbie make a major league roster (he was terrible). they helped segui crack 100 rbis in 2000.

hitting has not been the orioles problem...that would be pitching. they had a 5.17 era last year and it was 5.35 in 2006. i think it is pretty funny that jason grimsley even made a cameo for the orioles. he must have had fun passing the syringes around in the locker room.

[dukelifer]

all have either tested positive or we know they were using (mcgwire) and all had ridiculous performances that only could be explained by their drug use.

Brady Anderson had one crazy year- so did Marris. Mcguire hit his peak at 35 like most other great homerun hitters. Sosa hit his peak at 36. Not sure about Dykstra- no sustained "power" performance there. Vaughn hit is peak at 33. Again, go back 40- 50 years- you will find very similar patterns of enhanced performance in a players mid 30's.

[dukelifer]

you are kidding, right?

Look up when the best homerun hitters hit their peak

[dukie8]

Look up when the best homerun hitters hit their peak

i wasn't aware that there is a blanket rule for that. bonds was 37 when he hit 73. you still have not said what your athletic background is. i have never come across a single athlete in my life who would deny that PEDs work. in fact, the more competitive they are, the more they acknowledge how well they work and, if they are clean, how much of a problem it is competing against the dirty ones.

[YmoBeThere]

Why did he do this? Why not continue to take it if it had such a dramatic effect on his pitching. How do you explain the rise and dips in his performance over the last 12 years. Why such an odd pattern of performance if steroids only enhance performance?

You ask the unknowable and then demand proof showing it is knowable. Nobody is going to volunteer this info.

And by the way, how do you explain any pitchers rise and dips in performance? Again, unknowable...

[dukelifer]

i wasn't aware that there is a blanket rule for that. bonds was 37 when he hit 73. you still have not said what your athletic background is. i have never come across a single athlete in my life who would deny that PEDs work. in fact, the more competitive they are, the more they acknowledge how well they work and, if they are clean, how much of a problem it is competing against the dirty ones.

Aaron hit his peak at 37 as well. Yes not 73 but 47. Most of the best homerun hitters hit their peak in their mid 30's.

I have no meaningful athletic background- except that I hit my peak basketball performance in pick up games at 37 - sort of the Jordan effect- just got smarter and played more;) As for whether PED work or not- I cannot deny that players may feel stronger or be stronger after taking them and that may make them train longer or work harder. But I know if no drug that will improve the skill independent of hard work and whether taking these have a strong placebo effect is in my mind still unproven. (I am excluding endurance or stength/speed sports) My point is that the blind study on skill athletes getting injected with a steroids has not been performed. I am sure the hardest part of sustaining performance is motivating oneself to continue to work hard. Perhaps taking anything may help some athletes "trick" their minds to do this- if they "feel" stronger. How many athletes in the past have "personal trainers"? Now this is commonplace. They pay people to motivate them. I suspect but do not know that this is a BIG part of the enhancement.

As I said in another post, I cannot explain why Roger Marris became a dominant HR hitter for one year-a ridiculous performace. I doubt that steroids or some enhancer was the cause. I suspect it was mostly the results of something clicking in his brain. All I know that sometimes when I played ball- there were a few games I could not miss and that was very unusual enhancement of performance. A great athlete might be able to sustain this "feeling" for a season or more- but not forever.

[dukelifer]

You ask the unknowable and then demand proof showing it is knowable. Nobody is going to volunteer this info.

And by the way, how do you explain any pitchers rise and dips in performance? Again, unknowable...

I agree. Which is really why my main point was to exclude the argument of performace enhancement- as this is unknowable. If they broke a rule punish them for that- but to speculate that only their good performances can be explained by steroids and not their bad performances over the same time period seems conflicting at best.

[tecumseh]

you are skeptical based on what? how many "decent" studies have been done on hgh? i'm not even sure what "decent" means. however, countless people who have used hgh have reported that they see better -- including the author of the article i linked. i'll put my money on the numerous people who have used hgh and have reported a marked increase in eyesight over someone who never has used it but who just thinks that it doesn't happen.

btw, a quick google of hgh and eyesight returns a mountain of links. the very first one states:



http://www.drcranton.com/hrt/hgh_body_of_evidence.htm

Duke 88 I am an ophthalmologist so I might have a little more knowledge base here than you. I also have read a lot of stuff on HGH, your link is pretty questionable this guy is way outside the mainstream not to say there is not some truth to what he says but to cite this as "evidence" is questionable at best and laughable at worst. As to people saying they see better hard to know what to make of it but remember in the Viagra studies the placebo effect was over 30% in other studies placebo effect has been over 50%. So you are taking an extremely expensive powerful hormone and have been told by people like Dr. Cranton it will improve your eyesight, sure I would expect A LOT of people would say yes it does, this is hardly proof. Again no decent studies on this and the mechanisms offered are internally inconsistent. In the vision field there is loads of "stuff" that supposedly increases your vision and lots of people swear by it but in rigorous studies this "stuff" does not hold up.

[Channing]

All of these baseball players who took steroids were exceptional ball players to start. You dont make it to the bigs without the necessary skills. However, once you have the coordination, raw strength (and I don't think it is debatable that steroids can lead to an increase in raw strength) will improve performance. Grounders the shortstop has to range to the right are now screamers between short and third. Line drives to center are now off the wall. Warning track fly balls are now home runs.

[dukie8]

Aaron hit his peak at 37 as well. Yes not 73 but 47. Most of the best homerun hitters hit their peak in their mid 30's.

I have no meaningful athletic background- except that I hit my peak basketball performance in pick up games at 37 - sort of the Jordan effect- just got smarter and played more;) As for whether PED work or not- I cannot deny that players may feel stronger or be stronger after taking them and that may make them train longer or work harder. But I know if no drug that will improve the skill independent of hard work and whether taking these have a strong placebo effect is in my mind still unproven. (I am excluding endurance or stength/speed sports) My point is that the blind study on skill athletes getting injected with a steroids has not been performed. I am sure the hardest part of sustaining performance is motivating oneself to continue to work hard. Perhaps taking anything may help some athletes "trick" their minds to do this- if they "feel" stronger. How many athletes in the past have "personal trainers"? Now this is commonplace. They pay people to motivate them. I suspect but do not know that this is a BIG part of the enhancement.

As I said in another post, I cannot explain why Roger Marris became a dominant HR hitter for one year-a ridiculous performace. I doubt that steroids or some enhancer was the cause. I suspect it was mostly the results of something clicking in his brain. All I know that sometimes when I played ball- there were a few games I could not miss and that was very unusual enhancement of performance. A great athlete might be able to sustain this "feeling" for a season or more- but not forever.

at least you admit that you don't know what it takes to be an elite athlete and what it feels like to be wrecked from a hard workout (and then not being able to do another massive workout the next day). you may want to do a bit of reading about the former soviet block countries and their systematic use of PEDs. they performed EXTENSIVE studies on the effects of PEDs on athletic performance and the results likely will be surprising to you.

[dukie8]

Duke 88 I am an ophthalmologist so I might have a little more knowledge base here than you. I also have read a lot of stuff on HGH, your link is pretty questionable this guy is way outside the mainstream not to say there is not some truth to what he says but to cite this as "evidence" is questionable at best and laughable at worst. As to people saying they see better hard to know what to make of it but remember in the Viagra studies the placebo effect was over 30% in other studies placebo effect has been over 50%. So you are taking an extremely expensive powerful hormone and have been told by people like Dr. Cranton it will improve your eyesight, sure I would expect A LOT of people would say yes it does, this is hardly proof. Again no decent studies on this and the mechanisms offered are internally inconsistent. In the vision field there is loads of "stuff" that supposedly increases your vision and lots of people swear by it but in rigorous studies this "stuff" does not hold up.

i don't think anyone gets on hgh for the sole purpose of improving one's eyesight. however, there are enough people who take hgh for other reasons who then notice that their eyesight is better for me to think that something is going on there. i am not aware of any real studies of this. i do think that comparing someone who takes hgh to gain strength who then notices that his/her eyesight is better (which has nothing to do with why they were taking hgh in the first place) is very different from someone who is told that a pill they are given is going to help with erectile disfunction and then who claims an improvement in that area despite being given the placebo.

i by no means think that the article with the cranton character is some definitive evidence that hgh improves eyesight -- it literally was the first article that came up from a quick google search that produces 1000s of articles. i just find it interesting that many people claim it improves eyesight when that isn't something one normally associates it with.

[dukelifer]

at least you admit that you don't know what it takes to be an elite athlete and what it feels like to be wrecked from a hard workout (and then not being able to do another massive workout the next day). you may want to do a bit of reading about the former soviet block countries and their systematic use of PEDs. they performed EXTENSIVE studies on the effects of PEDs on athletic performance and the results likely will be surprising to you.
This is what I asked for- the evidence. What does it take to get the performance enhancement. Does it need to be taken for a day- for a year. How big is the enhancement. If the former soviet block countries have this data- and it is credible- I would like to read it. Do you have a source? Does it discuss skill sports?

As for an elite athlete being wrecked- yes I have no idea what that is like. But unless EVERY athlete is taking steroids- then some of the elite guys who don't take them manage to compete at a high level- even if they are wrecked from their workouts. If you are telling me that every elite athlete needs this to compete and is taking drugs to work out- then that may be the bigger story. If you are saying that every major leaguer who is at the top of their game takes steroids - then a few more names need to be there. Are you claiming that ARod, Santana, Beckett etc must all be using drugs because there is no other explanation for their performances? Or are only the old guys taking the drugs because there is no other explanation for their acheiving high numbers late in life. I ask then how do you explain the performances in the 50's and 60's of guys in their mid 30's?

[dukelifer]

i don't think anyone gets on hgh for the sole purpose of improving one's eyesight. however, there are enough people who take hgh for other reasons who then notice that their eyesight is better for me to think that something is going on there. i am not aware of any real studies of this. i do think that comparing someone who takes hgh to gain strength who then notices that his/her eyesight is better (which has nothing to do with why they were taking hgh in the first place) is very different from someone who is told that a pill they are given is going to help with erectile disfunction and then who claims an improvement in that area despite being given the placebo.

i by no means think that the article with the cranton character is some definitive evidence that hgh improves eyesight -- it literally was the first article that came up from a quick google search that produces 1000s of articles. i just find it interesting that many people claim it improves eyesight when that isn't something one normally associates it with.

If you do a quick google search on HGH and strength you find a bunch of articles claiming there is no evidence showing that HGH increases strength at all. Do you believe that as well? If it does not improve strength- then is the enhancement from better eyesight only? Is HGH used to improve healing? Has that been shown credibly to your satisfaction? Is that the performance enhancement?

[tecumseh]

Again I think some of this is perception not strictly eyesight. If your reflexes and bat speed are better there may be a feeling you are "seeing" the ball better when what is really occurring is that you are reacting better. If you notice some of the people talk about very different things for instance some people talk about better near vision and some people talk about better distance vision. But again, see previous post, some baseball players have near "perfect" vision and so it would seem to be impossible to improve their vision.

I could buy into the fact that accommodation (ability to focus near) is affected by HGH but you have to realize this is not helpful in any sport. I think the evidence is very scanty and a mechanism is hard to believe that it would improve distance vision.

[dukie8]

This is what I asked for- the evidence. What does it take to get the performance enhancement. Does it need to be taken for a day- for a year. How big is the enhancement. If the former soviet block countries have this data- and it is credible- I would like to read it. Do you have a source? Does it discuss skill sports?

As for an elite athlete being wrecked- yes I have no idea what that is like. But unless EVERY athlete is taking steroids- then some of the elite guys who don't take them manage to compete at a high level- even if they are wrecked from their workouts. If you are telling me that every elite athlete needs this to compete and is taking drugs to work out- then that may be the bigger story. If you are saying that every major leaguer who is at the top of their game takes steroids - then a few more names need to be there. Are you claiming that ARod, Santana, Beckett etc must all be using drugs because there is no other explanation for their performances? Or are only the old guys taking the drugs because there is no other explanation for their acheiving high numbers late in life. I ask then how do you explain the performances in the 50's and 60's of guys in their mid 30's?

i'm done trying to explain how PEDs work with you. it's clear that you have NO idea how they work and what they do (who else compares wade boggs eating chicken for good luck to bonds taking more roids than a racehorse?) and you have no interest in so learning. just do me a favor and either do a little homework on the internet or find some elite athletes and ask them what they think of PEDs.

for the record, nobody in the 50s and 60s was hitting 60 or even 70 hrs in their late 30s so i don't know why you keep on harping on that. do you have any idea how many hrs 73 is??? do you know what bonds looked like when he did that?

[dukie8]

Again I think some of this is perception not strictly eyesight. If your reflexes and bat speed are better there may be a feeling you are "seeing" the ball better when what is really occurring is that you are reacting better. If you notice some of the people talk about very different things for instance some people talk about better near vision and some people talk about better distance vision. But again, see previous post, some baseball players have near "perfect" vision and so it would seem to be impossible to improve their vision.

I could buy into the fact that accommodation (ability to focus near) is affected by HGH but you have to realize this is not helpful in any sport. I think the evidence is very scanty and a mechanism is hard to believe that it would improve distance vision.

it's not just baseball players. did you read the article i posted about the cyclist? i'm not sure what "perfect" vision is but you always can improve it. if you are 20/15, then you can go to 20/10. if you are 20/10, then you can go to 20/5. you can just keep on moving further from the chart and still see the last line. there really is no limit so i don't see what your point is. as i said before, i don't think improved eyesight is a proven benefit of hgh but it doesn't really matter because nobody takes it for that benefit anyway.

[dukelifer]

i'm done trying to explain how PEDs work with you. it's clear that you have NO idea how they work and what they do (who else compares wade boggs eating chicken for good luck to bonds taking more roids than a racehorse?) and you have no interest in so learning. just do me a favor and either do a little homework on the internet or find some elite athletes and ask them what they think of PEDs.

for the record, nobody in the 50s and 60s was hitting 60 or even 70 hrs in their late 30s so i don't know why you keep on harping on that. do you have any idea how many hrs 73 is??? do you know what bonds looked like when he did that?

I look forward to your journal article on how steroids work on enhancing performace. I am happy to do my homework- just point me to the source.

As for the records- yes I know that 73 is a big number. For a long time 61 was a big number- and done by an athlete before the so-called steroid era. Bonds hit 73 when he was 37- all the rest of his numbers are not that different from Aarons-His next highest total is 49. Aaron roughly hit over 40 dingers as many times as Bonds and even hit 40 at age 39. Bonds hit 45 at 40 and then never more than 28. Bonds had one crazy year- Marris had one crazy year- it happens. It is not proof that steroids did this.

[YmoBeThere]

(I am excluding endurance or stength/speed sports)

Which is convenient to ignore...but doesn't help your case. Essentially, are you saying that strength plays no factor in "skill" sports? If that were truly the case, then wouldn't women athletes perform at the exact same level as their male counterparts? Or do they just lack the requisite hard work and the resulting level of "skill"?

Again, you're argument is based on the unknowable, which allows one to posit an unprovable hypothesis and then deny anything that disagrees. The exact opposite position can be taken and argued the same way.

[JasonEvans]

I am trying to decide if Dukelifer is playing a Devil's advocate kinda thing or if he really believes some of the stuff he is saying.

I am not aware of there being any debate about whether performance enhancing drugs actually help enhance athletic performance. Isn't that why they are called performance enhancers?

--Jason "I wodner how many people are reading the past 3 pages of debate? I just barely skimmed it" Evans

[Lavabe]

they helped brady go from 21, 13, 12 and 16 hrs to 50 and he only got to 24 again. they helped tejada win the mvp in 2002. they helped palmeiro get to 500 hrs. they helped gibbons get 100 rbis in 2003. they helped bigbie make a major league roster (he was terrible). they helped segui crack 100 rbis in 2000.

hitting has not been the orioles problem...that would be pitching. they had a 5.17 era last year and it was 5.35 in 2006. i think it is pretty funny that jason grimsley even made a cameo for the orioles. he must have had fun passing the syringes around in the locker room.

I meant to put a wink next to my comments about the O's.:o Just their luck that it didn't help them (as a team) much. As for Palmeiro, I guess we have no idea when he started. Perhaps while at Texas? Would still like to know if our Pres saw anything, or if he too looked the other way.:confused:

When I was younger and more athletic (distance running/race-walking) I used to follow athletics more closely. I wondered what percentage of the distance/endurance and sprinting folks back then were doing something. Likewise, maybe Canseco was onto something in claiming that a large percentage of baseball players were on PED's. That's the bigger concern to me. If it's upwards of 33-67%, then there probably is a trickle-down effect into lower levels of organized baseball.

Now I'm older, less athletic, and more cynical. I'm in those years when I need, as Peyton Manning says, to give it up and just get a bigger shirt.;)

Cheers,
Lavabe

[dukelifer]

I am trying to decide if Dukelifer is playing a Devil's advocate kinda thing or if he really believes some of the stuff he is saying.

I am not aware of there being any debate about whether performance enhancing drugs actually help enhance athletic performance. Isn't that why they are called performance enhancers?

--Jason "I wodner how many people are reading the past 3 pages of debate? I just barely skimmed it" Evans

I simply asked for the scientific study on the effects in skill sports like baseball. Can a single injection or two make a pitcher measurably better in a short period? Does it need to be taken over many, many weeks to see effects? Perhaps it is not debated ( I think it is)- but where is this study? I also said that until we know- we should simply say the athlete broke the rules and punish them for that. That is what I believe.

I learned from this give an take that maybe the study is in the old Soviet sports literature. By nature, scientists are sceptics and perhaps they don't think the belief of sports writers or trainers is enough proof. I also said that simply looking at performances after the age of 34 as an indicator of PE needs to account for the fact that many of the HR hitters in the 50's and 60's hit their peak at exactly the same age. Except for the 73, Bonds numbers (never hit more than 49) look very similar to Aaron's and other names of the past. I simply asked for information. I believe there are many possible effects here- some placebo- some direct- some unrelated. But strange anomalies in sports performances have happened before. Perhaps they were all drug induced- but they did not only happen in the 90's.

[jma4life]

Read speed trap by Charlie Francis. It gives in detail, Ben Johnson's steroid program, how often he took it, when he took it, and its effects on his performance.

[dukelifer]

Which is convenient to ignore...but doesn't help your case. Essentially, are you saying that strength plays no factor in "skill" sports? If that were truly the case, then wouldn't women athletes perform at the exact same level as their male counterparts? Or do they just lack the requisite hard work and the resulting level of "skill"?

Again, you're argument is based on the unknowable, which allows one to posit an unprovable hypothesis and then deny anything that disagrees. The exact opposite position can be taken and argued the same way.

Yes- but at some points there are possible diminishing returns. For example, if Roger Federer tooks steroids to be built like an olympic weightlifter-and was 40% stronger- do you think he would be 40% better at tennis? Do you think Mariano Rivera was as strong as Armando Benitez in their primes? Yet they both had dominating fastballs. What gives there? Perhaps at some point it does not help you to be 10% stronger.

[tecumseh]

The theoretical limit of vision in humans is about 20/7.5 the resolution at this point is limited by the spacing of the cones in the fovea. So no if you are at 20/10 there is just not a lot of room for improvement. That is what I meant by "perfect" vision some of the baseball players tested were very close to the theoretical limit of vision in humans.

[dukelifer]

I simply asked for the scientific study on the effects in skill sports like baseball. Can a single injection or two make a pitcher measurably better in a short period? Does it need to be taken over many, many weeks to see effects? Perhaps it is not debated ( I think it is)- but where is this study? I also said that until we know- we should simply say the athlete broke the rules and punish them for that. That is what I believe.

I learned from this give an take that maybe the study is in the old Soviet sports literature. By nature, scientists are sceptics and perhaps they don't think the belief of sports writers or trainers is enough proof. I also said that simply looking at performances after the age of 34 as an indicator of PE needs to account for the fact that many of the HR hitters in the 50's and 60's hit their peak at exactly the same age. Except for the 73, Bonds numbers (never hit more than 49) look very similar to Aaron's and other names of the past. I simply asked for information. I believe there are many possible effects here- some placebo- some direct- some unrelated. But strange anomalies in sports performances have happened before. Perhaps they were all drug induced- but they did not only happen in the 90's.

Not scientific- yet interesting yet the same. A somewhat objective look at the issue of steroids and skill sports such as baseball

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28645.html

[jma4life]

At best, basically, this author concedes that steroids when used with proper training would result in improvements in performance.


Assuming that this article is correct, then I would say that I don't doubt that some high school kids might use steroids with improper training. But I have a feeling that Clemens, Bonds and other athletes with professional trainers are well aware of the type of training they need to do with their bodies in conjunction with steroids. I've seen video of Clemens and Bonds working out and these guys aren't just doing arm curls. They're doing exactly what this guy said could be used in conjunction with steroids to improve power, namely working the legs and hip extension muscles. So even if we take the article that you posted as fact, based on what I have seen of Clemens and Bonds training, they are doing exactly what they should do to improve performance.

Nonetheless, I still see many flaws in this article. While it is true that simply improving strength with no gains in power would not lead to a faster fastball or a farther hit ball, increases in strength nearly always lead to improvements in power. The point of diminishing returns to strength is usually not seen until you get to power lifters who can lift probably 2-3 times what Bonds, Clemens and any baseball player could dream of lifting.

[j.j. jones]

Not scientific- yet interesting yet the same. A somewhat objective look at the issue of steroids and skill sports such as baseball

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28645.html

A provocative excerpt from your above link:


Another puzzling distinction is the one made between steroids and other training supplements. Many baseball players have openly used androstenedione, a muscle-building compound that major league baseball hasn't banned even though it's merely a molecular puddle-jump from anabolic steroids.

Androstenedione is a chemical precursor that is converted to testosterone by the liver. Creatine monohydrate, another effective supplement, is far more widely used than androstenedione and is virtually free of stigma. Creatine is chemically unrelated to anabolic steroids or androstenedione and also differs in that it does not manipulate hormone levels; rather, creatine allows muscle cells to recover from fatigue more quickly. But all three substances -- creatine, androstenedione, and anabolic steroids -- increase a naturally occurring substance in the body to promote the building of muscle tissue. Anabolic steroids simply accomplish this end more quickly and dramatically.

The list of "artificial" enhancements doesn't stop there. Indeed, the boundaries of what constitutes a "natural" modern athlete are increasingly arbitrary. Pitchers benefit from computer modeling of their throwing motions. Medical and pharmacological technologies help players to prevent and recover from injuries better than ever before. Even laboratory-engineered protein shakes, nutrition bars, and vitamin C tablets should theoretically violate notions of "natural" training. Yet no one claims these tools are tarnishing the competitive integrity of the game.

[dukelifer]

At best, basically, this author concedes that steroids when used with proper training would result in improvements in performance.


Assuming that this article is correct, then I would say that I don't doubt that some high school kids might use steroids with improper training. But I have a feeling that Clemens, Bonds and other athletes with professional trainers are well aware of the type of training they need to do with their bodies in conjunction with steroids. I've seen video of Clemens and Bonds working out and these guys aren't just doing arm curls. They're doing exactly what this guy said could be used in conjunction with steroids to improve power, namely working the legs and hip extension muscles. So even if we take the article that you posted as fact, based on what I have seen of Clemens and Bonds training, they are doing exactly what they should do to improve performance.

Nonetheless, I still see many flaws in this article. While it is true that simply improving strength with no gains in power would not lead to a faster fastball or a farther hit ball, increases in strength nearly always lead to improvements in power. The point of diminishing returns to strength is usually not seen until you get to power lifters who can lift probably 2-3 times what Bonds, Clemens and any baseball player could dream of lifting.

But he also suggests that poor training even with steroids could diminish performance. So my point again is we will never know for any athlete whether taking steroids improved their performace over what they might have done with the same training without steroids. For some it may have helped- for some it did nothing -for some it hurt. The other issue not fully addressed in this article is whether HGH is performance enhancing at all - there the jury is out. The issue should be punishing players for taking anything deemed improper- it is just breaking a rule. Unfortunatley, drug testing is not perfect and so you can do is punish the few that get caught. Punish them hard- kick them out of baseball- but you cannot conclusively say the athlete could not have done it without the drug. It is not knowable. Simply seeing an anomaly in performance- e.g. Bond's 73- is not proof positive. We have seen that happen before - when such drugs were not available. Because one can never know- one can ban the drug or medical procedure- if one wants to go that far. If it is taking something that is "unnatural" that gets everyone so upset- then one will need to ban all athletes who have surgeries to enhance or maintain their performace. If you are simply saying Bonds would not have been able to get to the same level (not enhanced- just maintaining) without the drug, you could say the same about every elbow surgery. So make a list, test where one can and make the punishment harsh if one wants it to stop. But I claim there is no basis to know that it always enhances performance- it could have increased strength in the wrong areas- screwed up mechanics and their proper training did everything to restore it back- we simply do not know.

[tecumseh]

There was an interesting "study" done with steroids and swimming by the Chinese in the 90s and the East Germans in the 70s. It has come out clearly that both programs were heavily involved in doping their athletes. In the 70s the East German swimming program produced many world class women swimmers and set numerous world records if I recall correctly they had a single world class male swimmer. The Chinese in the 90s similarly produced numerous world class women swimmers and their male swimmers could not compete on the world stage.

It is hard to imagine that the East Germans and Chinese did not try to doping on their male swimmers. It would seem more likely that steroids simply do not help male swimmers much or at all. It also seems impossible to argue against the idea that steroids do not help women swimmers, in fact it helped them a lot. Once the East Germans and Chinese women cleaned up their acts they largely disappeared from the top world class listings. So what you have is actually a pretty good study and the results are pretty frightening you can take good swimmers who will never be world class swimmers and add steroids and they turn into world class swimmers even Olympic champions.

[tecumseh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics

Notice how dominant the German women were and only one male swimmer getting a bronze and not how they disappeared

[dukelifer]

I suppose this will be my last post on the topic. dukie8 was/is annoyed with me- sorry about that. I am trying to keep an open mind on the topic and simply asked for some objective information. If Barry Bonds is a user- he is then the best user of them all. If baseball and all sports has a big PED problem, then Bonds has figured out a way to hide his use, improve/maintain his mechanics into his 40's, improve his power and still out perform most every other user and non user in the sport- even those younger and stronger. At the moment we just don't know how he does it. With all the use in the sport - we would expect similar crazy number from a large number of players- but few approach him.

But right now there is at least one better player than Bonds in the game- with crazier, unexplained numbers. ARod had another ridiculous season-He has now hit over 50 homeruns three times and hit between 40-50 5 times- Bonds hit more than 50 only once and between 40-50 7 times in many more seasons. He is outperforming Bonds and maybe any other power hitter in the history of the game- and he still has not hit his prime. From what has been discussed here, is there no possible explanation for such a feat other than his use of drugs to enhance performance? How can he be so much better, and train so much harder than all around him even those many juiced on roids and at the same time unable to perform at the most clutch moments. How can he be doing this against pitchers who are stronger- and have more velocity on their fastball because of roids. ARod is either a freak of baseball or, like bonds, the best user of them all.

[tombrady]

But right now there is at least one better player than Bonds in the game- with crazier, unexplained numbers. ARod had another ridiculous season-He has now hit over 50 homeruns three times and hit between 40-50 5 times- Bonds hit more than 50 only once and between 40-50 7 times in many more seasons. He is outperforming Bonds and maybe any other power hitter in the history of the game- and he still has not hit his prime. ... ARod is either a freak of baseball or, like bonds, the best user of them all.


Comparing ARod to Bonds shows your lack of knowledge about baseball. Bonds in the early 2000s was leaps and bounds above ARod offensively (in any season) -- or any other baseball player ever. There is no dispute to this.

[dukelifer]

There was an interesting "study" done with steroids and swimming by the Chinese in the 90s and the East Germans in the 70s. It has come out clearly that both programs were heavily involved in doping their athletes. In the 70s the East German swimming program produced many world class women swimmers and set numerous world records if I recall correctly they had a single world class male swimmer. The Chinese in the 90s similarly produced numerous world class women swimmers and their male swimmers could not compete on the world stage.

It is hard to imagine that the East Germans and Chinese did not try to doping on their male swimmers. It would seem more likely that steroids simply do not help male swimmers much or at all. It also seems impossible to argue against the idea that steroids do not help women swimmers, in fact it helped them a lot. Once the East Germans and Chinese women cleaned up their acts they largely disappeared from the top world class listings. So what you have is actually a pretty good study and the results are pretty frightening you can take good swimmers who will never be world class swimmers and add steroids and they turn into world class swimmers even Olympic champions.

I would agree- steroids will help women perform better- all things equal- but you are having a much larger effect on physiology I would guess and more likely some bigger long term damage. The fact that they could not create a super male swimmer in that time using drugs is equally interesting-- given that their training methods were also advanced- unless all the other elite male swimmers in the world were on steroids as well.

[dukelifer]

Comparing ARod to Bonds shows your lack of knowledge about baseball. Bonds in the early 2000s was leaps and bounds above ARod offensively (in any season) -- or any other baseball player ever. There is no dispute to this.

I was focused on HR's in the discussion- so your point is well taken. This is in the context of steroid use which was to suggest that the biggest impact of it use is on the number of homeruns.

[tecumseh]

The fact that they could not create a super male swimmer in that time using drugs is equally interesting-- given that their training methods were also advanced- unless all the other elite male swimmers in the world were on steroids as well.

You somewhat missed my whole point. The East Germans (and Chinese) claimed it was training techniques or stroke techniques but where is the proof. If their training techniques were so superior you'd think they would have produced more than a single world class male swimmer. There is no one today talking about the "East German method". They were not doing anything unique in training their swimmers other than using massive amounts of steroids. The evidence speaks loudly against the idea that all the male swimmers were doping, in fact in recent years there has been a movement among elite swimmers to do less weight training in fact Phelps only started weight training the last couple of years.

[dukelifer]

You somewhat missed my whole point. The East Germans (and Chinese) claimed it was training techniques or stroke techniques but where is the proof. If their training techniques were so superior you'd think they would have produced more than a single world class male swimmer. There is no one today talking about the "East German method". They were not doing anything unique in training their swimmers other than using massive amounts of steroids. The evidence speaks loudly against the idea that all the male swimmers were doping, in fact in recent years there has been a movement among elite swimmers to do less weight training in fact Phelps only started weight training the last couple of years.

I see. The argument has been that you need to be strong to do sports and being stronger (with drugs or training or both) will necessarily improve performance in all sports (skill or otherwise). Here it suggests that either training needs to be correct to get the benefit or that the effect is small or negligible regardless of training for some sports.

[Channing]

I suppose this will be my last post on the topic. dukie8 was/is annoyed with me- sorry about that. I am trying to keep an open mind on the topic and simply asked for some objective information. If Barry Bonds is a user- he is then the best user of them all. If baseball and all sports has a big PED problem, then Bonds has figured out a way to hide his use, improve/maintain his mechanics into his 40's, improve his power and still out perform most every other user and non user in the sport- even those younger and stronger. At the moment we just don't know how he does it. With all the use in the sport - we would expect similar crazy number from a large number of players- but few approach him.

But right now there is at least one better player than Bonds in the game- with crazier, unexplained numbers. ARod had another ridiculous season-He has now hit over 50 homeruns three times and hit between 40-50 5 times- Bonds hit more than 50 only once and between 40-50 7 times in many more seasons. He is outperforming Bonds and maybe any other power hitter in the history of the game- and he still has not hit his prime. From what has been discussed here, is there no possible explanation for such a feat other than his use of drugs to enhance performance? How can he be so much better, and train so much harder than all around him even those many juiced on roids and at the same time unable to perform at the most clutch moments. How can he be doing this against pitchers who are stronger- and have more velocity on their fastball because of roids. ARod is either a freak of baseball or, like bonds, the best user of them all.

If Bonds were not on steroids he would still be one of the best baseball players in the game today. His early years in Pittsburgh are proof enough of that. The fact that he is one of the best, and is on PEDS, means that he is an all timer. Nobody is denying that Bonds is immensely talented - its taking that talent to another level.

[greybeard]

What do Bonds, McGuire, and Clemens all have in common, besides the juice that is. Same thing that Pettit had when he admittedly took a couple (yeah right) hits of Hgh, injuries. That's right, boys and girls, each had a broken body.

It is difficult to play with a broken body. Just ask Paulus. These guys had backs, knees, etc, that would have put them out of the game years ago. Ask the Mick, only he is dead now because he drank too much and got cancer and anyway he died.

Roids are a health issue on both sides, why you get started and how it effects. Health and dollars. For stars, in my opinion, they get into it because their bodies are broke and then they like what it feels like to not be broke and to actually feel better, like you did when it all began for you, only in a different way--more powerful but less elegant.

Anyway, Mitchell served only to sully himself by taking this gig and his "report" serves only to underscore how foolish the bigs can look when they are trying to appear like they have principles. If Bud had any principles he would have stood up for Barry because Barry sold product which is what drove the bus as far as the owners were concerned; if Mitchell had any principles he would not have taken this gig.

If the US Attorney in SF had a modecum of decency he would drop this prosecution of Bonds. Use the Wild Bill defense; any lie that Bonds might have told is immaterial and therefore can constitute neither perjury nor obstruction. Everybody knew the truth that baseball was infested by roid users and so truthful testimony by Bonds, assuming he lied, would have done nothing to advance anything. Toss out this indictment.

And, oh, stop making a big deal about records. Me, I stopped long ago, once they invented dual well tape decks. Since CDs and now MP3 players, I threw all my records out, even those which might be worth something to someone. They're just not worth all the fuss. Sports fans should do the same.

Either the games are fun and exciting to watch or they're not. the rest is just a bunch of BS.

And, oh, if we can get that far, please, please, somebody get that canned music, those lights, and, I really can't believe I'm saying this, those scantilly clad babes out of the games. Then maybe the talking heads will be fired, and we can all get back to watching sports, those of us who are left.

[tecumseh]

I see. The argument has been that you need to be strong to do sports and being stronger (with drugs or training or both) will necessarily improve performance in all sports (skill or otherwise). Here it suggests that either training needs to be correct to get the benefit or that the effect is small or negligible regardless of training for some sports.

Not at all sure what you are talking about. The effect of steroids on women swimmers is HUGE the effect on men is minimal if any may in fact be negative. What I am suggesting there is an optimal strength bulk body type and naturally males can come close to achieving this but females need steroids to come close to this optimum. I think the evidence pretty clearly shows this.

[tombrady]

And, oh, stop making a big deal about records. Me, I stopped long ago, once they invented dual well tape decks. Since CDs and now MP3 players, I threw all my records out, even those which might be worth something to someone. They're just not worth all the fuss. Sports fans should do the same.

Either the games are fun and exciting to watch or they're not. the rest is just a bunch of BS.

man i agree with this. sports are so much more enjoyable when you stop wasting brain power and time worrying about records and lists. who or what team is the top-10 this or that of all time? who cares?

do I want the patriots to go 19-0 this year? of course. why? because I want to see them win every game, because I like it when they win. Starting next year, all those past victories don't mean anything, besides the satisfaction of them winning their 4th super bowl. matching the record of some team that played years before I was born, and then arguing for the next 30 years about which undefeated team was better? where the hell does that get you? I'll tell you: nowhere.

i also root for the red sox to go 173-0. when they lose their first game of the year, i root for 172-1. because its fun to see them win. not so i can have some ammunition for some future "best of all time" argument.

[greybeard]

man i agree with this. sports are so much more enjoyable when you stop wasting brain power and time worrying about records and lists. who or what team is the top-10 this or that of all time? who cares?

do I want the patriots to go 19-0 this year? of course. why? because I want to see them win every game, because I like it when they win. Starting next year, all those past victories don't mean anything, besides the satisfaction of them winning their 4th super bowl. matching the record of some team that played years before I was born, and then arguing for the next 30 years about which undefeated team was better? where the hell does that get you? I'll tell you: nowhere.

i also root for the red sox to go 173-0. when they lose their first game of the year, i root for 172-1. because its fun to see them win. not so i can have some ammunition for some future "best of all time" argument.

See, I hope the Patriots run the table too, because then spygate will become all the more important, and then people will begin discussing the 1951 Giants and about how we was robbed, then they will recognize that the Brooklyn Dodgers actually were the best team in NY during the early 50s. Oops, I forgot for a second. :o

[tecumseh]

What I REALLY want to see is Hawaii run the table, win BIG and finish undefeated and then LSU beat OSU and then explain to Hawaii how come at 13-0 they are ranked behind a team with two losses. Of course Tom Brady while wanting the Pats to win probably likes this scenario.

[dukie8]

I suppose this will be my last post on the topic. dukie8 was/is annoyed with me- sorry about that. I am trying to keep an open mind on the topic and simply asked for some objective information. If Barry Bonds is a user- he is then the best user of them all. If baseball and all sports has a big PED problem, then Bonds has figured out a way to hide his use, improve/maintain his mechanics into his 40's, improve his power and still out perform most every other user and non user in the sport- even those younger and stronger. At the moment we just don't know how he does it. With all the use in the sport - we would expect similar crazy number from a large number of players- but few approach him.

But right now there is at least one better player than Bonds in the game- with crazier, unexplained numbers. ARod had another ridiculous season-He has now hit over 50 homeruns three times and hit between 40-50 5 times- Bonds hit more than 50 only once and between 40-50 7 times in many more seasons. He is outperforming Bonds and maybe any other power hitter in the history of the game- and he still has not hit his prime. From what has been discussed here, is there no possible explanation for such a feat other than his use of drugs to enhance performance? How can he be so much better, and train so much harder than all around him even those many juiced on roids and at the same time unable to perform at the most clutch moments. How can he be doing this against pitchers who are stronger- and have more velocity on their fastball because of roids. ARod is either a freak of baseball or, like bonds, the best user of them all.

why are you perplexed that bonds never tested positive? baseball didn't even test until recently and, what has come out recently, is that he was tipped off when the tests were coming. moreover, baseball doesn't for a lot of substances banned by other sports, including hgh. the mitchell report strongly supported the belief that the juicers in baseball switched to hgh when other substances were added a couple of years ago. marion jones never failed a test and t&f tests a lot more than baseball. avoiding a failed test is not a big deal.

do you bother to even look up baseball stats. from 2007:

arod hrs -- 54
fielder hrs -- 50

accounting for the fact that fielder is in the nl, which has better pitchers and less friendly hitters' parks, why do you think that arod is a "freak of baseball?"

[dukelifer]

why are you perplexed that bonds never tested positive? baseball didn't even test until recently and, what has come out recently, is that he was tipped off when the tests were coming. moreover, baseball doesn't for a lot of substances banned by other sports, including hgh. the mitchell report strongly supported the belief that the juicers in baseball switched to hgh when other substances were added a couple of years ago. marion jones never failed a test and t&f tests a lot more than baseball. avoiding a failed test is not a big deal.

do you bother to even look up baseball stats. from 2007:

arod hrs -- 54
fielder hrs -- 50

accounting for the fact that fielder is in the nl, which has better pitchers and less friendly hitters' parks, why do you think that arod is a "freak of baseball?"

yes- I know the stats- I was trying compare a player who has sustained a certain level of HR performance over time to Bonds. I suppose that Fielder's impressive jump from 28 to 50 HRs in one year should be sign of something as well.

[dukelifer]

Not at all sure what you are talking about. The effect of steroids on women swimmers is HUGE the effect on men is minimal if any may in fact be negative. What I am suggesting there is an optimal strength bulk body type and naturally males can come close to achieving this but females need steroids to come close to this optimum. I think the evidence pretty clearly shows this.

Are you saying that if the east German male swimmers on steroids had the exact same training as the non-East German swimmers that were beating them- they would not have done any better? The fact that the training was not the same- I am not sure what differences there might be- confounds this in my mind.

[tecumseh]

I am saying the East German men's team was not very good in fact no where close to what the American team was. The biggest reason for this is not training methods but just talent pool. The American swimmig had a very deep talent pool. Let's look at perhaps the last clean Olympic swim meet 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_1968_Summer_Olympics
Notice all those American flags and lots of Aussie ones too. This is reflective of the talent pool in American (and Australian) swimming. Notice how the East German team is nothing.

So yeah I am saying that if the East German male swimmers had the exact same training techniques as the Americans they would not have been the same. Training is not everything at some point swimming talent enters into the equation.

[tombrady]

Wow. So Clemens absolutely denies doing anything ever. He's taking a hard stance here.

Of course, if ANYTHING resembling proof comes out, then his entire case is shot.

Everything in the Mitchell report so far has come true in terms of players acknowledging their actions. Even Pettitte. Clemens is putting all of his eggs in one basket here.

If he really was such a roid freak, I hope they all get smashed. Especially if rumors of the Fed interviewing players comes true. He can't really lie to them, can he? Theres a difference between BS-ing sportswriters and fans and BS-ing when you have jail to face if you lie...

[dukie8]

Wow. So Clemens absolutely denies doing anything ever. He's taking a hard stance here.

Of course, if ANYTHING resembling proof comes out, then his entire case is shot.

Everything in the Mitchell report so far has come true in terms of players acknowledging their actions. Even Pettitte. Clemens is putting all of his eggs in one basket here.

If he really was such a roid freak, I hope they all get smashed. Especially if rumors of the Fed interviewing players comes true. He can't really lie to them, can he? Theres a difference between BS-ing sportswriters and fans and BS-ing when you have jail to face if you lie...

bonds knows the difference...

[greybeard]

How many investigations by how many official bodies do we need into whether roids have been used in baseball? I say ban the sport and put our tax dollars to some useful purpose, like building baseball parks for billionaires so they can pay ballplayers millions but only if they take roids and then pay a former leader of the Senate, supposedly the most august body in the free world to investigate the use of roids in baseball only all his investigation does is lead to a further expenditure of tax dollars to get to the bottom of what we knew to begin with.

This has got to stop. Clemens needs to commit suicide so the Feds can on with the real business of protecting the rest of us from the terrorist threat we face, or from Michael Vick.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if they investigate Clemens I'm voting for Ross Perot; his paranoa about his daughter's wedding makes the real world look like a joke, only it ain't.

[tecumseh]

I was talking to woman the other day who should have won a bronze at the 76 Olympics. She placed behind one of those notorious East Germans, which brings up an interesting point with the Marion Jones thing.....what is the statute of limitations on this. It has come out clearly and definitively that these East German women were doping. No one suffered more from doping than Shirley Babashoff, she was a female Mark Spitz and would have been one of the big stories of the 76 Olympics if not for doping, she would have had a 5 gold medal haul. Instead she was surly Shirley.

[dukie8]

I was talking to woman the other day who should have won a bronze at the 76 Olympics. She placed behind one of those notorious East Germans, which brings up an interesting point with the Marion Jones thing.....what is the statute of limitations on this. It has come out clearly and definitively that these East German women were doping. No one suffered more from doping than Shirley Babashoff, she was a female Mark Spitz and would have been one of the big stories of the 76 Olympics if not for doping, she would have had a 5 gold medal haul. Instead she was surly Shirley.

statute of limitations only apply to laws -- not to rules of athletic bodies. medals therefore can be stripped or re-given out at any time. frank shorter lost the gold in the 1976 olympics to a german guy who all but has admitted that he was doped. shorter has been fighting for years to strip the german guy of the medal but thus far has not been successful.

the problem with stripping marion jones of her sydney medals is that most of the women behind her also were doped to the gills. ekaterini thanou won the silver in the 100m and was such a big druggie that she is greek and she got tossed right before the athens olympics started for missing a drug test and faking a car crash!

[tecumseh]

I meant statute of limitations in the minds of IOC, I was using the term more broadly. Clearly there seems to be one here. I mean there is pretty firm proof on the East German Olympic swim team of 1976. So it would seem you can go back to 2000 but not 1976, how about 1992?.

[dukie8]

I meant statute of limitations in the minds of IOC, I was using the term more broadly. Clearly there seems to be one here. I mean there is pretty firm proof on the East German Olympic swim team of 1976. So it would seem you can go back to 2000 but not 1976, how about 1992?.

i don't know how i could be more clear. statutes of limitations DO NOT apply to athletic govering bodies -- only state and federal laws. for you to then interpret that as "clearly" meaning one applies to olympic medals is baffling. the IOC can strip or give medals whenever it wants for whatever time period it wants to. hopefully, one day frank shorter will get his gold medal and surly shirley will get hers.

i said it earlier but i'll say it again, if baseball were serious about cleaning its mess up, it would strip all of the awards won by all of the dirty players and strip world series titles as well. it never will happen because bud is a clown.

also, if clemens really thinks that the mitchell report falsely included him, then his only correct course of action is to sue for libel. anything short of that and he, too, is a clown. i am looking forward to having him talk under oath. he may sing a very different tune then after seeing bonds facing jail time. hiding behind written statements issued by his agent couldn't be any more weak and pathetic.

[tecumseh]

Dukie8
Maybe I am speaking a foreign language. But my point is that there seems to be a statute of limitations in the minds of the IOC. I hope you are not one of those obnoxious lawyer types. Why do you assume that the person you are addressing is too dumb to understand what you are saying????The IOC was keen to strip all of the medals of Marion Jones but faced with definitive proof of steroid doping by the East German athletes they did not take action. Why??? Too far back in time perhaps. I think they have a statute of limitations in their minds. I mean if it is evidence based it is a slam dunk against some of these East German athletes so why have they not been stripped of their medals? But who knows what the IOC thinks they stripped Jim Thorpe of his medals in 1913 and then restored them in 1982. How is that for any statute of limitations.

[YmoBeThere]

I hope you are not one of those obnoxious lawyer types. Why do you assume that the person you are addressing is too dumb to understand what you are saying????

It does seem that we there are a few of those around these here parts.

[dukie8]

Dukie8
Maybe I am speaking a foreign language. But my point is that there seems to be a statute of limitations in the minds of the IOC. I hope you are not one of those obnoxious lawyer types. Why do you assume that the person you are addressing is too dumb to understand what you are saying????The IOC was keen to strip all of the medals of Marion Jones but faced with definitive proof of steroid doping by the East German athletes they did not take action. Why??? Too far back in time perhaps. I think they have a statute of limitations in their minds. I mean if it is evidence based it is a slam dunk against some of these East German athletes so why have they not been stripped of their medals? But who knows what the IOC thinks they stripped Jim Thorpe of his medals in 1913 and then restored them in 1982. How is that for any statute of limitations.

you still don't get it. i hope that you are not one of those obnoxious types that refuses to acknowledge the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. for the umptenth time, there is NO statute of limitations "in the minds of the ioc" (whatever that means). this is not brain surgery but you continue trying to convince yourself that this phenomenon exists. it does not and the concept that someone can get a medal stripped from 30 years ago is not that complicated. in fact, it is basic enough that frank shorter has spent years and countless hours fighting to get the gold medal that he should have won in 1976. thank goodness he is not going to you for advice on how to proceed with his case because you would just tell him that the statute of limitations has run out on him.

the ioc had a mountain of evidence against mj that came out in the federal courts of the united states as well as an ADMISSION from her that she took peds. what was the "definitive proof" against the east germans? did they ever admit to it and get convicted of crimes related to lying about their usage? i don't think so.

[YmoBeThere]

you still don't get it. i hope that you are not one of those obnoxious types that refuses to acknowledge the fact that you don't know what you are talking about. for the umptenth time, there is NO statute of limitations "in the minds of the ioc" (whatever that means). this is not brain surgery but you continue trying to convince yourself that this phenomenon exists. it does not and the concept that someone can get a medal stripped from 30 years ago is not that complicated. in fact, it is basic enough that frank shorter has spent years and countless hours fighting to get the gold medal that he should have won in 1976. thank goodness he is not going to you for advice on how to proceed with his case because you would just tell him that the statute of limitations has run out on him.


Perhaps you are being too literal Dukie8? Yes, in some bylaws no such limitation may exist, but should my relatives go back and seek reparations for unlawful internments?(Is there a statute of limitation on those?) Shorter can fight and fight and it may have every meaning to him. But I would hazard a guess that most of the rest of the world is unconcerned win or lose.

[tecumseh]

Thank you YmoBeThere I was trying to explain that it is possible to use a legal term outside the courtroom and not everything has to be literal and legal interpretation. But I guess if you are a hammer all the world is a nail. Actually the IOC does work under an eight year statute of (http://www.startribune.com/sports/olympics/12303986.html) limitations for doping which was suggested by the world doping organization. But some do realize that some of the previous athletes like Shirley Babashoff got the extreme short end of the stick and the USOC gave her a special award to sort of recognize this.

But we all work within a concept of "statue of limitations" for all sorts of things. In other words if corrective action is to be taken it needs to be taken within a certain time frame. If Carolina is playing Duke and the Carolina player commits a hard foul on Kyle Singler and next time down the court he throws an elbow at the guy this would be OK perhaps. But if three years later he elbows the guy and says that is for the foul in Cameron three years ago that would seem out of bounds.