Baseball Steroid Thread

[Big Al]

He explained the use of steroids was because of the Texas "culture". They demanded performance on the field or something like that.

The Texas Rangers???? I could understand how playing for the Rangers would drive you to drink, but not take steroids.

[Noj]

Our friend Jon Abbey shared this insightful article at his chat board.

"As the sporting industry exploded in the 1920s, athletic trainers and their charges immediately saw the possibilities of using his research. Even the Big Bambino himself, Babe Ruth, injected himself with extract from a sheep's testicles, hoping for increased power at the plate (and in the bedroom). He attempted this only once, and it made him incredibly ill; the Yankees covered the story by telling the press that the Babe just had one of his famous bellyaches."

[Chalupa]

Our friend Jon Abbey shared this insightful article at his chat board.

"As the sporting industry exploded in the 1920s, athletic trainers and their charges immediately saw the possibilities of using his research. Even the Big Bambino himself, Babe Ruth, injected himself with extract from a sheep's testicles, hoping for increased power at the plate (and in the bedroom). He attempted this only once, and it made him incredibly ill; the Yankees covered the story by telling the press that the Babe just had one of his famous bellyaches."

That's an interesting article. Thanks for linking. There is much that I agree with. However, it seems that his whole argument as to why power numbers are up hangs on this....

But the best proof is that in 2006, the off-season saw intensive testing and far fewer positive results, while home run numbers this year were up. Before he was injured, Albert Pujols was on pace for eighty-four home runs.

Could it be that the reason why there are fewer positive test results for steroids be due to better masking techniques rather than a decline in usage?? Or maybe the steroid abusers have switched to HGH? As of the end of last season there was no test that could detect HGH reliably but that could be changing. And how do we know Pujols isn't on that 104 list? I've always thought he looked like a juicer.

[RDK]

Our friend Jon Abbey shared this insightful article at his chat board.

"As the sporting industry exploded in the 1920s, athletic trainers and their charges immediately saw the possibilities of using his research. Even the Big Bambino himself, Babe Ruth, injected himself with extract from a sheep's testicles, hoping for increased power at the plate (and in the bedroom). He attempted this only once, and it made him incredibly ill; the Yankees covered the story by telling the press that the Babe just had one of his famous bellyaches."

That's an interesting article. Thanks for linking. There is much that I agree with. However, it seems that his whole argument as to why power numbers are up hangs on this....

But the best proof is that in 2006, the off-season saw intensive testing and far fewer positive results, while home run numbers this year were up. Before he was injured, Albert Pujols was on pace for eighty-four home runs.

Could it be that the reason why there are fewer positive test results for steroids be due to better masking techniques rather than a decline in usage?? Or maybe the steroid abusers have switched to HGH? As of the end of last season there was no test that could detect HGH reliably but that could be changing. And how do we know Pujols isn't on that 104 list? I've always thought he looked like a juicer.

I think a player would be incredibly stupid to still be taking steroids now. It was one thing back in 2003, when testing was only beginning - and anonymously at that - but once results are made public it could end one's career.

[Dan Gould]

Miguel Tejada apparently will plead guilty to lying to Congressional investigators about conversations with other players regarding steroids. Will this put the fear of God into Clemens? Further proof that when you lie under oath, the Feds will get you, or at least try. Interesting that he is pleading to the charge, which tells me that it will include a fine, no jail time.

[Dan Gould]

Our friend Jon Abbey shared this insightful article at his chat board.

"As the sporting industry exploded in the 1920s, athletic trainers and their charges immediately saw the possibilities of using his research. Even the Big Bambino himself, Babe Ruth, injected himself with extract from a sheep's testicles, hoping for increased power at the plate (and in the bedroom). He attempted this only once, and it made him incredibly ill; the Yankees covered the story by telling the press that the Babe just had one of his famous bellyaches."

I think this writer has quite a few axes to grind. I don't know if the owners are as knee-deep in the distribution as he wants to make it out. My alternative theory has always been this:

In the 80s, weight lifting became more common among ball players. "Loss of flexibility" wasn't as much of an issue as traditionalists warned.

Steroids are rampant among hard core weight lifters, who also peddle themselves as "trainers"

Steroids crossed over into baseball as players got stronger, hit more dingers, and started signing bigger and bigger contracts.

[Aggie87]

I just checked SI.com to see what they had on the Tejada thing. Some fine journalistic depth in their article.

Tejada charged with lying to congress about steroids

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Miguel Tejada has been charged with lying to Congress about steroids.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Aggie87

[papsrus]

... I think a player would be incredibly stupid to still be taking steroids now. It was one thing back in 2003, when testing was only beginning - and anonymously at that - but once results are made public it could end one's career.

And yet, as recently as January of this year, they were still getting caught, according to test results.

JC Romero January 6, 2009

Tested Positive For: Androstenedione

Comments: "I still cannot see where I did something wrong. There is nothing that should take away from the rings of my teammates. I didn't cheat. I tried to follow the rules."

* JC Romero Suspended 50 Games for Failed PED Test, MLB Rules "Negligence"

Sergio Mitre January 6, 2009

Tested Positive For: Androstenedione

Comments: "Although being suspended for 50 games is tough to accept, I think that it is important to understand that I am in full support of drug testing in baseball… I did take the supplement in question and accept full responsibility for taking it. What has been difficult for me to understand is that I legally purchased this supplement at GNC and had no intention nor desire to cheat or to circumvent the system in any way. "

* Sergio Mitre Suspended 50 Games for Androstenedione Found in Legal Supplement

These are plucked from a pretty detailed and seemingly up-to-date listing of steroid users or users of other banned substances in baseball. Whatever A-Rod did, and however lame his apologies, he's not alone.

Edited February 10, 2009 by papsrus

[Soulstation1]

At least George Howard Brett was clean

[Chalupa]

... I think a player would be incredibly stupid to still be taking steroids now. It was one thing back in 2003, when testing was only beginning - and anonymously at that - but once results are made public it could end one's career.

And yet, as recently as January of this year, they were still getting caught, according to test results.

JC Romero January 6, 2009

Tested Positive For: Androstenedione

Comments: "I still cannot see where I did something wrong. There is nothing that should take away from the rings of my teammates. I didn't cheat. I tried to follow the rules."

* JC Romero Suspended 50 Games for Failed PED Test, MLB Rules "Negligence"

Sergio Mitre January 6, 2009

Tested Positive For: Androstenedione

Comments: "Although being suspended for 50 games is tough to accept, I think that it is important to understand that I am in full support of drug testing in baseball… I did take the supplement in question and accept full responsibility for taking it. What has been difficult for me to understand is that I legally purchased this supplement at GNC and had no intention nor desire to cheat or to circumvent the system in any way. "

* Sergio Mitre Suspended 50 Games for Androstenedione Found in Legal Supplement

These are plucked from a pretty detailed and seemingly up-to-date listing of steroid users or users of other banned substances in baseball. Whatever A-Rod did, and however lame his apologies, he's not alone.

I'm not trying to excuse what Romero did (I mean, what a dumbfuck!) BUT there's more to this story.....

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/37132794.html

Romero's situation is much more complicated than MLB's curt boilerplate announcement will acknowledge. He was not accused or found guilty of knowingly using a banned, performance-enhancing substance. Baseball and Romero agree that he used only an over-the-counter supplement he bought in a retail store in Cherry Hill. Romero is being suspended for 50 games and losing about $1.25 million in salary because, an arbitrator ruled, he was "negligent" in not knowing what was in the supplement.

and

What is clear is that Romero is being suspended, not for shooting steroids into his backside like the players whom baseball chose to ignore for a generation. He is being suspended for not knowing the chemical composition of a very sophisticated over-the-counter supplement he bought in a mall in Cherry Hill.

It looks as if MLB, the players' union and the Phillies' staff were at least as negligent as Romero, but none of them are being punished.

"Having people who don't know me criticize me, it's kind of sad," Romero said. "I've been exhausted for the last 21/2 months. I'm drained right now."

Either baseball believes Romero cheated and allowed him to compete in the World Series, or it believes he made an innocent mistake and is suspending him 50 games anyway.

Which would be worse?

Edited February 10, 2009 by J.H. Deeley

[papsrus]

I'm not trying to excuse what Romero did (I mean, what a dumbfuck!) BUT there's more to this story.....

But there's always more to the story. I guess the thing I'm not quite convinced of -- and some comments here and elsewhere have reinforced this -- is that if and when the other 103 names on that list are made public, and we learn that some of the players with positive test results are from our favorite teams, will we begin to point out the little caveats that sound like excuses? Or will we be as harsh on them as we are on A-Rod?

A failed test is a failed test. And ignorance of the law is not an excuse that works too often.

I know you're not defending Romero and are simply pointing out some mitigating factors, but there are those who still defend the most obvious of the offenders. Why? Because they played on the hometown team -- or at least, that seems to be part of the equation.

[Quincy]

In the 80s, weight lifting became more common among ball players. "Loss of flexibility" wasn't as much of an issue as traditionalists warned.

Yup, and it was weight machine by Nautilus that changed attitudes in baseball. Working with dumbbells could lead to too much bulk, but by using a machine like Nautilus, or perhaps because such a machine required some initial instruction, it was possible for baseball players to add muscle without becoming too bulky.

I recall Robin Yount being an example that a weight room wasn't evil in itself. Granted he had started very young, but after 5 full seasons (plus a half) of single digit home run totals he broke out for 23 in 1980.

Another was Fred Lynn who started using Nautilus before Yount:

"Lynn spent the offseason strengthening himself on Nautilus machines. In 1979, he enjoyed perhaps his best season. He led the American League in hitting at .333, on-base average at .423 and slugging at .637."

A bit of Googling also lists Lenn Sakata as an early user of Nautilus. He went from being a .193 hitter with no power to hitting .227 with 5 homers in 150 AB in 1981, which after years of Mark Belanger's bat Earl Weaver liked the pop. Some kid named Cal ended up pushing Lenn out of the SS position though. An excellent book btw that refers to this and is back in print is 9 Innings - The Anatomy Of A Babeball Game by Daniel Okrent. It uses a summer game in 1982 between the Brewers & Orioles to well, cover all sorts of good stuff. Probably of more interest if you remember the players, but I don't think it's required.

[T.D.]

In the 80s, weight lifting became more common among ball players. "Loss of flexibility" wasn't as much of an issue as traditionalists warned.

Yup, and it was weight machine by Nautilus that changed attitudes in baseball. Working with dumbbells could lead to too much bulk, but by using a machine like Nautilus, or perhaps because such a machine required some initial instruction, it was possible for baseball players to add muscle without becoming too bulky.

Not just weight lifting, but also general changes to hitting technique. At the same time players started lifting weights, they also started focusing on "bat speed", using much lighter bats with thin handles and fat barrels, and whipping the bat through the hitting zone very quickly. The changes were pretty dramatic: old-time players used big heavy telephone-pole bats, while current MLB bats often weigh no more than models I used in Little League.

[Added] Tejada to "apologize" to Congress. More vindication for Canseco!

Edited February 11, 2009 by T.D.

[Soulstation1]

Anyone think Pete Rose would be in the HOF today if he fessed up 20 years ago?

I'd still say no

[papsrus]

ESPN's Jayson Stark said the other day, "The Hall of Fame is a museum, not the Vatican." Meaning, I take it, that all significant events or achievements in the history of the game should be included, whether they be good, bad or ugly. He then referred to the Gammons solution (I think), which would simply place a sign over the displays for the '80s - '00s that says: "This was the steroid era. Judge these accomplishments with that in mind," or something to that effect.

But then there was the greenies era, too. What do we do about that? Or the Babe Ruth injecting himself with God-knows-what-from-a-sheep's-balls era. (It seems to have only made him ill though).

Is there any reason to believe (beyond a malleable sense of fair play) that anything an athlete used prior to the implementation of the current testing program should not be considered OK?

[Dan Gould]

James,

The part that confuses people, including Stark, is that the Hall of Fame is both a museum and a literal Hall of Fame. Pete Rose has not been whitewashed out of baseball history. If they do a display about the Big Red Machine, Pete Rose is front and center. Same if they put up one about the 1975 World Series. Or hit streaks.

Pete Rose does not have a plaque in the Hall of Fame. He's still in the museum. And Cooperstown can take the same approach to the those proven to have used steroids.

[blajay]

ESPN's Jayson Stark said the other day, "The Hall of Fame is a museum, not the Vatican." Meaning, I take it, that all significant events or achievements in the history of the game should be included, whether they be good, bad or ugly. He then referred to the Gammons solution (I think), which would simply place a sign over the displays for the '80s - '00s that says: "This was the steroid era. Judge these accomplishments with that in mind," or something to that effect.

But then there was the greenies era, too. What do we do about that? Or the Babe Ruth injecting himself with God-knows-what-from-a-sheep's-balls era. (It seems to have only made him ill though).

Is there any reason to believe (beyond a malleable sense of fair play) that anything an athlete used prior to the implementation of the current testing program should not be considered OK?

Is there a sign over the inductees during Babe Ruth's era that says "This was the racist era. Black people weren't allowed to play. Judge these accomplishments with that in mind?"

[blajay]

cuz there probably should be.

[papsrus]

James,

The part that confuses people, including Stark, is that the Hall of Fame is both a museum and a literal Hall of Fame. Pete Rose has not been whitewashed out of baseball history. If they do a display about the Big Red Machine, Pete Rose is front and center. Same if they put up one about the 1975 World Series. Or hit streaks.

Pete Rose does not have a plaque in the Hall of Fame. He's still in the museum. And Cooperstown can take the same approach to the those proven to have used steroids.

I buy that. I need to get to the HOF one of these days.

Is there a sign over the inductees during Babe Ruth's era that says "This was the racist era. Black people weren't allowed to play. Judge these accomplishments with that in mind?"

Thanks in no small part to Ted Williams, (I just learned) there now is an accounting of the Negro Leagues in the HOF.

I guess I'm just not real certain how you go about delineating among acceptable substances and unacceptable substances. There's a general consensus that any use of steroids at any time violates the integrity of the game, and it's hard to argue with that, of course. Especially if they were obtained illegally. Apparently, according to the following linked website which cites the Houston Chronicle, Fay Vincent sent a letter to all clubs in 1991 warning that players were forbidden from taking any illegal substances, including specifically steroids. Vincent apparently stated that it was against the rules (although the letter itself seems to be the "ruling," as far as I can tell). But baseball didn't adopt a policy specifically outlawing steroids until 2002, right? That's their failure. But does Canseco have a point, that prior to 2002 taking a substance that was not banned was OK? Baseball obviously thought so. (And the writers. And maybe the public).

None of this is anything new. Just food for thought.

[Dan Gould]

James,

I believe the Player's Union would argue (and did) that Vincent had no authority to make any such declaration, that it can only be the result of collective bargaining. It's BS, but that's their claim.

I think I draw the line at steroids because the results of the use is so unmistakable, whereas using greenies in the past for energy - they weren't difference-makers. Certainly no home run records were set when greenies were popped like M&Ms. But the steroid era messed with the history of the game, because two of the most famous records in history fell to guys who juiced.

[RDK]

I guess I'm just not real certain how you go about delineating among acceptable substances and unacceptable substances. There's a general consensus that any use of steroids at any time violates the integrity of the game, and it's hard to argue with that, of course. Especially if they were obtained illegally. Apparently, according to the following linked website which cites the Houston Chronicle, Fay Vincent sent a letter to all clubs in 1991 warning that players were forbidden from taking any illegal substances, including specifically steroids. Vincent apparently stated that it was against the rules (although the letter itself seems to be the "ruling," as far as I can tell). But baseball didn't adopt a policy specifically outlawing steroids until 2002, right? That's their failure. But does Canseco have a point, that prior to 2002 taking a substance that was not banned was OK? Baseball obviously thought so. (And the writers. And maybe the public).

None of this is anything new. Just food for thought.

I'm in the same boat as you. I'm not sure where it begins or ends. How 'bout glasses/contact lenses that allow a player to see better than he otherwise? Or technical improvements in gear that gives one an advantage over players from earlier eras? Throughout the history of the sport we seem to both condemn and condone certain questionable practices, such as spitballing - often praising the results no matter how they were attained. I think it's dangerous to too harshly condemn players for using steroids when they weren't specifically outlawed by MLB. Moving forward - with drug testing - yes, but retroactively I think we need to give these players a pass... along with Gammons' asterisk.

[papsrus]

Would it be fair to say that skirting the rules of the game in order to gain a competitive advantage -- whether by throwing spit balls, or cutting the ball, or stealing signs, or whatever -- is simply part of baseball lore, and there are written and unwritten rules about how these sorts of things are dealt with on and off the field, and so we accept them to a certain degree? And if it is fair to say that, then it needs to be made real clear why steroids are so much worse than everything else.

I think that Dan's right in saying there are clear statistical spikes that put steroids and hGH in a whole different class. And if that's the case, then 2002 becomes less important, I guess.

[Chalupa]

Selig is considering reinstating Hank Aaron as baseball's home run king

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/20...uspension_N.htm

[Matthew]

Selig is considering reinstating Hank Aaron as baseball's home run king

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/20...uspension_N.htm

I would be completely against this because it's just plain dumb. If you do this, then just wipe out his hitting records completely and be done with it. Nothing but grandstanding by Mr. B.S. himself, so he looks good. He knew what was going on, but he chose to put his head in the sand (or somewhere else ). Bonds hit the home runs in games that are official, it too late.

[Dan Gould]

Agreed, and its just as ridiculous for Selig to say he's thinking of penalizing A-Rod. The union would win that grievance in record time.