Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Reid backs McNabb, does McNabb back Reid? Bar-right-arrows

A Dark Day Begins

Oakland_tiny by Blez on in News

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 | Comment 131 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

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.

More than just ANtics: http://www.louisgray.com/live/

by louismg on Dec 13, 2007 11:13 AM PST   0 recs

Cust did the right thing.

I wouldn't meet with any of them either. The past is the past.

Thank you Raider fan! We all get to watch the Pats/Colts game on TV.

by sf drift king on Dec 13, 2007 11:31 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

McGwire?

Is that you?

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Dec 13, 2007 12:45 PM PST to parent up   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

Cust is the new Jaha.

by johnjahafanclub on Dec 13, 2007 1:40 PM PST to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

And only Frank Thomas did anyway.

Nothing to hide. Good man, Hurt.

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Dec 13, 2007 12:45 PM PST to parent up   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.

"I Will Not Relent, I Am Driven"... Clutch
Bring Back The Bash!!!

by Shippee33 on Dec 13, 2007 5:11 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

What does this do for Bonds??
I recognize that this is a very, very sad day for MLB, but the A's fan in me can't help but ask, "Will the public, and A's fans, have a different view on Bonds after this?".

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   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.

Jim

by jarforcefatherofforce on Dec 13, 2007 12:44 PM PST to parent up   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.

Thank you Raider fan! We all get to watch the Pats/Colts game on TV.

by sf drift king on Dec 13, 2007 3:14 PM PST to parent up   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.

More than just ANtics: http://www.louisgray.com/live/

by louismg on Dec 13, 2007 11:17 AM PST   0 recs

it appears that

piatt snitched on miggy

"He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown

by flipgatey3 on Dec 13, 2007 11:42 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

there are photos of personal checks from tejada

plus like three other players have already "snitched" on miggy (raffy p).

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Dec 13, 2007 11:45 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

right

but raffy p also never took steroids, period. ;)

"He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown

by flipgatey3 on Dec 13, 2007 3:38 PM PST to parent up   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!!!

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Dec 13, 2007 3:44 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

<calls bank>
count-down to ST.

by ak_A on Dec 13, 2007 3:47 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

You've never written a check for

drugs intended for use by women?

It starts with rule No. 1 from coach Don Nelson: Shoot the ball.

by mikeA on Dec 13, 2007 3:51 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

strong enough for a man
but ph balanced for a woman.

what commercial was that?  

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Dec 13, 2007 4:34 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Weight Gain 2000
"He's a misfit. He gets along with everyone." - Reggie Jackson, describing Joe Rudi

by McFood on Dec 13, 2007 4:42 PM PST to parent up   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   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 to parent up   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.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Dec 13, 2007 11:59 AM PST   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?

"We've been kicking other peoples' asses for so long I figure it's time we got ours kicked."

by Checkswing HR on Dec 13, 2007 12:08 PM PST   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   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.

In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 13, 2007 12:23 PM PST to parent up   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?

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Dec 13, 2007 12:51 PM PST to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

and the pa

will never allow a blood test

"He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown

by flipgatey3 on Dec 13, 2007 3:39 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Congress will.
Guaranteed.
We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Dec 15, 2007 11:42 PM PST to parent up   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.

What if Napoleon had a B-52, Miggy kept running, Byrnesy stepped on the fricking plate, and Little G slid?

by socaloaktownfan on Dec 13, 2007 1:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

class-action lawsuit time!
just the right balance of dishonesty and likable qualities @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 13, 2007 2:16 PM PST to parent up   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.

"Ten times thy self were better than ten Hattebergs" -- Monkeyball, channeling Shakespeare

by iglew on Dec 13, 2007 3:36 PM PST to parent up   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.

just the right balance of dishonesty and likable qualities @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 13, 2007 4:30 PM PST to parent up   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.  

Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Dec 13, 2007 12:19 PM PST   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 to parent up   0 recs

Expos, ok...Twins maybe
Not sure what he did against the A's.  Especially since his buddy owns the team now.  I mean small markets in general hes supported, making it a point for revenue sharing trying to bridge the gap...even if its only a little bit.  Not just the Brewers here...he has an idea of whats right for the game, to improve the game and in most cases, I think hes right.  
Gas to Chicago- $23.87 A's/White Sox Tix- $28 Watching the A's whipping the Sox in July 05'- Priceless

by WiscoFan on Dec 13, 2007 12:53 PM PST to parent up   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 to parent up   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.

"Rebuilding" is loser mentality.

by UncleLeo on Dec 13, 2007 1:19 PM PST to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

No, you're not being objective at all.
Look at it from a 1968 perspective, not 2007.  Attendance at games was far more critical for revenue than today.  The attendance numbers that the Giants drew up to 1967 was basically equally split between the two teams in 1968.  There was no significant increase in total baseball attendance in the bay area, nor would there be for many years, and it wasn;t until the late 1980s that both teams could draw well... and even then only if both teams did well on the field.

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.

"Rebuilding" is loser mentality.

by UncleLeo on Dec 13, 2007 1:38 PM PST to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

I gave plenty of objective reasons...

...you just don't like them.

"Rebuilding" is loser mentality.

by UncleLeo on Dec 13, 2007 1:51 PM PST to parent up   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 to parent up   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.

"Rebuilding" is loser mentality.

by UncleLeo on Dec 13, 2007 2:10 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I Object to the Objectivity

...because this subject produced too many objectionably subjective illustrations which caused me to suffer bilateral subconjunctival hemmorhages.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Dec 13, 2007 3:57 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I don't find this thread

particularly objective.

-- Ayn Rand

"BTW, this is ridiculous..." -- devo

by oblique on Dec 13, 2007 4:35 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Beane should blow up the team

< / Howard Roark >

just the right balance of dishonesty and likable qualities @('.')@

by monkeyball on Dec 13, 2007 4:41 PM PST to parent up   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!

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Dec 14, 2007 4:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Apparently this is the entire list of players

named.

Find it here.

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 Blez on Dec 13, 2007 12:26 PM PST   0 recs

Oh and apparently

Adam Piatt told Mitchell that he supplied Miggy with the PEDs during the 2003 season.

by Blez on Dec 13, 2007 12:27 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

snitch!

miggy should make a video like carmelo anthony

"He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown

by flipgatey3 on Dec 13, 2007 3:58 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Pious was Piatt, but Pontius Pilate he was not...

so says Procula.

"He's a misfit. He gets along with everyone." - Reggie Jackson, describing Joe Rudi

by McFood on Dec 13, 2007 4:30 PM PST to parent up   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.

"It is almost impossible to exaggerate the complete unimportance of almost everything."

by Poppy on Dec 13, 2007 12:34 PM PST to parent up   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.

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Dec 13, 2007 12:53 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Boy,

I hope you tell this to the judge when you get called in for jury service.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Dec 13, 2007 1:07 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

That was poorly formatted.

Not calling Oz a boy. Just a figure of speech.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Dec 13, 2007 1:08 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

So you're implying that he's a girl?
"It is almost impossible to exaggerate the complete unimportance of almost everything."

by Poppy on Dec 13, 2007 1:52 PM PST to parent up   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 to parent up   0 recs

True, but

"Cust told me he used steroids" (which is what Bigbie told Mitchell) is most definitely hearsay, n'est ce pas?

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Dec 13, 2007 3:34 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

That's one of the ones I was referring to

as hearsay.  Not Piatt's description of his own behavior.

"It is almost impossible to exaggerate the complete unimportance of almost everything."

by Poppy on Dec 13, 2007 5:18 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

The rule of law
and the rule of my own personal opinion are two very different things.

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.

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Dec 14, 2007 10:21 AM PST to parent up   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.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Dec 14, 2007 10:53 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Now you're just being dumb.
Giambi cooperated to explain how he WAS guilty.

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.

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Dec 15, 2007 11:38 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Sure... b/c that worked well in Salem.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!

by DMOAS on Dec 13, 2007 1:22 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Oh please.
That's one step away from a Hitler ref.

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?

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Dec 14, 2007 10:13 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Go Google "American libel law"

Please. It will save all of us some time here.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Dec 14, 2007 10:54 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

In that case:
You're a pedophile.

Sue me?

<dr evil pinkie>

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Dec 15, 2007 11:39 PM PST to parent up   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!

"He's a misfit. He gets along with everyone." - Reggie Jackson, describing Joe Rudi

by McFood on Dec 13, 2007 2:09 PM PST to parent up   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 i