If anyone is curious - or bored, whatever - Blair's blog has a running commentary on the day's events at Capitol Hill.

As does Jayson Stark.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3243182&name=congressional_hearings

For the most part I don't care too much about who did and did not take PEDs. I don't blame the individual players for doing it and I try to avoid some of the drama associated with the stuff. When I read this in today's Sun, however, I won't deny that baseball felt a bit more pure.

"I have never taken a steroid," said Halladay, "I've never been offered or approached about taking any."

Halladay essentially represents all that is good in baseball and I'm glad to see him offer that statement.

Also from today's Sun:

With three remaining days before pitchers and catchers report to camp, 18 of the 59 players have reported:

Pitchers besides Halladay and Ryan: Shaun Marcum, Dustin McGowan, Scott Downs, Jesse Litsch, Jason Frasor, Brandon League, David Purcey, Josh Banks and Jesse Carlson.

Catchers: Curtis Thigpen and J.P. Arencibia.

Position players in camp: Aaron Hill, Russ Adams, Adam Lind and Travis Snider.

This means the following have not yet arrived:

Pitchers: Accardo, Burnett, Chacin, Janssen, D. Romero, Tallet, Thorpe, R. Wells, Machi, Wolfe, Camp, Carter, Cummings, Davis, Golsing, Ketchner, Parrish, Vermilyea

Catchers: Barajas, Diaz, Fasano, Jeroloman

Position Players: Eckstein, Inglett, McDonald, Overbay, Rolen, Santos, Scutaro, Coats, Johnson, Rios, Stairs, Wells, Cannon, Lopez, Luna, Patterson, Watson

Designated Hitters: Frank Thomas

It is worth noting that Elliot's list does not include Zaun despite the fact that both the Sun and the Globe have articles include quotes from the normally gregarious catcher.

For the most part I don't care too much about who did and did not take PEDs. I don't blame the individual players for doing it and I try to avoid some of the drama associated with the stuff. When I read this in today's Sun, however, I won't deny that baseball felt a bit more pure.

"I have never taken a steroid," said Halladay, "I've never been offered or approached about taking any."

Halladay essentially represents all that is good in baseball and I'm glad to see him offer that statement.

I think of PED's just like I think of under-age drinking.  I really don't care too much about it.  As such, Halladay's comments allow him to neither gain, nor lose, any of my respect.

However, I am curious how he managed to go through so many years as an athlete without ever being approached/offered steroids - I would think that depends on what he means by approached/offered.  I knew where to get them decades ago when I was in high school, and I was far from a great athlete.  I was never given an explicit offer, but if I wanted them, it wouldn't have been hard to be proactive.  My analogy, again to alcohol, would be that if you go to a bar with no wait-staff (ie. bartender only) and he never approaches you ... are they "offering" you alcohol?  I mean, you know where it is, how to get it, and who has it, but the bartender doesn't walk to the other side of the room and say, "Do you want a beer?"  I would say the bar is still offering alcohol - I'm guessing Halladay is thinking differently.

Personally, I think the best thing all these athletes can do right now is shut up - they're in a no-win situation.  If they did something, obviously they don't want to be caught in a lie / raise attention as their past may get found out.  If they didn't do anything - why try and be associated with it?  Why raise questions of, "methinks he doth protest too much?"  Why say something that can be misinterpreted (i.e. Halladay's offering / approached comment)?  What good can come from denying?

Lyndon Johnson's famous comment comes to mind - "I know it's not true, but I want to hear him deny it"

For the most part I don't care too much about who did and did not take PEDs. I don't blame the individual players for doing it 

Not caring is certainly understandable. But I don't get not blaming the individual players. Who then do you blame?

"I have never taken a steroid," said Halladay, "I've never been offered or approached about taking any."
Halladay essentially represents all that is good in baseball and I'm glad to see him offer that statement.

While I do concur that Halladay does seem to be the real deal, basically anyone not named Canseco has uttered those very words. You are simply electing to believe that they are true when coming from Halladay.

And as for Halladay "representing all that is good in baseball", didn't you just absolve the drug-takers as being blameless? Is there no contradiction there?

""However, I am curious how he managed to go through so many years as an athlete without ever being approached/offered steroids - I would think that depends on what he means by approached/offered.""

To be fair, Doc isn't exactly the kind of guy you offer drugs. That guy is pure as the driven snow.

I try to stay out of these discussions but in this case it seems I have no choice.

Not caring is certainly understandable. But I don't get not blaming the individual players. Who then do you blame?

Major League Baseball, the business. The players perfectly aware of the money, fame, and respect involved in this business and they were (perhaps are) in a situation where they could improve their game without drug testing. The drugs are a nasty thing in that they make the competition so strong that non-users are pressured into using just to keep their jobs. I don't like them for that reason but it's not easy to fault the players who used them.

While I do concur that Halladay does seem to be the real deal, basically anyone not named Canseco has uttered those very words. You are simply electing to believe that they are true when coming from Halladay.

Yeah, you're absolutely correct. Halladay is my favourite player and I'm gonna go ahead and believe him. I concur that Halladay seems to be the real deal.

And as for Halladay "representing all that is good in baseball", didn't you just absolve the drug-takers as being blameless? Is there no contradiction there?

When I said Halladay represents all that is good about the game, I was referring to his superior performance, excellent work ethic, drive, reputation as a outstanding citizen, etc. Additionally, I don't blame the players for taking the stuff, but I don't need to admire it; I can admire a clean player (if I choose to perceive him as one) while not blaming others for using. Yeah, it's contradictory, but I can handle that.

I'm interested in hearing what your position is, Chuck.

If Roy Halladay ever actually got offered steroids, I'm pretty sure he'd go Rambo on the guy and blow up the entire operation. Then he'd take all the kids working in the PED sweatshop out for ice cream.

To be fair, Doc isn't exactly the kind of guy you offer drugs. That guy is pure as the driven snow.

I'm pretty certain that I addressed this in the rest of my comment - it all depends on your definition of offering / approached.

Halladay first came up with the Jays when some of the main figures in the steroid case (Clemens, Canseco, McNamee) were around the Jays.  I have a hard time believing that spending that much time around those guys, he couldn't at least have figured out where PED's might be available.

Hell, I've been at university football practices (in Ontario, mind you), where coaches have uttered words along the lines of, "If anyone has exams or anything they need to break early for, now would probably be a good time to go as we have some testing people coming."

I just can't see how PED's can be so pervasive in sports and someone who has played them competitively for so long has not been made aware of where they're available.

Acrobat:

Elliott says 18, but lists 17.  I don't know whether Zaun's officially there, but he's probably number 18.

What do y'all thinkabout signing Freddy Garcia to an inexpensive, incentive-laden contract(why would he go for it? well, what are his other options right now?)?
He's coming off two bad seasons and he'd be merely insurance for the 5th spot in the rotation if either Marcum, Janssen or Litsch struggles in the starters' role.
(Of course, they would have to absolutely tank for Garcia to get a shot...ie. Halladay circa 2000)

Well, here's Freddy's 2007:

Oct 1, 2007: Missed the last 103 games of the regular season (shoulder injury).
Jul 15, 2007: Transferred from the 15-day DL to the 60-day DL (shoulder injury).
Jul 7, 2007: Missed 25 games (shoulder injury).
Jun 9, 2007: Shoulder injury, 15-day DL.
Apr 15, 2007: Missed 11 games (right biceps tendinitis).
Mar 30, 2007: Right biceps tendinitis, 15-day DL.
Dec 6, 2006: Acquired from the Chicago White Sox

 

When I said Halladay represents all that is good about the game, I was referring to his superior performance, excellent work ethic, drive, reputation as a outstanding citizen, etc.

Heh. Sounds a lot like what we were hearing back when Clemens was signed. He was very well known for his superior performance, excellent work ethic, and drive. The outstanding citizen bit I'm not sure of but I recall a lot of glowing articles written about him, especially inbetween his two Cy Young years. Of course, all of that went to the can once he asked to be traded. Funny how a guy is fantastic in every way until he does something you don't like eh?

As to Halladay... here is a guy who set a record for worst ERA every for 50+ IP in 2000 with a BB-SO ratio that was about 1-1 for his two seasons in the majors. Then in 2001 he was 'rebuilt' from the ground up and became the pitcher we all know and love. A very quick turnaround that could've just been darn good coaching, but there is the risk of drugs. To say he couldn't have possibly used HGH, steroids, or any other drug just because he seems nice on TV and the local media hasn't decided to tear him a new one yet ... well ... to me it seems a bit of wishcasting.

When it comes to drugs I pretty much gave up during the post-Ben Johnson period when it was pretty clear that they were used big time in sports where drug testing is far stronger than in baseball and the money is far lower (big money, but not MLB level). Baseball pretty much locked itself up in '98 when McGwire was caught red-handed with steroid-lite and no one (media or MLB based that we know of) bothered to check into if his 'all-American' physique was real or drug induced. Sadly, John Rocker and Jose Canseco are probably the most accurate sources so far with the statements that steroids, HGH, and other 'enhancers' are used by most of MLB and the use has been encouraged by teams.

FYI: don't forget that at times in the past stuff like being paid to perform was enough to get you banned and your records destroyed. Todays drugs are tomorrows 'eh, so what'.

If Freddy Garcia would sign an incentive contract with no lock for the roster then I'd grab him.

6 years in a row of 200+IP, 7 out of 8 before last season.

Out of his 8 pre-07 seasons he was sub-100 for ERA+ just twice, with those two being a 97 and a 95. '06 was a 105 ERA+ over 216 IP for the White Sox which is a fairly good year.

His pitch data info on B-R for 07 appears consistant with his career.

19 BB vs 50 K in 58 IP, not bad

The big issue was the 12 HR in 58 IP

I am actually surprised no one has signed him yet. He must be asking for a lot of cash and no one wants him based on that. His shoulder injury, from what I found, doesn't sound like it will remove him for all of '08. Depending on the amount of the season you think he would be good for, on how seriously the type of injury affects long-term prospects for a pitcher, I'd certainly look at signing him for, say, $1 million plus big incentives for making the opening day roster ($2 mil more), and days on the active roster (say, big enough that a full season pushes him to $5-7 mil total if healthy, bonus for doing well on the Cy vote too). Garcia could be a heck of a bargin.

Halladay is my favourite player and I'm gonna go ahead and believe him.

I'm going to second this. I have total confidence in Halladay's integrity. My impression of his early-career struggles is that they were all mental and/or mechanical (I think part of the solution was finding a better arm slot). He always had the stuff.

I am actually surprised no one has signed him yet. He must be asking for a lot of cash and no one wants him based on that. His shoulder injury, from what I found, doesn't sound like it will remove him for all of '08.

When the White Sox were considering re-acquiring him, most reports around here suggested that he was out at least until the all-star game, most likely for the whole season this year.

I'd certainly look at signing him for, say, $1 million plus big incentives for making the opening day roster ($2 mil more), and days on the active roster (say, big enough that a full season pushes him to $5-7 mil total if healthy, bonus for doing well on the Cy vote too). Garcia could be a heck of a bargin.

Livan Hernandez got $5 mil plus incentives.  $3 mil for a pitcher with Garcia's history to be on the opening day roster would be an absolute steal.  I'd like to get him at that rate too, but it ain't gonna happen.

Matt Clement, who hasn't had a good season since 2004 and hasn't been healthy since mid-2005 signed a contract for $1.5 guaranteed with incentives raising it to a potential $8.5 million (including the rise in option buy-out costs).  I think Garcia comes in more expensive than that.

I'm interested in hearing what your position is, Chuck.

Somebody willingly shoots a needle into their backside and I have a hard time seeing them as blameless. Do owners, the commissioner, managers and coaches all share the blame for knowing and willfully turning a blind eye and creating a culture of drug tolerance? Absolutely.

But this culture of blamelessness we live in is troubling to me. Everyone makes errors of judgement and regrets things they have done. That's just part of being human. But those with character own their problems and assume responsibility. Those without point the finger of blame in nine different directions.

it all depends on your definition of offering / approached.

Maybe he meant it in the normal, literal way. He didn't say he never knew anyone who took steroids, or that he didn't know they were available. Just that he'd never taken them, nor had anyone offered.

I'm also not sure steroids are doled out like crack on street corners - I doubt Clemens was going around to his teammates saying "guys, you gotta try this stuff." More likely it passes between friends, or the struggling player goes to the superstar and asks for his secret to success.

I hope this doesn't come across as picking on you ANA, but I disagree with a lot of what you're saying here.

The drugs are a nasty thing in that they make the competition so strong that non-users are pressured into using just to keep their jobs. I don't like them for that reason but it's not easy to fault the players who used them.

I don't think these arguments against PED's hold much water.

Most importantly, the use by anyone of PED's is not what creates the pressure to use them.  If everyone is clean and you're the 26th man in your organization, you feel pressure to use PED's regardless if everyone else is clean.  In my view, it's the skill/performance disparity (and corresponding compensation), not the PED usage, that creates this pressure.  As such, removing the PED usage wouldn't remove the pressure.  Thus, the follow-up question to your argument is why is it acceptable for Russ Adams (a guy not quite good enough to be in the majors) to be pressured to use PED, but when Alex Rios (a guy solidly in the majors) feels the pressure, it's unacceptable?

There are other problems with the argument as well - if usage of PED's is only a problem once users pressure non-users, then you're implicitly accepting that some use is acceptable.  Usage of PED's shouldn't be acceptable or not based on how many people are using it.  When discussion how to deal with the situation, then it's a whole different ballgame.

Who then do you blame?

Major League Baseball, the business.

Sorry, but I think this is a cop-out in order to remove blame from yourself (or at least your peer group).  If players are not to blame because they face pressure to make money, then why is MLB, the business, to blame?  All they want to do is make money themselves.  If this is what you are basing your argument on, I think you have to follow it through to its logical conclusion - the fans who have been driving up revenues to record numbers during this scandal as well as after steroid use, and the associate revelation of its predominance.

Anyone else secretly hoping the Jays sign Bonds?

I didn't watch the hearing, but these are the quotes and misquotes I have  read.

Clemens: He misremembered

Waxman: The DNA won't be misremembered

Cummings: Between you and McNamee, I believe Pettitte

Clemens: My mom told me to take B-12 years ago

Burton: You're here under oath, and yet we have lie after lie after lie after lie

Congressman: were you aware McNamee injected your wife in your bedroom?

Mcnamee: I only do asses

Congressman: Mr. Mcnamee, have you ever decieved a player into thinking he was taking something else, while instead you gave him HGH or steroids?
Clemens (speaking out of turn): He deceived me

Anyone else secretly hoping the Jays sign Bonds?

Yup.

I like winning, and a left handed hitter w/ the OPS that Bonds puts up year in and year out ... but it's not gonna happen w/ Frank our full time DH, and I don't see Bonds playing left field on field turf.

Question: Can Barry Bonds leave the United States?  It would be good to know if the Jays (or any AL team really) plan on signing him.

After several years of lurking (during which I've enjoyed this site immensely), here's my first post.

Yesterday I was able to watch pretty much all of the hearing live. One thing I wasn't expecting but perhaps should've found less surprising was the way in which the panelists' approach to questioning broke down along party lines. Democrats seemed to be more interested in getting Clemens to answer some of the hard questions (why would Petite lie; why would Macnamee lie about Roger when he told the truth about Petite and Knobloch; why the Clemens legal team was so slow in providing the MRI of the abscess on Clemens' butt; why Clemens had the nanny visit his house and interviewed her before providing the committee with her name and contact info; the timeline problem with Clemens' excuse about Petite misremembering in 1999 or 2000 that Clemens was actually talking about his wife's HGH use, when that use didn't occur until 2003; and so on) while the Republicans generally attacked Macnamee's account (one congressman: "With you it's just lie after lie after lie, and he's a titan of the game." -- I'm paraphrasing), wouldn't let him talk, generally made him look like a poor witness, which is how he came across.

All said and done, my impression is that Roger is lying. Had I been on the committee, that's the conclusion I'd've come to. Of course, I have no idea what they plan to do with that impression if it's the one they have. They may not be able to do anything if the split is fairly even among committee members, but the fact that it seems to divide along party lines is another depressing example of what's wrong with politics in the land where I live. One of the things that did impress me, and alleviated some of my concerns about Macnamee's testimony was that one congressman, who'd had considerable experience with actual narcotics investigations at the federal and congressional level, said that the experience is often that a witness in Macnamee's position will give up the truth in increments, first telling some of it, then adding facts, maybe later providing physical evidence, etc., as Macnamee has done. This was a point on which Macnamee was attacked pretty rigorously by some members of the panel.

Maybe they'll wind up indicting Roger for perjury, but I doubt it. If they do, then the lawyers get fully into the act, and I doubt they'd be able to make the charges stick. What'll probably happen is that their findings will be inconclusive, and then Roger's spin doctors can go to work, and eventually he'll go into the Hall, and that'll be that. But I think anybody who watched the hearing, or looks over the transcript, will have to admit some serious doubt about Roger's story. I feel badly that this started while he was with the Jays. I find it pretty hard to believe that Tommy Craig, Ron Taylor, and anybody else was unaware that it was happening, and in saying that I guess I'm saying that, after hearing the testimony and evidence, I now believe it did.

One other thing: in the audience throughout the proceedings were the parents of a kid who'd taken steroids to enhance his athletic performance, and who then killed himself when he couldn't get off the stuff. The dad was on the radio this morning trying to make a plea that this was the real problem, that there were plenty of young people, even high school kids, taking this stuff in part because their heroes took it, and who were suffering serious consequences as a result. It's understandable why professional athletes might choose to use PEDs, despite the risks, when the financial stakes are so high. But we shouldn't forget that what becomes acceptable at that level has a way of filtering down to everyday people in their everyday lives. MLB has to continue to do more to get rid of this stuff, and has to accept its responsibility for allowing it to proliferate in the first place.

Good first post keep it up. I too more than anything ,was struck by the partisan politics which were being played. It must be an election year.

in the audience throughout the proceedings were the parents of a kid who'd taken steroids to enhance his athletic performance, and who then killed himself when he couldn't get off the stuff. The dad was on the radio this morning trying to make a plea that this was the real problem, that there were plenty of young people, even high school kids, taking this stuff in part because their heroes took it, and who were suffering serious consequences as a result. It's understandable why professional athletes might choose to use PEDs, despite the risks, when the financial stakes are so high. But we shouldn't forget that what becomes acceptable at that level has a way of filtering down to everyday people in their everyday lives. MLB has to continue to do more to get rid of this stuff, and has to accept its responsibility for allowing it to proliferate in the first place.


Ok, this is completely un-PC, and I'm going probably going to get jumped on, but am I the only one that see something really wrong here?  We have a parent in the audience and he's trying to place blame on baseball for his own child's problem?  I'm sorry, but that is an outrageous claim in my humble opinion.  In my mind it is clear who bears the brunt of the responsibility and it's the personally that is legally responsible for raising that child, not the one that's never met him.

I realize that a lot of the steroid symptoms are hard to distinguish from regular adolescence, but come on let's be real.  Steroids are one of the easier drugs to at least recognize when someone is probably using.

I apologize for the horrendous amount of typos and grammar mistakes I've made in the past few days.  I hope you can read and understand my comments regardless.

Trust me, I do read the previews, I just read them too quickly I guess.

I don't think I said that the parents are blaming baseball. If I gave you that impression, then I apologize as it's a misrepresentation of their position. They are concerned about steroid use in professional sports, naturally, because (and in this I don't see how anybody can disagree) whatever behavior becomes normalized among groups subject to tremendous media coverage and publicity (in other words, the behavior of "celebrities" which ultimately becomes "celebrated") is easier to accept and adopt for those captivated by such groups. Sometimes these behaviors are positive, sometimes they're innocuous, sometimes they're just puerile, and sometimes they're dangerous.

No doubt you are right that parents may bear some of the responsibility for not recognizing what their children are doing, although I can think of circumstances in which parents may fail to make such a recognition through no fault of their own. But I think that these parents are trying to raise awareness to the point that it's no longer ok to say, as some baseball fans do and as some baseball reporters do and as MLB did in some way itself for a time, that it doesn't matter what professional athletes do, they can do it or not, I don't care, it's their choice, this is all a waste of the taxpayers' money, let's bring on the homers, etc., etc. It does matter what baseball players do, it does matter what is acceptable for those who are part of a celebrity elite, when what they do is one the one hand absolutely unethical and on the other hand absolutely self-destructive and dangerous. It matters because, like it or not, wish it were otherwise till you're blue in the face, what becomes acceptable for them to do eventually becomes acceptable for all of us.

The best solution to the drugs in baseball is to simply enforce the laws (ones that apply to everyone) to athletes as well. Steroid use is illegal unless prescribed by a doctor. If the doctor is prescribing them for non-medical reasons they can lose their license iirc.

Of course, the biggest problem is how we see athletes, actors, and musicians treated vs the rest of society. All 3 get away with many things that are not acceptable to society at large and kids do pick up on that. In the states you see football players get away with rape, theft, heck just about anything short of murder if they are good enough at football. Up here hockey players get almost the same treatment. Parents take their kids to practice after practice hoping that their kids will be a star, screaming at them and coaches and other players. Coaches (especially in US college from what I've read) are pushing kids to do drugs via subtle and not so subtle means. Kids are taken out of school regularly to compete in various sporting events too, thus again saying sports is vital vs everything else. To me these are far, far bigger issues than if Clemens took HGH, steroids, or B12. Heck, if it wasn't for the publicity would we even have known he might have taken them?

Rant over.

Zaun addresses why his name appears in 'The Report'

http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/news_story/?ID=229740&hubname=