While most of the free world is checking on Alex Rodriguez, trying to find any holes in his story, I’m wondering why the rest of baseball is getting a pass. Now, I’m about to pick a team at random — literally pointing at a page — and I come up with the Minnesota Twins. Ok, that’s fair. I’m looking at their roster and see who they have that played in 2003.
Mike Redmond. There’s someone who you wouldn’t suspect, but Mike, are you on the list of 2003 survey positives?
Joe Nathan. You were a teammate of Barry Bonds and several other players who have tested positive or had involvement with BALCO. Are you on the list?
Michael Cuddyer. You’ve had injury problems and have probably wondered if there was some way to stay healthier. Are you on the list?
Luis Ayala. You were in Montreal as a rookie in 2003 and you’re from Mexico, where some steroids are available over the counter. Are you on the list?
Justin Morneau. You came up in 2003 and have been one of the best hitters in baseball since then. When you were in the minors, you had a ton of injuries, but almost no problems in the majors. Are you on that list?
I’ll agree with you. None of these players deserves to be asked the question, but the fact is that if we’re going to cover this story smartly, the question about who is and who isn’t on that list — one that was intended to be anonymous, but not only wasn’t, but is being selectively leaked, exists.
If journalists are going to admit that they were asleep at the wheel throughout much of the steroid era, it’s time to start asking the hard questions. I’ve seen, so far, only one instance of this, with Ivan Rodriguez. Credit to whoever it was that asked, though I can’t find it online.
Finally, we need to take a look at players who have played their entire minor and major league career under a testing program and decide whether or not we believe in professional sports’ strongest testing program. I’m pretty sure that it’s done baseball no good, because no one seems to believe that it’s stopping things, despite positive results going from 96 to 2 in five years. I was at the NFL Combine today, watching 350 pound men running sub-5.0 dashes, lifting cars … and being called undersized.
We can continue to cover this story as if we’re the sports section of TMZ or we can do the hard work it takes to try educate and enlighten the story. If I were Dinn Mann, the editor of MLB.com, or any sports editor across the country, I’d have my beat writer asking the question.
BP is not 'educating' on this story. BP is not 'enlightening' on this story. BP has chosen its story line and is spinning it as fast as BP can spin.
I'm closer to you guys' position on steroids than 90% of the rest of the public. But goodness gracious your institutional self-righteousness is grating.
Really? You didn't find the Dr. X2 article either educational or enlightening?
As I read it, Will's main point is that 104 people are on that list. 1 of them is being subjected to a public flogging, and 103 of them are (for now at least) being given a free pass. That is wrong.
I'd argue that this thread isn't about the steroids, it's about the media's coverage of steroid use. And I find the media coverage to be sorely lacking.
Personally, if someone breaks into my house and steals my stereo, I'm less interested in trying to find my stereo than I am with figuring out how they got into my house and preventing it from happening again. But other than Will's research, I've seen little to nothing from any media outlet regarding the current state of the testing program - how the testing is trying to stay current, or how the PED manufacturers are trying to stay ahead.
But one can argue that the media should be attempting to identify players who have been using and hold them accountable. That's a reasonable goal. Only trouble is, that isn't happening either. In the last 10 days, all I've seen is a litany of people trying to put their own spin on research done by one reporter, Selena Roberts. Coming on TV and trying to figure out how many times you can use the word 'tainted' in a 5-minute segment isn't reporting, it's laziness.
Reporting is asking questions and doing research to provide answers to those questions. We're not seeing that in regard to the state of PED use and testing in 2009, and we're not seeing that in regard to identifying everyone who tested positive; instead, we're seeing a horde of people reacting to a single story that's already been broke by someone else.
I love BP. But it amazes and saddens me that the site-wide stance seems to be that this is a non-issue. You would think such a generally scientific, analysis based approach would be more concerned that their data is corrupted.
You are aware ARod both tested positive and has admitted to using steroids, right?
I would agree with you that speculation about other players without any sort of evidence or proof or confession is not worthwhile. Fortunately, in ARod's case we have all those things and can be 100% sure he used steroids. Therefore, I dont consider it covering "this story as if we’re the sports section of TMZ" when people criticize him for doing what he had openly admitted to doing and apologizing for. I would say random speculation about players would be more TMZ-like than anything.
In fact, one could easily take the opposite tack from you and applaud the media for not accusing others of using steroids in the complete absence of evidence.
So did Juan Salas, or to use a better example, Juan Rincon, who was with the Twins last season. There's 95 other names on the list, right, or does only the big one count?
Those were news stories in turn, though not on this level. ARod is the highest paid player in the game and a much more news worthy story. Its not some kind of witch hunt - the American public doesnt care about the Mike Morse's of the world. They do care about ARod.
The reason its still being talked about today is that he keeps adding info for some insane reason. He needs to just stop talking about it.
Other steroids stories have caused a media frenzy like this! Rafael Palmeiro was a big story. McGwire crying was a big story. The Mitchell Report was a big story. Barry Bonds has been a huge story a hundred times over.
No one is claiming those other 100+ names dont count. We dont have them, though. Theyre sealed evidence. There is nothing we can do about that. Should we ignore the ARod story because we cant find out the rest of the names right now? Give me those other names and Ill skewer them too, but enough of this portraying ARod as a victim. He DID use steroids and got caught. Im aware that 8% of the players got caught too, and I think theyre deserving of as much condemnation when/if we find out who they are. It doesnt change that we know for a fact that ARod was one of those names right now.
Does the American public really care about steroid use or are they more concerned about the "taking down" of a celebrity -- which is why Will brought up TMZ. The simple fact is that people don't care at all that nearly every NFL player uses steroids. Therefore, you can assume that it's not the taking of steroids which is contributing to the A-Rod backlash. So you have to ask yourself what exactly is the reason?
I dont question that is happening... my issue is whether actively trying to find out those other 108 names is a good goal to have. What's the point here? To make ARod look better by comparison? Do we really think if all those names came out the Steroids story would go away...? I thought the party line at BP was that we want the steroids story to go away - in that light, it seems strange to want those other names to come out...
I dont think making ARod look comparatively better by bringing down more players is something we should shoot for. THAT sounds like TMZ to me.
I also dont agree that steroids isnt the reason for the ARod backlash. Did people hate Raffy or Big Mac? Why were those such big stories? Im sure a good bit of it is the taking down of a celebrity - but I cant feel bad for these guys because they put themselves in that situation.
I agree with you w/respects to the NFL. I have no doubt they have ten times the steroids problem of MLB.
My main issue with this is that somehow A-Rod has used this as an opportunity to continue to build his celebrity. Everyone is speaking of taking him down or destroying his image, but in my mind, he's only traveling down the same path he'd been walking since signing that contract with the Rangers.
A-Rod no longer stands as a ballplayer, he chose to do things to seperate himself from that image. Obviously there are some things he can't control (being somewhat ostracized based on his paycheck) but there are others that most definitely can be. Sure baseball players have disputed with managers and teammates, cheated and divorced their wives, and dated celebrities. But no one does it quite like A-Rod. Loaded? Look only to his left. Jeter is as much a public figure as ARod, dated the celebs, and is probably more overpaid than ARod, but he rarely faces the criticism that could be expected.
ARod chose a celebrity lifestyle and just like Britney upskirts or Lindsey trips to rehab, any publicity is good publicity.
This is both a "steroids" story and a "celebrity" story because ARod is part "Juicer" and part "Brittany".
He has 3 50 HR seasons that are now all linked to steroids. Yes, I am including the 2007 season as he had the equivalent of "Radomski/McNamee" touring with him for a good part of the season.
Steroids effect people in a different manner. Some get really good results with them. Sammy Sosa, McGwire made their careers with them. Palmiero went from Keith Hernandez-lite to putting up seasons that Willie McCovery would have been proud of, thanks to the Juice.
ARod reaps what he has sown. He could have contained this story but his insecurity forces him lie at every juncture in a lame attempt to make things seem "less bad" than the reality.
I normally respect BP's work. But there seems to be an approach here that tries correlate the fact that Juan Rincon was mediocore with and without steroids, ERGO, roids have had little to do with the HR tallies put up by Bonds, McGwire, Palimiero, Sosa, Arod, Luis & Juan Gonzalez, Tejada.
Various BP writers made a big stink about amphetimines and the huge impact that the elimination of "speed" would have on the game. Wrong, as BP failed to recognize a very self-evident fact that other "legal products" and/or simple "life style changes" can readily be used in lieu of amphetimines without a diminution in production.
Will, I love your work. It just seems like there is a "Company Line" at BP to be contrarian on steroids. Imply that they don't make much of a performance difference. Again "juicing" is not a one size fits all thing. Some get really big gains and others do not.
Actually, Palmeiro really wasn't that big of a story though he probably has some of the most provocative circumstances. Here is a guy who finger-wagged to Congress and said he didn't do steroids, got caught yet was not suspended until after he got his 3000th hit and quietly retired. He asserted that Tejada gave him a tainted B-12 supplement and that angle of the story has never been reinvestigated. Oh, and he also was a spokesman for Viagara, which is a different form of performance-enhancing, but it's a bit like watching OJ Simpson writing a book called "If I Did It".
McGwire's name continues to get drudged up, Bonds continues to be vilified... but where did Palmeiro go?
This isn't a phenomenon limited to PEDs; I have no doubt that many, many MLB players go to strip clubs and cheat on their wife. Only A-rod makes the back cover of the NYPost. That doesn't strike me as hypocritical... a bit unfair, but, maybe there iss compensation for those of us who weren't blessed with world-class athletic ability.
Since when have steroids been considered a way to stay healthier during the season? 'Roids certainly help in terms of muscle recovery from intense workouts, but joint injuries are a major symptom of steroid use, since the joint are not able to adapt to the sudden increase in forces produced by the muscles.
While this would point toward Cuddyer as a possible steroid user, Will's reasoning above (or at least the language used) is very awkward. Conversely, the injury signs seem to point away from Morneau being a consistent user, at least since reaching the majors.
What about asking non-players questions that would advance the discussion? Bud Selig was an owner for 25 years before becoming commissioner. Was he ever in the locker room? Did he ever see Brewers using amphetamines or steroids? Hear things? See two different coffee pots? Have fragile players suddenly get healthy, or skinny ones suddenly develop power?
Same applies to every GM and owner.
It's more complicated than "cheater!!!!" Swear to god.
So Will, youre against a "witch hunt" (admittedly not your words!) against ARod to find out the details of him using - the whole TMZ thing, unless Ive misunderstood - which is entirely possible...
But you would be totally for a "witch hunt" to find out the other 108 names who tested positive?
Greenies in coffee pots (I assume that is the "two pots" reference)? Yikes - I often become jittery and sweaty with just a big cup of strong coffee alone.
Um, I think you're preaching to the choir here. Everyone on here pretty much agrees with your take and spin on the steroids issue. You've repeated it over and over, even after saying all you wanted to do was talk about baseball.
The fact is, I've just tuned out the story at this point, whether from ESPN or from BP. I don't really care about some reporter trying to track down a cousin of A-Rod's, and I don't really care about the BP defense of Barry Bonds anymore, or the indictments of the mainstream media for their witchhunt. I'm just gonna read about baseball from now on.
"Everyone on here pretty much agrees with your take and spin on the steroids issue." Um, not quite, so please don't put me in the choir - especially since I can't sing worth a darn.
Proving the specific, detailed effects of PEDs on baseball performance and baseball's records may not be possible, but substances that add strength and assist recovery will certainly provide a notable benefit to players.
I'll go back to my biggest problem with the A-Rod/PEDs story: four separate government sources were willing to give up confidential information to a reporter. If they can be found, they should be fired and publicly excoriated well beyond anything A-Rod has had to endure. This breach of confidentiality is far, far bigger than one player - or 104 - juicing up.
"I'll go back to my biggest problem with the A-Rod/PEDs story: four separate government sources were willing to give up confidential information to a reporter. If they can be found, they should be fired and publicly excoriated well beyond anything A-Rod has had to endure. This breach of confidentiality is far, far bigger than one player - or 104 - juicing up."
Which, though I agree with the proposal, will happen just after Scooter Libby serves jail time. I'm working hard to not become completely cynical about the double (at least) standard in this country for those with the dough, in the know of the PTB or with their face in a show when compared to the rest of us. Fortunately, hope always Springs eternal, regardless of the shortcomings of the game or the specific players involved in any era - collusion, 'roids, segregation....
One result I would like to see: players required to submit blood samples multiple times during the season and off-season for storage in case future testing proves adept at detection of currently abused substances. Maybe place a percentage of their salary in escrow until HOF eligible and if testing up until that time proves the player was cheating while active then that money is forfeited to an organization dedicated to educating young 'uns about the dangers/risks of abusing steroids/HGH/PEDs du jour.
"Everyone on here pretty much agrees with your take and spin on the steroids issue."
Where on earth do you get this idea? I am diametrically opposed to BP on this. If the rest of their insight and coverage wasn't so worthwhile I wouldn't even come back....Fortunately it is that good, and I know they will keep it up!
So go ask those questions! You write for a website that has one of the top selling books on amazon with blurbs from Bob Costas, Mark Shaprio, and Michael Lewis on the back of the book. Several of your writers are part of the BBWAA. Some of you write for SI and ESPN. The person who wrote this article does dozens of radio interviews a month. Some of you work for major TV stations in addition to writing for Prospectus.
Your readers don't have any access to Bud Selig, Joe Nathan, the big, bad, witch-huntin' media, Mark Shapiro, A-Rod, Mike Schmidt, Joe Morgan, Gene Orza, or anyone else. You guys do. If you're so disgusted with the "witch hunt," go talk to the people doing the hunting. Send out a bunch of emails, make some phone calls, and report the quotes back here. Use your clout to go stick some microphones in some people's faces. Tell us who answered, who refused to answer, and what everyone said.
Because, "swear to god," right now it just seems like you're making excuses for PED users. NFL, witch-hunt, TMZ, CBA, ad nauseum.
I find it really, really hard to believe that you can get upset about the names being leaked and about Bud Selig's behavior, but not be upset about Gene Orza aiding players in getting around the league's testing policy. At least not upset enough about it to mention in either of your columns on this issue.
I know that you are on a role in the opposite direction. However, here's a financial angle that has been missed.
The Yankees have grossly mismanaged their $275M asset, in ARod. It is unexcusable that they let him "wing it", spin lies and come across so poorly in his press conference. For Christ sake, there were no follow up question even allowed. The questions for the most part were in the newspapers in advance.
I have been witness in Corporate litigation and have had colleagues testify in front of Congress and a good company will prepare its subjects for these events with real "dry runs" and no question will be a surprise. ARod and the Yankees had image consultants and plenty of lawyers to have ARod in a state of readiness to come off 100% better than he did and not have left certain doors "wide open" for investigative journalists to prove ARod a liar and thus throw into doubt his entire timeline of usage.
OK, I'm in no way part of the Selig fan club, but I'm not too sure what he could have done to stop all this. He works for the owners, right? And do any of us here think the owners had a problem with all the home runs and revenue they gained during the "steroid era"? Whether the steroids lead to more home runs/better production is a different story, but clearly most people (owners, players) see this as the case. Can you imagine Bud, in 1995, going to a baseball owner and stating that something needed to be done about steroids? That would have been (was?) crushed by the owners in no time. Bud's no clown, he knows which side his bread is buttered on.
No, he shouldn't be passing that on to the kids, but I think it's a realistic scenario that one has to at least consider. Bud is payed by the owners, and they were just fine with things going the way they were going. That's all I'm trying to say --- not that it was the right or wrong thing to do.
Very sorry, Benjarvis, I didn't mean that as an attack on you.
It's just frustrating that Selig, who *claims* to value the history and integrity of the game so much, would ignore the PED issue until political and journalistic pressures made him do something.
Remember, all, that there is an appeal pending before the Ninth Circuit en banc that could well lead to the unsealing of the List of 103. The MLBPA lost in its first appeal. Sadly, for those who breathlessly await these names, the Ninth takes about a year to issue opinions these days.
The problem with A-Rod is his story. It's obvious he's not telling the truth. There are more holes in his story than swiss cheese. I think that's the uproar at this point. It's not a steroids issue now, it's an honesty issue.
Will, here are some things that aren't going to make this controversy go away:
Relativism: Coffee is a performance enhancing drug right? Well, yeah. But it's legal and allowed within the rules. Testosterone, Primobolan, HGH, Greenies, etc. are not. You're free to quibble with where the line is drawn but the line is still the line and crossing it is cheating.
Misdirection: Look over there! Other players might be cheating! What about the NFL? Beelzebud didn't care back in the day! True enough. But ARod is still a liar and a cheater. He's mostly highly compensated player in baseball and by far the best currently active player involved in this mess. All that cash comes with responsibility and he blew it. Now he gets to pay the price. Tough.
Rationalization: We don't know if PEDs actually help that much. Maybe, and if you want to believe that a dramatic improvement in performance by 36 year old outfielder coming off a knee injury was a coincidence and had nothing to do with cream or clear, fine, whatever. PEDs are still illegal and against the rules. The intent was to cheat, hence the lying about it. The effectiveness of it is totally irrelevant.
Shooting the messenger: The press is overreacting! They're being unfair! Cry me a river. The gist of what's being written about ARod is quite true despite that. Are the media members who ignored the problem and wrote hagiographies about McGwire back in the day hypocrites? Maybe, but it doesn't change a damn thing about ARod. He's let us all down. Let's face it, as long as high profile players keep getting caught the rest and in fact the whole game will remain under suspicion.
[The intent was to cheat, hence the lying about it. The effectiveness of it is totally irrelevant.]
So if I put the cruise control on 75 and intend to speed, but my speedometer's broken and I'm really only going 55, I'm still guilty of speeding, huh?
If it was proven tomorrow that steroids were totally ineffective in improving baseball performance, this story would completely disappear. Nobody cares about celebrities or athletes doing illegal drugs. This is all about pissing on an athlete who makes $26 million a year because he's perceived as a cheat; and if steroids indeed do nothing, then he's not a cheat at all, and the MSM would run after someone else.
Steroid effectiveness is at the core of this whole controversy, and is far more relevant (though harder to prove) than A-Rod's intent.
I don't buy the analogy. PEDs are illegal and against the rules. Using them is clearly a violation. Driving with a broken speedometer and accidentally obeying the law is still obeying the law.
Say I was running in a marathon and decided I didn't want to run the whole course as laid out by the organizers. So I take a shortcut. Now, let's say the shortcut features lots of obstacles and I end up running the same time as I had while running the full course in a practice run the previous week. You could claim I didn't benefit by cheating. Should my time officially stand? Am I the winner if I finish ahead of everyone else even though I didn't run the correct course?
They were an ILLEGAL substance. They were also prohibited by baseball. Although practically, it was probably not possible to punish players because of collective bargaining issues, that doesnt change the fact it was prohibited by baseball.
Let me ask you this:
1) Do steroids help you in with weight training?
2) Does weight training help you on the baseball diamond?
If you answer "Yes" to both of these questions I dont understand how you can maintain that steroids dont help you play baseball. I cant imagine anyone answering "No" to either of these, either. Steroids improve baseball performance by helping you get stronger and heal quicker. Just because its not a pill you can take that makes your flyballs automatically go farther doesnt mean its not helping you.
Steroids are also cheating IMHO.
The notion they were cheating has always been there, too. Its not like in 2005 people woke up and said "wait a minute, that's cheating!" Go back to 1990, 1980, 1970, etc... and ask players, FO personnel and MLB execs and even the steroid users: "Are steroids cheating?" and they would answer "Yes."
They were explicitly forbidden by the Fay Vincent memo. Yes, he admitted he couldnt enforce it - but what does that change??? The ability to punish players has nothing to do with whether they are cheating or not. Vincent wasnt able to punish them for a tertiary reason that has nothing to do with this. I dont understand why people jump on the fact Vincent admitted he couldnt enforce it. The fact he issued it is far more telling about what people though about steroids.
Just because its "not breaking a rule" doesnt fly with me either. There is no rule on the books against stealing signs, even electronically. Its just a memo from the commish - SAME AS IN THIS CASE. Yet any type of sign stealing would be, to ballplayers, "cheating. The only difference with steroids is it overlapped collective bargaining issues.
Learn to read. I was addressing the assertion that steroid effectiveness is irrelevant. I didn't say steroids weren't effective. I said IF they're not effective, using them confers no unfair advantage and therefore isn't cheating, no matter how much the user intends to cheat. And if it isn't cheating, 90% of the public's interest in this stories dies instantly.
Steroid effectiveness IS relevant.
If you want to get your undies in a bundle over millionaire ballplayers breaking the rules, and ruining their health and reputations in the process, that's fine. But that's not why A-Rod's the Big Story right now.
What I was saying is that I, personally, have zero doubt that steroids are effective.
I dont care why ARod is the story. He's a public figure and he did something wrong - it was an illegal act, performance enhancing or not. If he gets more than his share, well, that's life. If that's the price for the money he makes you can sign me up.
On another note, it's interesting how we're enjoying ourselves poking holes in A-Rod's story when we never gave Giambi the same level of critcism. I believe his brother Jeremy was even suspended for steroids at one point...
That'd be an interesting retcon. If we knew in 2003 what we know now, would the media and Congress have approached Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro, Canseco, Selig, Fehr and all the other players in a different fashion?
""Finally, we need to take a look at players who have played their entire minor and major league career under a testing program and decide whether or not we believe in professional sports’ strongest testing program.""
You were referring to cycling, right?
They get a bum rap, but at least they do something about their dopers.
So Will's going to ask questions now - after telling us that PEDs don't really impact performance, defending users on legal rights, and 'turning the page' showing no interest in identifying the past users.
The only reasons we know anything about the identity of the cheaters are the very sources (SF writers, prosecutors, congressional hearings, Mitchell Report, disgruntled girlffriends and relatives) that have been ridiculed here at BP.
I want to know everything related to the problem regardless of the source. Be part of uncovering rather than burying the past. To say you can't learn from the past, imples you have all the answers already.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Its funny the outrage ARod fans seem to have over the leaks. No one doubts the leaks are wrong, but that doesnt change the fact ARod did in fact use steroids.
Its even more funny that these same people want the other 103 names to come out.
Privacy for ARod = good. Privacy for everybody else = bad.
"Enough of this witch hunt against ARod! That information never should have been leaked! That's the real crime!
...
Now lets get those other 103 names out! Why do those guys get off scot-free!?"
Major hypocrisy. Only makes sense if our goal is "diminish what ARod has done."
sbnirish77-
I would be interested in knowing whether you are okay with due process and confidentiality being thrown out the window for yourself. Are you okay with your HR admin publishing your employee records online? Or seizing items from your house illegally and using them as evidence against you? Or do American human rights only apply when you feel like it?
Not only was this a celebrity story, but, six years after the alleged test, it was leaked to major, mainstream sports media by mulitple sources almost at the precise moment that major league baseball owners want you to start paying attention to the upcoming season.
But the point of the media's attention to this is BECAUSE it's ARod. This headline: "Nick Punto used PEDs" is NOT a major media story.
When the Beatles got busted in some foreign airport for carrying weed it was a big story because it was the Beatles.
When Joey and the Flapjacks do it, no one cares.
Same with ARod. Plus, the ignorance of his public pronouncements have become a story unto themselves. It's like the ghost of Dick Nixon is counseling him here.
It suggests that A-Rod's story was more sensationalized because of his celebrity status. A-Rod was not facing any federal action for perjury, merely making a second attempt at an apology. Meanwhile, it was Tejada's first press conference on it and he was being charged with perjury, hence Tejada's case was more serious.
I'm sure the various networks had extra reporters that they could have sent to Tejada's conference.
Also, with all the hype about A-Rod's second conference and how "weak" his first confession was perceived, with all the journalists clamoring for more details, no one there really dived more into the details.
The steroids/media conversation here has been hugely disappointing. Sheehan's piece from the other day was embarrassing. But so be it. I pay for BP expecting a heaping helping of pomposity and indignation.
FWIW, Will, Hafner was asked about steroids. I'm not sure what kamikaze reporter dared to ask him. I'm sure you'll pour one out for him though.
MLB.com story from last week... "a reporter asked Pronk point-blank if he had used steroids. "I've never used steroids," Hafner told the [Cleveland] Plain Dealer. "I know I did things the right way, and that gives me peace of mind," he said. "But it's almost pointless to try and defend yourself."
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
I agree that this is more of an entertainment news type story. What was more unethical? Using steroids or having results that weren't supposed to be released. I wrote this at my nsfwsports.com site. SATIRE ALERT.
Here are the other names besides A-Rod who tested positive.
* Curt Schilling
* David Eckstein
* Hank Steinbrenner (Many are unaware that this test was for all people involved in MLB.)
* Wendy Selig (She has shamed the game.)
* Gene Orza (Wishes he would’ve been alerted.)
* Peter Gammons (Second-hand pot smoke from a Pearl Jam concert.)
* Mel Allen (How bout that!)
* Bobby Bonds (Second-hand clear.)
* Hank Aaron (Didn’t see that one coming.)
* Steve Howe (Might have been a clerical error.)
* Michael Phelps
* Lance Armstrong (I knew it.)
* Greg LeMond (Well that figures.)
* Brutus Beefcake
* George Will (Now that one is a shocker.)
* Cokie Roberts (How do you think she got the name?)
* Ted Haggard
* Jeff Conway (Hey, his back hurt and anyway it was his girlfriend’s fault.)
* Andy Dick (His name is automatically put on the top of the list for any drug test.)
* Kevin Costner (Well that ruins Field of Dreams for me.)
* George W. Bush (Left in his system from his time with the Texas Rangers.)
Newsflash, this didn't turn into a witch hunt because of Bonds or A-Rod, it's been a witch hunt since day 1.
Try as hard as you want to make it into a huge deal, but the real purpose of this is a PR campaign to make certain fans feel good about the game they're watching, however delusional that might be. It's so they can say "well awesome, these guys aren't evil cheaters". In reality though, do they really care? Superficially maybe, but attendance numbers in all sports says a resounding "no".
Or maybe the plus column for basball just still outweighs the minus column. Just like how I keep watching the NBA despite the fact the refs are insane, crooked and awful.
Steroids ARE a bad drug. Do people not understand why there has to be a limit to PEDs??
Can you imagine a sports world with no regulation of PEDs? It would be perennial race to find who has the best doctor. Player health would always be at risk as they try to find that next edge. Instead of worrying about who has the best fastball we would have fantasy magazines talking about what roids a pitcher is using. Steroids would become a necessity for all MLB players. THAT is the evil of steroids and why they must be banned and why those who use them must be condemned. We are always a hair away from a bizarro, 1984 style professional sports world. The level of competition and the money involved form a gigantic force forever pushing things in that direction. Much like with freedom, the price here is constant vigilance.
JMC, what you think that web site kensai linked to has ulterior motives in declaring steroids "safe?" I can't imagine what that might be.
Oh, wait, they want your money and don't care what potential side effects you might suffer from as a result of ingesting this insane garbabe? Nice job of calling him out.
I prefer "garbabe". I'm going to start using that word now...
gar-babe (n.): 1) A girl with a great body but foul mouth. "You don't bring a garbabe home to mother" 2) Girls featured in shop-tool calendars, short for Garage Babe.
You guys are what's wrong with the American public. You guys just blindly buy into whatever the government labels evil and dangerous.
Nice job of not having a clue.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28645.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0LEj8IPHGU
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151309/
Tell me, how biased is Bryant Gumbel then? What are his ulterior motives in getting people to realize steroids aren't some killer evil drug?
I linked the article I did because it cites SOURCES, you see those little numbers at the end of certain claims? Yeah, they link to these things called footnotes at the end, where you can find the actual research.
Like I said before:
"Steroids are generally like anything else. If you are irresponsible and uneducated with its use, it can be dangerous. Then again, if those were the reasons for banning something, then why, pray tell, are alcohol and cigs legal?
So yeah, of course if you go around like Chris Benoit, and you're taking irresponsible amounts of steroids, amphetamines, pain killers, alcohol and then banging your head on a mat 500 times a day for your job, things are probably not going to end well. Then again, neither is drinking a bottle of Everclear and smoking 10 packs of cigs everyday.
The double standard is what frustrates people, generally speaking. Well, that and generalized ignorance.
I don't have any first hand experience with steroids, but it's really not that hard to do a little research. Unfortunately, research isn't something that most media members or individuals seem to care about before running their mouth."
I linked to that site, not because of ulterior motives, but because it's the most comprehensive in its explanation. If you don't believe that site, then look elsewhere if you want. Or don't, and just buy whatever propaganda is out next, and remain blissfully ignorant.
I'm "what's wrong with the American public?" Wow, that's quite a burden, but I'll try to live up to your standards of reprehensibility.
Okay, maybe I went a bit over the top with my verbage (I find the physiques of serious bodybuilders to be rather repugnant), but my point is that a web site with numerous ads for steroids has its own agenda. I referenced their "ulterior motives," not yours, kensai.
I don't find those bodybuilding physiques attractive either, but their sole goal is to get as big as possible, health be damned. They are generally not examples of responsible use, and neither are most athletes really. Like I said, it's ironic, but testing makes it more dangerous for them.
Anyway, I know you weren't saying they are my ulterior motives, but my point is that attacking the site itself does nothing. Attack the content if you can, but I doubt it.
My only point was to show that the argument of "well they kill people so they need to be controlled" is not a very good one. Especially when you consider what is legal in this country.
For an even less enlightened view of the entire PED issue, check out the site http://www.onlybaseballmatters.com (OBM for short - might as well be Only Barry Matters)
Site owner Perricone can write, but, well, here's him:
"I’m OK with sports stars who may not be perfect. I do, in fact, want our athletes to do amazing things, and I don’t really care how they go about doing it. It has always been obvious to me that to perform at the highest levels in athletic competition, extreme measures have always been taken."
Check out the commenter +mia if your eyes need a good bleeding.
75 comments have been left for this post.
Bravo, Will.