In what comes as little surprise to anyone, Mark McGwire admitted using steroids and was implicated as using other substances. His quote that it “is time to talk about the past and admit what many suspected” is as close to a mea culpa as any steroid user has made.
The statement was made by McGwire in advance of officially becoming the Cardinals new hitting coach. It was expected that he would need to make some sort of statement prior to Spring Training so as not to become too much of a distraction, though he’s still going to be the best known hitting coach in the game. The statement, which I am told was vetted by the Cardinals, does help clear the air, answering most of the big questions:
* He states that he began using in 1989. (This is in contrast to what Jose Canseco has said.)
* He used to overcome injuries.
* He did use substances during the 1998 campaign where he broke Roger Maris’ home run record.
Remaining questions include:
* How did he acquire steroids and was Operation Equine (and McGwire’s younger brother) correct?
* What was he using and when? This may seem like a small thing, but McGwire’s usage patterns could go a long way in helping determine the true effect of steroids on hitting.
In many ways, McGwire’s statement echoes that of Andy Pettitte, who has largely been washed clean of the steroid taint that hangs over most of the suspected and known users. The PR is strong, starting with a 7pm Eastern interview between McGwire and Bob Costas on MLB Network.
It remains to be seen if McGwire’s statement will make it less distracting for him to be a hitting coach. Just imagine someone like Matt Holliday having a career year or Albert Pujols challenging the 60 or 70 home run line, just after McGwire comes in. It’s always in the back of the cynical fan’s mind at this stage when anyone makes a record run or just has a breakout year; attaching McGwire to it is going to create a frenzy if this were to occur.
It also remains to be seen if McGwire’s admission brings him any more Hall of Fame votes. Stuck in the mid 20% range, McGwire’s totals don’t indicate any change. Even Tony La Russa’s recent suggestion that McGwire could play one game, changing his Hall of Fame voting eligibility, was questioned strongly by Jack O’Connell of the BBWAA.
We’ll be talking about the past a lot over the next couple news cycles and again during the Cardinals 2010 campaign. For MLB, the question is whether they can ever move on from talking about the past. Senator Mitchell suggested a blanket amnesty for steroids users and perhaps it’s time for Selig and the owners to re-visit that concept once again.
While I think the "he saved the game" argument is a little overwrought, that 1998 season went a long way towards drawing the interest of many youngsters. He did a lot for the game, whatever your stance. To me the Hall of Fame is not only a measure of on field skill, but also of historical significance. It's not a forum for finger pointing. There's no question in my mind that he belongs.
As for his steroid use, was there ever any doubt? My buddies and I all knew that McGwire and Sosa were doing something and we were in 6th grade. I can only assume that the non-voting writers are feigning their disappointment to avoid appearing hypocritical. The alternative is that they suffer from a degree of naivety that should disqualify them from journalistic pursuits.
The purpose of that congressional hearing was explicitly NOT to talk about the past. I applaud McGwire for being the ONLY GUY IN THE ROOM who appeared to have read the rules before opening his mouth.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that Congress was merely putting up a "dog and pony show" that was embarrassing to watch. But this is irrelevant in determining whether we should continue to give McGwire the benefit of the doubt. All that matters is what McGwire did and why he did it. We know what he did; he clammed up. Next we need to look at the possible reasons why he clammed up in this situation.
Perhaps he was concerned for his privacy and felt Congress had no right to ask such questions? The problem with this argument is two-fold. He refused to answer the exact same questions he forcefully and confidently answered many times over the years to reporters. Reporters who were not off the record; they had microphones, TV cameras, notepads and pens. They were going to publish these questions and answers in the public sphere. Secondly, and more notably, he had to know that refusal to answer those very same questions would do irreparable damage to his reputation and HOF eligibility.
Is it a reasonable conclusion to assume a noble intent for his sudden refusal to answer the same question he has answered publicly many times over the years under this circumstance?
Let's bend over backwards even further to allow for such a noble intent as standing up for some kind of privacy, even in the face of the predictable (and subsequently accurate) HOF ballot retribution. Wouldn't such a stand only make its point if stated openly? In any case I know of where someone was taking such a messianic stand in the past, they made that stand quite clear. Tellingly, McGwire didn't hold a press conference after the hearing expressing noble reasons for his refusal to answer. Instead, he slinked off into the darkness, avoiding comment. In fact, it was pointed out that his refusal came about due to legal advice he had received.
What if we take his assertion that he "was not here to talk about the past" in the best, most positive way by allowing for the possibility that he was too concerned about steroid use among children and wanted to stick to the point by avoiding talk about the past. He implies such reasoning with the statement, as pointed out in your article, "I’m not here to talk about the past". Let’s think this idea through. If he had never done steroids and simply answered the question, "No, I have never used steroids", then wouldn’t he be able to move on to the more pressing issue of helping the nations children? Wouldn’t he then be a beacon for children as to what great accomplishments could be achieved while avoiding the dangers of steroid use? Wouldn’t it be obvious to McGwire and everyone else that by refusing to answer the question, he was making "not talking about the past" an impossibility? Isn’t it obvious that the last thing he should do, if his intent was to help the children by keeping focus on present day situations, would be to create an enormous controversy by refusing to answer a single question? Again, does it seem reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt here? I don’t think so.
We need to continue our search for the most likely reason for his refusal to answer. The obvious question becomes, what was different about the situation in which McGwire found himself when asked this same question that he had no problem answering so many times in the past? The answer is obvious. He was, for the first time, under oath. This factor cannot be taken lightly. A lie under oath to Congress is a potentially serious crime that carries heavy penalties, far more grave than merely being denied the honor of HOF acceptance.
Why so many still feel the need to give this clown credit for his actions is beyond belief.
No, we don't need to continue that search, because his motives aren't knowable to us.
The hearing purported to be forward-looking. McGwire looked forward. End of story.
Every other person in the room, players and senators both, completely disregarded the purpose of the hearing in order to score cheap political or PR points. They're the ones who deserve our scorn and derision, not McGwire.
I don't care why McGwire elected not to talk about the past. But given the forum, I thoroughly appreciate that he did.
His motives are clearly "knowable," if one has even the slightest grasp of common sense, as I detailed above. I don’t think one needs to invoke the theory of Occam’s Razor to find a much more obvious and satisfying answer to the question of why McGwire would have effectively pleaded the 5th when asked under oath in front of Congress as to whether he took steroids or not, but I’ll do it anyway. He was refusing to incriminate himself.
Look, if people want to give this guy a pass, at least they should be honest about what he did and why he did it.
Who cares about the past. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.
Yes and no. It's good advice to follow if you've hired a lawyer for the purpose of avoiding legal jeopardy regardless of the reputational hit you may suffer. If you have other goals, your lawyer should accommodate them and design different advice -- or you need a new lawyer.
Yes, he did listen to his lawyers and kept his mouth shut, didn't want to tell the truth. He wasn't ready for his public shaming...now 5 years later he is trying to do it half way.
I wish somebody would just be honest, but the slugger's ego won't allow it. Amnesty makes a ton of sense; the witch hunts are getting old.
It was a bit more than "public shaming." He was told that the US Attorney General would prosecute. Not some rinky-dink Fed, but the Atty General. Tom Davis confirmed this on MLB.
Out of curiosity, could McGwire have waited so long to return to say what happened to avoid some statute of limitations? Perhaps that is at least one reason why he remained out of baseball so long?
But doesn't his steroid use diminish our understanding of his "on field skill" and pervert the reasons for which he is historically relevant (i.e., home run hitting)?
I was disappointed when Mr. McGwire dodged the questions in his Congressional appearance. Now I have nothing but respect and admiration for the very difficult step he took today. With respect to Hall of Fame voting (which I doubt is McGwire's motivation in coming clean), I think it would be helpful if McGwire and other users who come forward provide as much specific information about what they used and when, and also provide a candid discussion of how they feel it affected their performance.
The other thing that I've been wondering about in this whole situation is whether LaRussa will have anything to say about the culture of steroids that has been part of the teams he has managed in Oakland and St. Louis. Did he look the other way? Was he completely in the dark about what his players were taking? Does he have any regrets about how he handled those situations?
I have a lot of respect for LaRussa's baseball acumen but we are talking about a guy with repeated DUIs who lost one pitcher to drinking and driving. He's not exactly a member of the morality police.
My second favorite sport is the red light district of sports, professional boxing. I've been a fan for over 30 years. There is NO QUESTION that the sport has been invaded by PED drugs. As a matter of fact, Roy Jones Jr. tested positive after a fight in Indiana in 2001.
The response from the mainstream and boxing media? Crickets chirping.
Of course I don't appreciate the fact that PED's were used by any baseball player. But I would think we are long past the feigned outrage and desire to "Do things right like the old time players".
The old time players were popping uppers and drinking the pain away. It's not as if human nature suddenly overwhelmed MLB 10 years ago.
I so, so wish we were past the outrage (feigned or not) and the mainstream revisionist history that the old time players did indeed "do things right." It seems (judging by information like ESPN's polling (admittedly unscientific)) that we're still not there.
Very different. Jones tested positive for andro, which was in the supplement "Ripped Fuel" and sold over the counter at the time. If he'd been in baseball at the time, it wouldn't have been illegal. Football? Same thing.
Was that true for his opponent Richard Hall as well? As I had read that he had flunked a test as well.
I do appreciate the correction though. That is in fact a difference and renders my individual point moot.
However, I do stand by the concept that there has been a lot of PED use in other sports. It seems like baseball has to take the brunt of the mainstream coverage though. That, to me, is very unfair.
The answer can be found by re-phrasing the question:
Any chance ownership and management of other professional sports leagues will use the steroids issue to discredit players in an attempt to keep salaries down?
A great quote (from an admittedly bad baseball broadcaster/radio host): "Sorry doesn't fix the lamp"
I'd vote for him for the HOF anyway, but let's please not praise his courage for admitting something 10 years later when he has every incentive now to fess up.
Pettitte gets/got a pass because he was politically popular in the baseball media/establishment before he got into trouble. Barry Bonds was not. A-Rod was not. Clemens was 50/50. For all of their accomplishments on the field, Sosa and Palmeiro were marginal to baseball's pantheon of heroes, and so received only marginal attention (relative to the others).
McGwire will likely be praised as "courageous" for "coming forward" and "telling the truth" - putting aside the fact that doing so now (a) won't cost him a penny (as it may have in the past), (b) will allow him to take a job that he wants, and (c) comes nearly 20 years after he first started using.
I think Pettitte gets a pass because he's a Yankee--sorry, Yankee fans, if you're upset. But think about the Yankees who have used steroids, and note the reactions to them: Pettitte, Sheffield, Kevin Brown, Mike Stanton, even Giambi never inspired the same vitriol that you see towards the Sosas and McGwires of the world. I would note Clemens as the exception, maybe because he has fought the charges so hard. Even ARod doesn't inspire hatred and anger, mostly bewilderment and sadness, I think.
Also consider the other side: players about whom it's said, "I'd be shocked--SHOCKED!--if he's on the juice." Aside from Pujols, aren't they all True Yankees (TM)? Jeter, Mariano, Posada...I have even heard that said about Matsui and Sabathia.
Maybe I'm just a jaded Mets fan...no, DEFINITELY I'm a jaded Mets fan. But I think Yankees do tend to get a pass on this stuff.
By the media, yeah, somewhat...the media is kind of obsessed with the True Yankee (TM) label. And of course, they drive the steroids story, to a large degree.
I'm a Yankee fan but am hardly upset by your observation. There have been over 130 players either implicated (many via Mitchell Report but many through rumors), suspended or admitted to PED use. Pettitte admitted to using HGH, not steroids. Sheffield admitted to using a substance he didn't know was steroids and Giambi admitted to steroid use (if not publicly to a grand jury). Brown & Stanton were implicated by the Mitchell Report and it's questionable sources. The only players the public seems to be concerned with are the high profile players who were strongly suspected of PED use and have not admitted to it's use, Yankee or not. You made that point yourself by bringing up Clemens. It's about the stars and not the uniform. I don't here much about Matt Lawton, Todd Hundley, Mike Piazza, Mo Vaughn & Paul LoDuca either.
I agree with you in general, Gibson88 -- McGwire's admission isn't particularly courageous given that he had several self-interested reasons for coming clean (i.e., avoiding a circus atmosphere in his new job, changing the narrative of his HOF candidacy, etc.).
That said, I'm not sure I agree with your reasons, especially point (b) -- McGwire already took the Cards hitting coach job, so I'm confused how his admission today allowed him to take it (unless he made a deal with the Cards that made his hire contingent on fessing up to his so-called misdeeds, which I highly doubt, although it may have been discussed in some form).
Moreover, McGwire is, as far as I know, the only star player other than Canseco to admit to using steroids without getting caught first. While that might not show any kind of supernatural courage, I do find it pretty refreshing.
Every incentive now to fess up, but he didn't have to do it like this. He didn't have to personally call the Maris family and apologize. Or call the parent of a kid who was killed by steroids and apologize to him.
But he did. He's obviously contrite, and of all the confessions I've heard from a public figure, this strikes me as the most honest, sincere, and heartfelt. He's completely owning what he did. That's exceedingly rare, and he should be commended for it. Lots of people make mistakes, but very few own up to them like this.
I'd like to ask the people who believe McGwire et al shouldn't be in the HoF think about the fact that Gaylord Perry is in the HoF. I have trouble seeing any difference between the two situations.
You're right. The intellectually honest position is that the two should be treated similarly.
In my view, the best route is to try to ascertain a rough understanding of how much a player's performance was enhanced by his particular avenue of cheating (e.g., scuffing, corking, juicing, etc.) and then try to discount his numbers from there.
Exactly. The frustrating thing is that the mainstream media ignores the most important question; Do steroids improve performance? Look at the Mitchell Report's leaked names. Yes, it includes guys like Bonds and McGwire, but you know who else is on there? Marvin Benard. FP Santangelo. Bobby Estalella. Tim Laker. Adam Piatt. Phil Hiatt. The immortal Cody McCay.
I'm sure we could argue that steroids made some players "better," if only through enhancing recovery from injury. But this bizarre media construct that steroids turned players into superstars is more than a little absurd.
I certainly agree that understanding the extent to which steroids help players is an issue worthy of exploration.
But I disagree that we can determine the efficacy of steroid use simply by looking at the correlation of steroid use to high levels of play. The reason for this is that it is difficult to construct the needed counterfactual. That is, it is hard to know how Marvin Bernard would have played *without* steroids.
That said, tools like PECOTA can be helpful in that, if we knew when a player started using, we could measure his performance against what we would have expected from him. But this is fraught with a number of problems. Most obviously, we usually don't know when the player started using. Second, if he used for a large percentage of his career, PECOTA is less useful. Third, PECOTA is most valuable in giving us a range of outcomes - and a 'roided player's performance might be in the range, leaving us unable to distinguish between normal outcomes and 'roid induced outcomes.
In my view, it's reasonable to rely on our understanding of how steroids actually interact with the human body. We know that they increase muscle mass and make people stronger. And we know there's a strong correlation between strength and hitting baseballs a long way. Given this information, it seems logical to me to conclude that they are beneficial to players seeking to increase their home run totals.
"The reason for this is that it is difficult to construct the needed counterfactual. That is, it is hard to know how Marvin Bernard would have played *without* steroids."
See Will's remaining questions above. The more details players are willing to share, the better to determine what effects PEDs have on the stats. (It is all about the stats, right? That's why nobody cares when All-Pro linebackers get caught, right?)
What I was trying to get at is that the MSM has somehow latched onto this notion that "steroids made players good." That a guy like Canseco would have been a scrub or that Bonds wouldn't have been a good player. It drives me nuts, mostly because if you read some of the most reductionist comments from baseball fans about steroids, on any random website, they fall for the same notion. That guy like McGwire would have been a career minor-leaguer, or that Palmeiro's success was solely due to steroids.
Phil Hiatt batted 216/278/367 in his major league career. Tim Laker hi2 226/276/326. If steroids make you "good," then those guys must not have gotten the memo.
Totally agree. I think everybody at this site would love to see a quantitative determination of how PED usage affects the statistical record. If the HoF case against McGwire is built on his steroid usage, how much would they have had to help him that he wouldn't be HoF worthy without them? Even if you attribute 10% of his career homers to PEDs, he's still well over 500.
"That guy like McGwire would have been a career minor-leaguer, or that Palmeiro's success was solely due to steroids. "
This is a classic strawman argument.
This logic (or lack thereof) drives me nuts. What would Phil Hiatt have batted without steroids? What's that? You have no idea? Nobody is claiming steroids made Bonds good. They are claiming that steroids possibly made a great player superhuman. Who's to say Tim Laker wouldn't have hit 125/176/289 without steroids? As Gibson '88 already pointed out, The reason for this is that it is difficult to construct the needed counterfactual. That is, it is hard to know how Marvin Bernard would have played *without* steroids." I have never seen a single person on this earth ever claim McGwire would have been a "career- minor-leaguer." The argument is always about how much BETTER these players were than their NORMAL level due to steroid use, whatever that normal level was.
You can find, right now, probably a hundred different websites that claim Bonds and McGwire were frauds, that without steroids they couldn't even make a major-league roster, that their numbers are complete fabrication based solely on steroids.
Hell, real, legitimate baseball writers have claimed that without steroids Canseco would have been a career minor-leaguer. That's the classic strawman argument, IMO. If steroids make you "good" that's a lot different argument than "steroids [might] make you better" - one that the chattering yappers on mainstream sports sites don't see any difference between. That's all I was saying.
What was interesting about McGwire's admission was his statement that he had good years on PEDs and bad years on PEDs and good years while clean and bad years while clean.
It's anecdotal, but a feather for those of us who insist that no proof exists that PEDs translate to on-the-field improvements.
Um... what? A serial liar is trying to legitimize his accomplishments by CLAIMING he had good and bad years on steroids, thus implying they weren't the end-all-be-all and you take his word for it hook, line and sinker? Come on, dude.
Agreed. That aspect of McGwire's statement was clearly intended to suggest that his success had no relationship to steroids. This is not surprising - you will not find one player ever say that even 1% of their success was due to steroids.
The difference between Gaylord Perry and a steroid user, particularly in the late 90’s, with a sham of a drug enforcement policy in MLB, was Perry took a risk every time he cheated. His cheating was limited to the field of play, under the watchful eyes of the umpires, TV cameras, broadcasters, fans and opposing team. Because of this, he had to pick his spots. A steroid user was taking no risk of being caught whatsoever. Again, this is no defense of Perry. It merely points out that Perry’s cheating came with some risk on the field of play. And it was a rare occurrence, by all accounts, including Perry’s, who clearly has no problem indulging us with the details of his crimes. Meanwhile, a steroid user, whose intent was clearly nefarious, was carrying out that intent with every breath he took, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, with no chance to get caught. It’s gutless to say the least. But again, we need not even have to point this out as the very idea of claiming we should allow all cheaters into the HOF based on Perry’s inclusion makes no sense on its face.
It's true that Perry's 'cheating' came with an ever-present risk, but it's also true that if he were caught cheating he wouldn't have his name mentioned in the same breath as Hitler (OK, slight exaggeration). Perry's cheating was condoned and snickered at; as far as McGwire goes, how can you be cheating if you aren't breaking any rules (baseball ones anyway)?
While technically true, it’s still debatable in that any intent to unfairly gain an advantage over an opponent is against the spirit of the rules, particularly in regards to sportsmanship and fair play. More importantly, steroid use of the kind we are referring was against the law of the United States. So, they were breaking controlled substance laws of the country, but it’s okay because they weren’t explicitly outlawed in baseball’s collective bargaining agreement? Nonsensical.
The problem for baseball - or, at least, the HOF problem - is the relationship between steroid use and performance. This problem has nothing to do with the government's reasons for banning steroids, which arise out of concerns for public health and safety.
Again, if your concern is the HOF and, more generally, how we should judge the careers of players who used steroids, the fact that they are unsafe is meaningless.
Similarly, for HOF purposes (excluding morality criteria), it's not relevant that someone used cocaine when we consider how great they were.
On the flip side, scuffing baseballs is not illegal - but it is relevant to judging a player's accomplishments.
In short, unless the government prohibition is motivated by the same reasons that animate baseball's concerns, the prohibition isn't relevant. (Again, assuming that the morality of breaking laws is irrelevant to HOF considerations.)
"assuming that the morality of breaking laws is irrelevant to HOF considerations."
Well, steroid use kills two birds in this regard. It's a) illegal and b) intended to give the abuser an unfair advantage on the field of play. So, the idea that it was not technically against the CBA, is irrelevant.
Actually, cocaine use matters just as much as amphetamine use. Cocaine is a stimulant and is considered a performance-enhancing drug. It is on the WADA's prohibited list, in the "stimulants" section.
Then again, nobody seems to care about historical amphetamine use when looking at the effects of PEDs, so I guess we should ignore cocaine.
The argument that baseball didn't explicitly and in writing forbid steroid use doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
We need only look to the players' conduct itself to determine what they thought about the legitimacy of using steroids: it was something they universally thought necessary to hide. This is a pretty strong indicator that the players themselves believed use to be wrong, and violative of some norm.
Thanks for mentioning the fact that steroids ARE illegal (banned or not by their sport is irrelevant)...I find that too many folks in the media and too many fans overlook this aspect.
That may be but it seems unlikely because those who merely purchase and use steroids (without distributing them) have, for all practical purposes, no real legal exposure.
That aside, I don't think there's any real doubt that the norm is and was that steroids are cheating.
Here's my question. Why does no one care that hall of famers Mike Schmidt and Hank Aaron admitted to taking greenies which are performing enhancing drugs and taking them would constitue cheating; but if McGwire takes performing enhancing drugs he should never be allowed near the hall of fame? Just an honest question.
I think the even more significant difference between Perry and steroid users, which tcfatone touched on, is that every ball that left Perry's hands was not doctored. He enjoyed and possibly embellished his reputation as a spitballer, and doctoring a ball gave him an unfair advantage that extended beyond the specific number of doctored balls he threw (because the fear that he would throw a doctored ball presumably weighed on hitters' minds and affected their approach). But there is still something not insignificant to the idea that he was not cheating with every pitch he threw. A certain percentage of his pitches were unfairly treated, but plenty, presumably, were not. In contrast, *every* swing of the bat by a steroid user like Big Mac - when he was using anyway - benefited from the boost that steroids presumably gave him. Perry cheated selectively. Hitters on steroids knowingly cheated every time they swung a bat.
How sure can you be about anything you wrote here? We don't know that *any* swing McGwire took was affected by whatever he took, much less *every* swing. For all I know, steroids helped him feel it less between swings. We don't *know* anything, and we likely never will as it concerns what people took and how it affected them. And in the end, it doesn't, and shouldn't matter - except in the interests of science.
I'll save my moralizing for the team-building shenanigans of *my* team's GM.
OK... *IF* steroids offered McGwire a boost to his strength, then he enjoyed that benefit every time he swung a bat while he was using. It wasn't a device he switched on and off, depending on whether or not he wanted its help, and the steroid benefit wasn't some biochemical reaction that only kicked in when he was swinging a particular way. These aren't gamma rays, anger, and the Hulk we're talking about here.
I used this same line of reasoning when talking HoF with my son, and he countered with the point that he's never heard of any 14-year-old suffering drastically negative health effects by trying to throw an undetected spitball so that he'd have a prayer of a baseball career ten years later. It is implied that he HAS known kids who started using nasty chemicals of assorted kinds for the same purpose. Whether they have incurred drastically negative health effects from steroids is beyond my capacity to judge (Will?), but the athlete-as-role-model argument does seem valid to me on some level. I'd rather my sons not cheat at all (and to my knowledge, when playing interscholastic or other amateur ball, they never did/have), but as their dad, I REALLY wouldn't want them cheating in a way that screws up their health.
Using controlled substances like amphetamines was against the law as well. Should we start addressing the 60's as the "Greenies Era" and the 80's as the "Cocaine Era"? The show "Jersey Shore", besides being an assault on Western society, glorifies "juice heads" who use steroids to keep their washboard abs. The law is obviously not much of a deterrent and to me, a moot point when discussing sport.
One cannot rely on the argument that a certain drug was not explicitly banned by baseball, if that drug was illegal. Since it was illegal, it means it WAS banned by baseball, inherently. That's the point. I'm not saying the reason players should be punished for using steroids is because it was illegal, I am merely negating the falsehood that it wasn't banned by baseball. It was. It was an illegal substance. It's simple. Was steroid use allowed in MLB? No. Why? Because it was illegal. Baseball can't overrule the laws of the country. So anyone pointing to the fact that steroids weren't part of the official banned in baseball list as some sort of proof that they were not breaking any rules have it completely wrong. This has nothing to do with "greenies" or anything else. It's simply correcting a false notion as to the legality of using steroids by anyone, including baseball players. The only way one could claim the lack of steroids on a list of banned MLB substances has any relevance is if baseball had an exemption from the controlled substance laws of the country. There was no such exemption.
Now, in my opinion, I agree it is a moot point in regard to sport. But being a moot point doesn't mean we can rely on false claims. Steroid use was inherently banned from baseball. That is the fact. People should stop claiming it wasn't. Anyone who makes the claim is doing so to help make a case against punishing users, but this point is based on a falsehood.
No, baseball and other sports are closed systems. Is it legal for a person walking down the street to dig his shoulder into the chest of another and slam him against a wooden/plexiglass wall because the second person has a rubber disk at his feet? Of course it isn't. In hockey, however, such behavior is actively encouraged. Is it a crime to steal bats from a sporting goods store? Naturally. But if the thief hits a home run with one of the purloined bats, his home run counts.
One of the reasons baseball is the best of all games is that almost all of its rules are strictly enforced. The runner either beats the throw to first or he doesn't. The ball either lands foul or fair. There is no judgment involved, unlike in the NFL, where a referee could call holding on every play from scrimmage. Since the 2002 CBA, steroid use in baseball has been illegal. Maybe such usage should be legal or maybe it shouldn't, but there is now no doubt that it ISN'T. MLB also has explicit testing policies and penalties. Manny Ramirez got caught using an illegal substance, by baseball's rules, and so he missed 50 games. The discussion should begin and end there, without any wrangling about morality. Ramirez' HOF chances should decrease only by the amount due to the loss of a few HR/walks/2B/etc. in the games he missed. It is pointless to discuss anything that occurred with respect to PEDs prior to 2003. Play by the rules. Period.
P.S. Baseball will be an even better game when umpires start calling runners safe at second base when the infielder doesn't touch the bag and at the plate when the catcher obstructs the runner before he has the ball.
By your logic, McGwire could have broken out a needle and shot himself full of prohibited drugs on National TV, right there in the locker room, back in 2002, simply because those illegal drugs were not listed on the MLB CBA. The feds would simply have looked the other way because baseball is a "closed system." Makes no sense.
Of course the feds would not have looked the other way. However, the feds aren't the least bit relevant here. The umpires would (or should) have ignored what McGwire did in your hypothetical situation, and that's all I care about. Play the game by the written rules, and all will be well. If something goes seriously wrong, change the rules, but not retroactively. That baseball has had to change its rules so infrequently says a lot for the game.
tcfatone, I do agree with a lot of the thing you have been saying, but I disagree here. I think that it is / was MLB's responsibility to explicitly prohibit steroids even though it was against the law in the US. A drug that is illegal in the United States may not be illegal elsewhere in the world. Would it be "acceptable" if Mark McGwire told us that every time he went through his steroid regime, he did so in a country where such drugs were legal? While this would be an obvious ploy to skirt the US drug laws, what if we were talking about a player who was born in a country with lax drug laws, used PEDs as a teenager and continued to use them while he was at home in the winter? It would not surprise me at all to find out that there were several players in the 90s who used PEDs but never broke the law.
Given that a decent percentage of players could have legally taken PEDs (which were not banned by the MLB), is it reasonable to expect US-born players to respect US drug laws (which, as once can tell by reading these comments, many people think of as completely arbitrary) and put themselves at a relative disadvantage? I am not claiming that the player's behavior is correct. I think this whole situation is, in part, a consequence of the failure of MLB to act like the international corporation that it is. Claiming though, that an action is cheating when a subset of the players can perform that action both legally and within the stated rules of baseball doesn't sit well with me. I feel that the whole steroid (or greenie or cocaine) issue is unfortunate. I do wish players were and will be clean, but I have a hard time faulting the players too much.
For all the lawyers out there... Assume I had a job (in the States) with no stated drug policy. Suppose I visited Amsterdam and smoked marijuana. Upon returning to my job, the made me take a drug test, which I failed. Do they have any right to take any sort of action against me? Not that I would ever be in that situation, just curious.
In simplest terms, if players weren't doing anything wrong or against the rules, why is it that not a single player did steroids out in the open? Why must we perform mental gymnastics to excuse this behavior? I find it utterly perplexing.
"Would it be "acceptable" if Mark McGwire told us that every time he went through his steroid regime, he did so in a country where such drugs were legal? "
Well, no, it wouldn't be okay, because it would be an obvious lie. Look, I get your point, but it's a parlor game more than anything, as steroids would not be very useful if one had to travel to Columbia every time they wanted to fix. I have no doubt many foreign players used in their home countries, but I find it very hard to believe they stopped using at the border, for the entire baseball season.
The difference is that the 90s saw a huge spike in offense. Now, you and I might know that steroids had nothing to do with it, but the change in offensive levels necessitated a name for the era, and the steroids hysteria provided one.
In the 20's, possessing alcohol was illegal. In the 30's, it was suddenly OK.
Today it's legal to not buy health insurance. If the government has its way, that will soon be illegal.
If you want to ground your morality on arbitrary and politically motivated definitions of right and wrong, fine. Just be ready to do a lot of back-filling.
One of the weakest arguments w/r/t PED use is one based on the morass of U.S. drug laws, which have little to no relationship with sensible public-health policy.
Put another way, I'll care what the law says when tobacco is banned.
Joe,
People are making this "weak" argument merely to correct the false notion that steroid use was not banned by baseball. It was. Inherently. That's the point. When people stop making the false claim that steroid use wasn't prohibited by baseball, then you'll stop reading this "weak" rebuttal.
sorry tcfatone, but your logic is still flawed. It is not up to any corporation to uphold the law. At best they might have some obligation to report the crime to the authorities, but they have no standing to punish the criminal themselves. Indeed, doing so would constitute a breach of contract and open them up for legal action of their own. That is why companies have drug policies.
Think of it this way. Your company has no drug policy of any sort. You go to work, you smoke pot while on the job. Your manager sees you smoking pot and sends you home. Without any policy to go by you can sue for lost pay since he had no standing to send you home (unless they had one of those omnibus moral turpitude clauses where a manager can do whatever he wants). Lets say your manager instead of sending you home, calls the police. The police come and arrest you, you can still sue the employer for lost wages (you will probably lose though) but more importantly your company would be without your services during that time.
So, if drugs are illegal, lets say your company puts in a policy that if you do anything illegal, they get to suspend you. No problem. Just make sure you obey the speed limit in the parking lot. And don't spit on the sidewalk.
So, where does that leave us. Your company needs a drug policy. Even over and above the law. Because while its illegal to do steroids, it doesn't stop someone from hitting a baseball.
It's not a "false claim" that steroid use wasn't prohibited by baseball. You believe the fact that steroids were against the laws of the United States trumps the fact that they were not explicitly banned by the MLB rules. However, that is your opinion, it's not factual. MLB and MLBPA have to agree to a set of rules, guidelines and punishments collectively. I think that is important and relevant when ascribing a moral value judgment to steroid users.
The state of California allows the sale and possession of marijuana for medical use. The federal government does not. If you have a permit from the state, you can openly sell marijuana and the state and local police will look the other way. A DEA or FBI agent will not. I think that is analogous to the situation with MLB and the US government regarding steroids in the 80s and 90s.
If we are talking about the Hall of Fame, I don't believe the fact the steroids were illegal should keep someone out of the Hall of Fame who used them while they were not explicitly banned by MLB. However, I understand the other side of it - that the laws of US and many other countries and other sports leagues explicitly ban certain substances and this ban is an expression of social and cultural norms that view steroids as cheating. To me, if a given BBWA member believes that and wants to vote accordingly, that is their right.
If the argument is that using steroids was cheating even though it was not against baseball rules because it was against the law, then consider this scenario. Player A is from a Central American country with no laws governing the sale/distribution/use of steroids. His off-season regimen includes steroid use. His in-season exercise regimen doesn’t involve steroid use at all. Is he cheating? He broke no laws and no Major League Baseball rules were broken.
I think everyone is way too fixated on the past and it's very near sighted. I have said this before and I will say it again. The technology exists to clone your dog or cat. Just think about that for a second. Olympic testing was rendered a joke well over a decade after it happened. The testing in place now is not half as thorough as something rendered useless almost 15 years ago.
Not everyone appreciates my stance, but I really have to say that I don't care at all. I am no one in the grand scheme of things, but what we are looking at is nothing but an aversion tactic. This isn't Lyle Alzado's cycle any longer folks. If you are concerned about the game and its integrity, the who, what, why, when, where, and how are irreverent. It is still the elephant in the room and everyone is going act shocked in another decade when this has not fixed itself.
Agreed Oira61. And pardon the oversimplification, but players use because they accomplish several key goals (and it's likely most or all of us would do the same thing in the player's situation):
-Increased recovery time from both injury and workouts, plus a 162 game schedule
-Increase in muscle mass which, yes, helps you hit the ball harder and further OR throw harder and longer
-Helps increase feelings of well being and confidence (not to be underestimated)
All of which help you make a career (and potentially lucrative, life changing one, at that) out of playing a game.
Borrowing from Rob Neyer's article from today (and countless others who have made the point), if your career (or hitting the lottery) depended upon taking a pill 6 weeks on, 6 weeks off, for several years, with limited to no side effects, you would also do it.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Why was this addressed to me? I see no "screechiness" to my post. It's simply pointing out the logical direction in which Saint09 was headed. He makes the case that we would all take steroids under the conditions faced by McGwire, but since all players in the majors faced the exact same parameters as McGwire, logic dictates that Saint09 must believe that ALL players used. Screechiness? Or simply applied logic?
I'm missing how this is the logical end game to my position TC. And no: Many players chose not to use steroids.
I am trying to say that the steroids issue is best looked at, honestly, from the players position, asking yourself, "what would I do?", considering what is at stake.
And I'm not sure that answering, "I'd say no" is the "best" or "morally correct" answer. And should a player who uses feel guilty? Again, I'm not so sure he should.
"if your career (or hitting the lottery) depended upon taking a pill 6 weeks on, 6 weeks off, for several years, with limited to no side effects, you would also do it."
You claim we WOULD do it, and yet admit many players DIDN'T do it. What exactly is your point? I'm confused.
I'm not sure why players chose not to use. And it wasn't an "admission" when I said some players didn't use; it was an acknowledgement.
Why don't players use? Let's speculate: Maybe they had guilty consciences. Maybe they felt "their bodies were their temples" and refuse to put anything foreign into them, from cow's milk, to red meat, to, yes, pills and syringes. Maybe ill informed posters on their gym locker rooms telling them flatly that "steroids kill" scared them silly. Or maybe they just couldn't find a supplier.
My points are that I think it's naive to dismiss the temptation and decision to use, particularly when considering the benefits to the player's life (including success, riches, and chasing a dream) and/or pressure to keep up with the competition. My mother used to tell me to put myself into someone else's shoes before criticizing. That's what I'm doing.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
"My points are that I think it's naive to dismiss the temptation and decision to use, particularly when considering the benefits to the player's life (including success, riches, and chasing a dream) and/or pressure to keep up with the competition."
Who was dismissing the reasons people used? I think we all know why these players used...it's common sense. Does putting yourself into McGwire's shoes somehow excuse his behavior?
Yes it does help to excuse his behavior. And anyone who cries "that McGwire cheated America, cheated Roger Maris, had the nerve to hug Maris's son after breaking the record, blah, blah, blah" (see: Jeremy Schapp), is being dismissive of the reasons that players use. Ironically, players get healthier (through recovery) using HGH and other steroids. It's part of athletics (and society) and always will be. Players will always use. The sooner we understand this, move to regulate usage and accept the benefits of using within moderation, the sooner this becomes a non story. It won't happen of course.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
"... is being dismissive of the reasons that players use."
No, they aren't. They are simply saying that the reasons those players used was not sufficient to excuse the behavior. You may feel their reasons justify use... others disagree with that assessment.
Will, is there any legitimacy to the argument that steroids can help in the healing process? I know that corticosteroids (which are not controlled substances) can help with inflammation, but what is the physiological effect of steroids? Do they help muscles heal if injured? If so, are there equally effective, and legal, substitutes?
Based on the statements referenced by McGwire above, this was one aspect of his use. I believe he is not the first player to state that his steroid use was, to a certain degree, for a 'medicinal' purpose .
I feel badly for McGwire. Not that he didn't make his own bed and all. I'm glad he finally "came clean" but that's the point ... finally. He would have got more points in my book for being upfront most of a decade ago; not after everyone basically already knowing what he had up to. Having integrity means more than a belated "me too" confession after dozens and dozens have already marched down that road. I certainly don't have any real insights into McGwire's heart but that's the view from the cheap seats.
The one thing I'm curious about is there are conflicting reports on whether his statement also admitted HGH usage or not in addition to the steroids. Perhaps its a nitpick but it's also got some significance.
And, maybe I'm just a sucker, but I don't think McGwire made this admission to increase his Hall of Fame chances. I think he wanted to work again in baseball relatively scandal-free.
The timing of the announcement (shortly after the HoF voting results) might have been a factor. Perhaps he was afraid would drop off if he made the announcement before the voting. Or maybe (sucker-check) he waited till afterwards so he didn't cause an unwanted distraction. Perhaps its a lopsided way of respecting the game, but I think he would've confessed earlier if he had really wanted to improve his Hall of Fame chances and after seeing how Pettite, Giambi, and later A-Rod's image remained relatively intact.
Said in the Costas interview as well as the initial statement that he used HGH, among other substances. Not really sure why that's terribly significant.
I don't think it is "terribly significant", but at least a little significant just from the aspect that HGH can't be tested for. He could've neglected to mention HGH and no one could've proven otherwise, so the admission does say something about how "open and honest" he's being.
Then again, he also forgot the names of what he was taking...
I can actually see this hurting his HOF chances, since writers can no longer vote for him from behind the veil of ignorance, claiming that there's no proof he used. I can't see this generation of voters consciously establishing the precedent that steroid use can be overlooked.
1. Steroids have no effect upon perfromance.
2. The effect of steroids can't be quantified.
3. Even if the effect of steroids could be quantified on an individual basis, there is no way to quantify the effect across MLB.
4. Even if we could quantify the effect across MLB, the numbers of users is so small that its not worth worrying about.
5. Even if the numbers of users was large enough to make a difference, both pitchers and hitters were users, so the effect is a wash to the game.
6. Even if steroids did have an effect on the game, isn't it better for the game if we just turn the page and move on?
7. Who Cares?
I think you are missing one thing: I'd like to know WHY I should care that Mark McGwire used steroids. I am total apologist. If I had a vote, I'd vote McGwire in to the HOF today. Why should I care that he used PED drugs?
-Increased recovery time from both injury and workouts, plus a 162 game schedule
-Increase in muscle mass which, yes, helps you hit the ball harder and further OR throw harder and longer
-Helps increase feelings of well being and confidence (not to be underestimated)
I look forward to a time when the hysteria has settled down and we can admit that there's probably a steroid dosage level that can help keep athletes on the field while posing minimal side effect risks. Of course, we'd have to do actual testing to find out what the right level is, rather than just sticking to the "steroids = bad" script.
If you told athletes they could take steroids, but only *this* much, how many would actually limit themselves to the mandated amount? There's a reason we don't open that door.
Sorry the "Post Reply" doesn't work on my computer, I'm replying to bflaff.
I guess I see that issue along the same lines as any other prescription drug. When my doctor writes me a prescription for, say, vicodin, how does he know I'm going to limit myself to the mandated amount? Well, he doesn't. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to prescribe it in the first place.
That's a reasonable point, but I think the belief concerning steroids is that the more you take the bigger the effect, and that was my concern. If you take the prescribed amount of normal kind of prescription drug, it should give you the desired effect, and taking more than you're supposed to won't necessarily make that virus go away even faster, so there's no obvious need to abuse them. (Unless we're talking pain that's incredibly hard to manage or a desire to live life in a daisy haze.) But with steroids, users may not be content to live with what someone else decides is a safe amount for their body, and the little help it may give them, if they believe that the amount of steroids to amount of benefit ratio is close to 1:1, and that blowing past the suggested dosage would offer a lot more help. Then, if some players do abuse steroids, and some of those people achieve superhuman, bank account swelling feats a la McGwire in 98, then the players who limit themselves to the mandated amount may be compelled to follow the lead (and success) of those people... and we're back to square one.
I know where you're going with this argument, but I can't buy it. There are way too many counterarguments.
A point related to this that people rarely think about is this:
Twenty years from now I'm going to be in my late 40's. As a casual athlete, if I can take a safe dosage of some sort of steroid/testosterone that makes me feel like I'm in my 20's without causing dangerous side effects, I want to be able to do it. I don't want something that could potentially have a very positive impact on my quality of life be vilified because a few "sacred" records were broken and Congress had a fit. If you're a "keep the 'roiders out of the HOF!" guy, think about that. Is your stance on that issue going to be different if you're taking a legal dosage of steroids/testosterone to improve your quality of life when you're in your 40's or 50's (or even your 60's or 70's)?
Glad to see so many rational thinking people here. Until I see scientific evidence that the steroid cycle/regimen that a particular player was doing could have given him the skills to be a better baseball player - through recovering from injury, through helping build muscle mass that helps in baseball-related skills, whatever - I can't see how PED's are any more "responsible" for McGwire's numbers than the juiced ball, smaller ballparks, smaller strike zone, use of videotape, etc. Was it wrong? Yes, it was against the law. Was McGwire the only one? Clearly not. McGwire admitted to what he knew - that he did PEDs with a certain rationale, flawed as some of us may think that rationale is/was. But he doesn't not believe - nor does he have any way of knowing - how that may have altered his "real" home run totals, etc. My guess is that in 30 years, certain players will have successfully sued MLB to allow them to take low-level doses of steroids under medical supervision (or perhaps HGH) and cite credible scientific and medical evidence. Then HOF voters who "feel bad" and want to draw more attention to themselves will "revisit" the past and say "Hey, McGwire wasn't doing any more or less than Bret Boone III is allowed to do now," and they will make a big deal about getting him into the Hall when he's about 70, along with Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens.
It's pretty simple to measure the effects. According to Game of Shadows Bonds started taking PEDs in 98 in response to the McGwire/Sosa fraud. Just take Bonds' numbers through 98 project a normal career pattern through the end of his career and compare those numbers to the fraudulent numbers that Bonds put up through the remainder of his career. That's the effect that PEDs had on that player. You can extrapolate from there.
The head in the sand nonsense that it didn't make any difference anyway is delusional. Just like McGwire's statement that he only used to get healthy. It's delusional because you want to believe it.
Yeah, it's totally easy to determine the effect of steroids on performance, if you just make crap up that matches your preconceptions.
If you really think there is a "normal career progression" that can be applied, through all the noise of changes in ballparks, baseballs, strike zones, training methods, etc. -- with tight enough error bars to distinguish Barry Bonds from Barry Larkin, much less steroid Barry from clean Barry -- you're delusional.
The scary part is that juries think like you, and attorneys know this.
sgshaw, I think most observers would accept a controlled study conducted over multiple seasons. But until something can be proved to be repeatable, it can’t really be proved. The studies done by Penn State (Grader and Halleck) on the very real physical changes made to the baseball during that period, for example, are far more convincing that the anecdotal evidence about this guy or that using PEDs of an undisclosed brand and undisclosed amounts over an undisclosed period. We’d never accept such “evidence” as useful in determining, say, whether a new anti-cancer drug has an impact on human health, so why would we ever settle here (except that falling for the PEDs = gazillion homeruns conceit neatly fits our preconceived notions).
With respect, you cannot prove a single thing about the efficacy of PEDs by looking at one player's career. There is no way to know what the non-juiced Bonds would have looked like without having a time machine and way to prevent him from using "the cream" and "the clear" in the first place.
To tease out the effects of *anything*, including PEDs, you need reasonable sample sizes.
While I think you're right that we lack the necessary data to judge the true physical effects of PEDs, that doesn't mean we don't know enough to ban them anyway. Corking a bat is against the rules, although we didn't need piles of data to justify it.
Actually, all recent studies show that corked bats don't make a ball travel any further than uncorked bats; so that rule is a relic of an anecdotal era.
Curious how so many in "the media" turned a blind eye to the behavior of MLB owners/management/players in the "steroid era", and now they *begin* to do their job and investigate what went on.
The media didn't cover it because the fans didn't care to read about it. MLB didn't test for it because the fans didn't care if players were using it. Neither the media nor MLB wanted to ruin a good thing.
Once Barry Bonds starting breaking records, fans started to suddenly care about steroids so the media started reporting on it. Then Congress inexplicably got involved. Suddenly, dollars were at risk so MLB started to care and implemented drug testing.
Everyone is to blame...perhaps least of all the players for whom the decision to use steroids was sometimes driven by desperation. Of course, the players have taken the brunt of the blame from the hypocritical media and MLB management.
The first player who comes out and tells the TRUTH will be my hero.
What truth is that? The truth that they don't regret having taken steroids. Do you REALLY think McGwire regrets taking steroids? I don't. Instead we have to listen to all these PC bullship mea culpas.
The statement I want to hear is, "While I don't recommend anyone use steroids to enhance their athletic performance and while I would never encourage anyone to do anything illegal, I cannot say that I regret using steroids. They helped me stay on the field and reach my potential. They helped me win games for myself and my teammates and make millions of dollars for myself and for baseball. While I do regret lying about using steroids, I cannot regret using them during a time when the use was tacitly encouraged by my team, MLB, the media, and the fans."
Maybe Barry Bonds will be the guy who does this. He doesn't seem to be too concerned with being popular or politically correct.
"While I don't recommend anyone robbing a bank to increase the amount of money in their wallet and while I would never encourge anyone to do anything illegal, I cannot say I regretted robbing that bank. It helped me buy lots of stuff for me and my family. While I do regret lying about robbing a bank, I cannot regret doing it during a time when massive amounts of consumer advertising require that I maintain a certain standard of living"
I think it was the tone that people objected to. The one-liner didn't really move the conversation forward.
There is a point to be made about the sanctity of records, I suppose (though I don't necessarily buy it) and the way to make that point is to present the evidence. That's just my opinion.
I actually really like the comment vigilance here.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
You've got to be kidding me. Tone? You are imagining things. How could pointing out that Roger Maris may have been a victim be considered unimportant as a rebuttal to someone claiming steroid use was a "victimless crime"? Especially when one considers McGwire himself felt compelled to call the Maris family to apologize?
You know what I've noticed? In these steroid debates, the posts which get deleted always seem to be from those who stand against the steroid users. You think that's coincidence? Or perhaps people are being selectively "vigilant"?
Also, compared to other illegal activities that happen around baseball both on the field of play such as bench-clearing brawls and throwing at a batter's head, or off-field issues like forged identifications, tax evasion, beating their spouses and drinking and driving, using PEDs is comparatively a misdemeanor. As a comparison, Elijah Dukes got more chances and faced less public ridicule than Mark McGwire. Al Martin had two wives. Brett Myers punched his wife and just got a new contract with the Rangers. Etc., ad nauseum.
And no, the ones who stand against the steroid users don't always get flagged either. Just ones who try to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
I think Barry Bonds might do this if he was given the room to do so by the government. However, Bonds can not admit to using PEDs while he is being charged with lying to a grand jury about such usage.
Isn't it possible he DOES regret taking steroids? For whatever gain they gave him, they also possibly taken a great toll on him emotionally given all that's gone on in the last few years, and we have no idea if there's any health issues he's had that may be related to them.
I'd be curious to see Nate throw together PECOTA cards for Bonds, Clemens, McGwire etc. following the last season these players played clean to see how far above their expected level of performance they each played once they started using. I wonder if they all fall into a specific percentile of improvement with any consistency.
Bonds was a first ballot Hall of famer before he ever took steroids. In his last year with the Pirates, which presumably was before he hooked up with Balco, he hit 311/456/624, and that wasn't far off his 'natural progression' up to that point. His performance was pretty consistent up to 2000 when at age 35, he suddenly became Babe Ruth. While steroids certainly gave him more power, you wonder if the extra weight didn't rob him of speed, and also put extra strain on his knees. He stole 37 bases in 1997, and his totals went way down from there, though his success rate improved. Bonds probably would have been close to 600 HR and 600 SB even without steroids. He only sets the HR career and single season records with them.
The notion that strength = speed certainly has been under-reported. We know track & field and football players, among others, use PEDs to gain quickness and speed. So why has all the attention about PED use been paid to the home run hitters and nothing to the guys who steal bases for a living?
Are PEDs selective, affecting only certain muscle groups and not others? If not, then shouldn't we have seen some change in the base rates for steals during the PEDs era, too?
There is also a relationship between weight and speed, the more you weigh, the more leg muscle you need to get the same acceleration, and training for speed is different than training for power. At least in the case of Bonds, his speed vanished the more he bulked up.
Why should I believe anything McGwire said in this interview?
Palmerio was under oath in front of Congress and lied. They're all using the same MO: Deny, deny, deny until they want or need something (a job, the press to leave them alone, Hall of Fame votes, etc...). Then they come "clean"... but only on their own terms.
It's theatre and a farce.
We have 38 days for another name to be leaked off of the players union list that is now in the hands of federal prosecutors. Which, hopefully, will lead to the full list being revealed.
Wonderful story by Will and great comments, especially by tcfatone, show why BP is the best in the land, a blog on steriods...........oops, maybe wrong analogy.
I don't think this was a victim-less crime. The clean players who competed against McGwire were victims. Specifically, any pitcher who gave up a home run that would otherwise have been a fly ball. Or the clean power hitters, such as Fred McGriff, whose achievements are now more difficult to evaluate.
They're not victims. They're people who made a choice.
Was Tony Gwynn a victim of players who worked on their cardio? Of course not.
Everyone vilifying McGwire is making an implicit value judgement that using steroids was somehow wrong. And if you really think that, I'd like you to back it up. Make the judgement explicit, and justify your assertion. Otherwise you're just spouting an opinion, and your opinion alone is not persuasive.
Boxer A knocks out Boxer B. If all Boxer A did was his cardio and other workouts, then no problem. But if Boxer A loaded his gloves with something not permitted under the rules, then yes I think Boxer B was the victim of a pretty egregious act (if perhaps not one that is technically a crime). And the fact that Boxer B made the "choice" to get into the ring does not have any bearing on that.
The real victims of this crime are the fans, who have to hear about such issues ad nauseum.
The solution to EVERYTHING in this entire debate is contained on this very page. Clearly we must clone 3000 McGwires, 3000 Clemenses, and 3000 Bondses. 1000 of each subject shall be brought up with a strictly controlled doping regimen, 1000 of each shall be force fed cocaine and greenies, and the other 1000 shall proceed cleanly forward. The winner will be the line of descendants with the largest aggregate salary.
Modern ethics and morality are too far behind scientific advancement to save us from repetitive BS and the general stupidity of HOF voters.
Ironically, the stubbornness of the BBWAA might just be enough to keep players from the steroid era out of the Hall of Fame. If they won't accept on-base percentage and identify Hall of Famers based on fearlessness or "feel", they just might stick to their guns long enough where most of the "steroids era" candidates are left to the Veteran's committee.
And wouldn't that be interesting if the Veteran's Committee started allowing their peer steroid users in?
Is there any evidence that steroids actually enhance performance other than blind speculation and weak anecdotal evidence? Because the evidence that they do not enhance performance is pretty strong, per research documented at steroids-and-baseball.com. It references 5 different scientific studies on the effects of steroid usage on baseball performance --all based on sophisticated analysis of real data, and each using a different approach, that each reach the same basic conclusion: there is no visible effect attributable to steroids. Or as the author of one such studies concludes:
There is no evidence that steroid use has altered home-run hitting and those who argue otherwise are profoundly ignorant of the statistics of home runs, the physics of baseball, and of the physiological effects of steroids.
Have there been any scientific studies showing a boxer loading his gloves with something is enhancing his performance. Without such a study we are indulging in blind speculation and weak anecdotal evidence. I guess the hundreds of players who have taken steroids and thousands of athletes from other sports who have taken them have been indulging in blind speculation too. 70+ home run seasons by players in the declining parts of their careers must have come about because of improvement in nutrition and training methods. To think steroids might have played a role is to display ignorance of the physics of baseball Ther is no evidence of steroids affecting performance whatsoever. None at all. Don't see it. All a bunch of silly anecdotes.
An interesting wrinkle to the McGwire story mentioned by The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001u/george-bush-baseball-mcgwire
One ongoing criticism of Mark McGwire was how he handled his congressional testimony. I've always found this criticism unfair: McGwire was under oath and was not given immunity from prosecution. If McGwire admitted to using illegal substances in front of Congress, he faced the very real prospect of being prosecuted. I think it's unlikely he would have gone to jail but likely he would have been fined and perhaps put on probation.
That is, for the most part, widely known. What is less widely known, I think, is that Reps. Henry Waxman and Tom Davis, who lead the hearings, sought to give McGwire immunity. Alberto Gonzales, then the Attorney General under President George W. Bush, denied the request for immunity. The Atlantic speculates that Bush himself denied the request for various reasons including Bush's religiosity and the implication of his own culpability as former owner of the Texas Rangers.
However, simply knowing that Waxman and Davis requested immunity for the witnesses in that hearing really changes my opinion of that exercise. Previously, I thought Congress was merely grandstanding and not interested in really learning anything. Knowing now that immunity was offered makes me think they were interested in learning something and the debacle that ensued pushed MLB into action (for better or for worse)
McGwire apparently says in his interview with Costas something akin to that, because he didn't get immunity, he did not want his family members and friends brought to trial or harassed over something he did.
I'm just tired of all the sanctimonious crap. Rose, Shoeless Joe and the known users in. Set the bar 5% higher for known PED users if you must, but for the love of sweet Jehovah spare me this Cheating sturm und drang. Steroids can't help you make solid contact, just maintain bat speed post-contact.
The real question that is of import when discussing the Steroid Cheat is not whether he is a better individual or a more or less worthy candidate for the HOF than a player who didn't use PED's. No, the matter turns on a different sort of personality characteristic. It's somewhere along the spectrum of self destructive behavior in between self-loathing and the capacity for dismissing future consequences to body and reputation.
In the pre-testing environment, where it was against the rules but not checked on (MLB hadn't yet listened to the Great Communicator, who urged us to Trust, but Verify) a great many players opted for artificial enhancements. I fail to see any difference between this and the rest of the cheating that happens on a daily basis in baseball. Furthermore, I see no difference between a baseball player using PED's and an aspiring actress getting a breast augmentation.
In short, the discussion has been miscast from the beginning.
- A controlled, double blind study showed that over 10 weeks of working out, weightlifters on steroids increased muscle mass by 9.3% as opposed to 2.7% for control group.
- 10% greater force applied to the ball leads to 5% increase in ball speed off the bat, which can increase HR/inPlay by 50% +.
- That's likely an overestimate, but it would bring McGwire's 70 down to something closer to 50.
Does that study show how fast those weightlifters lose their strength when they go off the juice?
I found as more plausible the studies done on the effects of maple bats, which are denser and exhibit superior bending modulii to ash. Players started using maple bats in 1997 (although they weren't approved by MLB until 1998) and Bonds used a maple bat during 2001.
Then there's the weather. 1998 was the warmest year on record, 0.52 °C above the long-term 1961-1990 average, because it was dominated by an extreme El Niño.
The problem is that strength does not translate directly into hitting. Just as the fastest players don't automatically become the best base stealers, the strongest players don't necessarily hit home runs. Both have a decided advantage, yes, but in a (flawed) study done a few yrs back, strength did not translate into better hitting. I would venture a guess that Dustin Pedroia is not stronger than Jason Varitek and certainly not twice as strong.
This, I think, may be the nub of the question. Many speak of "unfair" advantages gained by PED users. The first question is, to my mind, what advantages are gained, and how do we define "unfair."
To posit a reductio ad absurdum argument, let's assume taking aspirin lessens pain from headaches. Let's further assume that players without headaches play better than players with headaches. Is a player "enhancing his performance" by taking aspirin? Now, of course, aspirin isn't a controlled substance, which is illegal to possess in the U.S. So the question becomes then, is whatever "enhanced performance" gained by steroid taking "unfair" as opposed to aspirin taking simply because of the illegality of it? Is it an access question? That is, because steroids are illegal, only some players have access to them? Is there data to support such an inference? Or, is it that, as a matter of policy, we don't want players to choose between breaking the law and playing better?
So this leads to the question of why steroids are illegal. Is it because of deleterious side-effects? Aspirin, taken in sufficient quantities, and by people with certain conditions, will also produce bad health outcomes. I imagine that there are ways to use steroids to reduce these side effects to acceptable levels.
My point is that, like most questions of ethics, the steroid argument is about line-drawing. I honestly don't know where that line "should" be drawn. I do think, however, that simply stating PED users gained an "unfair advantage" without looking at what that advantage was vis-a-vis other "performance enhancing" and/or illegal behavior, sells the game, the players, and the fans short.
Obviously Pedroia is not twice as strong as Varitek, and what you essentially said is that strength doesn't make you a good hitter, which nobody will debate. But if you took every single one of Pedroia or Varitek's swings last year and added some bat speed to it, they would have hit more home runs.
Noted baseball physicist Alan Nathan estimates 10% increase in muscle mass leads to 3% increase in batted ball speed, a number which he describes as "on very solid footing". Aerodynamics says that will make a ball fly up to 15 feet farther. Strength doesn't make you a good hitter, but increasing your bat speed will undoubtedly improve your HR totals.
But you take Pedroia's hand-eye coordination and reflexes and eyesight and give him Varitek's strength or the strenght of any bigger player and add 10-20 pounds of muscle mass and suddenly Pedroia is going to hit quite a few more home runs. Non?
Pedroia already hit quite a few more home runs... then in 2009, he wasn't quite as prolific.
Point being, we really don't know the specificities of the science of hitting, batting stances, angle of the bat, type of wood, ball, weather patterns, etc. Perhaps its just the ability for steroids to keep players healthy and/or recover that lets those perform better, as opposed to some force-related question.
Mark McGwire said that he would have broken the home run record without steroids. Then he goes on to discuss his great hand to eye coordination and goes back to his days in little league. When I think of great hand to eye coordination of think of Ted Williams-Mark McGwire-give me a break
steroids were illegal...you can argue whether or not steroids help you hit a baseball or not, but the fact is the intent to gain an unfair advantage was there.
even if steroid use and the strength gained does not translate into power, even if he used it to maintain his health- how is that any different? the steroids may not have helped him hit more HRs, but they may have enabled him to play more games, and thus hit more HRs. is cheating to reserve health different than cheating to break records? in the end, numbers lead to fame and the next contract.
it will be interesting if someone like pettite, a fringe HoF now, continues to win and makes a better case for enshrinement. "i only did hgh for my health." what if we learn pedro used to bulk up and give his shoulder a few years more. how would you compare them to someone like koufax, who ended his career way early due to chronic pain?
But this is exactly the point: where is the line in attempting to define "intent to gain an unfair advantage?"
How does "Hey, Doc, I need another cortisone injection in my bum knee so I can play today" compare to "Hey, [insert trainer name here], I need some HGH to keep me from feeling like my legs are going to fall off from those squats I did so I can play today?"
If it's illegality that differentiates the two, then what about "Hey, man, I feel like crap, you got any greenies I can take so I can play today?"
The feeling I get from most published opinion on this issue is that steroids are "just different" than amphetimines or other illegal stimulants that players might take. Did Doc Gooden have the intent to gain an "unfair advantage" when he did cocaine before a game?
As for comparing anyone to Koufax, what about comparing him to Tommy John, or the multitdue of pitchers who have extended their careers with the surgery named after him? Did they gain an "unfair advantage" because of this medical advancement?
"where is the line in attempting to define "intent to gain an unfair advantage?"...i think the line should be pretty obvious...if you think you might go to jail for possessing a substance, or have to buy it off a black market, or go to central america to buy it, or get some shady MD or dentist to write it for you, or feel you have to keep it secret, it's probably unfair. for all the "i didn't know it was illegal" defenses out there, you'd think if you have a product, and you are not sure it's legal, you could ask MLB or even the union to find out for you.
there is a difference between established medical treatments and self medicating for an advantage. a cortisone shot or aspirin or ibuprofen or naprosyn are established meds with FDA approval for their use. taking stimulants for ADHD would be OK, abusing them for a rush would not- same goes for psedophedrine (i believe NFL players have been busted for this and have to get a waiver if the have a cold). did doc gooden get an advantage from cocaine- i guess he could have, but my guess is he was just addicted. and babe ruth was just a drunk. for the record, i would put the use of greenies on the same level as hgh for injuries.
my point with koufax was that there are several athletes who have had careers cut short by injury that could have put up more numbers, like mac, with steroids were used for healing. mantle? i always thought that koufax had an arthritic elbow and chronic pain, not necessarily a ligament injury
sanott, I think your argument is reasonable, as long as it is consistent. That is, if illegality is the test for "unfairness," then all those who have admitted to using illegal substances while playing should be seen in the same light. I take it that if the FDA were to approve HGH or another substance for treatment of injury, you would not consider use of such as "intent to gain an unfair advantage."
This brings me to an interesting question: Should professional sports explore the possibility of gaining FDA approval for use of HGH or steroids for medicinal pruposes? If, for example, it can be shown (and I have no expertise in this field, so I have no idea if this is possible) that steroids or HGH can be used as an aid to injury recovery with acceptable levels of risk to the patient (since all medication carries some risk), should MLB push for approval?
Lastly, I'm sure you're right about Koufax. I didn't mean to imply Tommy John surgery would have saved his career, only that, in general, medical advances are made that alter players' prospects for career longevity. It could be that HGH and/or steroids fall into that category also.
human growth hormone is classically used for GH deficiency i.e. people with short stature because of the deficiency or because of a pituitary problem causing decreased secretion. it is known to help build lean body mass, and has actually been approved for children with prader-willi syndrome (they over-eat and get morbidly obese). i want to say that there are likely studies to see if it helps in other medical problems, though i don't know about wound/injury healing per se.
one problem with asking the union or mlb about use of drugs is that the players are inherently looking for an advantage over other players. what is the point in asking the union to use a med for an advantage, only for the rest of the players to start taking it as well. the players themselves need to step up and police themselves, or at least the truly clean ones do.
The law of the United States, sure. Assuming they took the drugs in the US.
But the law of the US is irrelevant to the rules of baseball. If they weren't violating the rules of baseball then baseball has no grounds to punish them.
"I'd be curious to see Nate throw together PECOTA cards for Bonds, Clemens, McGwire etc. following the last season these players played clean to see how far above their expected level of performance they each played once they started using. I wonder if they all fall into a specific percentile of improvement with any consistency. "
I've long suggested that BP conduct a similiar analysis to evalaute the benefits of PEDs. And I've always thought the the key was getting enough data points by uncovering as many of the users (and the time of their use) as possible rather than suggesting we just turn the page.
As I wrote some time ago ...
"BP may be a little defensive / paranoid over the steroid issue because it would make the whole idea of player comps under PECOTA a house of cards.
Is the best comp for someone - a clean Don Mattingly or proven cheater like Palmeiro? Which would you use to project that players career?
If McGuire turns up on somebody's comp, do we only project him to attain McGuire's numbers assuming he takes as many enhancing drugs as McGuire did?
That is the dilemma that BP faces and makes it much easier for them to ignore the problem and plead to turn the page on the subject. Lest all those comps become tainted."
Those words are as true today as the first time I wrote it. Except we have another data point today.
1. Bud needs to use the ARod mess (and Orza / union complicity)ADD MCGWIRE NOW to leverage the union to reopen drug testing to close some of the loopholes.
2. Include blood testing to address HGH and other possible PEDS.
3. Store blood samples for future testing for new designer steroids. Perhaps it might be impossible to retroactively convict someone for using a new designer steroid, but you could certainly ask a player if he used it, and confirm whether he is a liar or not. At the least it would provide an incentive for players to think twice before trying a new designed steroid designed to beat the system.
Point #3 might be especially helpful to anyone thinking about becoming a member of the Hall of Fame.
Terible idea. You're basically saying that the league can decide later which drugs are illegal now. So I could take something no one has ever told me is disallowed, and find out 10 years from now that I've been banned from baseball because someone since then has decided that something I took shouldn't have been permitted (on what grounds, I have no idea).
Rules are rules. Rules should be enforced without exception. But the people those rules govern need to know what those rules are in order to follow them. If you're going to change the rules later then they can't possibly influence behaviour. I can't know now what the rules that govern me now are going to be.
1. Drug testing itself has loopholes. The designers are always ahead of the security, so the loopholes will always be there.. either that, or half the league will develop ADHD.
2. In the future, I'm sure someone will design a PED that bypasses bloodtesting. Not to say it isn't a noble pursuit, but browbeating the union into allowing bloodtesting won't solve all the problems.
3. Point number three is almost irrelevant. A grand majority of major league players will never sniff the Hall of Fame. But they do want to be paid and even the league minimum (400kish) is huge. Remember, it wasn't just potential Hall of Famers using PEDs, but the Alex Sanchezes and Adam Piatts of the world. So, the below average to average major league cheater will still cheat. Meanwhile, storing those samples opens up so many problems with properly handling the evidence, keeping the integrity of the sample, and keeping information from leaking to the media that it'll cause more of a hassle than its worth. Even then, the worth is of dubious value.
Just because you pontificate from a soapbox doesn't mean you know how to clean up baseball.
We can't hope to catch every person using the lastest drug so we might as well do nothing?
Instead I proposed a specific solution to close the current loopholes and put abusers on notice.
Exactly nothing will happen until the negotiated barriers to further testing are removed (point 1). No program can be put into place before this so I'm surprised you'd disagree with it.
Invoke the best testing methods available (point 2). Are you against using the best methods? The lack of HGH testing is the biggest loophole. Close it now. Might someone design a PED that bypasses current testing? Probably? That's why I proposed number 3.
Capture patient samples to test for PEDs beyond current testing capabilities (point 3). Testing samples are already being stored for years for the Tour de France. Could the handling of such samples be improved? Probably.
I conceded that it might be retroactively difficult to 'convict' (in a legal sense) someone using such samples but such samples would provide the definitive proof (in the court of public opinion) when someone denies using such designer PEDS in the future.
You think players are shaking in their boots worried whether the list of 100 some players will come out? Just think there intrepedation if there samples were still available for testing in the future.
Will that solve the whole problem? Probably not, but it will raise the stakes for taking PEDs in the future.
I just read an interesting comment by Steve Goldman, in the chat transcript from yesterday:
"Steven Goldman: You're vastly oversimplifying. Steroids lead to the production of testosterone in the body which, when combined with crazy exercise, can lead to the building of additional muscle. It's not like Barry Allen getting struck by a lightning bolt and a few chemicals and turning into the Flash. So bigger? Sure, but I'm not certain that adds a great deal to hitting a baseball. Stronger? Granted, but strength isn't the only aspect of hitting a ball, even hitting it farther -- you still have to hit it right, and there are also consequences to being over-built in your swing. To go back to Ruben Sierra again, he became so musclebound he had no flexibility at the plate and couldn't reach a pitch an inch outside. Faster? Okay, but track stars pick these things up and gain fractions of a second over a complete race, so much is the average player going to gain running 90 feet?"
This is the flaw with most of the analysis. People tend to presume the difference bewteen 20 HR and 35 HR is an incredible amount of strength and/or bat speed...but that's not necessarily the case. The difference tends to be a fraction of a second in bat speed...or a little more muscle mass/less muscle fatigue, which leads to the ability to keep the bat head traveling through the zone at the speed and location the hitter desires. That fractional difference can lead to something as small as one additional hit per week, and one additional HR per two weeks. In the hits per week example, over 600 ABs, this is the difference between being a .250 hitter and a .293 hitter (with the corresponding .043 point increase in OBP too). In the HRs per two weeks example, this is the difference between hitting 22 HRs and 35 HRs. As a corner IF or OF, a .250 BAvg, 22 HR hitter is considered remarkably average...whereas a .293 BAvg, 35 HR hitter is considered a star player. In the case of a Bonds or a McGwire, and their already phenomenal HR/FB rates, it could be one additional HR per week, which is the difference between a 40+ HR hitter and breaking the single-season HR record.
Now, my example is not to be considered scientific, as I have no idea whether PEDs have the impact as described above. I imagine that for some players, it has less of an impact, and that for already great players, it could have even more of an impact. I think that the problem is that the impact does not have to be that significant on a micro level (helping a individual player stay healthy/feel better at the plate or on the mound/improve bat speed and balance...or pitch speed and delivery repition for pitchers, ever so slightly) to have a fairly significant impact on a macro level (enabling more HRs/XBH/hits).
So while I feel the issue is overblown as compared to the amphetamine abuse which MLB also ignored, I feel that both impacted player performance and should not be dismissed as insignificant.
200 comments have been left for this post.
I'm glad he admitted it. He should still be in the Hall regardless.