Baseball Steroid Thread

[Eric]

Seems that if someone was falsely accused, they would file a libel suit. In fact MLB agreed to indemnify Mitchell if this does in fact occur.

Should be interesting to see how many suits we see ...

[Guy Berger]

Well, I am glad they did it. It probably made baseball more exciting the last decade or two.

Guy

[Aggie87]

Well, I am glad they did it. It probably made baseball more exciting the last decade or two.

Guy

You're glad people pumped their bodies full of steroids and whatever else, to gain artificial advantages over honest players?

I think the game would have been just as exciting if everyone had been playing honestly, without P.E.D.s. We still have the best overall collection of skilled players in baseball history, IMO.

Maybe a few of the "stars" of the game would have different names, but you'd still have stars. The obscene salaries for superstars partly drives the frenzy to do whatever it takes to gain a competitive advantage over other players.

[Matthew]

Actually, I found the baseball in the "Steroid Era" to be dull, it was like everyone was playing in the Earl Weaver style, and that didn't cut it for me. Warning Old Geezer Talk: It think the best baseball quality was how the game was played in the 1980s. You had power and speed, great players that had yet to bulk up -- it was a wonderful game to watch way back when. Let me pull my pants up to my arm pits now...

[catesta]

Actually, I found the baseball in the "Steroid Era" to be dull, it was like everyone was playing in the Earl Weaver style, and that didn't cut it for me. Warning Old Geezer Talk: It think the best baseball quality was how the game was played in the 1980s. You had power and speed, great players that had yet to bulk up -- it was a wonderful game to watch way back when. Let me pull my pants up to my arm pits now...

I agree with you.

There was nothing wrong with game back then and less 40+ year old dudes breaking home run records and throwing the ball 95 mph.

How many non-juiced players have been stuck in the minors because they could not hit like Palmeiro, or pitch like Clemens?

[Patrick]

Haven't studied the report or much of the commentary. Baseball is a great game, and cheating with chemicals is a problem, but do I really need to invest the time into this imperfect report? Right now, I don't think so.

What I will say is that it is really pathetic that so many ballplayers pay for this crap with checks. Come on. Kind of like the superstar athlete (was it Michael Jordan?) that paid his gambling debts with checks. You cheat with drugs, you gamble, you settle up with cash baby!!

To me, this is one of the more damning bits of evidence about the "steroid/hgh culture" in baseball.

[T.D.]

Actually, I found the baseball in the "Steroid Era" to be dull, it was like everyone was playing in the Earl Weaver style, and that didn't cut it for me. Warning Old Geezer Talk: It think the best baseball quality was how the game was played in the 1980s. You had power and speed, great players that had yet to bulk up -- it was a wonderful game to watch way back when. Let me pull my pants up to my arm pits now...

I'm inclined to agree with you. But I don't think the Earl Weaver recipe of "pitching, defense and three-run homers" is that bad. The steroid age seems to really neglect defense. This could be a result of youngsters' lack of attention to fundamentals, or of roided-up players being too heavy and inflexible to play good D.

Funny thing: Apparently, when modern "bulked-up" players look at video from the '70s and '80s, they laugh at the oldsters' physiques and refer to them as "stick men"...

Edited December 14, 2007 by T.D.

[Jazzmoose]

Actually, I found the baseball in the "Steroid Era" to be dull...

I agree completely. But then I think lowering the pitching mound was a mistake. Give me Hank Aaron and Bob Gibson over today's players any day.

[Jazzmoose]

I won't paste-and-copy, but I thought this column in today's Washington Post by Thomas Boswell was excellent.

[papsrus]

I don't think there can be any question that many professional athletes took steroids (before they were expressly banned) and continue to take HGH (for which there is no reliable test.) This stuff has been going on since at least the '72 Olympics, for crying out loud. This is a shock to anyone?

This list is in all likelihood the tip of the iceberg.

The question is, does anyone care, and what are they going to do about it?

[Tim McG]

Seems that if someone was falsely accused, they would file a libel suit. In fact MLB agreed to indemnify Mitchell if this does in fact occur.

Should be interesting to see how many suits we see ...

Not exactly.

The tabloids are just full of lies, half-truths and outright slander.

People do not sue because it is at the very least an incredibily difficult thing to prove and at most, expensive.

Lawsuits or not, lies stand for truth in this country on a regular basis.

[papsrus]

Seems that if someone was falsely accused, they would file a libel suit. In fact MLB agreed to indemnify Mitchell if this does in fact occur.

Should be interesting to see how many suits we see ...

Not exactly.

The tabloids are just full of lies, half-truths and outright slander.

People do not sue because it is at the very least an incredibily difficult thing to prove and at most, expensive.

Lawsuits or not, lies stand for truth in this country on a regular basis.

With all due respect, are you saying that there isn't enough evidence yet to lead you to at least strongly suspect there is steroid and HGH use in baseball?

[Larry Kart]

What it clearly states is Mitchell had a vested interest in Red Sox Baseball and that his reseach techniques were fatally flawed or contain irrevocable errors due to shoddy research practices.

Thought of saying this last night, hoped someone else would and save me the potential trouble, but because no one has: Goodspeak, Do you think that George Mitchell took the steroids/etc. gig because he saw that here was a chance to serve the Red Sox's interests by directly or indirectly doing harm to other ball clubs (the Yankees, in particular)? Or do you think it just occurred to Mitchell that he could do so after he took the gig? Or what? Yes, there is the appearance of conflict of interest, which could have/should have been avoided, but could you give me some plausible scenario for what you think actually went down here in terms of Mitchell's deeds and motives.

[Van Basten II]

I don't think there can be any question that many professional athletes took steroids (before they were expressly banned) and continue to take HGH (for which there is no reliable test.) This stuff has been going on since at least the '72 Olympics, for crying out loud. This is a shock to anyone?

This list is in all likelihood the tip of the iceberg.

The question is, does anyone care, and what are they going to do about it?

You basically resumed my feelings, minus some spelling errors and poor syntax that i would obviously have made.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Van Basten II

[GA Russell]

The steroid age seems to really neglect defense. This could be a result of youngsters' lack of attention to fundamentals, or of roided-up players being too heavy and inflexible to play good D.

It's been years since I have paid close attention to baseball, so you are welcome to dismiss my opinions as those of someone who is out of touch.

But from what I have seen, there are two obvious improvements in the game compared to when I was a boy in the early 60s. The first is the ability of batters to connect on the low and inside pitch.

The second is the defense. When I was a boy I watched Dizzy Dean and Pee Wee Reese every week without fail. They would almost always show the Yankees, the best team in the majors. And it was routine to see at least once every game a wild throw to first in which the batter would take second. Often the throw would go into the stands. It's been years since I have seen that.

[Jazzmoose]

But from what I have seen, there are two obvious improvements in the game compared to when I was a boy in the early 60s. The first is the ability of batters to connect on the low and inside pitch.

Well, speaking as another out of touch former fan, I think this is due to the fact that a pitch even waste high seems to be called a ball nowadays. It's a lot easier to hit those low inside ones if you don't have to worry about looking for one at the belly.

[Noj]

As a baseball fan who watches highlights, I do not believe that the defense was ever any better or worse nor do I believe the game has suffered due to steroid use. There's incredible plays on Sportscenter day in, day out during baseball season. The stats will back this up, the best infielders have ungodly high fielding percentages and go months without an error. There still great sluggers who hit for average and who are not shot up with steroids. Once the steroid problem is curtailed, the game will endure. There's more substance to it than this scandal can destroy.

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Eric]

Seems that if someone was falsely accused, they would file a libel suit. In fact MLB agreed to indemnify Mitchell if this does in fact occur.

Should be interesting to see how many suits we see ...

Not exactly.

The tabloids are just full of lies, half-truths and outright slander.

People do not sue because it is at the very least an incredibily difficult thing to prove and at most, expensive.

Lawsuits or not, lies stand for truth in this country on a regular basis.

There is a difference in severity between tabloid trash and the accusations that are being directed towards the ballplayers.

If I were Clemens and I were innocent and I would be livid right now. He obviously has the resources to go after Mitchell et al (as do others) and with MLB agreeing to indemnify Mitchell, there are plenty of deep pockets. Even if you don't have the cash, there are plenty of attorneys who would take this on.

If you were clean, why wouldn't you go after these guys?

[papsrus]

Seems that if someone was falsely accused, they would file a libel suit. In fact MLB agreed to indemnify Mitchell if this does in fact occur.

Should be interesting to see how many suits we see ...

Not exactly.

The tabloids are just full of lies, half-truths and outright slander.

People do not sue because it is at the very least an incredibily difficult thing to prove and at most, expensive.

Lawsuits or not, lies stand for truth in this country on a regular basis.

There is a difference in severity between tabloid trash and the accusations that are being directed towards the ballplayers.

If I were Clemens and I were innocent and I would be livid right now. He obviously has the resources to go after Mitchell et al (as do others) and with MLB agreeing to indemnify Mitchell, there are plenty of deep pockets. Even if you don't have the cash, there are plenty of attorneys who would take this on.

If you were clean, why wouldn't you go after these guys?

I agree with this. There is a world of difference between tabloids and a considered investigative report.

And so, if these fine athletes have been wrongly accused, let them file suit to restore their good names. ... We may be waiting awhile.

And btw, put yourself in the shoes of a "clean" athlete. How do you think he/she feels about cheaters gaining an advantage, both on the field and in contract negotiations?

Having said that, an interesting letter to the ed in today's NYTimes points out that there are legitimate uses for both steroids and HGH. Prescribed under the supervision of a doctor, they can aid healing, etc. ... Maybe baseball and other pro sports shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water here and consider whether "regulating" the use of these substances is the more reasonable approach. ... Don't know, just something to consider.

[Dan Gould]

Of course Clemens can afford it. 18 million from the Yankees last year - he couldn't take that entire amount and put it toward "salvaging" his reputation and not miss it one bit, win or lose?

There's an article on Foxsports that details Clemens' results pre and post steroid use, and the evidence is pretty damning.

And the fact is that his former trainer wasn't threatened with jail. Randomski pleaded to two counts and will be sentenced sometime soon. The trainer got the exact same offer a certain Barry Lamar Bonds got: Tell us what you know, and don't lie, and you won't be charged with anything. What did Barry do? Lied his head off, and now he's charged with perjury among other crimes. The trainer took the opportunity he was given and gave full and complete testimony.

And let's think about the Clemens material. There are other players he identified as users for whom there was documentary evidence, including canceled checks. With no money changing hands (Clemens was said to provide the syringes, he just needed help injecting himself), why does this guy rat out Clemens (and Pettite)? What are the chances that MLB develops other evidence that Clemens juiced, and then comes after the trainer for perjury? After all, its perjury when you lie and its perjury for not being forthright about everything you know. He could have satisfied MLB and the Feds with the other names he gave - but because he felt bound to tell everything in order to adhere to the agreement he signed, he told the Feds and MLB everything.

He didn't have to tell them about Clemens or Pettite, and no one would have known otherwise. The very fact that he told them what he knew about Clemens is a strong indication that its true.

I have to say I am getting a considerable kick out of the fact that two men were given the opportunity to testify truthfully at no legal jeapordy except for perjury charges.

One man took the opportunity, said what he knew, and walks away with his honor, integrity, and freedom.

The other awaits trial, his reputation in tatters, solely because of his ego[/] and the fact that he lacks all honor, integrity, and soon, his freedom.

[Guy Berger]

Well, I am glad they did it. It probably made baseball more exciting the last decade or two.

Guy

You're glad people pumped their bodies full of steroids and whatever else, to gain artificial advantages over honest players?

No, that I am completely indifferent about. I am just glad about the results.

Guy

[Dan Gould]

Well, I am glad they did it. It probably made baseball more exciting the last decade or two.

Guy

You're glad people pumped their bodies full of steroids and whatever else, to gain artificial advantages over honest players?

No, that I am completely indifferent about. I am just glad about the results.

Guy

So you are grateful for baseball played by juiced up athletes yet completely indifferent should they suffer adverse medical consequences in the future.

[Guy Berger]

Well, I am glad they did it. It probably made baseball more exciting the last decade or two.

Guy

You're glad people pumped their bodies full of steroids and whatever else, to gain artificial advantages over honest players?

No, that I am completely indifferent about. I am just glad about the results.

Guy

So you are grateful for baseball played by juiced up athletes yet completely indifferent should they suffer adverse medical consequences in the future.

My understanding is that the "adverse medical consequences" are minor. In terms of current human tragedies, this probably ranks at #1,.......,000,....000,005.

[Dan Gould]

Well, I am glad they did it. It probably made baseball more exciting the last decade or two.

Guy

You're glad people pumped their bodies full of steroids and whatever else, to gain artificial advantages over honest players?

No, that I am completely indifferent about. I am just glad about the results.

Guy

So you are grateful for baseball played by juiced up athletes yet completely indifferent should they suffer adverse medical consequences in the future.

My understanding is that the "adverse medical consequences" are minor. In terms of current human tragedies, this probably ranks at #1,.......,000,....000,005.

From the Mitchell Report:

Steroid users place themselves at risk for psychiatric problems, cardiovascular and liver damage, drastic changes to their reproductive systems, musculoskeletal injury, and other problems. Users of human growth hormone risk cancer, harm to their reproductive health, cardiac and thyroid problems, and overgrowth of bone and connective tissue.

I agree, these are decidedly minor medical consequences. Everyone would enjoy sporting events so much more if we'd just let the athletes use whatever supplement modern science can produce.

[Guy Berger]

Well, I am glad they did it. It probably made baseball more exciting the last decade or two.

Guy

You're glad people pumped their bodies full of steroids and whatever else, to gain artificial advantages over honest players?

No, that I am completely indifferent about. I am just glad about the results.

Guy

So you are grateful for baseball played by juiced up athletes yet completely indifferent should they suffer adverse medical consequences in the future.

My understanding is that the "adverse medical consequences" are minor. In terms of current human tragedies, this probably ranks at #1,.......,000,....000,005.

From the Mitchell Report:

Steroid users place themselves at risk for psychiatric problems, cardiovascular and liver damage, drastic changes to their reproductive systems, musculoskeletal injury, and other problems. Users of human growth hormone risk cancer, harm to their reproductive health, cardiac and thyroid problems, and overgrowth of bone and connective tissue.

I agree, these are decidedly minor medical consequences. Everyone would enjoy sporting events so much more if we'd just let the athletes use whatever supplement modern science can produce.

What are the probabilities of any of those things happening as a direct result of using steroids? The statement you quote is meaningless without some actual numbers.

Athletes routinely place themselves at risk for injury as part of their line of work, and I am guessing that those risks are substantially higher than those of using steroid usage.