Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Dodgers Storm Back, Take Game 3 of NLCS Bar-right-arrows

Rafael Palmeiro Suspended for Violating Drug Policy

Oakland_tiny by Blez on in News

I think many of us owe Jose Canseco a big apology, including myself.  Rafael Palmeiro has been suspended for 10 games for violating the league's substance abuse policy.

Is this the case that finally makes people realize that steroids are more common in the sport than most believe?  What does this do to a guy who just achieved 3,000 hits?  Is he still a hall of famer?

The thing about it is that Palmeiro was one of the players in the steroid hearings that came across as sincere, believable and honest.  Especially compared to McGwire.

But the shadow cast over the sport today is bigger than ever before.  You knew that a superstar would eventually test positive.  You knew this day would eventually come.  But the fact that it was Palmeiro is remarkable.

Palmeiro said this at the hearing:

"Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never."

Well never obviously didn't include the future.  And that quote has now changed to this:

"I have never intentionally used steroids. Never. Ever. Period," he said. "Ultimately, although I never intentionally put a banned substance into my body, the independent arbitrator ruled that I had to be suspended under the terms of the program."

It's a very sad day for baseball.  There's a huge difference between Alex Sanchez and Palmeiro.  And I, as a fan, am just sad that the sport has been completely soiled.

0 recs | Comment 216 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Many Writers are on record:
As saying they will not vote for McGwire becasue of the steroid factor.

This has to put Raffy in that same category.

by saint on Aug 1, 2005 11:09 AM PDT   0 recs

Ralphie!
I knew you used "performance enhancers".... but geez!!! Horrible day for an incredible sport...
...White Shoes for Life

by heatchaser on Aug 1, 2005 11:10 AM PDT   0 recs

BOOOOOOO!!!!!
I hope he gets this treatment the rest of the season.  How terrible for a guy who testified adamently in front of congress to keep using the juice!  just awful publicity and a permanent black mark on a great career
The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.

by JJ on Aug 1, 2005 11:13 AM PDT   0 recs

Is he now culpable for perjury?
Lil Kim was just sent to jail for a year for that.

by theblackpearl on Aug 1, 2005 11:17 AM PDT   0 recs

I do not believe so:
They would have to prove that he took them before he testified. This suspension occured for use after the testimony.

by saint on Aug 1, 2005 11:26 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It's nice to see...
...that the testing is actually taking place and working.  Of course, it also makes you wonder who will be next.

by Lefty on Aug 1, 2005 11:17 AM PDT   0 recs

It's Only Working...
...if, in the long run, all players stop using performance enhancing drugs.  And it's far, far too early to see if that's going to happen.

In fact, at that point nobody will test positive...but that could just as easily be evidence that the program is failing to catch the violators.  Unfortunately, I fear that it will be very hard to put this genie back in the bottle, especially since the lords of baseball are pretty ambivalent about steroids. They hate the negative publicity, but love the gargantuan home run numbers.

by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 1, 2005 11:51 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree...
...that the owners don't really care much about catching the steroid users, but the players who are clean do, and I think that the use of steroids is not as widespread as some suspect.  The fact that Palmeiro, a guy who was clearly confident he would test cleanly, tested positive demonstrates that the methodology is pretty sensitive.  

by Lefty on Aug 1, 2005 12:08 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

And...
...the fact that he'll be playing again this season is a dire black eye on the face of the sport.

Why, oh why, is he not banned for life?

And why does our team continue to field a catcher in single-A who has already been caught taking steroids THREE TIMES?

This is the one thing that pisses me off about the A's. We do everything the right way, but we're completely cajoneless when it comes to policing the junkies.

by Ozzz on Aug 1, 2005 1:25 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

how common we think it is
You suggest that most people don't think steroid use is very common. I disagree. I certainly believe steroid use has been very common. I just hesitate to point fingers at any particular player until specific concrete evidence turns up against that particular player. I could name, many, many players who I would guess have probably used steroids. But I won't name them, because some of them may not have.

by matthias on Aug 1, 2005 11:18 AM PDT   0 recs

How sad.
I really had believed Raffy.  He seemed like he just went through his business day in, day out, the right way.

Turns out that he stayed on the field those days with illegal help - Oh well.

"The game has a cleanness. If you do a good job, the numbers say so. You don't have to ask anyone or play politics..." - Koufax

by Zakolantern on Aug 1, 2005 11:19 AM PDT   0 recs

I will never
give Jose an apology as I never cared whether he was right or wrong.  His actions are wrong and he's just a bad person.

However...this is a sad day for baseball.

Change is for the better. For both the A's and in life.

by WhiteElephantGuy on Aug 1, 2005 11:19 AM PDT   0 recs

why are his actions wrong?
If you're talking about selling autographs to ten-year-olds, then sure. But writing a book admitting that he and his buddies broke the law for a decade or longer?

That seems pretty straight up to me.

by Ozzz on Aug 1, 2005 1:26 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The word "actions"
I think it was a poor choice of a word.  I meant to say that his intentions were poor despite the good that has come from it.  

How do I know his intentions?  Well, I don't, but thats why I used the word actions because some of his actions show his poor intentions.  For example, him only agreeing to a lie-detector test if the test was demonstrated on Pay-per-view.  As well, he is a washed-up star on surreal life where he gets a good amount of capitol to be on it.  I only conclude that his book was written to make a good chunk of change and reclaim some lost fame, which it did, oppose to coming clean.  Not only that but in doing so, he tore to shreds any friends or connections he ever had in baseball world for the money.  All in all, his actions as discussed in this context, are unforgiveable to me.

Change is for the better. For both the A's and in life.

by WhiteElephantGuy on Aug 1, 2005 2:29 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Jose Wrote He Believes Miggy Juices
As I wrote on another thread, given that Raffy got caught using steroids and is a teammate of Miggy, and that Tejada appeared twice as muscular in the A's ST camp the year he won the MVP, I won't be remotely surprised if Jose was also right about Miggy using roids...

by reztips on Aug 1, 2005 11:21 AM PDT   0 recs

I think you're right...
.. but that's just effing sad.

by ChaBinsky on Aug 1, 2005 11:22 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I think you're wrong
and that's effing sad.

The fact that a witch hunt has resulted from the very real issue of steroid use by players is very sad.

Show me something other than conjecture that implicates Tejada, and I'll see things your way. But until you have a scintilla of evidence, all this Tejada talk just wreaks of a witch hunt and guilt by association.

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 11:35 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

No it is not a witch hunt
because it is merely baseball, not a pilot getting drunk and endangering other's lives.

If Tejada looked more muscular, it  is worth commenting about, and is not a "witch hunt" or "eff'ing sad".  People know the speed limit and break the LAW all the time!  Yet there was no "law" broken by Tejada IMHO.  Even with Palmiero, it's just a big "hummph" from my POV.  Guys have been cheating all the time.  

What's worse?  Taking steroids, or like Al Rosen batting for Cleveland, first ML at-bat?  "Hey Al, watch that guy to the left of the scoreboard.  If he raises his arm, it's a curveball."   Rosen sees the sign, hits the pitch for a single, and as he rounds first base, thinks, "No wonder they hit so well up here..,."

by Ducts on the Pawn on Aug 1, 2005 11:52 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Uh...huh?
Not sure I get your point. Just because it's baseball doesn't mean it's not a witch hunt. I'm not making a judgment call on whether steroids is all that bad, I'm just saying that people are hunting witches because they think taking steroids is all that bad.

My definition of a witch hunt is a group of people suspecting another group of people of committing a wrong, simply because a few other people within that group have been convicted of committing the same wrong. Maybe that defintion isn't correct, but...

This is DEFINITELY a witch hunt.

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 11:56 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Easy way for Miggy to defend himself...
..or any player for that matter. Independent drug test.

Until Sosa, Bonds, Giambi, Tejada, and anyone else who muscled up and hits ungodly long shots come clean, they'll always be suspected of cheating.

What's wrong is not the suspicion. What's wrong is that it always seems to be well-grounded.

Plenty of players have admitted to using roids. Plenty have tested positive. But who has ever taken an independent test to prove they're drug-free?

by Ozzz on Aug 1, 2005 1:29 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wait a minute
you're saying that Miguel Tejada has some kind of obligation to "defend himself" because you think he does? You're saying that because you (and others) suspect that he took illegal drugs, he should go and take an independent drug test whose results would be challenged by most of those that suspect him anyway unless they said he was cheating? If he took that test and it said he was clean, many people would say it was bunk, and that it wasn't on the up and up: either he cheated but masked it, or the test was a sham.

Why should he take any tests just to appease those out to prove he's anything but clean?? To appease people who accuse him of something on message boards, despite the fact they have no evidence that he did anything wrong?

Seriously...that's not a very good idea. Why would he do anything like that?

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 1:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

There's no obligation at all.
But if he doesn't want people to wonder about his drug use (or otherwise), that's the easy way to stop the rumors.

I know that if someone accused me of drug use, I wouldn't have a problem peeing in a cup for anyone to prove they were wrong.

But then again... I'm not using drugs...

by Ozzz on Aug 1, 2005 2:00 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

And another thing
When did Tejada hit ungodly long shots?

You're lumping him in with guys who did muscle up and acquire seemingly inhuman power. Tejada simply doesn't belong in that group.

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 1:51 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes, I have
and there was never a year where he came in with that Jason Giambi/Mark McGwire "whoa, who ate him" look about him?

I just don't think there's a very strong case that Tejada used steroids. Maybe I'm wrong, but as I said before, I'll need a smoking gun to convince me that he did.

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 2:18 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Long Ball!
This years All-Star game for one. Didn't he win the Homer contest at last years All-star game?

by Graybeard on Aug 1, 2005 3:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes
I thought of that, too, but I don't think it's too hard to believe that a guy like Tejada has the ability to jack a bunch of pitches thrown right down the middle at optimum speed for hitting the ball out of the ball park. Throw in the fact that he's right handed and was hitting at the Juice Box (Minute Maid Park), a ballpark renowned for having a short porch in left field, and it's not hard to believe he could win that contest.

But he did hit some deeeeeeep shots that were a bit surprising, yes. He did demonstrate some pretty amazing power. Maybe it was not natural; I choose to believe that it was.

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 3:21 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

in the NBA
pothead Portland point guard Damon Stoudamire challenged a local reporter to give him a drug test, I don't think the reporter took up the offer.  That's probably as close as a pro athlete has come to a voluntary, face-saving drug test.
Rock over London, Rock on Oakland. Wheaties: It's the Breakfast of Champions.

by Cutthemullet on Aug 1, 2005 4:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

We don't know
What raffy got caught using.  The suspension notice from MLB says:

Orioles first baseman Rafael Palmeiro was suspended Monday for 10 days by Major League Baseball for violating its Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program and will begin serving the suspension immediately

The drug testing policy covers more than just steroids.  On the ESPN MLB front page it says:

Rafael Palmeiro vociferously stated in March that he never used steroids. But on Monday, he was suspended 10 days for testing positive for steroids. He continues to deny steroid use.

So either ESPN has some extra information or they decided to add a slant to the story which is not true.  If the later I'm thinking Mr. Palmiero will have a big lawsuit coming ESPN's way.

by skwid on Aug 1, 2005 11:51 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Has anyone caught Canseco
 on "The Surreal Life"?? He's actually really funny. Possibly one of my favorite people in the house. If you're ever flipping channels, I recommend it. You'll believe a few more things he says. And this (sadly) just proves it.

by ChaBinsky on Aug 1, 2005 11:21 AM PDT   0 recs

Yeah
he really funny on that. did you see the onw where he was wearing knee high stockings? How about those for high socks?
No, I do not want to FIRE MACHA NOW, nor do I think Blanton is fat. Now leave me alone.

by pbruins92 on Aug 1, 2005 12:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

haha! that was awesome
I especially liked that he stored his chapstick in them. ;)

by ChaBinsky on Aug 1, 2005 2:37 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Before condemning Palmiero...
It's also true that many over-the-counter supplements contain ingredients which will test positive for steroids. One team, I think I read it was the Minnesota Twins, actually gives out pre-tested supplements to avoid the danger. This doesn't excuse Palmiero, who should have known better (if indeed he's telling the truth now) than to take risky supplements, but it does explain his statement.

by richwol on Aug 1, 2005 11:24 AM PDT   0 recs

Riiiight.
Here's the thing - if you're an Olympic swimmer, you're given a list of HUNDREDS of substances you can't take. If you don't do due diligence on what you put in your body and you are found with one of those substances in your blood stream - it doesn't matter whether you did it deliberately or not, you're gone for a year - minimum.

Raffy is being paid millions of dollars a year. He knows full well what it legal and what isn't. If there's ever any doubt, all he has to do is call a club physician, or a trainer, or an MD and ask.

He got busted, and no amount of 'but I didn't know' will ever remove the label of 'cheat' from his back.

by Ozzz on Aug 1, 2005 1:32 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Agreed!
Couldn't have said it better myself.

by griswold00 on Aug 1, 2005 2:57 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Blah!
Blah Blah Blah!

by Graybeard on Aug 1, 2005 3:20 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Addendum: MLB should rigorously check out both
Miggy and Roberts, Palmiero's teammates with substantial power surges, to see if they are juicing.

BTW, blackpearl raises an interesting question of whether Palmiero could be indicted for perjuring himself before Congress. I could be in error on this, but prosecutors would have to find evidence to prove that Raffy was using steroids prior to his Congressional testimony (doubtless, the evidence is out there--the question is, whether or not investigators could find it).

by reztips on Aug 1, 2005 11:25 AM PDT   0 recs

Roberts has had the most enviable
line-up spot in the game this year, which would explain his numbers (would you rather pitch to mora, miggy, sammy, palmeiro, lopez....?)

Guess Byrnes has it too now (Fantasy alert).

Baseball is a soap opera that lends itself to probabilistic thinking. -D. Cramer

by captainamerica on Aug 1, 2005 11:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

substantial power surge?
when did Tejada have a substantial power surge??

Come on! At least be intellectually honest here.

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 11:36 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

we may have a problem of semantics
But Miggy hit 34 HRS in his first 1057 ABS-- 1 in 31 ABs

Starting in 2000-- which was a year after the Bonds "surge" began-- he hit 122 HRS in his next 2527 ABs as an A-- 1 in 21 ABs

That's a big difference, and perhaps a surge, but it also true that a lot of players experience such a jump in their 3rd or 4th year.

Who can ever know? We're all guessing.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 1, 2005 11:47 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i'm not saying tejada's clean or not
but that's not really a surprising surge for a maturing player

by blueconversechucks on Aug 1, 2005 12:01 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Once upon a time it was.
That it no longer is, is quite damning in my opinion.

by Ozzz on Aug 1, 2005 1:33 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Where's your data?
Tejada seems to have followed a similar path through history. Where is your data to support the claim that "once upon a time it was, but that it no longer is.."??

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 1:42 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Okay. Before 1990...
Over a century of professional baseball, only 17 players had ever hit more than 50 homeruns in a season.

Since 1990, another 19 have hit that mark. More than double the entire previous history of the game, in just 15 seasons.

--

Before 1998, nobody had ever hit more than 61 home runs - a mark considered nigh untouchable for the best part of the 20th century.

Since 1998, it's been passed 6 times, and each season that it has been surpassed, it's been passed by not one, but two players.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/hihr4.shtml

There's your empiric evidence.

by Ozzz on Aug 1, 2005 1:59 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

This is correct
No one can look at these statistics and not draw the same conclusion as our good Oz.

[sigh] All of the homer records that beat Maris just aren't records.  Far too tainted.

by paradox on Aug 1, 2005 2:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It is correct, no doubt
we all remember the year (1998) that 50 home runs became the new 40 home runs. I remember how amazed I was when McGwire and Dawson both hit 49 in 1987, since nobody had done it in nearly 10 years. Then, all of a sudden in the mid 90s, guys like Greg Vaughn and Brady Anderson are hitting 50 in one year. No doubt about it - the home run was devalued in the 1990s, most likely due to steroid abuse.

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 2:16 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Oz's contention
Now wait a minute... that's good evidence that home runs are up, but it's still a long leap to insist that's all due to steroids.  There's still
  1.  Smaller ballparks
  2.  Weight training
  3.  No fear of striking out
  4.  Making Sports Center ("Chicks dig the long ball")
  5.  Willingness to go deep the other way.  (I believe it was Bill James who said something like "People thought that players going from aluminum bats to wood would learn that they can't go deep to the opposite field, but in fact they learned that they could."
There's probably more.

by achiappanza on Aug 1, 2005 3:10 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Oh yeah, I just thought of more..
  1.  Games started being played in Denver
  2.  The ball.  Remember all those pitchers talking about how the ball's seams are lower and that you can't get the skin to move at all any more?

by achiappanza on Aug 1, 2005 3:12 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Don't forget...
#8.  Free Agency.  More money = the ability to work on baseball all year round.  Before the 70s ballplayers usually had to have jobs in the offseason.
#9.  Better nutrition.  We've learned a lot about how to make ourselves bigger, faster, and stronger.  Not all of these mechanisms are illegal.

by sfodoug on Aug 1, 2005 3:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

How does that deal with Tejada?
I'm only talking about Tejada here. So...maybe it's a moot point, since I wasn't clear that all I'm talking about is one player who now dons the cap of the Baltimore Orioles. Here are his career HR totals, far from breaking with the historical precedent you reference. For clarity's sake, I completely agree with you about the prevalence of the HR in the 90's. There's no denying that it was a historical spike, one that seems easily explained by cheating. So here's Miggy (sorry for my sloppy formatting):

Year   ABs  HRs
1997   99   2
1998   365  11
1999   593  21
2000   607  30
2001   622  31
2002   662  31
2003   636  27
2004   653  34
2005   421  22

Nothing in there suggests to me that he's done anything unnatural. In fact, since 2000 (his third year in the leage), he's been very consistent in the HR department. As you aptly point out, the 50 HR barrage of the 90s was truly unique in the history of the game. As you see here, Mr. Tejada has never threatened the 50 HR mark.

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 2:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

but his 2004 HR derby barrage...
I think he was juiced for that weekend alone, heh
Rock over London, Rock on Oakland. Wheaties: It's the Breakfast of Champions.

by Cutthemullet on Aug 1, 2005 5:00 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

ha!
i got an idea - let's see if anybody has tracked batting practice statistics throughout his career and compare them to that HR Derby. We'll need somebody who has kept records of the number of HRs hit and the length of them, adjusted for ballpark factors, naturally.

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 5:08 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Palmeiro's statement:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-palmeiro01,1,4434773.story?coll=bal-sports-baseball& amp;ctrack=1&cset=true

"I am sure you will ask how I tested positive for a banned substance.  As I look back, I don't have a specific answer to give.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to explain to the arbitrator how the banned substance entered my body.  The arbitrator did not find that I used a banned substance intentionally - in fact, he said he found my testimony to be compelling - but he ruled that I could not meet the heavy burden imposed on players who test positive under the new drug policy."

by ArakSOT on Aug 1, 2005 11:25 AM PDT   0 recs

"Intentionally" is a word...
...through which you could drive a fleet of trucks.  Baseball needs to enforce strict liability for steroid use (and not look to intent).  If "I don't know how it got there," "my trainer lied to me," and "the label didn't say steroids," are excuses, players will be encouraged to preserve their ignorance about what goes into their bodies.  Beyond being dangerous to their health, this promotes cheating.  Players will ask, with a Monty Python nudge nudge wink wink, "this isn't steroids, right?"  So long as there's money to be made, they'll get the answer they want.
"I'm a lexicon devil with a battered brain."--Darby Crash

by lexdevil on Aug 1, 2005 11:29 AM PDT   0 recs

When?
When exactly did he test positive?  Was it while he was chasing 3,000 and MLB held it?  Seems a little suspect that 2 weeks after his 3,000th hit, he gets snagged and not beforehand.  
Signatures? We don't need no stinking signatures.

by jubjub on Aug 1, 2005 11:31 AM PDT   0 recs

The timing IS a little suspicious.
Best Coliseum promotion of the year? 2005 Oakland A's baseball.

by baseballgirl on Aug 1, 2005 11:33 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

this is after the appeal.
so probably about two months ago.
let's go oakland [clapclap clapclapclap]

the a's fan lj community.

by Jjjsixsix on Aug 1, 2005 11:34 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

well,
it said in the apology, right?
let's go oakland [clapclap clapclapclap]

the a's fan lj community.

by Jjjsixsix on Aug 1, 2005 11:38 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow
I guess I should read more carefully.

Thanks. :)

by Jennifer on Aug 1, 2005 11:41 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

yes
but from my understanding you have to serve the suspension immediately.

Juan Rincon provided his testimony July 26th.

"How much room do I have to cover out here?" -- Kotsay

by Sharon on Aug 1, 2005 11:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah, but this one
went to an independent abritrator. Palmeiro fought this tooth and nail behind the scenes, because he knew the effect it would have on his legacy.

by Dog Days on Aug 1, 2005 11:48 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

and the day after the HOF ceremony.
Selig obvously held it up for a while.
oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 1, 2005 11:35 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

definitely
There was even a rumor at the start of the season that a big name had tested positive.

Sanchez and Rincon aren't the big news-makers like Palmeiro.

"How much room do I have to cover out here?" -- Kotsay

by Sharon on Aug 1, 2005 11:38 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I got over the sadness a long time ago
I suspected Mac and Sosa in 1998-- how could you not?-- but like millions of others, i suppose, buried the suspicions in favor of a great story.

Bonds made it too obvious. and Giambi was obvious in retrospect. And the home run numbers-- baseball's deal with the devil-- were absurd for about 5-6 years.

And once BALCO hit, I was pissed off, but hardly sad. The innoncence departed a long time ago.

Now I'm more glad that a BSer like Palmeiro (that's what Will Clark's been saying for, like, 20 years) got nailed.

If there's any innocence, it's in our Little Engine That Could story. But no one should assume we have a bunch of choirboys to root for.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Aug 1, 2005 11:34 AM PDT   0 recs

I Agree
There's no way my estimation of those in charge of the game could be any lower than it's already gotten.  It's sad that a player who otherwise seemed like a fairly decent guy proves to be a user, but organized baseball created a world in which the incentives to use were enormous. That shouldn't let the users off the hook, but ultimately the blame for all this belongs squarely in the commissioner's office.

As for baseball itself, it's a great game -- the greatest game -- despite what those in charge of MLB have been doing to it.  It will survive. It's nice that external pressure is forcing those in charge of the game to behave slightly more responsibly.  We can only hope that some day the sport gets more thoughtful and responsible custodians.

by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 1, 2005 11:58 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

i think the players union
and the commissioner's office are equally to blame.

by blueconversechucks on Aug 1, 2005 12:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Fair Enough
On many issues, I think the player's union is right and the commissioner's office is wrong (that is, I'd rather see the players rather than the owners end up with the sport's windfall profits).

But on this issue I totally agree with you: both are equally to blame.

by GreenNGoldSooner on Aug 1, 2005 12:05 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I mean...
How about cheaper beer, hot dogs, peanuts.
Cheaper tickets(though the A's aren't bad)
Fans would go to more games and spend more money on shirts and memorabilia.
I love baseball, so I pay.
But, I really find the salaries of players and the profits of owners to be on the high side for getting to be a part of the great game of baseball.
Oh, and here is another idea. Pay the venders, the people who clean the park and the security etc. more, too.

by Mz K on Aug 1, 2005 5:11 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Raffy's Chances
I seriously didn't think his chances were that strong to begin with.  Every argument for his induction was..."well his numbers are similar to other HOFers."

This won't end his career, for proof look across the bay and see Alex Sanchez, but his HOF chances are dead.

Baseball's already been soiled; see the Black Sox, the exclusion of Black players, Pete Rose, BALCO.  It doesn't look good for the sport, but hey, Baseball has been through this before.

"so what was it? the pork chop or the booty???" -rly723

by secret ASian man on Aug 1, 2005 11:37 AM PDT   0 recs

Black Sox scandal
The fallout from that was that Judge Kennesaw M Landis became commissioner, and he was a bigot and racist who worked to ensure no black player got even close to a major league club.

Interestingly, I think it was Bill Veeck, during WWII, who was going to buy the Phillies and stock the entire club with black players for the 1944 season.  But it got discovered and blocked.

by Ducts on the Pawn on Aug 1, 2005 11:57 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

interesting
didn't know about the Veeck plan, wow what a firestorm that would've created.
Rock over London, Rock on Oakland. Wheaties: It's the Breakfast of Champions.

by Cutthemullet on Aug 1, 2005 5:06 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Wow I wonder about Jason now????
He's had a remarkable turnaround of late.

Is he back to his old ways?

Or has he overcome the muscle stiffness and is seeing the ball and giving it more lift.

Pulling the ball to the short porch in Yankee Stadium for all those Homeruns?

I don't know, you would like to think he's not that stupid.

But, about two monthes ago the Yanks were looking for any takers on him.

They were even thinking of send him down or even releasing him.

by Mike Heath on Aug 1, 2005 11:41 AM PDT   0 recs

still unclaimed in 3/4 of my fantasy leagues.
and noone wants to pick him up either.

i honestly believe that he's not on anything and that he's not that stupid. BUT... numbers don't lie, and his numbers are a bit too good to be true.
then again, he hasn't bulked up much again.

come to your own conclusion.

let's go oakland [clapclap clapclapclap]

the a's fan lj community.

by Jjjsixsix on Aug 1, 2005 11:45 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I actually believe Giambi is clean
He is under pretty close scrutiny now.
independencefieldsac.org
Please help disabled kids in Sacramento play baseball by helping the Rivercats buil