Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Dog Football! Which Breeds Are Best Suited For The Gridiron?

Now We Know: Everyone Didn't Do it. The Case Against the Superstar Criminals

Lost in the immediate reaction to the news of ARod's apparent positive steroid tests (see-- everyone did it. How we can ever tell; and how did this get out when it was supposed to be a study that guaranteed anonymity-- a legit issue but one suspects that the source of the leak might not be where people think) is a very simple but ultimately damning aspect of this study.

They tested everyone-- 1200-- so apparently everyone on the 40 man rosters of all 30 big league clubs. At a time when all the key actors save Mark McGwire who had just retired were still around. Before the Congressional hearings and before the new penalties-- which was why the study was done in the first place, to determine some baseline figures concerning PED use to assist MLB in developing a new policy.

And when they tested everyone, how many tested positive? 104, or fewer than 9%. Let's assume that they missed some-- I don't know how good this testing is, but assume that HGH or some other designer drugs escaped detection. Or some players got lucky as to their regimen and the timing of the test. Maybe an equal number -- which seems high-- of users were not detected as actually tested positive. If so, then 82% of the sample still did not test positive and were almost certainly not using. Even if those numbers were disporpotionately high among that part of the 40 man roster which was not yet on the big club, that would still leave about 75% of the big leaguers who were clean.

So if 75-80%-- and maybe a lot more-- were not using-- unless one believes that steroid use was already on the wane and, given the fairly lax penalty process in place back then, why would it have been, then the truth is that not only wasn't "everyone doing it", but the vast majority of big league players, for whatever reason, weren't doing it.

And yet we have the detritus of the following players either confirmed or heavily suspected to be PED users:

1) the greatest HR hitter of the time

2) the 2nd greatest HR hitter of the time

3) the 3rd greatest HR hitter of the time

4) the best all-around player destined to surpass the HR counts of all of the above

5) the greatest pitcher of the time

6) the greatest catcher of the time (who quite suspiciously one spring training showed up 25 lbs lighter and with an entirely different physique

7) The man with the highest combination of hits and HRS in the time

8) The best hitter from AS Break 1999 through 2001

 

If you told me that 1/10, or even 1/5th, of a given universe took a special supplement, and that the vast majority of the game's records or highest performances came from those players, how could I conclude anything but that the "supplement" had a signficant effect.? And that if that supplement was either illegal in society in general or within the sport, or at the least frowned upon by the sport's powers-that-be, you would also conclude that some of the game's biggest "stars" had gained a lot of their success by unfair means. That the cheaters were winning.

And in the face of all that we're supposed to throw our hands up, admit them all to the HOF, and say who are we to judge? When they were  doing something that most of their peers would not do-- for whatver reason-- and, as a result, were breaking records, achieving incredible marks, and earning a lot more money?

I say stay vigilant and if that means that in the end none of these criminals-- for that's what they are in either societal or baseball terms-- go to Cooperstown, so be it. It would be the least they could do after what they've done to harm their sport.

Comment 34 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Uh, no offense

But I’m pretty sure Hammerin’ Hank and The Babe didn’t use. And, technically, they are the second and third greatest HR hitters of all time, respectively.

"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby

by DyeLongJustice on Feb 7, 2009 5:41 PM PST reply actions  

Uh, no offense

But I wrote “the " time, not "all” time.

by windyfelix on Feb 7, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Ah

I was confused by that too

by Brendan Scolari on Feb 7, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Only 9% got caught

and I can go along with the rough estimation that another 9% got lucky. But even if you accept that 82% of players were not using PED’s my feeling is that number is much higher than it was in 2002 when there was no testing. The players were told before the season that there would be random testing, I think that lead a lot of players who had used previously to stop.

18% (or whatever estimation you like) represents the players who were willing to take the risk of getting caught in the random “anonymous” testing, I think the number who would have used had there been no testing would have been considerably higher.

by OkayJay81 on Feb 7, 2009 6:14 PM PST reply actions  

But there was nothing to "get caught" doing

Since these tests were supposed to be destroyed anyway, the players who were using had nothing to lose and nothing to hide (other than potential testing down the road). WHY would they stop at that point?

by thejd44 on Feb 8, 2009 12:48 AM PST up reply actions  

Way too naive

As an athlete competing in a sport for which I am subject to drug tests, I can tell you the efficacy of testing is significantly determined by:
a.) the breadth of substances being tested for;
b.) timing (in or out of competition);
c.) regularity of testing; and
d.) the notification period (ie. were players aware in advance or were tests unannounced.

Most sportsmen who use drugs do so in the offseason, as that is the period in which you can actually put on a lot of muscle mass and work out enough to see major effects. I would imagine a lot of players would have used during this period but not in-season (because the season is so draining), with those using in-season mainly workout warriors like A-Rod or Clemens.

I’m guessing the MLB ‘anonymous’ program probably notified players of set testing periods, the tests were in season and the scope of the tests was not huge (urine, not blood tests), with a lot of masking agents and some of the more cutting edge substances not included.

Obviously, as the tests were anonymous, there was little incentive to stop using. Still, I’m guessing from the half-assed way MLB has approached the whole issue meant that few users actually got caught beyond those guys who were still doing a ton of drugs in-season. I’d say 40-50% of players were regular users to some degree.

If you think this sounds unrealistic, just look at the NFL drug testing program. The NFL has long had major issues with steroids, yet very few players ever test positive- for an example, look at the Superbowl Panthers- these guys weren’t caught (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2563563).

The fact is, unless testing is very stringent, it is usually ineffective. If the MLB had been heading to players houses in the offseason/during the season and testing them without notification, that 9% figure might be realistic. But I doubt they were, so I’m sticking to my 40-50% estimate.

by VanderBirch on Feb 8, 2009 3:58 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I've always wondered

why people care so much about baseball players using steroids but absolutely nobody cared that Shawn Merriman was caught, or the panthers were caught, etc.

Why does football get a free pass?

by CliveWarren on Feb 8, 2009 7:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Hell, Shawn Merriman was caught, missed 1/4 of the season, and STILL WAS VOTED INTO THE PRO BOWL.

"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."

by mikev on Feb 9, 2009 9:19 AM PST up reply actions  

I used steriods and still

couldn’t hit a lick….
- Ozzie Canseco & Jermey Giambi

Everyone was using – not everyone succeeded. Everyone just needs to get over this and move on.

by ryanmoser on Feb 7, 2009 6:45 PM PST reply actions  

Agreed for the most part

Way too many players were using to try to have fall guys like Bonds and McGwire

by Brendan Scolari on Feb 7, 2009 7:16 PM PST up reply actions  

This comment bugs me on like 17 different levels

Which is weird because I sort of agree with the “get over it and move on” part.

by thejd44 on Feb 8, 2009 12:49 AM PST up reply actions  

But the Bash Brothers Poster

will never come down off the wall – GO A’S

by ryanmoser on Feb 7, 2009 6:46 PM PST reply actions  

A lot fo guys laid off the roids temporarily for the tests.

They were afraid of coming up positive but knew that if less than 5 percent tested positive that no regular testing would be instituted but even with that knowledge enough guys couldn’t lay off the juice for a few months.

by IM4Oakgal on Feb 7, 2009 6:49 PM PST reply actions  

Right.

Because they all manged to successfully clean out their systems when Mike Morse tested positive for something about 18 months after he used.

Sorry, I just don’t buy that all these players got clean just to keep testing out of the game. Yet, of course, 9% didn’t get the memo.

I’m sure some people did this. But as windyfelix says, even if you DOUBLE the number of positive tests it’s still a much lower number than a lot of people though.

by thejd44 on Feb 8, 2009 12:51 AM PST up reply actions  

Has anyone been following the Barry Bonds evidence?

you know, like the tape recording where Greg Anderson explains he knows when the next test is coming and what Binds should take to avoid failing?

The fact that 9% of people failed a test that they knew was coming speaks more to their intelligence than to the habits of the other 91%.

by jeffro on Feb 8, 2009 6:36 PM PST up reply actions  

It's hard to write off the accomplishments of all of these players

Steroids makes the ball go farther, but it doesn’t matter if you don’t hit the ball. Hitting a 90 mph ball with the fat part of a bat takes skill beyond most of our comprehension.

I think these hitters guilty of PED’s are still all great hitters, but they are cheaters as well.

by NateHST on Feb 7, 2009 7:43 PM PST reply actions  

Some would have been great players without the roids.

Some might have been just long fly ball hitters. That’s the sad part for a baseball fan…steroids makes it hard to know for sure which was which. But as for being cheaters…the league should have enforced the rule and not encouraged use . Even in the Torre book it said that a Dr. spoke to the owners telling them that Testosterone was a good thing for players to use. If the owners turned a blind eye, the public turned a blind eye and it was a common practice it’s pretty hard for me to think of it as a player cheating.

by IM4Oakgal on Feb 7, 2009 7:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Is it hard to write off the accomplishments of Roger Clemens

Who was basically on his last legs as a pitcher in the mid-90s, starting using, and was then dominant for another decade? He went from, basically, a high-but-short peak guy who wasn’t HOF-bound to one of the best pitchers of all time and it can be attributed almost entirely to PEDs.

by thejd44 on Feb 8, 2009 12:52 AM PST up reply actions  

You're right.

I was mostly talking about hitters, but I realize that I didn’t make that very clear.

by NateHST on Feb 8, 2009 11:31 AM PST up reply actions  

Lost in this argument is the fact

that the Union was secretly telling the players a month in advance of when they were going to be tested which begs the question how did anyone get caught, perhaps they didn’t tell the lower echelon players. Steroids didn’t help someone hit a baseball, it helped guys who could hit a baseball hit it further. Gary Mathews hit 40 plus HR’s one year, then 10 HR’s the next?
The real villain in the entire episode was the Union.
They told the owners that testing would not be part of any negotiations in the labor agreement and that they would strike if the owners brought it up. Since the players are the union and the one to benefit most from good stats they cannot play the “we did nothing wrong” card.

by Laoren on Feb 7, 2009 10:07 PM PST reply actions  

I don't think the union would get most players to cycle off

If the risk of penalty was nonexistent, and the reward of results and income was huge, why would many, or certainly most, players “take one for the team” and cycle off to avoid testing positive? Yes ARod has been burned now, but 6 years ago could anyone have forseen how this thing played out?? I would think that most of the users kept using.

by windyfelix on Feb 9, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions  

The ARod news will change attitudes

I’m not sure exactly how they will be changed. Shoot, as an anti-roider, I’m not sure how it will be change my view, other than to think it probably will.

As a home run hitter, ARod has been a sort of aspirin. By being a dominant slugger from the beginning of his career, without big weight gains, Rodriguez didn’t seem as suspicious. There weren’t the statistical anomalies that made someone like Bonds jump out as an obvious juicer. This allowed him, suspcions notwithstanding, to be promoted as the player who would wash away the sins of an era.

That was always more than a little naive, given the likelihood that smart players would figure out ways around tests that are still pretty easy to evade. But it was tempting nonetheless, especially with the best-known culprits out of the game or in the twilights of their careers.

So much for that.

Rodriguez is the best player in the baseball, will almost certainly shatter the all-time home run record, is a juicer – and will playing for years to come. He and Bonds both lied about it, and the only remaining question is whether the feds will nail Bonds with a perjury rap.

Part of me thinks this helps the “clean” players, but we don’t really know who most of them are. Shoot, Bonds passed the 2003 test. And then there’s the reports about players being tipped off the following year.

It’s almost hopeless to untangle it all now, or going forward, which is why I understand the urge of many people to throw up their hands and say it doesn’t matter. I’m not there, in part because I can’t shake the feeling that some players really benefited from the juice in genuinely unfair ways, but I have to admit I’m closer than I used to be.

The era of PEDs (steroids, HGH, etc…) may have gotten into full swing in the 1990s, but it’s still with us.

by bear88 on Feb 8, 2009 12:22 AM PST reply actions  

Recent Data suggests Humans Lie, Cheat

These guys were on some good S#!^. Those performances were ridiculous and we couldn’t tell if humans, as a whole were on special muscle building and recovery serums, or just getting healthier into old-age. Good article by Ratto today about this as a “social health” problem, and I refuse to acknowledge a MMA-dominated world when everyone has access to “the clear.” Big ups to sports like lawn bowling, skateboarding, billiards, chess, skiing, snowboarding, where the only PED is good chronic.

by greenpaddedgloves on Feb 8, 2009 8:47 AM PST reply actions  

Is a juicer?

Does testing positive mean “is a juicer” or had used steroids at the time in question. I am unconfrotable with all the blanket statements.

But then I also don’t care what the grinder monkeys do for my entertainment.

by Future Ed on Feb 8, 2009 2:59 PM PST reply actions  

Agree with this article 100%

Thanks for making the case that throwing our hands up and saying, “let’s just move on; how can we know anything?” is a pretty lazy position intellectually.

Some of the players using and enjoying tremendous benefits were always completely obvious: Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Boone, Canseco, Pudge, and Brady Anderson. Others were pretty obvious like Giambi and Tejada. About many others it was just hard to tell. I like the argument you make using the available data. The correlation between the data and many stars is pretty clear, I’d say.

And finally the argument that they were great anyway applies to some and not all. And they weren’t as great as we thought, it turns out.

by RLangford on Feb 8, 2009 4:29 PM PST reply actions  

Those guys were obvious...

but there are plenty of guys that were much less so. The steroid use was prevalent amongst all kinds of players. Not just the obvious muscle men.

by IM4Oakgal on Feb 8, 2009 6:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Brady Anderson was obvious?

"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."

by mikev on Feb 9, 2009 9:23 AM PST up reply actions  

Not only obvious

But people were talking about it openly that season, almost as openly as the discussion about his sexual orientation

by windyfelix on Feb 9, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions  

So why wasn't he in the MItchell Report if it was so blatant?

"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."

by mikev on Feb 9, 2009 2:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Wait ... what do we know now?
the following players either confirmed or heavily suspected to be PED users:

How many of them, exactly, do we know tested positive in this test that you’re entirely basing this on? Most of them are not “confirmed” — but, rather, “heavily suspected” — and, I would argue, they are “heavily suspected” not because there is more reason to believe they used than other players, but because they are so great people suspect them more and look harder for reasons to implicate them.

Now we know that A-Rod definitely used — he admitted it — none of the other extrapolations you make have any real basis, other than your personal biases. The only thing new here are the numbers you made up. That’s okay, I guess — 43% of all statistics were made up on the spot — 72% of all people know that.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Feb 9, 2009 2:05 PM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Aperture_logo_small
Community Prospect List #4
Img_2672_small
Long-Term Outlook

Recent FanPosts

Fubarcloud_small
Wolf being told to spend money
Small
The wRC+ Challenge
Pumpkin_small
Maybe this is a stupid stats question
Small
A's reportedly sign Cespedes
Unknown_small
Is It Really Worth It: Three Veterans Who May Be Playing Oakland Next Year, But Shouldn't Be
Small
Manny's Contract
Small
fantasy baseball league for A's fans!
Small
NYY Proposal
Small
Roy Oswalt = opportunity

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Josefav2_small danmerqury

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

Front Page Writers

Smiley_face_small gigglingone

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

60-minutes-clock_small cuppingmaster

Patpicturebucky2_small YonYonson

Img_3830_small David Fung

Moderators

Photofunia-5c770b_small coffee roaster

Denver_small Colorado Fan

Ls_logo100_small LoneStranger

Thumbs_up_small LongTimeFan

Marty_profile_in_green_small mrod

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late