Posted on 12/13/2007 7:18:21 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
This just ran across the ESPN News scroll...
"A source close to a former Yankees strength trainer tells ESPN The Magazine's Shawn Assael that the trainer told Mitchell investigators he supplied Roger Clemens with steroids; information supplied by this trainer is in the Mitchell report. According to one industry official who spoke to [the] Bergen Record, 'several' prominent Yankees will be named in the Mitchell report."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
And the 99 Rams team would beat both of them
He came forward about a year or two and admitted he'd tried it for a couple weeks or something like that, when his career was winding down.
Yeah, I'm surprised there are any others. I heard he had a Monopoly on it.
Hah....
I asked that earlier, what the policy was. However, if they weren’t prescribed they were still breaking the law in most cases regardless of MLB policy.
My handwriting analysis of the players who WROTE CHECKS to Dr. Feelgood is.....'they write like 2nd graders!" LOL!
Clemens, according to the report, started when he met his trainer (McNamee) when he got to Toronto and he continued as late as possibly 2003 or 2004 which coincides with the date of the last known check that Clemens' trainer (McNamee) had written to the Radomski (the Mets trainer who is doing the singing). The report does also state (somehat cryptically to allow for speculation IMHO) that "Clemens has remained a source of income for McNamee up to and including 2007."
That last bit could be easily interpretted as your standard personal training services. However, I'm sure a lot of people will question why that sentence is not clarified.
Yes it is the same thing as sacred, you just don’t want to use the word. I will maintain that nobody who isn’t at least a part time baseball fan knows what ANY of those numbers mean.
In some ways roids are just like any other kind of exercise that works, people that use it have an advantage. Especially when roids weren’t even against the rules. If doesn’t really matter if fielders are doing it, but pitchers doing it does. On the one hand roided pitchers are going to have faster pitches which are harder to hit, on the other hand they’re going to have faster pitches which when hit go further. So it’s hard to really tell if it should be holding down or promoting the offensive numbers.
I ignore polls because polls are stupid. Especially for something like this where we have the ultimate pol: revenue. If what people say when asked doesn’t jive with how they spend their money then you should ignore what they say, it’s the money that matters. And baseball revenue has gone up during the steroid era. They were recovering since the last strike, but there was a MAJOR increase during the home run derby year, that’s simple irrefutable fact. There’s no spin there, it’s simple fact, at no point during the roid era, not when it was being discussed by reporters, not when it was being ignored by the MLB, not when the MLB finally put their first silly rules in, not when the MLB finally put in rules that included punishment, has baseball’s number dropped. If the fans gave a good damn about roids the numbers would have dropped during some part of that, the fact that they not only didn’t drop but CLIMBED shows they don’t care.
We will never know though, will we.
Now did alot of these guys juice in High School and College? Yes, but size alone doesn't really show all that much. 30 lbs in a year might though.
* Chad Allen
* Rick Ankiel
* David Bell
* Mike Bell
* Marvin Benard
* Gary Bennett, Jr.
* Larry Bigbie
* Barry Bonds
* Kevin Brown
* Paul Byrd
* Jose Canseco
* Mark Carreon
* Jason Christiansen
* Howie Clark
* Roger Clemens
* Jack Cust
* Brendan Donnelly
* Chris Donnels
* Lenny Dykstra
* Bobby Estalella
* Matt Franco
* Ryan Franklin
* Eric Gagne
* Jason Giambi
* Jeremy Giambi
* Jay Gibbons
* Troy Glaus
* Jason Grimsley
* Jose Guillen
* Jerry Hairston, Jr.
* Matt Herges
* Phil Hiatt
* Glenallen Hill
* Darren Holmes
* Todd Hundley
* David Justice
* Chuck Knoblauch
* Tim Laker
* Mike Lansing
* Paul Lo Duca
* Exavier “Nook” Logan
* Josias Manzanillo
* Gary Matthews, Jr.
* Mark McGwire
* Cody McKay
* Kent Mercker
* Bart Miadich
* Hal Morris
* Daniel Naulty
* Denny Neagle
* Rafael Palmeiro
* Jim Parque
* Andy Pettitte
* Adam Piatt
* Todd Pratt
* Adam Riggs
* Brian Roberts
* John Rocker
* F.P. Santangelo
* Benito Santiago
* Scott Schoeneweis
* David Segui
* Gary Sheffield
* Miguel Tejada
* Ismael Valdez
* Mo Vaughn
* Randy Velarde
* Ron Villone
* Fernando Vina
* Rondell White
* Jeff Williams
* Matt Williams
* Todd Williams
* Steve Woodard
* Kevin Young
* Gregg Zaun
No it isn't. This is a matter of basic English, Stu.
Steroids were against U.S. law, and a prohibited drug in baseball since at least 1991, when Commissioner Vincent added it to the list (see Mitchell Report). What kind of exercise is like that? Yeah, it's hard to tell the exact percentage of effect steroids has on offense, but that's part of the disruption of fair play that steroids brings. Never have to consider that if they weren't there.
You can ignore surveys of opinion on the subject if you want, but the reason why is fairly clear and it's not what you're saying. I'm one of the people who came back with my money in 2000 after being turned off by the strike, and my money reflects my enjoyment of the game, not my perception of the problem steroids presents. Your interpretation of what attendance says about people's views on steroids is a reach, to put it pretty mildly.
Look when you say any sports records are important to the general population of America, which you did, you’re wrong. Whether or not you specifically used the word “sacred” is unimportant, your basic statement was 100% wrong, and quibbling over whether or not what you said equates to “sacred” is just dodging the point, the point being that baseball records don’t mean a damn thing to anybody on the planet who isn’t a baseball fan.
Until there was testing and punishment steroids were functionally not against the rules. And that didn’t happen until 2002 (see the Mitchell Report).
Part of your problem is that you think fair play has anything to do with this. MLB is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, fair play has no place in something like that. “Chicks dig the long ball” isn’t just a punchline to a mediocre joke, it’s a marketing reality. Home runs are good for the business of baseball, that’s part of why the league cared so little about steroids.
Sorry the reason why is PAINFULLY obvious and it is EXACTLY what I’m saying. TV ratings and attendance and revenue had their biggest climb of the last 20 years during the home run derby with McGuire and Sossa, the steroid fed home run derby, The reality is people don’t care about roids. There’s no reach about it at all, actually you just ADMITTED you don’t actually care about the issue right here “my money reflects my enjoyment of the game, not my perception of the problem steroids presents”. See you spend money on the game because you enjoy it, and your perception of the steroid issue doesn’t play into that, in other words you don’t actually care about the steroid issue. Which is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying about the masses, they don’t care about steroids, they like the game. The fact that part of the game is an increase in home runs that more than likely has been fed on both sides of the plate by steroids is something they ignore, because they like the game and don’t care about steroids.
A cast of Parcells era holdovers and wire pick ups beat the Rams in 2001. The 2001 team wasn’t all that different than the 1999 team in terms of talent.
There, you are sorely mistaken. They lost a couple of skill players after that season. Plus Martz did not have the opportunity to blow up Warner like he did in 2000 and 2001 with his no protection offense. None the less, its a good argument on both sides.
Steroids were against the rules, as well as U.S. law. That baseball had no mechanism for catching and punishment helps explain why steroid use proliferated, but it doesn't reduce its use to something acceptable or okay. That players knew they were doing something wrong is illustrated by their lack of candor about it.
There’s no reach about it at all, actually you just ADMITTED you don’t actually care about the issue right here “my money reflects my enjoyment of the game, not my perception of the problem steroids presents”. See you spend money on the game because you enjoy it, and your perception of the steroid issue doesn’t play into that, in other words you don’t actually care about the steroid issue.
A nice display of chop-logic there, Stu. Steroids are one of the ills of the game, that I want to see policed and rooted out. The fact that I care about it is a reflection of the enjoyment I take in the game; for example, if I were not interested in baseball, I wouldn't be posting in this thread. Why you think someone would have to stop watching baseball because they think steroids are a problem I do not even follow. If my car blows a tire I get it fixed, not leave it by the side of the road.
Very funny. My point is that HGH is nothing like anabolic steroids. The latter is far more serious and very damaging to the body. Jason Giambi's extremely rare tumor was a direct result of them. He was quite lucky.
I’m not quibbling or dodging at all. You said baseball’s rules were important, I said you were wrong. That’s the meat of the matter, whether or not you said “sacred” is 100% meaningless, and the fact that you’re STILL whining about that instead of addressing the core issue that you were wrong is telling.
Steroids were against the rules, but the rules include no way to find out if a player was using them, and if some how the MLB accidentally found out there was no punishment. A rule that include no detection and no punishment functionally doesn’t exist. The fact that the owners let the MLBPA keep testing and punishment out of the rules illustrates how little the owners were actually concerned. They wanted exciting play that would bring back the fans, if that meant roided up players that was OK by them.
No chop logic, 100% pure REAL logic. You admitted you came back to the game between BEFORE the steroid rules became useful, interestingly enough that was also the time when the press first started hounding the MLB about steroids. If steroid were actually an issue for you, you would have waited until AFTER the MLB started testing and punishing players for using them. You couldn’t possibly have started watching baseball during the 2000 season and not know there was a steroid problem and that the MLB was doing absolutely nothing about it. Yet you came back to the game anyway, clearly the steroid issue didn’t matter to you.
How can you not follow that? It’s the most basic part of free market logic. If a company is doing something you don’t like you stop giving them money, if the product they are delivering is not to your liking you stop consuming it. If you were against players using steroids in 2000, at a time when MLB was very publicly doing absolutely nothing to try to stop players from using steroid, then simple consistency states you shouldn’t have been supporting the league. Your analogy is pathetic in it’s falseness, the real analogy is that if you keep buying the same brand of times and they keep blowing up then you don’t keep buying the same brand of tire, you go buy something else. If you were against steroid use in baseball you go buy something else.
Those were rumors.
Selig looks and sounds exhausted ..and so sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.