A Dark Day Begins
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 13, 2007 11:07 AM PST
in News
131 comments
Whether or not you like Bud Selig (is there anyone who is a baseball fan who actually likes him?), you have to stop and commend him for being willing to put the Ghost of Baseball Past under the microscope. Yes, he likely has motivations that tie directly to improving history's view of his legacy. Yes, the right thing to do would've been to have stood up to the union on this issue 10 years ago. But I'd like to think that a person has a shot at redemption, no matter how late it is.
The easy thing for Selig would've been to have just gone all Mark McGwire and said, "The past is the past. I want to be positive." But he didn't. Look, I've got no love for Selig and like I said, his motivation for sending Mitchell out to do the digging is certainly anything but altruistic, but at least he did something. Will it be enough to rescue his precious legacy? I don't think so. I don't think you ever truly get a mulligan on this type of thing.
In just 10 minutes or so, George Mitchell is going to raise the curtain and give us a peek behind the dark past of baseball (although to think that it's over with no test for HGH is naive). Names will be named and the question then becomes, do so many players from this generation wind up being negated in baseball history? Even if they name 80 players in this investigation, it won't include everyone from the generation who used. Mitchell had a key contact in the former Mets batboy, but he wasn't supplying for everyone in the sport. So does Roger Clemens, who is reportedly named in the report, become a non-factor when the Hall of Fame ballots are cast when he is eligible? I think he does.
I guess that I'm just not 100 percent sure that this does much for the sport without Selig stepping in and saying that he's also adding testing for HGH as well. I find it really strange that the sport supposedly has testing now for steroids, but HGH is completely overlooked when people talk about performance enhancing drugs being out of baseball.
The thing is, if you're going to pull back the curtain on the past, you might as well make sure that your present affairs are perfectly clean. And there is no way to do that until the testing policies reflect the desire to clean up the game.
It's a sad day, but I also realize it will not come close to covering the width and breadth of the issue.
0 recs |
131 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Jack Cust Is Named
Jack Cust
Jack Cust is an outfielder who began his major league career with the Arizona
Diamondbacks in 2001. Since then, he has played for five teams in Major League Baseball, the Diamondbacks, Colorado Rockies, Baltimore Orioles, San Diego Padres, and Oakland Athletics.
In 2007, he played with Oakland.
At the beginning of the 2003 season, Cust and Larry Bigbie were both playing for Baltimore’s class AAA affiliate in Ottawa. Bigbie’s locker was next to Cust’s. Cust eventually asked Bigbie if he had ever tried steroids. Bigbie acknowledged he had, and Cust said that he, too, had tried steroids. Cust told Bigbie that he had a source who could procure anything he wanted, but Bigbie informed him he already had a friend who could supply him.
In order to provide Cust with information about these allegations and to give him
an opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me; he declined.
by louismg on Dec 13, 2007 11:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Cust did the right thing.
I wouldn't meet with any of them either. The past is the past.
by sf drift king on Dec 13, 2007 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No reason not to sign bonds now...
everyone was on roids... even current players on the A's... it's now a non-unique argument to not sign bonds... we already have roid monkeys on our team so we should just sign him
by johnjahafanclub on Dec 13, 2007 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the Players Union instructed players
not to speak with Mitchell, at least not without the Union's attorneys present.
by OaklandSi on Dec 13, 2007 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And only Frank Thomas did anyway.
Nothing to hide. Good man, Hurt.
by Ozzz on Dec 13, 2007 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So because....
Larry Bigbie said so, then that makes it true? I don't know, for me I need more than a statement from Larry Bigbie before I will acknowledge it to be the truth.
by Shippee33 on Dec 13, 2007 5:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What does this do for Bonds??
I know he's a jerk and people dislike him for that, however it seems that the steroid controversy is the root of the hatred towards him. Now that this report comes out and names "lovable" players as steroid users (i.e. Miguel Tejada, Roger Clemmens) I can't help but wonder if Bonds will still be the center of the steroid problem.
I just feel after so many other names come out, people might lighten up on Barry Bonds and his steroid use. I mean, how can you not? I honestly can't get as upset as I used about his steroid use now that I now my beloved Miggy is in that very same crowd.
Any thoughts? Am I just trying to justify the A's signing Bonds because he would be an amazing DH?? I don't know any of that, but I do know that I am depressed.
by RollieFingersYourMom on Dec 13, 2007 11:15 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
No One . . .
. . . is going to lighten up on Barry Bonds. Remember he is thought to lie to a grand jury and let his trainer rot in jail. If Barry just took steroids etc. than he could be treated like any other user. He will not admit his usage or he will go to jail.
by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 13, 2007 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You would think that should be the case
But I don't think ppl will lighten up on him at all. He's still the unfortunate face of steroids when it's all said and done.
Hopefully, the broadcasters and analyst who will be debating this for weeks will drive home your point and not lay all the blame squarely on Bonds' shoulders.
by sf drift king on Dec 13, 2007 3:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Adam Piatt Is Named
Adam Piatt
Adam Piatt played as an outfielder with two teams in Major League Baseball for portions of four seasons between 2000 and 2003, the Oakland Athletics and Tampa Bay Devil Rays. In 1999, he was the Oakland Athletics’ Minor League Player of the Year.
After Radomski’s guilty plea was publicly announced, Piatt’s lawyer contacted
us. We later interviewed Piatt, who voluntarily admitted his use of performance enhancing substances. He accepted full responsibility for his actions and said that he had learned an important life lesson as a result. Piatt should be commended for his candor, for his willingness to admit that he made a mistake, and for accepting responsibility for his actions.
Piatt was called up to Oakland from the minor leagues in 2000. He said that he knew nothing at that time about steroids or amphetamines. In 2001, Piatt contracted a viral infection and lost 24 pounds in ten days. This illness affected his strength and caused extreme stress. He tried to come back to play baseball in August, but he was unsuccessful. Piatt said that
he worked hard during the off-season to be physically prepared for 2002.
During 2002, he started considering using human growth hormone. He researched the subject extensively that year.
by louismg on Dec 13, 2007 11:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
it appears that
piatt snitched on miggy
by flipgatey3 on Dec 13, 2007 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
there are photos of personal checks from tejada
plus like three other players have already "snitched" on miggy (raffy p).
by xbhaskarx on Dec 13, 2007 11:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
right
but raffy p also never took steroids, period. ;)
by flipgatey3 on Dec 13, 2007 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, though
What kind of IDIOT writes a personal check for ILLEGAL DRUGS?!!?!?!?!?!
Of all that came out today, I think that may have shocked me most!!!
by baseballgirl on Dec 13, 2007 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You've never written a check for
drugs intended for use by women?
by mikeA on Dec 13, 2007 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
strong enough for a man
what commercial was that?
by xbhaskarx on Dec 13, 2007 4:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Weight Gain 2000
by McFood on Dec 13, 2007 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
listening live to Mitchell's statement
MLB's link to the actual report is here
by OaklandSi on Dec 13, 2007 11:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
some of his points
PED use by MLB players was widespread for at least a decade (actually, Mr Mitchell, it's been at least 2 and maybe 3 decades)
MLB's response was slow and at first ineffective (I would say that's an understatement.MLB owners and the commissioner's office turned a blind eye to the practice, since the resulting performances made lots of $$.)
Players named were found to have used at least 2 years ago and in some cases a decade ago. Mitchell feels that players should not be punished for past use, since that will keep MLB mired in the past rather than looking towards the future. He also hopes that people don't focus on the names, since these represent only a small percentage of actual users, and focus instead on the larger questions.
by OaklandSi on Dec 13, 2007 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Let There Be Light
The dark days are hopefully behind. Now that Mitchell implicated everybody, as he should have done, it's time to move on. We can only hope younger players will avoid the temptation of "everybody else is doing it" and let there abilities and work ethic make the difference. As far as letting these guys off the hook in regards to HOF eligibility, let the BBWA decide how this era is to be interpreted.
by Gerard on Dec 13, 2007 11:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tim Kurkjian
just said that if you take Clemens' and Bonds' records away, you won't have anybody else to give the records to.
Wha? How's about ... Maris? Aaron?
How about separate records for "juiciest" career home record?
by Checkswing HR on Dec 13, 2007 12:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm officially in the *I don't care* camp
Really, I just don't care anymore.
Brian Roberts is named in the report because Larry Bigbie said that Roberts told him he took steroids once or twice.
That's enough to be named in the report? My god, let's just drop it already. It would have been easier to just do a couple of internet polls asking who people think used roids and putting that into the report.
Until the MLBPA agrees to strict (blood) testing, it's pointless to go on and on about PEDs anyway.
by mikev on Dec 13, 2007 12:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
+1
pretty much how I feel. 90-95% of the list report is going to be purely, 100% heresay convictions making the 5-10% real culprits look innocent by association.
by DMOAS on Dec 13, 2007 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
5-10%?
Based on the anonymous steroid testing year, we know that many were using PEDs, and that's not even including the HGH crowd, which is likely significantly higher since it can't be tested for.
Quite frankly, as long as the players, via their representative association, are refusing to talk to the investigators, I'm content to assume 100% usage.
Well, 100% minus Frank Thomas, the only guy with balls in the entire MLB, it seems.
Literally?
by Ozzz on Dec 13, 2007 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it can't be tested with a urine test
but can be tested by a blood test -- which MLB isn't doing.
by OaklandSi on Dec 13, 2007 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and the pa
will never allow a blood test
by flipgatey3 on Dec 13, 2007 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Congress will.
by Ozzz on Dec 15, 2007 11:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't Care Here Either
Players like McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, etc. have significantly helped MLB earn billions of dollars over recent years. If MLB decides to give these players asterisks, then they should be willing to provide partial refunds to their advertisers and paying fans. They never will, so the hypocritical MLB should STFU already and start anew.
by socaloaktownfan on Dec 13, 2007 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
class-action lawsuit time!
by monkeyball on Dec 13, 2007 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brian Roberts
That's not the only lead on Roberts. He's also named in Grimsley's testimony. The name is redacted on the affidavit, but it was reported in the LA Times article.
by iglew on Dec 13, 2007 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and this is why the Report is b.s.
Now people are going to be adding the Report as an independent confirmation in addition to the various newspaper reports and testimony, when in fact all the Report does in many cases is repeat those very newspaper reports and testimonies.
by monkeyball on Dec 13, 2007 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Selig fan here
There are more of us too. Hes not perfect, can be a weiner at times (thinking of the MLB Extra Innings fiasco last spring and still going on) but hes done many things to help the game in his tenure and is in favor of smaller markets. I think alot of people don't like him because he comes across unpolished at times, or at least goofy.
by WiscoFan on Dec 13, 2007 12:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
he supported at least some small markets
namely, for the Milwaukee Brewers. that's fine...but he hasn't been so supportive of other "small' markets (Montreal Expos and Oakland Athletics are two specific targets that come to mind).
by OaklandSi on Dec 13, 2007 12:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Expos, ok...Twins maybe
by WiscoFan on Dec 13, 2007 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He said in a press conference in Oakland
some years back that it was a mistake for the A's ever to have come to Oakland, and that the Bay Area should only have the Giants....that's not too subtle.
by OaklandSi on Dec 13, 2007 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I detest Selig...
...but that's true. Objectively, the A's never should have been approved to move to Oakland to begin with.
by UncleLeo on Dec 13, 2007 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
why? this is a big market
certainly as big as the Chicago area (which at the time had an NL and AL team, and now has an additional NL team just an hour north). Objectively speaking, there's no reason why there shouldn't have been an NL and AL team in the Bay Area.
by OaklandSi on Dec 13, 2007 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, you're not being objective at all.
Raw population numbers are deceiving. Chicago is a huge baseball town and always has been. The bay area is (was) not.
There were other cities that had more legitimate claims to being able to support a franchise well, i.e. Dallas/Fort Worth, San Diego, Milwaukee, etc. Why create another 2-team market when so many large markets had no teams? Technically, they never should have left Kansas City, and the move was approved more to placate Charlie Finley than any real baseball business decision. The fact that the team was replaced almost immediately, and did well, proves that. The only thing Oakland had going for it was a prime (by 1968 standards) stadium in place and ready to go. Most of the other potential cities that were big enough to support a team lacked that.
by UncleLeo on Dec 13, 2007 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm as objective (or not) as you
anyone could argue that the A's were unfairly plucked from Kansas City (and from Philadelphia). Those who argue that moving the Dodgers from Brooklyn to Los Angeles because they weren't drawing enough fans and making enough $$ was untrue, also have a good argument.
My point was not that Kansas City wasn't dealt with unfairly. My point is that there was no objective reason why there couldn't be an AL and NL team in what was clearly a very rapidly growing urban area.
by OaklandSi on Dec 13, 2007 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I gave plenty of objective reasons...
...you just don't like them.
by UncleLeo on Dec 13, 2007 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess you don't like my objective reasons
c'mon, let's not try make our points by claiming we're objective and the other isn't, ok?
I tried to explain what I meant, so why not respond to that?
by OaklandSi on Dec 13, 2007 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You didnt respond to all of my points, either...
...and cherry-picked the ones that were more opinion while leaving the ones based on fact unanswered.
We disagree, and that's fine. Today I think your point of view is more valid, but back in the day I don't believe it was. If the 2007 Kansas City A's were looking to move, I seriously doubt the bay area would even be a consideration, in spite of the fact that the area is better suited to supporting two teams today.
The fact that, since 1968, BOTH teams have been under serious threat of moving out of the area more than once is not something that can be ignored, either, and doesn't speak to an area that supports two teams well. Some of these instances are relatively recent, too.
As a 30+ year A's fan, the thought that I probably would be a Giants by default had I had no other choice for a local team growing up is not something I like to think about, but the facts (attendance, open cities, other options, etc.) are there and are obvious.
by UncleLeo on Dec 13, 2007 2:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I Object to the Objectivity
...because this subject produced too many objectionably subjective illustrations which caused me to suffer bilateral subconjunctival hemmorhages.
by Gerard on Dec 13, 2007 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't find this thread
particularly objective.
-- Ayn Rand
by oblique on Dec 13, 2007 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Beane should blow up the team
< / Howard Roark >
by monkeyball on Dec 13, 2007 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Shall I call you Nostradamus then...
...or now. You're words proved prophetic...Allright, how did you know BB was trading Haren? 'fess up!
by Gerard on Dec 14, 2007 4:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently this is the entire list of players
named.
I guess my biggest problem with the report is that this guy wasn't the only provider of roids, so why name all these names as if these are the only guilty parties?
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 13, 2007 12:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oh and apparently
Adam Piatt told Mitchell that he supplied Miggy with the PEDs during the 2003 season.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 13, 2007 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
snitch!
miggy should make a video like carmelo anthony
by flipgatey3 on Dec 13, 2007 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pious was Piatt, but Pontius Pilate he was not...
so says Procula.
by McFood on Dec 13, 2007 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I have that problem, too.
Also, relating to what mikev pointed out, above... I have a problem with listing players from pure "hearsay" cases.
by Poppy on Dec 13, 2007 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't.
If those players won't address the claims, I'm going to assume they have nothing good to say.
If someone accused me and I had been innocent of the charges, you couldn't wrestle me off the podium with six guys, ten foot of rope, and a packmule.
by Ozzz on Dec 13, 2007 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Boy,
I hope you tell this to the judge when you get called in for jury service.
by PaulThomas on Dec 13, 2007 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was poorly formatted.
Not calling Oz a boy. Just a figure of speech.
by PaulThomas on Dec 13, 2007 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So you're implying that he's a girl?
by Poppy on Dec 13, 2007 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not hearsay
Hearsay is a statement made outside of a proceeding which is offered for its truth. Piatt's statement isn't hearsay because he is describing his conduct, i.e. "I gave Miggy drugs." Hearsay would be Piatt saying, "Miggy told me he does drugs." The first is admissible, the second would be only under limited circumstances. The first statement is not direct proof that Miggy did drugs but it is circumstantial evidence that he did. And yes I am a lawyer so feel free to hate away.
by EgolikeRickey on Dec 13, 2007 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True, but
"Cust told me he used steroids" (which is what Bigbie told Mitchell) is most definitely hearsay, n'est ce pas?
by PaulThomas on Dec 13, 2007 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's one of the ones I was referring to
as hearsay. Not Piatt's description of his own behavior.
by Poppy on Dec 13, 2007 5:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The rule of law
The steroid issue always comes back to this - "you can't say he took them because there's not enough evidence to convict him..."
Yes, I CAN say he took them. I'm not a judge. I'm not the courts. I'm a guy who weighs the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, and makes a call. I'm not restricted by the need to prove my case to a jury of his peers.
If you don't cast an opinion on anything until there's enough evidence in place to win a court case, I'm guessing you have very few opinions on anything. In the world. Ever.
And let's not forget, the same 'he's never been convicted" defense was being posted at Giambi once, Bonds once, McGwire once, Boone once, Palmeiro once, Tejada once...
Basically, the guys like me who have, for years, been saying "this guy is a roidhead" and "that guy is a drug cheat" and "the problem is an epidemic" have been vindicated, across the board, almost without exception.
Nobody, that I'm aware of, who has been accused of being a roider in the last five years, has turned out to be clean.
And because I know you're going to say "you can't prove you're clean", I'll pre-empt that by saying, absolutely you can.
Blood test, lie detector test, cooperating with the Mitchell Report, taking your accuser to court to defend your name - there's four things right there, and any one of them would work for me.
by Ozzz on Dec 14, 2007 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So Giambi proved he was clean
by cooperating with the Mitchell report?
Riiiiiight. The ones who cooperated were the worst offenders.
As for the others:
Blood test-- ridiculous. These allegations are from years ago.
Lie detector test-- no one believes these anyway.
Taking accuser to court-- that's comical. Libel is virtually unwinnable in these cases, and the more circumstantial and hearsay-based the statements are, the harder it is to prove. It's precisely the fact that the stuff in the report about Cust is so obviously devoid of any value that makes a libel suit unwinnable.
So: you can't prove you're clean.
by PaulThomas on Dec 14, 2007 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now you're just being dumb.
Thomas cooperated freely. Why nobody else?
I know it offends your tender sensibilities, but frankly, I just flat out believe the vast majority of people have used, and those that didn't are about as guilty, because they never came forward to stop it.
The only victims here are those that came before and saw their records scrubbed, the fans who bought into the lie, and the guys who should have been Major Leaguers but never were, because some junkroid was ahead of them.
Oh. And the dead kids on pitching mounds in Florida.
by Ozzz on Dec 15, 2007 11:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure... b/c that worked well in Salem.
by DMOAS on Dec 13, 2007 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh please.
You're telling me that if someone said, in a public report, that you use heroin, you wouldn't go to court to kick the shit out of the person that published the claims?
by Ozzz on Dec 14, 2007 10:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Go Google "American libel law"
Please. It will save all of us some time here.
by PaulThomas on Dec 14, 2007 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In that case:
Sue me?
<dr evil pinkie>
by Ozzz on Dec 15, 2007 11:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The only way we...
couldn't wrestle you off the podium with six guys, ten foot of rope, and a packmule is if you were all bulked up on steroids and HGH, like me.
BEEFCAKE!
by McFood on Dec 13, 2007 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. There were other motives in play.
The accused list is obviously unsubstantiated. And incomplete. So all it really does is discredit the players that aren't on the list even more. Which is the point.
Mitchell was paid to be a credible source, beyond just a journalist (even though that's essentially the role he played) to confirm the suspicions of every fan - that steroids are the norm in major league baseball. His report takes more power and credibility from the MLBPA to help in testing/compliance negotiations. And it will probably work. Of course, it seems like it could have been done in house - but remember, both players and teams alike are heavily invested in retaining their success making cooperation unlikely. It's just too bad that anti-steroid policies couldn't materialize until the risk and consequence of being caught were publicized.
As accusations increase, one interest group I want to hear from are self-declared innocent players (e.g. Todd Helton). Pujols, ARod, or someone important needs to take the stand and put his neck out there to say that clean players actually do exist. Because now more than ever, the presumption is that everyone juiced. And I think that's what MLB was shooting for.
by BleacherDrummer on Dec 13, 2007 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So what excuse do the "Bonds is a cheater"
"Keep Cust" people use now?
by sactownbull on Dec 13, 2007 1:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't technically fit into that category...
...as I don't believe Bonds shouldn't be signed because he cheated, but my reason has always been that Cust is cheaper and not a prick. I believe Bonds could still have a more sigificant impact on the field, but not so much to justify as much of a larger salary that he would command.
by UncleLeo on Dec 13, 2007 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Supposedly Cust used to be a prick...
perhaps not coincidentally, during the same period when he's alleged to have been juicing.
Ah, roid rage...
by PaulThomas on Dec 13, 2007 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He might be...
...a woman with a strap-on penis, too, for all I know. When forming opinions one can only go on what information and evidence they have. This notion that so many seem to have that everybody should be blindly forgiven because everybody else might be just as bad, and we don't know it yet, is naive.
by UncleLeo on Dec 13, 2007 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I used to be a hardline "kick 'em out" guy
but after the long list that came out, baseball could level all the rosters and still have suspicions on who is still using and who is not using.
Obviously the "witch hunt" mentality cannot be exercised in this sensitive matter. History should record a few things though.
- Bonds did use and probably did lie about it.
- That every record of this is era is in question.
and
- That Baseball as a business refused to acknowledge what was going on.
With this, I adjust my feeling about players going into the hall. A lot of these people should go to the hall and those who are there should stay in. However, those on the list should go in with conditions and a history of what went on in this era as to educate future players on how the game was and should not be played.
by oaklandSMASH on Dec 13, 2007 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I can't speak for others,
but I was assuming Cust is a former steroid user all along, so none of my arguments have changed one bit
by iglew on Dec 13, 2007 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it also shows
that the people who believe he was being blackballed might be right...
by flipgatey3 on Dec 13, 2007 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bonds is a jerk and Cust is cheap?
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Dec 13, 2007 6:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
by monkeyball on Dec 13, 2007 6:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Where's Bret Boone on the list?
Answer: He is not.
This tells me this list is a joke. Boone was etched in my mind as a top candidate for MLB Poster Boy for most obvious steroid user.
by socaloaktownfan on Dec 13, 2007 1:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
and the Giles brothers
and quite a few others, I think
by OaklandSi on Dec 13, 2007 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not an exhaustive list
It's just players against whom Mitchell unearthed specific evidence.
by PaulThomas on Dec 13, 2007 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's not an exhaustive list...
...but, unfortunately, some will treat it as such.
by UncleLeo on Dec 13, 2007 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I say keep Cust AND sign bonds
everyone was on roids back then... they probably aren't on roids now b/c of the testing... today they are probably on HGH since you can't test for it... lots of players today are probably on HGH (ie travis hafner on cleveland comes to mind he looks like a freaking caveman)... no reason not to sign bonds
by johnjahafanclub on Dec 13, 2007 1:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't aware "looks like a caveman"
was a common side effect of HGH use.
by PaulThomas on Dec 13, 2007 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it's a common
known medical fact :)
by johnjahafanclub on Dec 13, 2007 1:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
HGH was readily available,
in nuts and berries, back in caveman days.
by Philip Christy on Dec 13, 2007 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This caveman
resents the bigotry inherent in JJFC's remark.
by iglew on Dec 13, 2007 3:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well
not specifically, but the cheek bones become more pronounced (see grimsley, ankiel, byrd...etc.)
by flipgatey3 on Dec 13, 2007 4:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
F.P Santangilo
Ohh man he is a DJ in Sac now I am going to love listening to that tomorrow morning.
by Roloc on Dec 13, 2007 1:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Especially with the things he's said
about steroid use on that show.
by jeepers on Dec 13, 2007 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not just what he has said but the others..
I mean Phantom goes off about steroid users and about how they are losers and they ruin the game..
AWWWWKWAAAAAARD
by Roloc on Dec 13, 2007 9:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
what time is he on and what station?
i don't like talk/sports radio but i may have to tune in tomorrow just for the laughs...
by xbhaskarx on Dec 13, 2007 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
5AM-9AM, KHTK 1140 in Sacramento.
by jeepers on Dec 13, 2007 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Someone has to report on this
for those of us that can't listen!
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Dec 13, 2007 6:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So, F.P. went on the evening drive program
He admitted to taking cycles of human growth hormone twice in his career--once after being cut by the Expos in 1999 and needing to rehab a quad, and once after being injured during the final month of 2000 with Dodgers while rehabbing a thumb injury.
His admission about 1999 wasn't contained in the Mitchell report. He was very apologetic about steroid use, although he was still hanging on to the rationalizations that led him to PEDs in the first place. He will be answering questions and getting into more details about his PED experiences on this morning's show at 7AM. He hinted at some bad experiences with side effects and friends facing health issues from use. Should be interesting to hear if you have the time.
by jeepers on Dec 14, 2007 5:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am sorta impressed...
He really did a good job answering questions this morning. The overwhelming number of calls were in support of him and going off about how he is to be commended for coming forward and admitting it. The few calls he did take that were kind of bagging on him he admitted that he would have felt the same way if one of his baseball heroes growing up cheated.
So all in all he did as good of a job as he could have I think. He mentioned a couple of times the side effects he experienced as well as some of his friends and how bad they were and that kids should know this.
My opinion on it if anyone actually cares. This is a great chance for a guy like F.P. to become a local spokesperson for schools and kids in general about how these things can screw up your life. In F.P's case he took them to save his career and while there is no excuses for cheating in my opinion the best thing he could do is come forward and now try and teach other people just how bad these things are for your body, career, and overall quality of life.
by Roloc on Dec 14, 2007 9:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
News report about F.P. now he is sorry...
by Roloc on Dec 13, 2007 9:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That link goes to a "story not found" page...
Try this one.
by Poppy on Dec 14, 2007 6:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't care...
I don't care what the baseball players are doing..it's their body. I miss small ball and hit and run, but it's a capitalistic society and people with money want to see homers.
All I care about is that Living Legend Roger Clemens gets similar flack as Barry Bonds.
You either hate them all or don't care. I don't care..
by Erik being Erik on Dec 13, 2007 2:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
+1 - I agree 100000000000000000%
If you are going to decry Bonds for his use, you had better sure as hell BURY the poster boy of MLB, Roger Clemens, who the league no doubt KNEW about and said nothing because he was a better media face for baseball than was Barry Bonds.
You just CAN'T care; you can't! Either we accept that it was rampant in baseball and move on, or we leave the sport.
by baseballgirl on Dec 13, 2007 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For what it's worth
I don't want Clemens on our club either. Not even if he plays for free.
If forced to choose between Clemens and Bonds, I'd rather take Bonds.
by iglew on Dec 13, 2007 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm playing the race card
Clemens deserves the benefit of the doubt because sportswriters and society at large are biased against white assholes from Texas.
by monkeyball on Dec 13, 2007 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just another case of The White Man...
trying to keep the Red Neck down.
by McFood on Dec 13, 2007 4:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather have 'em both in a cage match
against Frank Thomas.
"No. It's Oakland."
by Kyli on Dec 13, 2007 6:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
home early to tune in Espn
to see what up.
by ak_A on Dec 13, 2007 3:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is a reflection...
...of our society, no question. Remarks like 'the past is the past'; 'these were mistakes'; and, 'I don't care' solve nothing. In fact, they promote the idea that there are no consequences for bad behavior. Drugs are a cancer eating at our society and we don't care? People kill people over drugs and the best the rest of us can do is take flowers to the place where someone was killed and put up little signs.
Baseball is a sport I have loved all my life. It seems clear to me, however, that management, the union and the players, including the ones that didn't take drugs, became part of the problem. What about the media? The two men in S.F. that seemed to have broken this open deserve credit. It took guts. Some use words like 'snitching'. Perhaps cooler heads would call this 'saving someone's life' and 'setting an example' for the thousands of kids that worship these players. As for me, I'm disgusted with the violation of principles in this American game.
by doubleplayer on Dec 13, 2007 5:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
WATCOTO
by monkeyball on Dec 13, 2007 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What would Henry Cotto do? n/t
by Nick on Dec 13, 2007 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly
The whole Mitchell report doesn’t really seem to be much more, than a bunch of he said, she said bullshit. Lots of people talk, and lots of people say a lot of different things, for many different reasons. But just because words come out of a persons mouth and they are "on record" does not mean they are true. Who knows how many players were named because they were taking steroids, and how many were named due to "personal issues" between players, trainers, and the media. Major league baseball is a workplace, and in every workplace there is jealousy, backstabbing on some levels, and all types of peoples personality's and ego's clashing. Baseball is no different, in fact those issues are probably magnified tenfold.
by Shippee33 on Dec 13, 2007 5:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I don't know
I'd say personal checks written by, say, Twins outfielders to random Mets clubbies who just happen to be at the center of major steroid distribution rings qualifies as more than "he said, she said"... but that's just me.
by PaulThomas on Dec 13, 2007 5:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I totally agree
by Shippee33 on Dec 13, 2007 6:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My two cents
Baseball has misled iteslf into believing that "baseball itself, is above the rules of self governing of all entities involved in any, and all, forms of organized professional for-profit activities."
I'm not gonna divulge much further. MLB is at a crossroads, though, and it's high time everyone get their collective shit together.
Here's to better days and wiser times........
-MRod
by mrod on Dec 13, 2007 6:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
by PaulThomas on Dec 13, 2007 10:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sshipee...
...those blinders fit very nicely.
by doubleplayer on Dec 14, 2007 9:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The 10% rule
So, the logic behind the "it's okay to sign Bonds now" posts is, "Since 79 other guys just got caught, now it's okay to sign Bonds."
That's roughly 10% of mlb players.
So, if 10% of all Americans get caught not paying taxes, doing crack, speeding through red lights, embezzling funds from their employers, or driving drunk, it's okay to cheer for them, to embrace and forgive them, to hire them because "everybody is doing it."
The math doesn't add up. Neither does the logic.
Bonds is still a cheater. And while Cust may be a cheater too, he hasn't spent the last four years lying to a grand jury, lying to every TV camera he sees, lying at the expense of his "best friend." The difference between Bonds and Cust is that one dude was trying anything he could to make it in the bigs. Trying to stick. The other was a first ballot hall-of-famer that didn't need this crap to make it. He was driven by ego, vanity, greed. All the characteristics that make me pull against him. Neither guy is above reproach. But one's an ass and the other, well, the jury is still out.
by Papago on Dec 13, 2007 7:27 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
so what you're saying is ...
... it's kind of OK to cheat if you suck?
by monkeyball on Dec 13, 2007 7:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or it's ok to cheat
if you kind of suck.
by Nico on Dec 13, 2007 9:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No
If you suck, you're less likely to be put in a position where you have to fess up or compound your cheating with persistent lying.
I hope more guys, including Cust, are put on the spot because of this report. I hope the pressure forces them to make a statement, and we get to find out if they'll take the Santangelo path or the Clemens path.
by iglew on Dec 14, 2007 11:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Random Thoughts
As I scrolled thru the list of names, it was interesting to gage my reaction to them. When I saw names that I equate to being arrogant jerks, I got a quirky little smile. Then I see Jack Cust and just felt sort of yucky inside. Disappointment, I guess. I was surprised by Clemens, but not sure why. Actually I was surprised by 31 pitchers being named. I've never thought of pitchers and steroids as a logical mix. Which begs the comment:
Steroids certainly didn't do for Rick Ankiel what it did for Clemens (if true). Think maybe it's the reason he got so wild which in turn totally messed with his psyche and ended his pitching career?
I don't care who we sign if it means beating the frigging Angels in 2008.
by kapers on Dec 13, 2007 10:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Come on people
Without steroids I would only have the 3 World Series when I was age 10 thru 12.No 1989 ,close losses in 1988 and 1991.I was lucky enough to stand next to Big Mac when he came up as a skinny third baseman and thinking he's not much bigger than me.The next year his arms were as big as my leg.I still cheered.Bring on Barry and anybody else that can hit.Go A's.Party like it's 1989.
by floorpimp on Dec 13, 2007 11:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Not necessarily
You're counting the Series that we won with roiders, but ignoring the ones we lost.
We had a great team in 2001. Yes, we had roiders, but so did the other teams. Who's to say their roids didn't help them more than our roids helped us?
Think back to game 5 in the ALDS that knocked us out of the playoffs. Who was the starting pitcher for the Yankees? Who hit the home run that finished us off?
Steroids helped all teams, not ours alone. You can't say that without them we wouldn't have won.
by iglew on Dec 14, 2007 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One angle about steroids that hasn't gotten much
play the last few days. They are not considered schedule IV drugs without medical benefit by law. Which means they have medicinal value. In all the hype about "cheating", I wonder if their are occasions where there use are sanctioned by medical professionals for rehabbing an injury. It seems strange to think that any of us would object to proper medical therapy for an injured player, especially is such therapy would provide for rapid recovery from a medical standpoint. I wonder how that fits in with MLB testing?
by alox on Dec 14, 2007 8:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
"Proper medical therapy"
That's it! Quick, call Barry's lawyer. Call the players' union pres. Donnie Fehr; call all managers and general managers (La Russa first); call those players who lost their jobs because someone that was juiced was simply getting proper medical therapy - they'll feel better; call CNN - they'll buy it. Wow! You just saved baseball from its biggest scandal.
by doubleplayer on Dec 14, 2007 9:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, there's an easy smell test for that
You're injured and your doctor prescribes a drug to help with the healing process. Do you get that drug from ... ?
(a) the hospital pharmacy
(b) a dentist in Florida
(c) a clubhouse attendant for the Mets
by iglew on Dec 14, 2007 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
(d) gynecologist
by mikeA on Dec 14, 2007 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
(e) veterinarian
by Poppy on Dec 14, 2007 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
(f) Gavin Newsom
by monkeyball on Dec 14, 2007 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- How a Chicago guy learned to love Albert Pujols of St. Louis
- Bud's All-Star tie tops our non-steroid controversies of decade
- D12: Revisiting the Twins decision of Mauer over Prior (again)
- After locking up of AL MVP, it's time for Twins to lock up Mauer
- November means R&R for Raiders fan CC Sabathia and others
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
