"'I'm here to be positive,'' he said several times, usually in a hostile tone." In today's San Francisco Chronicle Gwen Knapp calls McGwire a coward:
has some excerpts from McGwire's testimony.
If you want to find out about steroids in baseball today why subpoena a player who retired in 2001? For the same reason criminals are subpoenaed after renouncing a life of crime. For the off chance that maybe, just maybe, they want to set things right. I am not comparing McGuire to a criminal. I think that at his core, he is a good man. He took an enhancer that was legal according to MLB. I don't think revising history will solve anything. As for the notion that McGuire has turned from a "towering American icon" into a petty figure, I have to ask, what good would his admission of guilt do? What good would his "outing" of current or former players do? It's all a show, we all know it. If Congress wants MLB to "clean up its act" talk to Bud and Donald, using current and former players as pawns sucks. Sure, the players could add to the dialogue, as they will be the ones who are directly affected, but that isn't what is happening here. These guys were getting dragged through the mud before this circus whether they deserved it or not, and now they'll never get away from it. I say throw Congress a bone, give the drug policy some teeth and let sleeping dogs lie. I can't believe I'm saying this, but if Bonds breaks Aaron's record, and everything from here on is above board, give the guy a break. And I'm a Dodger Fan fer chrissakes!
I think Gwen Knapp missed the point. The idea today is to say nothing. Giambi said nothing. President Bush refused to say publically he smoked pot because he didn't want the little children to follow his lead. Lawyers on every side of this counsel their clients to say nothing. No one ever knows what may be used against you later. I understand that Congress has hearings on all sorts of topics. I also understand that this Committee looks at drug policy. I also understand they did not need to call McGwire. They knew what he would say before he was called. They knew he, of all the players called, had the most to lose; no matter what he said. There was not a single "win" possible for the man. A coward would have said "Yeah, I took what everyone already knows I took and I saw A do it, and B shot up too, and so did C." McGwire was a man who broke no laws treated like he was a criminal. You stand before a nationwide audience and get raked over the coals by holier-than-thou witchhunters. Try to maintain dignity while you think of how your children will see their father vilfied. Stand there and be called a coward by those refuse to live to the standards they have set for you. It took a strong person to sit in that hearing room and take what he took. I respect him even more now than I did while he was playing. On the other hand, where were Bonds and Giambi? Gwen, there be cowards.
On the other hand, where were Bonds and Giambi? Very simple explanation: those two are involved in the on-going BALCO investigation. If they had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress, it would have jeopardized that investigation and trial. That is why they did not appear. Their time will yet come.
Stand there and be called a coward by those refuse to live to the standards they have set for you. If I read this correctly, I have a problem with your hero-worship of McGwire. A coward lets the standards be set for himself, rather than setting the standard personally. A hero is someone who sets his standards above the rest. Everyone knows steroids are illegal, either federally or within a sports league. Because MLB was complicit in allowing their use speaks to McGwire's complicity as well, not his heroism.
I think we are gonna see purjury charges leveled at Bonds-very soon-I have had this "hunch" for quite a while. Especially now that a "deal" is being discussed with Bond's trainer! I noticed that Congress was able to get the steroid hearings in before they left on thier 2 week Easter Break! How thoughtful!
McGwire was a man who broke no laws treated like he was a criminal. how are you so sure he didn't break any laws? do you know for certain that he didn't take anything other than andro? if mcgwire only used things that were legal why didn't he say so? when canseco's book came out raffy said right away that he didn't do steroids. and yesterday he had no problem repeating that statement. mcgwire had also denied using steroids. so why couldn't he once again make that statement yesterday? There was not a single "win" possible for the man. if he bothered to give a straightforward answer i think he may have won more people over than you think.
daddisdam: While Congress does have the authority to hold hearings to learn about potential problems, the particular committee holding this hearing was the House Committee on Government Reform, the mandate of which really is unconnected to the hearings at issue. It just turns out that that Committee has some of the most liberal subpoena rules in Congress. The same Committee today subpoenaed Terry Schiavo, the Florida woman whose feeding tube was removed today, to testify after Easter in an effort to keep her alive. Basically, the Committee is just a bunch of grandstanding, interventionist nanny-staters trying to meddle in affairs over which they do not and/or should not have jurisdiction. rcade: I think your statement that "baseball has an anti-trust exemption, which gives the federal government more justification in investigating its affairs" is incorrect. The absence of regulation does not mean that government has more justification in investigating an entity's affairs, unless a statute expressly provides additional powers as a condition to, or in connection with, the regulatory exemption. Baseball's antitrust exemption is not statutory; it is based on the Supreme Court's interpretation that the Sherman Act was not intended to cover baseball. The existence of an antitrust exemption may therefore give Congress more leverage in investigating baseball (because Congress could threaten to impose additional regulation on baseball), but it does not provide greater justification for such intrusions from Congress. Congress can certainly amend the Sherman Act to cover baseball or otherwise regulate baseball under its commerce clause powers, but it the fact that the Sherman Act does not apply to baseball now gives Congress no more justification to waste our money questioning Mark McGwire about his records than it would have in the absence of the antritrust exemption. See here for more.
I think the hearings are crazy. Congress says they are doing this for the youth. Well I'm a youth and all they have done is ruin baseball for me. Instead of hearing about the game, all I hear about is how my hero's are cheaters and cowards. Doesn't congress have anything better to do than worry about a game. They should let baseball take care of itself.
itchapimp> if congress ruined the game for you, you have a lot of growing up to do. maybe congress does have better things to do, but when steroids were a scandal 17 years ago -- you call yourself a youth, you may have been in diapers and missed it -- there was a colossal steroid scandal at the 188 Olympics, Canseco was more-than-rumoured to be gobbling them in 1989, and Bud Selig did NOTHING for 17 years. go ahead, blame congress.
correction & addendum: obviously, that 'roid scandal year should read 1988; further - the tour de france was nearly ruined because of steroids; and the bottomline, letting baseball (bud selig) take care of the game is a joke, because this is a guy who buried his head in the sand and pretended it didn't exist when everybody around him -- including Joe Sixpack sitting in the bleachers -- knew otherwise. selig has been part of the coverup, always using the players assoc. power as a lame excuse to do _nothing_.
garfield: I'm not sure how you read the sentence. In other words, Gwen Knapp called McGwire a coward for not living to her standards. Standards she herself does not follow. (Unless I missed where the Chronicle staff published the results of their drug tests.) As far as "hero worship" I have never subscribed to such idolism. I said I respected McGwire. Furthermore, I never respected McGwire for his physical abilities. I respected a man who, when he had the ability, made sure his son could be part of his life on the road. I respected the man who lifted that son in the celebration of his career. It is Mark McGwire's work with abused children I respect. Not how he played the game. Hell, I hate modern baseball strategy that depends on home run hitters. If it was up to me -- MLB fields would be larger than the old Polo Grounds and we'd raise the mound back to where it belongs. goddam: How do you, or Congress, know McGwire broke any laws? Yet, I saw the man treated like a criminal. holden: hear, hear. Thank you. red terror: I agree that Selig should go. He has dropped the ball so many times on so many subjects. Of course, I am not sure there is a baseball owner I trust. He's not alone in working past his welcome. Donald Fehr needs to go also. Testing is a collective bargaining issue. Fehr has blocked it as much as possible.
Thanks for the clarification, holden. The point about the absence of regulation is pretty persuasive. I guess I've just heard the anti-trust exemption used as a threat for so long I figured it was codified into law. I respected a man who, when he had the ability, made sure his son could be part of his life on the road. All of the father-of-the-year talk around McGwire has always left me a little cold, even though it sounds like he developed an admirable relationship with his son after his divorce -- and he's doing a lot of good today by admitting he goes to regular therapy. However, people never start that story from the beginning, when he was by his own admission an SOB. He cheated on his wife and they split up when the kid was an infant. He came to the realization that raising his child was the most important job in his life late.
That's a good question. What good is it questioning a player that retired before the big news about steroids came out in last season? And where the hell is Bonds and Giambi? And why is Curt Schilling at the hearing?
I don't understand all of the people suggesting that McGwire has nothing to offer on this subject. Before the BALCO case and Canseco book, McGwire was the biggest name in the sport who had been caught -- and subsequently admitted -- using an anabolic steroid. He championed his use of androstenedione and said he'd take anything that was legal. Sales of androstenedione jumped 1,000 percent! Andro isn't steroids -- it increases testosterone and doesn't have the nasty health risks like liver damage. But McGwire was baseball's biggest known performance enhancer, and when you combine that with Canseco's claim, it made sense to have him in D.C.
Giambi and Bonds won't appear because of the BALCO case. Schilling is there because he's...well...uh...he had that sock, you see... McGwire has a lot to lose if he were to admit that he used steroids...his HOF nomination could be severely harmed by an admission this year. If the hearing really wanted to get to the bottom of this "scandal", then they would have called Chris Bootcheck (tested positive during/before some international tournament, but still a member of the MLBPA) or Manny Alexander (actually caught by police with steroids in his car, since retired). These are AAA level players that barely make a major league squad. If anyone is likely to use (and abuse) steroids, it's players who have a chance to change their salary from 5-figures to 7-figures. And while I really do feel sorry for the two families who lost their kids to suicide, I think it's pretty depressing to hear them chastise a player for not being a good role model. The last time I checked, the only people that are supposed to be role models are the parents themselves. How much of a role model were they if their kids decided taking illegal drugs was a good idea? But McGwire was baseball's biggest known performance enhancer, and when you combine that with Canseco's claim, it made sense to have him in D.C. Then why didn't they call in Willie Mays and some other players from the 60s/70s? It wasn't steroids back then, but they used performance enhancers (amphetamines) as well. And if they want them to crack down on "performance enhancers", then how about players that get LASIK eye surgery, and end up with vision that is BETTER than 20/20? This gives them better-than-normal ability to read the spin on a ball as it approaches the plate, and give them a better chance to hit the ball...which is more than can be said for steroids...
Basically, the Committee is just a bunch of grandstanding, interventionist nanny-staters trying to meddle in affairs over which they do not and/or should not have jurisdiction. This may or may not be true.. Bottom line is, this committee held the hearings and most would agree that the hearing were meaningful as they showed the general public that real people are getting hurt by the illeagal use of perfromance enhancing drugs. The commerce committee is fixing to do hearing on the same subject. From what I hear thier scope will be broader and include football and other sports and industries. This committee has power over the anit-trust excemption. And like I said before, hearing are a main fact finding vehical for congress. They are held at any time for almost anyting. This last week was a classic civics lesson. I applaud the fact, that the system still works. The trouble with this hearing was that you had media, like ESPN, who have no business covering a governmental event. Its like Dan Rather trying to do play by play at the super-bowl. Peter Gammons is great, but he is no Wolf Blitzer......... The woman in Florida is a tradgic case one that doesnt even compare to this topic--but that too falls in line as part of our governments job.
< i>b>Then why didn't they call in Willie Mays and some other players from the 60s/70s? It wasn't steroids back then, but they used performance enhancers (amphetamines) as well.And if they want them to crack down on "performance enhancers", then how about players that get LASIK eye surgery, and end up with vision that is BETTER than 20/20? This gives them better-than-normal ability to read the spin on a ball as it approaches the plate, and give them a better chance to hit the ball...which is more than can be said for steroids... ALL illeagal drugs should be banned from baseball. Thats the problem I have with this new system.. Its doenst include all illeagal drugs most of which could be called performance enhancning. Heck in Baseball, Caffiene, is used as a performance enhancer. They reference to eye surgery is silly as it is an approve medical prucedure that takes the place of corrective lenses. I am tired at that over used comment, "steroids dont help you hit the ball better" Hitting the ball is one thing, turning a fly ball to center ino a homer is another. Steroids are illeagal without a perscription and can be dangerous-- They are bad just like cocaine, speed, crank,etc. I dont want to hear about thier medical value. Steroids,under a Dr's care are used in many aspects of Medicine. They have thier limits and the side effects can be bad. I have taken various kinds of steroids with my cancer treatment and they work wonders--but I also hate taking them because they can do wierd things to your body. Baseball needs to adopt the Olympic model of testing and get rid of ALL illeagal substances and if baseball cant do it on thier own, I hope that Congress will. The NFL system is stronger but it still have many loop holes that need to be filled.. Band everything I say.
If I recall the hearings, Big Mac was asked about Andro--that was a good chance for him to speak up...after all, it "was leagal at the time" ... He looked and acted like he had something to hide.....
Reggie Jackson spoke up this week in favor of the hearings, and I think his reasoning is worth noting: "I'd like knowing because it allows people to know the careers that the older players had have more value. They got devalued for awhile. It gives us a lot more credibility, letting people know it wasn't so easy to hit 500 home runs."
daddisamm: I think you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of the federal government, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Even accepting that the government should have jurisdiction over these matters, I think there are other, more meaningful public health and public policy problems (e.g., malnutrition -- which I'm sure kills more people and causes more problems than steroids) that the government should be addressing. It's hard not to be cynical when you see congressmen calling heatings on something that doesn't rise to the level of a national epidemic but places the congressmen firmly in the national spotlight and provides them the opportunity to interrogate and play tough cop with individuals making, at a minimum, 10 times more than them.
holden-you are right-that there are more important things than steroids. My Point is that hearing are going on all of the time-on health, on nutrition, etc. Like it or not its takes a while for things to get done. Squeaky wheels gets noticed but that doesnt mean that wheels aint rolling when yo cant hear them... People are always striving for the spotlight-in alot of profesessions-not such politics. I was told a long time ago that the government is no better or worse than the people they goverrn... It would be amazing to know how many people, of those who critical of the hearings, actually voted. If you did vote, I applaud you> You have earned the right to complain. If you didnt vote you dont have a right to say anything about the process-----
poIt's hard not to be cynical when you see congressmen calling heatings on something that doesn't rise to the level of a national epidemic but places the congressmen firmly in the national spotlight and provides them the opportunity to interrogate and play tough cop with individuals making, at a minimum, 10 times more than them. sted by holden at 9:18 AM CST on March 19 You right, we'll disagree. If you think that this was a one time happening. Many people that congress calls on make more money than them.---One thing to consider Holden, If you polled everybody in this country about what the biggest problem was--you'd come up with a large variety of answers. Each person considers thier "problem" the most important.......
They reference to eye surgery is silly as it is an approve medical prucedure that takes the place of corrective lenses. The reference is not "silly". If the surgery gave you the same vision that the corrective lenses gave you, then would be no problem or concern. However, it's giving the player BETTER vision than what the corrective lenses provided. Therefore, they are getting a distinct advantage over the "regular" player who has only natural 20/20 vision. Check out the news article near the bottom of this page about Larry Walker. "He is now seeing 20/15, which is better than he was seeing with his contact lenses," noted Dr. Spivack. How is that not an advantage? And what is to stop a player who has normal 20/20 vision from requesting the surgery to get an advantage? Isn't this the very definition of "performance enhancing"? I am tired at that over used comment, "steroids dont help you hit the ball better" Hitting the ball is one thing, turning a fly ball to center ino a homer is another. But that's the point. You can't turn a fly ball to centre into a home run unless you make contact with the ball in the first place. If curveballs and late-breaking sliders make you look like Pedro Cerrano, you won't be in the major leagues for long, no matter how far you crush a mistake from the pitcher. There are a lot of players with big power (but no contact skill) who hang around the fringes of MLB. Do you think adding even more power (through steroids) is going to make a difference? Or would being able to read the pitch a bit better (through, oh I don't know, LASIK eye enhancement) give them more of a chance to stick in the majors?
You can't turn a fly ball to centre into a home run unless you make contact with the ball in the first place. How many players in the Major League can't make contact with the ball, though? Even if all steroids did was add an average of 15 feet to every fly ball you managed to hit, it could turn a middle-of-the-road 15 home run player into an All Star. And if you're already an All-Star power hitter, it could turn you into the single-season home run record holder.
Grum, I totally used to be on your side - steriods don't make you hit the ball better, merely farther when good contact is made. But with the evidence of quick muscle affects, improved eyesight (also a by-product, and curiously related to your previous post) and increased ability to train, there is a geniune preformance enhancing effect to steriods that can't be duplicated with another procedure or substance - and don't forget the pitchers. Two words - Billy Koch.
Can someone shed light for me or point me to an article on the history with pitchers and steroids?
Two words - Billy Koch. I'm not sure I understand what this means? Did he admit to using steroids? Didn't he just get cut from the Jays?
I've read everything pro and con McGwire in the last few days and, in my opinion, he's totally the wrong person for them to be going after right now. He is, however, an easy target since he is a big name and since his playing days are over. I'm not a big fan of the man, but he doesn't deserve the hatred that is being directed at him.
I think the passion driving critics of McGwire is driven by disappointment. The idea that he might have broken one of the most cherished records in sports on steroids is too awful for baseball junkies like me to contemplate.
