Although Canseco is not a very likeable person, a lot of people probably owe him an apology because he has probably been the most truthful person in the whole steroid scandal. BTW, things like this keep making Doc look better and better (please don't be one of the 103 left or I'll never read or watch anything to do with MLB again).

I feel like shit!

This sucks... A-Rod was supposed to be messianic and deliver us from the steroids era ... I'm upset!

As posted though, I would be absolutely devastated if Halladay was one of the 103.
They should make these lists available! The fans deserve it!

Probably a bad thing for baseball, but it's relative. This is not going to affect revenue or attendance or TV ratings. We all hated the guy anyways, if anything, it's great because he's now confirmed our strong suspicions that he's a phony.

I eagerly await his first trip to Toronto.

And the sad thing is that like Bonds and many others he was hall material without drugs presuming he did not start before he reached the majors.  It does make on wonder how many players are/were really clean and how it would change the awards voting, world series winners and ultimately hall of fame voting.

The highest-paid people in MLB are A-Rod, Giambi, Jeter and Selig.  Two down, and another under scrutiny.  Test Bud before it's too late!

As much as I dislike the guy and want to believe the worst about him, I somehow doubt Derek Jeter is a juicer.

Rodriguez doesn't surprise me much; cheating is cheating - whether in baseball through chemical or psychological means, or in one's own personal life.

What I'm hoping for now is for Albert Pujols to avoid any type of cheating controversy and to break every signficant batting record before he retires.  I'd like nothing more than to know the guy who's the best ever did it the right way, and he looks like he's got a shot at it.

I wonder what the pitcher to hitter ratio is on this list. Also wonder if we'll ever see it.

I would guess it's pretty evenly split... and I would even venture that the numbers using were way higher than just the guys on that list.  One thing I did do to semi amuse myself when Canseco first released his book was go back and look at the stats of his team mates after he joined a team.  It was amazing to see how many guys suddenly developed power right about when he showed up.  Jose was like the Pied Piper of steroids.

<b> I would even venture that the numbers using were way higher than just the guys on that list.</b>

I think that was very much the case. The 2002 MLB/MLBPA collective agreement provided for what was supposed to be 'one-time only' testing. Players were given several months' notice that there would be across-the-board (as opposed to random) testing in 2003. If less than 5% tested positive, there would never be testing again. It wasn't an agreement to end steroid-use, it was an agreement to prevent ongoing testing by giving players lots of notice to get clean and to still allow for 1 in 20 positive results. I recall that a number of young White Sox pitchers intended to test positive deliberately to stop the mlbpa and mlb sweep the issue under the rug, and Fehr came to tell them not to.

 

The fact that more than 8% (104 of 1200) tested positive in those circumstances showed how pervasive the problem was and how habituated some players, like Rodriguez obviously, were to drugs like primobolan and testosterone. Even Bonds tested negative in 2003, though he tested positive for the same ped (primobolan) as Rodriguez on three other occassions.

 

The other extraordinary thing, is that even with the 'testing' rigged to give lots of notice, Gene Orza apparently still tipped off players like Rodriguez when their tests would be. This was mentioned in Mitchell and again in the Rodriguez story. How Orza gets away with this, if it's true, is beyond me. If an Ontario lawyer did that to undermine drug testing agreed to under a collective agreement he'd negotiated, he'd likely be up before the LSUC disciplinary committee. I agree with John Dowd's characterization of Fehr and Orza.

The ones who were still using in the time running up to the 2003 tests were obviously the hardcore. Rodriguez was among them and won an MVP the same year he tested positive. Moreover, like the second worst tier of these guys (ther perjurers are obviously the worst) he went on prominent television programs like 60 Minutes and lied through his teeth about steroids after he'd been caught and apparently received the milquetoast 'counselling' provided under the 2002 -collective agreement for those testing positive in 2003.

 

While some are convinced that he was still go to the Hall, I'm not among them. If you read the NYT today, they have quotes from a Yankee official who says he'll just be playing out the string now.

I think this deserves the same reaction as seen in Casablanca - I'm shocked, shocked that steroid use is this wide ranging...oh, thanks for the cheque.

Drug use in MLB (and other pro sports) = big bucks for owners and players.  It has been that way for years and will continue to be true.  To think that guys who make it to the top never used anything but hard work is as silly as waiting for Santa Claus to come down your chimney.  Most grow out of it by the time they hit double digits, some never do.  Uppers were in wide use (publicly known use) since the 60s.  In the 20's alcohol was widely used, despite it being illegal, and celebrated in use by the biggest star ever in pro sports.  In the 1890's gambling was the 'drug' of choice, changing standings and records daily but still sort of accepted until baseball nearly collapsed under the weight of it.  The big stars always got away with it, with just the odd one being kicked out over it.  Remember. all but one of the 8 on the starting blocks in 1988 for that infamous 100 meters has tested positive at some point including all the ones who were ‘shocked’ to see Johnson come up positive.  To think that anyone in MLB is 100% clean is just 100% naïve.

Naivete is about the last thing I've ever been accused of. Nonetheless,  I am pretty sure that there are some ballplayers current active in MLB who have never used any form of performance-enhancing substance. It wouldn't shock me if such players are in fact in a majority, but neither would it shock me if they aren't.

Alcohol in the 20s and 30s (and since), amphetamines in the 50s and 60s (and since), cocaine in the 70s and 80s and steroids in the 90s and 00s are different animals.  No one expects athletes to be saints, but for many fans, the hope is that the great, great majority of the time, a fair competition with clear rules is taking place.  Many of us are not excited about a competition between chemists to build the best android.

Yet people still watch swimming where the best uniform wins (or do you really think the top 8 swimmers of all time were in the pool at times during the Olympics and that the new outfit they all were wearing had nothing to do with it).  Or cycling where the best equipment normally wins?  Or car racing, or ...  As to physical stuff, do you really think 95% of NFL players are clean?  Really?  That they don't use anything that wasn't available, say, 25 years ago? 

Advanced physical training almost always involves using some drugs that did not exist 20 years ago to help the players get through the training without collapsing.  To think that a player from 1925 or even 1985 could drop into the majors today and succeed like they did back then without making use of stuff that didn't exist then first is being blind to the facts.  In the '80s we saw only a handful of guys per team throwing over 90.  95 was extremely rare.  Now every team has a guy or two at 95+ while a pitcher who can't crack 90 will rarely get a shot at the majors.  Why did 500 home runs go from rare to common - good clean living or the opposite? 

Could Pujols be "clean"?  Maybe.  But given no one has ever put together 8 HOF seasons in a row before (300 avg/30 hr/100 rbi), let alone to start a career, I have to doubt it. The Jays have had just 7 of those seasons EVER.  2 by Delgado, Wells, and Bell with one by Shawn Green.  So, Pujols has done it more times than every last player in Jays history combined.  In his first 8 seasons.  Bonds did it 9 times including at least 3 while on drugs.  A-Rod 8 times in 13 full seasons.  Aaron 7, Mays 7, Mantle 3, Babe Ruth did it 12 times and Gehrig 10.  Pujols has done something that, without steroids, hasn't really been seen since the 20's and has done it faster than anyone before.  It is very 'Bondsian' - a result that is so eye popping one has to wonder how it was done outside a video game.

To me clean is as likely to happen as having the majority go at the speed limit on the 401 (I do it now but to save money on gas - going over 100 eats gas).  Even with enforcement few will do it and enforcement will always be weak because too many like the status quo.

I have to be honest and say that if I thought that the decision to juice or not to juice was literally a multi-million dollar decision, which it certainly can be in major league baseball, I can tell you I'd have a needle in my leg.  I just don't care about whether or not players were using steroids.  Performance enhancement made for more exciting baseball.  And I would argue that steroid use is less drastic than Tommy John surgery, which of course is permissible.  I mean, a player can be cut open and have a cadaver tendon placed in their elbow so that they can continue to play but steroid use to speed recovery time or build muscle faster is wrong?  I think the steroid issue has been blown out of proportion.

Off Topic -

A REAL GOOD story about Frasor's new pitch....

http://www.thedailytimes.com/article/20090208/SPORTS/302089967

That is an interesting link, Mylegacy.  A change-up with forkball action would fit in very well with Frasor's repertoire, and would make him a good candidate to throw more than an inning at a time.

A brief comment on Pujols' first 8 seasons. Posnanski has a good article comparing Pujols and a mystery player whose first seasons are a carbon copy of Pujols' (with more walks and few TB but essentially the same). That player is Frank Thomas.

Ah yes, good ol' Frank Thomas.  He has 7 'HOF seasons'.  He is viewed as clean because he was a football player in college.  Er.... uh.... what?  Being a football player makes him less likely to be on drugs?  Really? 

It is funny how the media has been with the drug issue.  If a player has always been big or isn't seen as muscle bound he can't be on steroids because those bulk you up (ie: they are already bulked up or are not at all).  Totally ignoring that the modern designer drugs don't always cause massive bulking or anything that would pop out at you as weird on first glance beyond the guy having a very strong body.  I figure a lot of the drug stuff will disappear in 50 years just like the old 'pro vs amateur' battle did.  Especially when genetic changes start happening (ie: you drug the kid before he is born).

He is viewed as clean because he was a football player in college

I think the reason most people believe Thomas to be clean (aside from the lack of any evidence or rumours connecting him to steroids) is that he's been one of the most vocal major leaguers in favour of drug testing and against steroids.

And to that view on who is clean - Rafael Palmeiro.  Nuff said.

"I have to be honest and say that if I thought that the decision to juice or not to juice was literally a multi-million dollar decision, which it certainly can be in major league baseball, I can tell you I'd have a needle in my leg."

I think most of us would. It is much more upsetting that someone like ARod would do it though because he was already going to make hundreds of millions of dollars anyway.  For the vast majority of players, say, hitting .260-15-75 versus .280-20-100 could be a massive, massive difference in contracts.

A-Rod conducted an interview with Peter Gammons and admitted using steroids for 3 years, starting in 2001.I have a lot more respect for A-Rod who has now admitted his use than a player like Zaun who has continued to deny it. Even without steroids, A-Rod was a Hall Of Fame type of player. It will be a long time before he has to put his Hall Of Fame fate in the hands of the voters and people say time heals all wounds. Will A-Rod be in the Hall Of Fame?

I have a lot more respect for A-Rod who has now admitted his use

So Arod getting busted as a proven steroid user and then admitting to it is worthy of respect? Maybe if somebody comes out and admits to doing steroids before actually being busted it would be worthy of some respect. People like Zaun on the other hand who continue to deny steroid use are just making themselves look foolish.

A-Rod arrived in Texas in 2001, and joined Palmeiro and Pudge.  The year before in Seattle, he had hit .316/.420/.606 as a 24 year old shortstop.  He had finished behind Giambi (strangely) and Thomas (bizarrely) in the MVP race that year.

"Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king
and the king aint satisfied 'til he rules everything"

No argument with anything you said, but I raised the point that after those first seasons Thomas fell off, at 32, much like ball players before the 'roids era (personally I believe Thomas to be clean, but I really don't care either way). If Pujols is clean, we'll probably start to see him fall off starting this season or next. To me, it'll not be the reduction of HR (which has happened) in the sport, but a return to "normal" aging patterns (hmm, one of the things I study in my everyday life as a cognitive neuroscience is aging, so go figure) that will signal that the sport has "cleaned up".

I suspect we won't see a return to normal aging patterns though... given stories such as those recently posted by Will Carroll.

Remember every player, even the superstars goes through a period when they become a marginal player. That is at the end of their career. Clemens and Bonds showed the rewards of juicing not with their peaks, but with their aging patterns - playing into one's 40s represents a gain of tens of millions of dollars on the back end. That's why it is completely understandable why A-Rod was (and probably still is?) using performance enhancrs.

This isn't much talked about during the discussion of steroids, I find. People note the peak, people note players on the bubble, but rarely mention the huge change in aging patterns that has occurred (beyond perhaps noting how late Bonds' power surge was). 

And to that view on who is clean - Rafael Palmeiro.

Palmeiro was never outspoken as outspoken about steriods as Thomas. Unless you're referring to something I'm unfamiliar with, Palmeiro simply lied, repeatedly, to Congressional hearings after being named in Canseco's book. Thomas has never been linked to steroids, has repeatedly publicly advocated testing for steroids and for enacting harsher penalties for those caught using.

Comparing Thomas and Palmeiro's attitude to steroids is silly. 'Nuff said.

Wow, just checked that on ESPN and he actually is admitting to using for 3 years rather than the 'I just did it once' crap.  Now, did he really stop after 2003? Impossible to know for certain.  However, admitting to a 3 year window rather than saying it was a one shot thing certainly puts him up a lot higher on the respect meter than anyone else who has been involved in the steroid mess.  Only Canseco has admitted to stuff he didn't have to (ie: the one time stuff) and that was largely due to his anger at MLB and need to make cash.  For A-Rod there were other options (deny until the full 104 are listed, claim one/two time use ala Pettite, claim it was due to a teammate ala Palmeiro, etc.) but he picked one that is a lot better than the others.

I wonder how much seeing Giambi first torn apart then regaining respect influenced him here? 

Further on my above point, Thomas has advocated drug testing since 1995 and was the only active player to agree to be interviewed by the Mitchell Report. Now, that doesn't mean that he never used steroids, but I would be very surprised if Thomas ever was linked to drugs.

As I said, comparing Thomas and Palmeiro is foolish.

So Arod getting busted as a proven steroid user and then admitting to it is worthy of respect? Maybe if somebody comes out and admits to doing steroids before actually being busted it would be worthy of some respect. People like Zaun on the other hand who continue to deny steroid use are just making themselves look foolish.

There is strong evidence that both A-Rod and Zaun used performance enhancing drugs. Both players were presented with the choice of either: admitting to it, saying they don’t want to talk about it, or flat out denying it. I have a lot more respect for A-Rod than Zaun because he is now finally honest about it. Would it have been better if he came out in 2001 and basically said he was “cheating”? I think most people would say yes, but will this ever happen? There’s not a chance in hell an active player, especially one of A-Rod’s class, would come out and admit he was “cheating” on his own volition.

Just going by the ESPN article A-Rod seems to be handling this exactly like I thought he should.  Of course, he's so programmed into saying what he thinks is the right thing so that's not too surprising.

The worst thing he could have done was deny it or give a story that's not believable ('I only used once coming off an injury", "I didn't know what I was taking", etc..).  But to say he did it for 3 years after he signed his contract, when it was prevalent, and prior to any penalties for using it seems pretty reasonable, in addition to not testing positive for anything since testing was in place.

The masses seem to like admissions, although I never quite get that.  I'm not really sure why you'd feel differently today then you did two days ago.

With Palmeiro I was referring to his finger wagging about how he never used steroids, period and how the media went with it as a method of saying he was a clean player and how Canseco was a no good piece of trash for his claims.  Now Thomas is in that same slot as are many other players - being declared clean by the media for whatever reason (Thomas due to being a big guy already, McGriff due to not being, Pujols due to his being the current saviour of the game, etc.).

To me a player saying 'don't do drugs' and claiming to be clean is meaningless as to if they are or are not using.  Is big Frank clean?  He seemed to be having a normal HOF career, bit of a drop after 30, then had a big year at 32, then injured, then normal decline at 34 then a big jump at 35, injuries at 36/37, big year at 38 to save his shot at 500 HR and a solid year at 39 before collapse at 40.  Could he have done drugs?  Does that pattern suggest it?  Possible, but nothing ala Bonds or Clemens sticks out although the incentive was certainly there (first to move back to elite status then to get to 500 HR).

I agree with Pistol -- it doesn't much matter to me whether a cheater cops to it or refuses to cop to it when confronted with evidence.  That said, as I suspect Mr. Bonds will find out, denying it under oath is a whole other matter.

I think it would be good to remember now that Jose, Patron Saint of Truth-Telling, has made other contributions to the game.

Notably some of the finest work in blooper reel history.

How many more contributions to the sport does he need to make to be considered for the Hall of Fame?

Actually, Rodriguez wasn't so much programmed to say the right thing as coached. According to mlb radio, he met with Boras on Sunday to discuss handling the public on the issue. It's certainly better than the Zaun/Sosa/Clemens/Bonds lies. But it's more a tactic than integrity.

A-Rod arrived in Texas in 2001, and joined Palmeiro and Pudge. 

On sportstalk radio here in DFW yesterday, they were building an all-asspciated-with-roids Rangers team and it's a HELL of a club. This was almost inarguably the geographic epicenter of the era. Former Rangers:

C Ivan Rodriguez
1B Rafael Palmeiro
2B Randy Velarde
SS Alex Rodriguez
3B Ken Caminiti
LF Jose Canseco
CF Ruben Sierra
RF Sammy Sosa
P John Rocker

Every single one except Velarde at least an All-Star; there are five decent Hall of Fame candidates there. HELL of a ball club!

HELL of a ball club!

No need to go all fire and brimstone, Mick.  :)

A-Rod conducted an interview with Peter Gammons and admitted using steroids for 3 years, starting in 2001.I have a lot more respect for A-Rod who has now admitted his use than a player like Zaun who has continued to deny it.

Who says he hasn't done steroids for  more than three years? If he admits to more than he got busted for it sure makes him look good, but why exactly are we believing him?

I'm super interested to see how Yankees fans treat him. Fans always seem to blindly support their ballplayers, but A-Rod isn't a True Yankee, right? Is he worthy of fan protection?

Yeah, I suspect anywhere Canseco was quickly became an epicentre for drug use.  Toronto got it via Clemens & Canseco, Oakland was buried knee deep in it.  Other teams Canseco was on were Boston 95/96, Tampa Bay 99/00, Yankees in 00 and the White Sox in 2001.  Clemens is the only guy on those Boston teams who jumps out at me, Tampa has no big names (end of McGriff and Boggs but no other names of note and none linked to steroids), although it is worth noting that Frank Thomas was in the pits of his career when Canseco came there then recovered shortly afterwards ... not that it means anything beyond dumb luck.  Has Canseco said anything in any fashion about Thomas yet (ie: that he was someone who avoided Canseco)?

With Palmeiro I was referring to his finger wagging about how he never used steroids, period and how the media went with it as a method of saying he was a clean player

Regardless of how much the media believed Palmeiro, his situation and Thomas' is not comparable in any meaningful way. There is a world of difference between denying steroids vehemently once accused of using them and going on record in 1995, when no one was linking steroids and baseball at all, and publicly advocating drug testing. Outspoken denials once accused and outspoken denials when there is no significant association of drugs with one's entire profession are two seperate things. Maybe Thomas did use steroids, but I would be surprised.

I also agree with the general tone of the comments above. A-Rod's admission is more admirable than Pettitte's "one-time only" excuse-making on one level, but that should not detract from the fact he used steroids for a number of years and the amount of condemnation, or lack thereof, each person chooses to associate with steroid users. And there are a number of reasons it may have made sense for A-Rod to use steroids only for that 2001-2003 period, but his word alone is little reason to assume that his steroid use only began then and stopped when he claims it stopped.

As Will Carroll recently noted on BP, steroids have been evolving (and continue to evolve) as athletes attempt to avoid detection. The people who make them, and the athletes who use them, are constantly trying to stay a step ahead of the powers-that-be.

It's possible that since 2004 A-Rod has been "clean" of the steroids he originally used in Texas, but that doesn't necessarily mean he stopped using all performance enhancers at that point. It's worth noting that although most position players peak around age 27, A-Rod arguably had his best two seasons--when he racked up his highest ever OPS+ stats--in New York in 2005 and 2007 (when he was 29 and 31, respectively).

I suppose it's a good thing that A-Rod has admitted using steroids during his Texas years, and I hope what he's saying is true, but really, what choice did he have? Look at what has happened to the reputation (not to mention legal issues) of the steroid deniers like McGwire, Bonds and Clemens. It does seem convenient that A-Rod stopped taking enhancers precisely when he came to New York, the team that he's committed to through 2017.

Regardless of how much the media believed Palmeiro, his situation and Thomas' is not comparable in any meaningful way.

I'd have to agree. Thomas besides being a long time anti-steroid proponent ( I'm sure that didn't make him very  popular in the dressing room during the nineties) didn't need to take steroids.  As an 18 year old he was already 235 - 250 pounds and attended Auburn  originally on a football scholarship. The guys always been big, he didn't need to bulk up.

It does seem convenient that A-Rod stopped taking enhancers precisely when he came to New York, the team that he's committed to through 2017.

Yes, and since he said he began taking them because of all the pressure he was under when he signed in Texas, it's good that  he went to New York, wearing pinstripes, playing for the Steinbrenners where there would be no pressure, and he could get off those bad drugs.

It is my understanding (I don't know anything on the matter, my understand could be completely false) that in horse racing a horse is allowed to take any drugs whatsoever as long as they are listed in the horses medical history (which is available to the betting public). When I first heard this, I thought, "When can we move past the PED witchhunt (in all sports) and get to an enlightened perspective such as the one reached in horse racing?"

I still feel this way.

Not only will see some stunning athletic performances, if athletes were open and honest about their training methods then we could develop some very useful treatment methods for physiotherapy and rehabilitation. Only good will result. As I see it, only the media benefits from the false out-rage and PED witch hunt.

We've moved past the amateur/professional false distinction in sport, can we please move past the false distinction of clean/unclean (for example is a person taking a cortisone shot unclean)? We all use drugs, each an everyday. Our society is hypocritical and hysterical on the issue. Drugs are good. Drugs are part of human society and culture. I'm not going to go as far as Bill Hicks on the issue, but I think he's closer to the truth than the ridiculous and risible Dick Pound.

Let's get over this. Now that I know A-Rod uses (note tense), I like him better as a player. 

Not only will see some stunning athletic performances, if athletes were open and honest about their training methods then we could develop some very useful treatment methods for physiotherapy and rehabilitation. Only good will result. As I see it, only the media benefits from the false out-rage and PED witch hunt.

We've moved past the amateur/professional false distinction in sport, can we please move past the false distinction of clean/unclean (for example is a person taking a cortisone shot unclean)? We all use drugs, each an everyday. Our society is hypocritical and hysterical on the issue. Drugs are good. Drugs are part of human society and culture. I'm not going to go as far as Bill Hicks on the issue, but I think he's closer to the truth than the ridiculous and risible Dick Pound.

Christaylor, while I agree with you for attacking the hypocrisy of both the media that benefit from this 'witch hunt' and the inconsistent and paternalistic views of many illegal drugs held by much of North American society, I strongly disagree with you on your thesis here.  There is nothing false about the outrage felt by many baseball fans on the prospect of the game they love being dominated by cheaters, nor the outrage felt by those concerned about the tremendous physical consequences of taking steroids. 

Also, I'm pretty sure Bill Hicks was mostly talking about marijuana, a drug which is arguably not harmful at all - I don't really think he was endorsing steroids ...

When I said false, I was referring directly and only to the distinction between clean/unclean. It isn't nearly as clear cut as fans, outraged or not, suppose. Today's modern training methods are hard on the human body, pitching is hard on the human body both carry tremendous physical consequences. Why has the public deemed Tommy John Surgery as clean? It seems pretty un-natural and drastic to me, much more so than injecting testosterone a natural substance which each and every human body makes.

On the Bill Hicks mention I made, I was referring to his riffing on the idea that drugs are there to "influence" evolution. Scientifically, the statement is empty (evolution has no direction) but my mention of Hicks wasn't to say he'd endorse steroids but to raise the idea that the hypocrisy that surrounds "recreational drugs" is similar to that found for performance enhancers. Both have legitimate medical uses, both can be used to great effect (and perhaps detriment) out side the medical community. I feel for those who feel the game is being ruined by drugs, but I think these beliefs are based on an un-tenable and arbitrary distinction, that of clean/unclean.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'd be just as happy watch baseball with aluminium bats, juiced players and a DH in both leagues. Sports change. Society changes. If the issue of drugs were out in the open, not only would we have a brand of baseball that is enjoyable but be able to develop drug regimes that not only are effective, but safe for the players as well.

I guess I'm the only one who totally a nd fully doesn't care at all either way. I assume everyone was using and if there were some that didn't they were making a free will choice to forfit the opportunity for reasons of their own.

Players have been doing anything and everything to gain a competitive edge since they started getting paid.

And the comparison to historical greats is no more skewed by steroids than it is by laser eye surgery or Tommy John surgery.

Everything changes. the purest need to accept that.

IM - non-hostile - HO

"As an 18 year old he was already 235 - 250 pounds and attended Auburn originally on a football scholarship. The guys always been big, he didn't need to bulk up."

Why do amateur athletes get a free pass? I have no idea what Frank Thomas was doing in high school, football players juice too.

Frank Thomas is the poster child for the anti-steriods side of baseball. It's a shame that a man who has essentially devoted the majority of his playing career attempting to get tighter drug testing and harsher penalties installed for those who violate drug rules, is guilty by association. Infact, it's downright disgusting to me. He's been pushing his agenda since well before the steriod issue became mainstream, and yet "just because" he's an elite hitter who is huge, he is a juicer.

If we can't give HIM the benefit of the doubt, then who can we? The people who still seem to think that Thomas might be a juicer, what real evidence do YOU have? I have not seen a SINGLE shred of anything that could be considered evidence that would suggest he is a juicer, while much evidence has been provided to the contrary.  This is gross that he's dragged down without a single item to suggest he's juiced.

Again it is simply shameful that some of you have decided that Thomas is a juicer. It's shameful because he's one of the only guys who has tried so hard to eliminate drugs from the game and yet he still gets branded the same as everyone else.

Why bother? Why even bother if people are just going to write off all of your efforts over a 15 year period? Seriously, not everyone is a cheater. Not every "elite" athlete looks for every edge they can get. Some "elite" atheletes pride themselves on the very fact that they are elite all on their own, with no outside help. These athletes have pride, and huge egos. Some of them cheat to protect their pride and egos, and others don't cheat so that they can protect their pride, and feed their ego when they beat the cheaters.

It's a shame that A-Rod cheated. He was supposed to be "the one". Now it just makes me appreciate the greatness of a player like Thomas even more, knowing that he is "clean". I just hope Pujols can go through the remainder of his career without dodging accusations that are not supported with facts and evidence.

 

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'd be just as happy watch baseball with aluminium bats, juiced players and a DH in both leagues. Sports change. Society changes.

Some people might like a game where the runner can tackle the second baseman to break up a double play. Maybe the catcher could grab the hitter's bat when he's ready to swing? And if hitters are using aluminum bats, then pitchers should certainly be able to use sandpaper, razors, or vaseline to maintain an advantage. I think it would be fun if outfielders were allowed to drive motorcycles.

I agree with your general sentiments about drugs and society, but that's beside the point. Baseball is a sport, and sports have rules which are often quite arbitrary. We tell athletes they are supposed to compete and succeed, but also put limits on how they are allowed to do so.

Why has the public deemed Tommy John Surgery as clean? It seems pretty un-natural and drastic to me, much more so than injecting testosterone a natural substance which each and every human body makes.

I think this is a really interesting point, and it applies to many more invasive medical procedures (plastic surgery or a sex-change spring to mind as controversial examples).  Everyone draws their own arbitrary line on these moral issues, but ultimately I see this as being a false comparison.  My defence of Tommy John surgery vs. steroids is that surgery is meant to help an injured player recover, whereas steroids are often an attempt by a healthy player to gain a competitive advantage.  There are also some pretty clear dangers with steroids that may be much more serious than the dangers of modern day training methods, or pitching.   

Steroids as a means of helping an injured player recover, on the other hand, may be defensible.  And certainly it seems like several posters in this thead agree that society's views on drugs in general needs to modernize. 

Do I think Thomas did steroids?  I don't know if he did or did not, and given the stats odds are decent that he didn't.  Steroids were quite well known before Thomas made the majors, or even college.  Of course, it was mainly other sports such as track and field (Ben Johnson '88) and swimming (East Germany) along with weight lifting and the like.  Still, to say it was unheard of in baseball pre-Thomas is silly.  Canseco was being accused of steroid use in the 80's - honest, I remember it (yes, I'm old). 

Benefit of the doubt?  I am one of those who says 'who cares'.  If they are using illegal drugs then the government should be prosecuting them.  I see cheating as scuffing balls (which can cause a ball to move in odd ways, thus leading to the death of a hitter potentially) yet Gaylord Perry was put into the HOF fairly quickly despite being the poster boy for that.  Steroids and the like put the person using them at risk, no one else.  The players union should push for hard testing of players for drugs that are proven dangerous (ie: that cut your life down by years) but if drugs are seen as 'performance enhancing' but don't damage you long term then why are they banned?  As others have stated, should cortizone shots be banned?  Those are performance enhancing.  What about 'Tommy John' surgery or laser eye surgery?  There is an odd line drawn here imo. 

Does Thomas deserve the benefit of the doubt?  Sure, as do all MLB players who haven't tested positive.  Just a shame that it is such a crazy big deal.

As others have stated, should cortizone shots be banned?  Those are performance enhancing.  What about 'Tommy John' surgery or laser eye surgery?  There is an odd line drawn here imo.

I don't find it odd at all.  These procedures are against neither the rules nor the law.  Players obtain steroids, directly or indirectly, through illegal transactions -- the kind that land people (typically the poor and unsophisticated, not the Radomskis of the world) in jail every day.  I'm still not sure that I would authorize steroids in baseball even if legalized, but while they are illegal, it's not even fathomable to permit them.

Steroids and the like put the person using them at risk, no one else.

As the father of a young teenage pitcher who plays at rep level and has hopes of playing at a more elite level, I believe that the perceived success of ped users puts my son at risk.  To me, that is the real issue.  I don't want him being tempted.

John, I didn't say unheard of. I said mainstream.  To me the difference is that when a subject goes mainstream, everybody and anyone has an opinion. 

The point remains that Thomas has been advocating against drug use his entire career.  Maybe he's just a genius who realized that Baseball changes too slowly to get caught up while he was still playing so he knew he could manipulate this into creating a squeaky clean image for himself. That seems kind of far fetched.

 

 

 

GregH : I agree with your sentiment - the protection of the health of young athletes (especially minors) should be a primary concern.  As long as the subject remains poorly understood, there will be a significant temptation to abuse steroids and other substances.

(Of course, I would argue that the temptation exists anyway due to social pressure and the like. The only way to really combat steroids, to pick one in particular, is education and honesty about risk assessment.  But MLB needs to take harm reduction seriously, and that includes looking at levels below the professional game.)

There's an awful lot of baseless anecdotal accusations about performance enhancement that needs to be studied properly.

As the father of a young teenage pitcher who plays at rep level and has hopes of playing at a more elite level, I believe that the perceived success of ped users puts my son at risk.  To me, that is the real issue.  I don't want him being tempted.


With all due respect to your son - I have sons too - that ship has sailed. Whatever MLB does about PED's kids WILL be tempted, just like the college student is tempted to cheat for better grades or the kid at a party is tempted to try street drugs.

Nothing MLB does is going to stop the temptation because your son will never know if the other guy being scouted is using - so it ultimately comes down to his own personal standards.

There's an awful lot of baseless anecdotal accusations about performance enhancement that needs to be studied properly.

I agree, Craig, but how do you study performance enhancement when it's impossible to know who used what, when and how much?  To me, it's completely pointless to put out a graph showing A-Rod's stats including and not including the 2001-03 time frame.  Is he being honest?  Was the nature and frequency of his use consistent or inconsistent during that time frame?  And even if we now have perfect information with respect to A-Rod, how do we measure anything without knowing when and whether the pitchers and fielders he faced were using PEDs themselves?

I do feel quite confident that (1) it is very unlikely that PED-using ballplayers attuned to their bodies and playing at the very highest level could all have been mistaken about the efficacy about PEDs considering the risks in buying and using them, and (2) being appalled at the mainstream media, no matter how waranted, does not justify a conclusion that PEDs had no detrimental effect on the game.

Some people might like a game where the runner can tackle the second baseman to break up a double play. Maybe the catcher could grab the hitter's bat when he's ready to swing? And if hitters are using aluminum bats, then pitchers should certainly be able to use sandpaper, razors, or vaseline to maintain an advantage. I think it would be fun if outfielders were allowed to drive motorcycles.

So, you're a fan of base-ketball? :-)

Playing Devil's advocate re: F. Thomas: maybe his goal was not to set up a squeaky clean image, but to get higher prominence as a great player/HOF candidate. I.e. - he sees he's doing really well, but a lot of "lesser" players are juicing and doing almost as well as him - that would be annoying.

Same idea in school: if you study hard to get 90 on a test, and you know the guy beside you who's an idiot cheated to get 93 and his buddy cheated to get 89, wouldn't you be pissed off too, and want more stringent anti-cheating methods? If they had been caught, you would look that much better for getting a 90..

"Some people might like a game where the runner can tackle the second baseman to break up a double play. Maybe the catcher could grab the hitter's bat when he's ready to swing? And if hitters are using aluminum bats, then pitchers should certainly be able to use sandpaper, razors, or vaseline to maintain an advantage. I think it would be fun if outfielders were allowed to drive motorcycles."

Fair enough, if that's what you like, that's what you like... I chose my example because they are a) not absurd and b) probably come to pass in the next 100 years. Baseball already has a DH in one league, juiced players (but under the radar) and aluminum bats in the "alternative low-minors" aka NCAA baseball. The game changes you mock are closer than you think. Sure, I agree the rules are arbitrary in sport, but the make up of the rules reflect the state of mind of those involved in the game. Sure the traditionalists have carried the day the last 50 years, but I'm sure baseball will come to a crux where it is adapt or die. These are small changes that would make a huge difference.

This reminds me, before his suicide, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson wrote a rather excellent post on espn.com page two on replacing pitchers with robots controlled by the catcher (because of the fragility and ineptitude of pitchers). This would be a large change, but even if his game would still have to be called baseball and it'd probably be better.

Rule changes are coming. Adapt or die.

" Rule changes are coming. Adapt or die."

Not really. Baseball is different than other sports. It changes, but it changes in small ways over long periods of time. Baseball has changed very little since the end of the dead ball era. (rule-wise that is). I, and most fans, like the history of the game and the traditions and lore. It's part of the appeal. I don't want to see aluminum bats and 14 players on the field or whatever someone decides would be a fun gimmick that year.

Chris... you really just wrote a post whereby you state that a game of baseball played with robot pitchers would probably be better.

What?

I know Roy Halladay is the closest thing on this planet to a robot we got, but nothing about what you described appeals to me. Aluminum bats are a joke designed to help kids. The fact that American universities use them is beyond ridiculous. Canadian universities, for crying out loud, use wood bats.  But robot pitchers? That's what MLB 2K9 is for.

You have to draw a line somewhere. Golf recognizes this - what fun would the game be if every boy, girl, and adult could drive the ball 500 yards? They recognize that the game would suck then, so they put restrictions on club size, MOI, etc. Now they are realizing that these deep grooves in the golf clubs give players too much of an advantage when it comes to spinning the ball, so they are tightening up restrictions on that front. They will continue to adapt, to ensure that their game doesn't die.

Like I said, you have to draw a line somewhere. Steriods for rehabiliation? I could live with that. Steriods for the sole purpose of getting stronger/faster, etc, I don't agree with. It takes something away, to me. You do have to adapt or you will die - just not in the manner you are suggesting. DH in both leagues, maybe. Aluminum bats? Never happen. Robot pitchers? I sure hope not.

Thomas could mash at all levels, but he was always a bad fielder. I figure that's why he wasn't drafted out of high school and had to take a football scholarship to continue playing baseball. As a teenager who was struggling to field first base, I doubt he would have been on a drug induced conditioning program.

Hey, I said probably... I wasn't the first to dive into hyperbole as the record will show. I'm really only in favour of non-wood bats (this has seemed sill to me, probably because I played just as much tennis as baseball growing up and no one would say tennis ought to have only wood racquets), a DH in both leagues and the use of safe, effective, performance enhancing drugs and surgery.

I don't think we're that far apart, but I think we'll agree that baseball has put its head in the sand on the drug issue. If the game continues to do this, it'll die... I suppose one way is stringent, expensive and the creation of a cottage industry of advanced drug testing (aka the olympic route). I hope baseball doesn't choose this road, as it is a joke.

As a point of information, I don't hope I see robot pitchers in my life time either. DH yes, a sensible drug policy, yes and a silly restriction on the material of the bat, sure. Robots, no. But the exercise is worth thinking about, I believe and better than just knee-jerk traditionalism.

no one would say tennis ought to have only wood racquets...

I would. It would take emphasis away from the serve and make the volley more important. Despite the presence of great talents like Federer and Nadal, the game today is a lot less varied in therms of playing style than it was 20 years ago.

Take a sport like Formula 1 racing. Every year there are a large number of new technical restrictions adopted. The reasons are threefold:

1) there has to be constant effort made to prevent the speed of the cars from reaching extremely dangerous levels.
2) to counteract the tendency of the richest 2 or 3 teams dominating to an extent that the other teams would simply quit.
3) (to some extent) to prevent the removal of the driving skill component (although they've been a little lax over the years on this one).

There is even a recent proposal, due to the high costs coupled with the economic downturn, of pooling the constructors together to create a standard car for everyone at the start of the season. The individual teams could then tweak the car, within the rules, as the season progressed.

They don't use aluminum bats in MLB because they don't want to play baseball in stadiums that have outfield dimensions of 450-600-450 feet. I don't think there is any desire for this to happen. I for one cannot stand the "ping" of a metal bat - to the extent that I would give up watching baseball completely if the players used metal bats.

To sum up ... some people seem to think that innovation is an inherently good thing. I think that most innovation is bad (the Theory of Evolution concurs). For me to accept a given innovation as a good thing, someone needs to demonstrate to me why the results will be net positive.

They don't use aluminum bats in MLB because they don't want to play baseball in stadiums that have outfield dimensions of 450-600-450 feet.

There's that, but I've always heard the main concern is player, and specifically pitcher, safety. Lines drives come back dangerously hard already, add 10-20mph to them and it might cross the "acceptable danger" threshold. Also add in crowd concerns (although sensible protective screens would solve that), and coaches/umpires.

The larger outfield would make the game one big 1990s Coors Field adventure though. Aluminum bats and a "rover" ala softball, maybe, to patrol the extra space. Or change the DH into a rover. Lots of crazy ideas that sound fun, but would substantially change the game.

Not sure where to post this, but the New York Daily News is reporting that Roberto Alomar has AIDS.

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/02/10/2009-02-10_15m_lawsuit_claims_exmet_roberto_alomar_.html

The court documents in the Alomar case are publicly available from the link below.  It's still unproven, of course, but the court document is very detailed and it seems implausible that the whole thing could have been invented.  His lawyer is not confirming or denying it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0211091alomar1.html

With all due respect to your son - I have sons too - that ship has sailed

I don't know what 'ship' you think has 'sailed', but the sailing is entirely in your mind.

My son doesn't compete by injecting needles into his ass surreptitiously in order to build a chemically-induced muscular structure.

My son doesn't plagiarize papers at school, first deny it and if caught say 'everybody does it'.

My son doesn't tell bald-faced, humiliating lies about cheating.

My son doesn't pretend that cheating and lieing is 'part of the culture', or that he was 'compelled' to cheat and lie because of some 'success ethos'.

When I was a kid there were numbers that meant something. 754 was one. 61 was another. As was 56. And even 60. Those numbers meant something and were tied inextricably to the game.

754 was beaten. It's 755 now. So was 60. It's 61. No one hit more than 50 for decades. And those were wonderful events that are desecrated by the cheat/lie boys.

Some drugged-up liars and cheaters may beat those numbers, but it's not the sport I wanted my son to enjoy. So, to paraphrase Phil Ochs' song about Mississippi, if some find drugged up cheaters and liars acceptable, I'd rather they found some other sport to be a fan of than watch this one reflect those ethics. I think pro wrestling's available.

"Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king
and the king aint satisfied 'til he rules everything"

Let a broken heart stand as the price you've gotta pay?

Always wondered why I liked you so much--now I know ;-)

Best Regards

John