FanDuel - WFBC

December 20, 2007

Schilling Calls Out The Rocket: Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling called on Roger Clemens to give up the four Cy Young Awards he's won since 1997 if he can't clear his name from allegations that he used steroids to prolong and enhance his career.

posted by firecop to baseball at 06:27 AM - 95 comments

Good commentary on the issue. I think these players should have stepped up and spoken out against this long ago but at least now that the elephant has been acknowledged, maybe they'll actually clean up baseball from all sides. Players, managers, owners and the commissioner. Those who have not been using do need to be acknowledged for their accomplishments while they were competing against cheaters. Whether records are taken away or not, fans should recognize the great accomplishment of those who didn't cheat and still were able to rise to the top.

posted by Familyman at 07:23 AM on December 20

Schilling is consistent in his view that records are meaningless if they were obtained by un-natural means. I personally, will watch what Clemens does if he is called before the Senate panel that convenes Jan 15. Will he present credible evidence to clear his name or will he do a Palmeiro or a Big Mac?

posted by Cave_Man at 07:31 AM on December 20

Yeah, now it's all chic and acceptable for every player who feels the urge to come out with all these strong comments to do so, when before many of them walked around ignoring it or turning the other way. If the use of PHDs was so widespread, you can't honestly tell me many players didn't know it was going on, and who was doing it. Schilling sat there in front of Congress when they made a big issue regarding it, but was he (and others) shouting it from the rooftops before that? Now they want to come across so piously about "cleaning up the game" and all that bullshit? I'm not fully buying it, not that I don't necessarily agree with his current sentiments. Maybe if some current or former players would have had the balls to say something about this issue earlier the problem wouldn't have escalated to this point.

posted by dyams at 07:35 AM on December 20

I been thinking about how now that Roger Clemens has been named in the Mitchell Report, I haven't heard many people bash him the way that Barry Bonds has been bashed in the past for his alleged use of steriods until now that Curt Schilling has spoken up against Clemens.

posted by BornIcon at 07:46 AM on December 20

But as has been brought up in the past, it is pretty impossible to prove a negative. How do you prove that you never took steroids. Especially when all it takes is for anyone to come out and say, "Yep, I saw him take some."

posted by opel70 at 08:05 AM on December 20

I agree with dyams. I doubt that this if the first time Schilling et al know that teammates and fellow players are on the 'roids or other banned substances. It's easy to come out as mightier than thou now.

posted by jmd82 at 08:12 AM on December 20

Schilling sat there in front of Congress when they made a big issue regarding it, but was he (and others) shouting it from the rooftops before that? As you acknowledge, Schilling was one of the only big-name players who spoke up against steroid abuse in baseball before it was chic to do so. This was courageous for him to do in 2005 -- at a time when most of his peers were hiding, lying like Palmeiro or blowing smoke like McGwire -- and had to be extremely unpopular within the fraternity of baseball. It's unfair to make him sound like he's exploiting the outrage.

posted by rcade at 08:13 AM on December 20

" been thinking about how now that Roger Clemens has been named in the Mitchell Report, I haven't heard many people bash him the way that Barry Bonds has been bashed in the past for his alleged use of steriods until now that Curt Schilling has spoken up against Clemens. posted by BornIcon at 7:46 AM CST on December 20" What strikes me is the silence of some on this board concerning the allegations against Clemens. Some were very vocal when only Bonds was on the hook. It should be noted that the allegations against Clemens were made by his personal trainer that followed him around for years, Bond's personal trainer has steadfastly refused to finger Bonds and went to jail for doing so several times. A logical person looks at Bond's situation and think that he either knowingly used steroids or was a complete dunce that consumed "novel" substances that were given to him. Also note that both Bonds and Clemens became incredibly bulked up late in their careers. Can anyone say that Clemens situation is not the same as Bond's?

posted by Cave_Man at 08:14 AM on December 20

I've watched this play out in cycliing numerous times. Once you're named in media, you're screwed, no matter what you do. Clemens and other baseball players have advantage of a strong players union and a lot more money to defend themselves - but the bottom line is his future endorsement value has been damaged and his future legacy in question. The only way this gets cleaned up is if the players, teams, and coaches all commit to making the sport clean. You can't enforce your way out of this without everyone's support.

posted by BikeNut at 08:17 AM on December 20

IF the Clemens allegations holdup, then Roger should give back the awards. Let's let the "juries" do there thing first.... there will be plenty of time to get the Cy Youngs from him. As for why less animosity toward Roger than Barry..... one word.... Barry has a MOUTH.

posted by Fly_Piscator at 08:28 AM on December 20

but the bottom line is his future endorsement value has been damaged and his future legacy in question. Maybe they could do advertisements for future steroids. "Get all the 'roids you want at roids-r-us.com!" As for why less animosity toward Roger than Barry..... one word.... Barry has a MOUTH. No, Schilling has a much much bigger mouth than Bonds, yet Schilling is revered by the media and much moreso by fans than Bonds.

posted by jmd82 at 08:42 AM on December 20

Schilling should just let the Commissoner and whoever else do their jobs.He should just keep his big mouth shut.

posted by Ghastly1 at 08:45 AM on December 20

As for why less animosity toward Roger than Barry..... one word.... Barry has a MOUTH. See, that's the part I don't get. Every time I turn on ESPN (and it's come up here as well), I keep hearing how at least Roger's a nicer guy than Bonds, and that's why he's getting a relatively easier go of it at the moment. That's hogwash. Bonds may not be much of a kiss-ass toward the writers, but he does talk to them, he gives good soundbites whenever he's called to do so, and he's always been a team guy. Rocket, on the other hand, is the most self-serving athlete I've ever seen in a team sport (keep trying, though, Terrell), and even his pouty little wrist-to-forehead after-all-I've-accomplished-how-could-you-do-this-to-me statement bears that out. I'm firmly in the camp that believes every era has their unnatural means by which players had an edge, so while I agree with Schilling in principle (and I'd love nothing more than to see the last decade of Rocket's drama-queenery stricken from the books - if only someone could do the same for my memory), I'm also sure he understands that in practice, what he's calling for is not going to happen. This isn't the Olympics, where medals are taken and swapped about at the whim of a very small group accountable to no one. Only the Commissioner could even begin that process, and Selig never, ever would (even though, Ghastly1, that is exactly what his job is). Not only is that a slippery slope covered with opened cans of worms, it would also mean that he'd take responsibility for the wrong turn baseball took in the 90's by allowing this stuff to go on unchecked for so long. And Bud Selig never met a buck he couldn't pass.

posted by chicobangs at 08:54 AM on December 20

It's unfair to make him sound like he's exploiting the outrage. It'd be less fair if he'd talked to George Mitchell instead of walking the company line.

posted by yerfatma at 09:23 AM on December 20

No, Schilling has a much much bigger mouth than Bonds, yet Schilling is revered by the media and much moreso by fans than Bonds. It's Clemens under suspicion, not Schilling, so why would anybody be comparing Schilling to Bonds? Scorecards here, getcher scorecards, can't tell the players without a scorecard...

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:32 AM on December 20

Bonds is obviously going to be despised more than Clemens at this point because he broke the biggest individual record in baseball. As for Schilling saying all Cy Young Awards won by Clemens should be taken away from him, who exactly does that benefit? Will that make everyone suddently feel better about the game? The real damage players using these drugs may have done is in actual game results, which impact the standings, which impact the playoffs and World Series. Who's to know how many game results were directly altered due to players' use of banned substances? And as for the pitchers who finished runner-up to Clemens in Cy Young voting, do you really think they'll be ecstatic to have an award thrown their way after several years, under these circumstances? One of the many issues baseball faces when addressing this problem remains the fact they never took steps to alter the use of these drugs via their own rules or policies in the past, so doing so in hindsight is stupid, vindictive, and solves nothing. Learn from the past, move on, and make sure the game is cleaned up from this point forward.

posted by dyams at 09:52 AM on December 20

As for why less animosity toward Roger than Barry..... one word.... Barry has a MOUTH Who cares if Barry Bonds doesn't like or talk much to the media? That just sounds like a cop out to me. The bottom line is that Clemens is now in the same catagory as Bonds, suspicion of using performance enhancing drugs and like Bonds, unless there's actual proof, then it's nothing more than allegations. I just don't hear the uproar in the Clemens allegations that we've all heard here on SpoFi when it was all about Bonds. I'm hoping that it's not about the color of the man's skin or from the way the media portrays Bonds because that's just absurd. I'm not trying to stir the pot but I'm truly astonished how no one seems to think that having Clemens' name on the Mitchell Report has given people enough ammo to now put him on the same level that the media has put Barry Bonds where people say, "Let's put an asterisk next to his name." It sucks to think that our so-called "heros" are nothing more than Captain America playing professional sports.

posted by BornIcon at 09:53 AM on December 20

It sucks to think that our so-called "heros" are nothing more than Captain America playing professional sports. Whoa whoa whoa, when did Steve Rogers come in for abuse? He took the Super-Soldier Serum to combat Ratzis in Dubya Dubya Dos, not to hit a baseball. No rules in war. I just don't hear the uproar in the Clemens allegations that we've all heard here on SpoFi when it was all about Bonds. You're right, but I think at least some of it is because it's become old hat now. Outrage fatigue is probably more to blame than racism. And maybe it's because the media's finally gotten around to pointing out none of this stuff amounts to anything more than he said/ she said in terms of facts.

posted by yerfatma at 10:24 AM on December 20

Clemens didn't break the home run record. Is it really that difficult to see that when comparing Bonds and Clemens? Not to mention, Bonds was one of one earlier this year, now Clemens is one of 96 or so.

posted by Steel_Town at 10:26 AM on December 20

Whoa whoa whoa, when did Steve Rogers come in for abuse? Well, since Steve Rogers 'died' (or did he really?), maybe Clemens decided to take his place and carry the shield and replaced it with a baseball. Clemens didn't break the home run record. Is it really that difficult to see that when comparing Bonds and Clemens? Not to mention, Bonds was one of one earlier this year, now Clemens is one of 96 or so. Classic example of someone making an excuse for these allegations.

posted by BornIcon at 10:48 AM on December 20

Steroids or not, these guys all make WAY too much money. Where money goes, corruption follows. How then, can any of this be surprising??

posted by slackerman at 10:56 AM on December 20

There's absolutlely no difference between Bonds and Clemens when it comes to these allegations. It's just easier to hate Bonds because he gives us so much ammunition and the fact that he broke Aarons record. As far as I'm concerned my contempt for these cheaters has nothing to do with race. You don't get much whiter than "Big Mac" and I think that he's not only a cheater but a pussy to boot, proven by his little dance in front of congress. Schilling...go for it and keep talking.

posted by budman13 at 11:03 AM on December 20

Classic example of someone making an excuse for these allegations. Huh? You started off talking about the reaction ("uproar") in response to the allegations about Bonds (as compared to the according-to-you lack of "uproar" about Clemens); yerfatma responded with why he believes the reaction to the allegations was different in the two cases; and you call this a case of making an "excuse for these allegations"? What are you talking about, anyway -- the allegations of PED use, or the public's reaction to them? Better figure it out if you want to have a conversation.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:21 AM on December 20

It's Clemens under suspicion, not Schilling, so why would anybody be comparing Schilling to Bonds? D'oh. I failed reading comprehension 101 and thought the person I quoted was talking about Schilling.

posted by jmd82 at 11:23 AM on December 20

All of these guys did what they did for money and fame. They will always have the money and their fame will just change but will remain. It reminds me of OJ Simpsons fall from grace. Not that what they did equates, but in OJ's case even though he didn't go to jail, knowing how important the public eye and adoration was to him, almost makes the joke his life has become, punishment enough. That is what these cheaters will have in store for them. The records, the money, the fame may remain, but how they are viewed by the public will be changed forever. Instead of walking into a bar with everyone wanting the Rockets autograph, now maybe people will just wisper "there is that cheater." Priceless

posted by Atheist at 11:48 AM on December 20

I just don't hear the uproar in the Clemens allegations that we've all heard here on SpoFi when it was all about Bonds. The issue of whether or not Bonds used Steroids has been in the public eye for years. There has been a federal investigation, a book, his chase of the most hallowed record in baseball and his indictment. It's taken years for this tidal wave of outrage to build up against Bonds. I'm no fan of Clemens. But you can't expect there to be the same immediate reaction against Clemens. If he does keep making these grand statements of innocence and the evidence continues to pile up against him, I do expect the outrage to build up against him as well.

posted by cjets at 12:04 PM on December 20

Not that my opinion is that important or more insightful than other writing here today, but I agree with Schilling on Clemens and some of the awards should be returned. I'm sure that other ballplayers are going to come forward either to profess their guilt and make contrition, or criticise the abusing parties and call for forfeiture of awards. This PED's scandal is going to snowball with more people coming forward and Mitchell's report is probably only the tip of the iceberg. Time will tell and I'm curious what the public will have to say about this whole affair.

posted by Nakeman at 12:17 PM on December 20

I think if Clemens were still at the top of his game, there might be a different reaction to him. His last season wasn't quite up to snuff, which makes it easier to just write him off. That said, he's no better or worse than Bonds.

posted by Joey Michaels at 12:22 PM on December 20

Not that my opinion is that important or more insightful than other writing here today, but I agree with Schilling on Clemens and some of the awards should be returned. Why? Because he's been accused? Okay, I accuse you of snorting horse testosterone in your high school locker room. Now give back that state championship you won. Damn, that was easy.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:32 PM on December 20

It's taken years for this tidal wave of outrage to build up against Bonds. My thoughts exactly. Clemens could end up next to Bonds in the Hall of Shame. Comparing the first week's reaction to the Clemens news to how fans talk about Bonds today is premature.

posted by rcade at 12:45 PM on December 20

Damn, that was easy. posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:32 PM CST on December 20 Were you being a smart ass or making a point?

posted by Nakeman at 12:53 PM on December 20

Were you being a smart ass or making a point? How about both? Clemens has been accused of wrongdoing. Should the mere fact of the accusation be enough for him to have to surrender his baseball honors?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:03 PM on December 20

I just don't hear the uproar in the Clemens allegations that we've all heard here on SpoFi when it was all about Bonds. Correct me if I am wrong, but the rumors of Bonds and steroids has been around for years. Isn't this the first time Clemens has been named? That might account for the lack of uproar so far. I'm certain it will continue to build if you want to check back in a few weeks.

posted by irunfromclones at 01:28 PM on December 20

Clemens has been accused of wrongdoing. Should the mere fact of the accusation be enough for him to have to surrender his baseball honors? No. but it sure doesn't look good. He was accused by the same trainer that was right about Petite.

posted by Steel_Town at 01:40 PM on December 20

Okay, I accuse you of snorting horse testosterone in your high school locker room. Damn, is that something you can do? Can you test for that? "The effects weren't known to be dangerous, but many who tried it complained of the smell that wouldn't leave their nostrils. Or the image permanently burned in their mind of the collection process."--Report to Baseball Commissioner dated 2012.

posted by THX-1138 at 01:44 PM on December 20

I was stating my opinion based on the article in its entirety, which stated, if Clemens can't clear his name he should give up his awards. I was agreeing with Schilling take on the Clemens naming in the Mitchell report. As for being a smart ass.....takes all kinds of people to jump the gun on insulting before reading and comprehending what is written.

posted by Nakeman at 01:49 PM on December 20

Of course Schilling has to weigh in on this matter though it is none of his business he wants to exploit his position among the so called "Red Sox Nation" ie those fans that didn't know the team existed until they started to win, when he runs for Congress. He is just grandstanding because he has NO meaningfull positions on any real issues,typical politician. "Je Accuse" Look it up Curt then Shut up

posted by thatch at 02:06 PM on December 20

Maybe I worded it wrong but what I meant is that regardless of the timing, somehow Clemens seems to have taken just a slight hit to his character because, "It's taken years for this tidal wave of outrage to build up against Bonds" even though it's still just speculations and he denied it. No matter how long Bonds has been accused, his trainer wasn't the one to come right out and say, "Hey guys, I shot him in the ass with steriods", that was Clemens' trainer. From what I've read and heard, Bonds' trainer, Gary Anderson went to jail on two seperate occassions because he wouldn't talk about if Barry Bonds did or didn't do steroids while Brian McNamee, Clemens' and Andy Pettitte's trainer, came right out and admitted to providing both Clemens and Pettitte with HGH. Also, I just heard that even though Congress will be conveying in January to discuss the Mitchell Report, they decided not to call Clemens up to testify while Bonds was been under scrutiny for X amount of years from nothing more than allegations. This is a travesty and both should be treated equally. No one gets a pass!

posted by BornIcon at 02:37 PM on December 20

I was stating my opinion based on the article in its entirety, which stated, if Clemens can't clear his name he should give up his awards. I was agreeing with Schilling take on the Clemens naming in the Mitchell report. Okay. That's not what you said at first, but thanks for clarifying. I don't agree with either your or Schilling's reasoning (how exactly can he "clear his name"? how can he prove he never took PEDs? answer: he can't, and you can't either), but it is slightly different from saying that he should give up his awards merely because he's been accused. As for being a smart ass.....takes all kinds of people to jump the gun on insulting before reading and comprehending what is written. Insulting? I used a technique known as hyperbole to try and illustrate for you the implications of what you originally said. You asked me if I was being a smartass. Who's insulting whom, here?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:45 PM on December 20

I have no problem with Schilling expressing his opinion. I wish more players would do so. I do wish he'd slow down and think before giving it. It seems that time after time of later explaining himself or retracting comments would teach him the value of discretion. I haven't heard many people bash him the way that Barry Bonds has been bashed in the past for his alleged use of steriods until now that Curt Schilling has spoken up against Clemens. Some of it is definitely fatigue. I don't think that's an excuse. The most and earliest evidence was against barry. He was, for the lack of a better term, the guinea pig. I mean, this is an early christmas for me. I'd love to post a clemens / steroids link every day. But you know, we've been there already. Most fans at this point realize that steroids were rampant in baseball and have already made up their mind how much they care for the issue. That said, no doubt is there a double standard, with clemens' apologists not only among fans, but among major members of the media. Isn't this the first time Clemens has been named? It's certainly isn't the first time his name has been brought up along side steroids. In fact, very few players have been thought to be on steroids without proof than clemens has for the last several years. Of course Schilling has to weigh in on this matter though it is none of his business They're both pitchers, pitching for teams that are in competition, hoping to pitch well and earn as much money as possible, trying to get in the hall of fame. How in the world is it not his business? You can say he should keep his mouth shut, but it most certainly is his business.

posted by justgary at 02:48 PM on December 20

Pettitte's admission severely undercuts the credulity of Clemens' denial, in my opinion. If McNamee was only naming names to save his own skin, and he had supplied HGH to Pettitte but not Clemens, he could have simply named Pettitte. Why would he risk further legal troubles by falsely throwing Clemens under the bus as well? Of course, this line of reasoning is more circumstantial than anything else. I'll wait to hear Clemens' defense, but color me skeptical. For one thing, I find his strikeout numbers from 1996* onward to be extremely suspicious, given McNamee's testimony. As far as Bonds is concerned, the evidence collected in the book Game of Shadows can hardly be described as "nothing more than allegations." If you haven't read it, and you are interested in this topic, you should. Personally, however, I am not outraged over the PED issue. It is what it is. Let's try to clean it up as best we can. And it would be great if the MLBPA would stop stonewalling - it is not in their best interest, long-term, to appear obstinate in the face of clear public pressure to clean up the game. *McNamee says he started giving PEDs to Roger in 1998, but let's not forget who else played for the '96 Red Sox....wait for it....wait for it....now batting, the designated hitter, Jose Canseco!

posted by Venicemenace at 02:56 PM on December 20

This was courageous for him to do in 2005 -- at a time when most of his peers were hiding, lying like Palmeiro or blowing smoke like McGwire Can we retire this? I'm still trying to figure out why people were pissed off at McGwire for not talking to the committee. What answer did he owe them? What the fuck does he owe you? If it had been me in the same situation, I would have asked them, "Shouldn't you be trying to put an end to the war or poverty or something?" Then I would have dropped trou, crapped on the table and walked out. Okay, maybe I wouldn't done that ... but I would have left.

posted by wfrazerjr at 03:26 PM on December 20

Who cares about what Schilling says! It's interesting to note that now that the Mitchell report is out there hasn't been much Bonds bashing. Now the "most hated" record holder of all time is not alone. Soon there will be more.

posted by chargerpower at 03:32 PM on December 20

LLB- sorry for the smart ass remark. Guess I inflected something not there in "Damn, that was easy", remark. If, your's truly, misjudged -I'm sorry, and will not mention smart ass ( oh sorry) again. I still agree with Schilling about giving back the awards (if Clemens can't clear his name) because it's not my responsibility to find the guilt or innocent. My right however, is to form a opinion based on what I read or see. If something down the road comes out that proves me wrong. My sorries will be forthcoming more forcefully for calling you a smart ass and to Clemens for calling him a cheating, holier than thou and self serving POS.

posted by Nakeman at 03:53 PM on December 20

LLB- sorry for the smart ass remark. Guess I inflected something not there in "Damn, that was easy", remark. If, your's truly, misjudged -I'm sorry, and will not mention smart ass ( oh sorry) again. Oh, I see. No, I didn't mean it that way -- "Damn, that was easy" meant that if all I have to do to force someone to forfeit their awards is to accuse them of taking PEDs, then that's pretty easy, no? I still agree with Schilling about giving back the awards (if Clemens can't clear his name) because it's not my responsibility to find the guilt or innocent. My right however, is to form a opinion based on what I read or see. I don't understand the way people always assert their right to have an opinion as if someone was running around challenging that "right" and threatening to force them into reeducation camps if they deviate. Schilling isn't talking about opinions here, and you aren't either. You're calling on Clemens to give up his awards "if he can't clear his name" -- a tangible punishment, not just sticks-and-stones "opinions". You've expressed an indifference to the facts of the matter ("...it's not my responsibility to find the guilt[sic] or innocent"). You feel that the burden of proof should be on Clemens rather than his accusers, and you don't care that it is impossible to prove innocence in such a case. Can you prove that you were never in Des Moines? If something down the road comes out that proves me wrong. My sorries will be forthcoming more forcefully for calling you a smart ass and to Clemens for calling him a cheating, holier than thou and self serving POS. Perhaps I'm not being sufficiently clear, but being called a smartass doesn't exactly bother me.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:07 PM on December 20

LLB_OK, you can have the last of it. I'am not here to argue a point of contention that unprovable one way or the other. Have a nice day and we will see done the road.

posted by Nakeman at 04:18 PM on December 20

Can we retire this? I'm still trying to figure out why people were pissed off at McGwire for not talking to the committee. What answer did he owe them? What the fuck does he owe you? Mcgwire doesn't own me a damn thing however I was at the game when be surpassed Maris' record and there was alot of hat tipping and Mark did not refrain from the adoration being bestowed upon home. Or a highway named after him or the celebration that followed his achievement. NO MCGWIRE DOESN'T OWE ME ANYTHING ACCEPT A DENIAL THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE AND TO STATE SO UNDER THE PENELTY OF LAW.

posted by Nakeman at 04:55 PM on December 20

I'm firmly in the camp that believes every era has their unnatural means by which players had an edge, so while I agree with Schilling in principle (and I'd love nothing more than to see the last decade of Rocket's drama-queenery stricken from the books - if only someone could do the same for my memory), I'm also sure he understands that in practice, what he's calling for is not going to happen. Totally. No matter how long Bonds has been accused, his trainer wasn't the one to come right out and say, "Hey guys, I shot him in the ass with steriods", that was Clemens' trainer. From what I've read and heard, Bonds' trainer, Gary Anderson went to jail on two seperate occassions because he wouldn't talk about if Barry Bonds did or didn't do steroids while Brian McNamee, Clemens' and Andy Pettitte's trainer, came right out and admitted to providing both Clemens and Pettitte with HGH. Warrants some attention, agreed. Though I would suggest that Anderson going to jail instead of testifying is pretty close to an admission of guilt on Bonds part. Some of it is definitely fatigue. I don't think that's an excuse. The most and earliest evidence was against barry. He was, for the lack of a better term, the guinea pig. I mean, this is an early christmas for me. I'd love to post a clemens / steroids link every day. But you know, we've been there already. God knows I've got that. I'm all outraged-out. Or never really was to begin with. But I think it also has to do with Barry being black. I just do. Clemens is, in many ways such a much bigger dick than Barry. If Barry's a sullen jerk, then Rogah's so much worse. At least Barry stuck around the teams he played for that stunk. Isn't that obvious? If it's a bigger dickhead contest - it's not even close. However, I am also of the opinion that Schilling can't wait to jump on the self-righteous wagon. Repeal the Cy Youngs? Gimme a break. He must understand how ludicrous the possibility of that is. It's grandstanding at it's most basic. Just run for office, already.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:51 PM on December 20

Barry Bonds was dislikable back when he was just a threat to break the record. As the record loomed and his steroid charges played out, his relationship with all but a few close friends and faraway fans grew predictably unpleasant. I can't blame the man for his reaction to such dissection; I've never felt the pressure or the scrutiny a prodigiously talented athlete feels, so I can't assume I'd be Mr. Niceguy myself. All that said, Bonds is a perfect storm: chasing the record while subject to doping investigation, not merely being an asshole but being a polarizing asshole, and finally getting a slide on the Clear and breaking the record. Why the hell am I going on about Bonds and not Clemens? I just doubt these investigations would have become so popular if their spokesmodel Barry wasn't such a tough guy to either like or ignore. Now we'll see Clemens under the same fire, but it's easier for him: he's got compatriots, he isn't chasing the HR record, and he's an ofay. Sure, race is part of it; race is part of every scene in the American national drama. Training with chemicals has a long history in baseball. The record books may be full of juicers and speed freaks. They may not. But changing the records, erasing history, is never a good idea. Especially not over allegations, which is all the Mitchell Report contains. It's irresponsible to demand retribution before proving guilt.

posted by Hugh Janus at 06:06 PM on December 20

If it had been me in the same situation, I would have asked them, "Shouldn't you be trying to put an end to the war or poverty or something?" Then I would have dropped trou, crapped on the table and walked out. And you would be my hero for life and I'd have a poster of you doing it on my office wall.

posted by cjets at 06:07 PM on December 20

ESPN was talking this morning about how maybe Schilling and his Diamondbacks teammates should have their World Series rings taken away from them since Matt Williams was another player apparently using these drugs to enhance his performance. It's kind of funny to me for some reason how everyone wants to pounce all over the few big names on that Mitchell report, when the vast majority of the players named sucked. I understand why this is done, but it's still funny. Where's the outrage surrounding J.B. Miadich, Paxton Crawford, and Gary Bennett? Take away all their stats and Little League trophies!

posted by dyams at 06:37 PM on December 20

Can we retire this? I'm still trying to figure out why people were pissed off at McGwire for not talking to the committee. What answer did he owe them? What the fuck does he owe you? Whether he owes me or not, McGwire chose his words at that House Government Reform subcommittee hearing on the subject of steroid abuse in baseball back in 2005. His evasiveness was a black mark on the game, his accomplishments and his character. When asked by a Congressman if he played with honesty and integrity, McGwire responded, "I'm not going to go into the past or talk about my past." When asked about Jose Canseco's allegations, McGwire said, "My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family and myself." You seem to think that if Congress was grandstanding by holding that hearing, McGwire was under no obligation to be candid. Personally, I take McGwire at his word that as he told the committee, "I'm here to make a positive influence on this." But he didn't. McGwire stepped up to the plate and struck out. Just like all of the juiced players who could have been candid when contacted by the authors of the Mitchell Report. Instead, the norm in the game has been to say nothing unless you get caught. That leaves Canseco as the standard bearer for honesty in baseball, which is a hell of an achievement.

posted by rcade at 06:47 PM on December 20

Correction: I edited my comment to reflect that McGwire was forced to show up, apparently.

posted by rcade at 08:09 PM on December 20

His evasiveness was a black mark on the game, his accomplishments and his character. I'm pretty sure it's a bit of a stretch to refer to "no comment" as an answer to questions as "a black mark on the game". Pete Rose? Black mark. Segregation? Black mark. Padres' piss-and-shit jerseys? Black mark. Not answering questions to a grandstanding government committee? Dull and weaselly, but not a black mark on the sport.

posted by grum@work at 10:01 PM on December 20

Hey, we all piss. We all shit, too. Kudos to the Padres for celebrating the simple joys in life.

posted by Hugh Janus at 10:51 PM on December 20

NO MCGWIRE DOESN'T OWE ME ANYTHING ACCEPT A DENIAL THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT TRUE AND TO STATE SO UNDER THE PENELTY OF LAW. When did you become more important than the 5th amendment? No. but it sure doesn't look good. He was accused by the same trainer that was right about Petite. Jose Canseco has said A-Rod is juicing too, does that mean he must be?

posted by jojomfd1 at 12:25 AM on December 21

Grum: You don't think McGwire dodging all those questions was an embarrassment to baseball? Hall of Fame voters sent a message by giving him just 23.5 percent of the vote.

posted by rcade at 12:42 AM on December 21

Man ALL or almost ALL these dudes are and were juicing Chick's dig the long ball? Geeeeeez.......

posted by HalloweenKingDiamond at 12:46 AM on December 21

Did McGwire plead the 5th Amendment.....I don't think so and I'm pretty sure the committee asked him if he wanted to invoke his right.

posted by Nakeman at 12:54 AM on December 21

"Why? Because he's been accused? Okay, I accuse you of snorting horse testosterone in your high school locker room. Now give back that state championship you won. Damn, that was easy. posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:32 PM CST on December 20" Do you also agree that Bond's should own his home run record for the time being, without question? The fact is, he also has only been accused. My personal feeling on Bond's is that he either cheated or is a moron for using substances before taking time to figure out what they were.

posted by Cave_Man at 01:50 AM on December 21

Any attorneys out there - Can a witness under oath be compelled to answer question about others involved in a particular case? And if yes, what penalities can be invoked. Also, if a witness refuses to answer question does he have to say I pead the 5th amendment? or can he just refuse to answer.

posted by Nakeman at 01:56 AM on December 21

Schilling commended those who've apologized for using performance-enhancing drugs, and called on everyone accused to prove their innocence or apologize for their mistakes Wow! Really, Curt? "Okay boys, the jig is up. We gotta go prove our innocence now. Curt said to." I have no problem with Schilling expressing his opinion. I wish more players would do so. I do wish he'd slow down and think before giving it. It seems that time after time of later explaining himself or retracting comments would teach him the value of discretion. posted by justgary at 2:48 PM CST on December 20 Could not have said it any better, justgary. Thanks. I find it funny that ol' bloody sock thinks it's his place to call players out and for Clemens to return the Cy Youngs. He wants the accused to "prove their innocence". Well, FU Curt and your little blog too. (Cackles echoing)(fade to black)

posted by BoKnows at 04:23 AM on December 21

clemons is a cheat same as bonds.bonds has the best trainer.no snitch there

posted by newenglander at 05:33 AM on December 21

IANAL, but it would seem to me that the question is, where is the line drawn between withholding testimony and protecting your right not to self-incriminate? If the information falls on the withholding testimy side of the line, the witness could be found in Contempt of Court. But you'd think the 5th amendment would provide pretty broad protection against testifying, especially since they could be charged as an accessory for not reporting the illegal druge use. Of course, the 5th amendment protections become moot if you've been given immunity. In that case, you'd definitely could be found in Contempt of Court.

posted by apoch at 06:04 AM on December 21

Grum: You don't think McGwire dodging all those questions was an embarrassment to baseball? Hall of Fame voters sent a message by giving him just 23.5 percent of the vote. What kind of message will it be when he gets over 40% this round of voting? And over 50% the next year? And eventually elected to the HOF?

posted by grum@work at 07:49 AM on December 21

CaveMan: Do you also agree that Bond's should own his home run record for the time being, without question? Speaking of non sequiturs. What relevance does this have to the point that it's a wee bit fucked up to expect baseball players to relinquish their titles simply because they are accused of using PEDs? Follow the link, it'll help. Or maybe not.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:37 AM on December 21

I know the 500 home run mark has been an automatic pass into the Hall, but McGwire is testing that principle. He would've gotten more second-year votes without the Mitchell Report, but now he's the biggest name to come up for the Hall after the report and the Bonds case. I'd be surprised if he gets 30 percent.

posted by rcade at 08:42 AM on December 21

Or maybe not. That's probably your better guess.

posted by jerseygirl at 09:43 AM on December 21

Did McGwire plead the 5th Amendment.....I don't think so and I'm pretty sure the committee asked him if he wanted to invoke his right 1.) He was subpoenaed, as in not there on his own accord wishing to freely speak on the subject 2.) When the senate panel questioned him what were his answers? "My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family and myself." and "I'm not going to go into the past or talk about my past." 3.) I am not sure what your interpretation of the 5th amendment is, but the part about incriminating one's self is pretty easy IMO. It basically means that you do not have to talk about or answer questions about anything that may incriminate yourself in anyway at all. I may be wrong, but I don't think so on this one. His first answer that I put in number 2 above specifically states not wanting to jeopardizing himself! 4.) #3 above is exactly what McGwire did. He just didn't do it in the traditional sense with the old movie line "I plead the 5th." 5.) The biggest mistake he made that day was just as Rcade said above, he has done nothing to help move this whole PED thing in a positive direction. Even after this quote, "I'm here to make a positive influence on this." He has basically disappeared, that is what I am pissed about. In conclusion, even though he still technically spoke to the senate panel, he still took the 5th. McGwire still doesn't OWE anybody anything, no explainations, no nothing. If you paid to watch him play, you got your money's worth. I know I did.

posted by jojomfd1 at 12:00 PM on December 21

I personally never really considered McGwire worthy of the Hall of Fame, and his issues with (possibly) using PEDs makes him even less worthy. His bulked-up body allowed him to crank homers, which was the only thing he really brought to the game. Bonds was always (especially in his younger years) a great outfielder, baserunner, and all-around player. It's too bad this issue has tarnished his career beyond repair. He would have been a Hall of Famer without even coming close to the home run record.

posted by dyams at 12:40 PM on December 21

stay tuned sports fans...Congress could subpoena Clemons***. I'd like to see him seated right next to Canseco*. PRICELESS I can see a Congressional page saying "programs...get your programs". "Congressional Hall of Shame right this way Mr. Clemons***"

posted by evil earl at 02:10 PM on December 21

McGwire still doesn't OWE anybody anything, no explainations, no nothing. If you paid to watch him play, you got your money's worth. I know I did. posted by jojomfd1 at 12:00 PM CST on December 21 Oh yes he does and I can prove it with his contract, which has many clauses about personal conduct. Most of the contracts have provisions in them for correct behavior and correct behavior defined by me (and probably by the rest of the world) is to answer question asked of legal body. All I require of McGwire is to stay he didn't do illegal drugs (PEDS,with proper M.D.'s perscrition for the inteded purpose defined by the FDA) and I will believe him. Until that time, his testimony will cast a shadow of doubt on his credibility and character. .

posted by Nakeman at 03:17 PM on December 21

Hall of Fame voters sent a message by giving him just 23.5 percent of the vote. I think we've pretty much established in previous threads that many Hall of Fame voters are idiots. I mean, one of them voted for Jay Buhner last year, and a few others didn't vote for Tony Gwynn. As for McGwire, it comes down to whether or not you believe Congress had any right or reason to get involved in this issue. I don't think it did, and apparently neither did McGwire. He politely refused to answer questions. He should have shit in his hat and handed it to them.

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:21 PM on December 21

Oh yes he does and I can prove it with his contract, which has many clauses about personal conduct. You've viewed Roger Clemens' contract? Do please post it here. Or, at least, post the "many clauses about personal conduct".

posted by lil_brown_bat at 04:40 PM on December 21

Oh yes he does and I can prove it with his contract, which has many clauses about personal conduct. Most of the contracts have provisions in them for correct behavior and correct behavior defined by me (and probably by the rest of the world) is to answer question asked of legal body. All I require of McGwire is to stay he didn't do illegal drugs (PEDS,with proper M.D.'s perscrition for the inteded purpose defined by the FDA) and I will believe him. Wow. Dude. "Correct behaviour" - if such language was a provision in his contract - wouldn't be defined by you or the rest of the world. It would be defined in the contract. Methinks you are not quite sure of what you speak. Besides - lots of guys have said they didn't do Steriods. And they were lying. What makes McGwire so different? (Psst. He definitely used PEDs. You know how you can tell? A slight case of inhuman musculature. The man's forearms are thicker than my torso.)

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:59 PM on December 21

stay tuned sports fans...Congress could subpoena Clemons***. I'd like to see him seated right next to Canseco*. PRICELESS I can see a Congressional page saying "programs...get your programs". "Congressional Hall of Shame right this way Mr. Clemons***" I'm pretty sure that Mr. Clemons would be surprised to be called before congress. Is it really that hard to spell his name correctly? And what is up with the random asterisks?

posted by grum@work at 06:45 PM on December 21

He would've gotten more second-year votes without the Mitchell Report, but now he's the biggest name to come up for the Hall after the report and the Bonds case. I'd be surprised if he gets 30 percent. Well, there was talk among those writers who casted votes in last year's HOF election that they were giving McGwire a "one year penalty" for his "performance" in front of Congress. If that is true, then I suspect his votes this year will go up. If people voted for him last year, I doubt they'll drop their vote this year.

posted by grum@work at 06:47 PM on December 21

As for McGwire, it comes down to whether or not you believe Congress had any right or reason to get involved in this issue. I think baseball has no business complaining about the Congress meddling in its affairs, considering how long it has benefited from and fought to protect its anti-trust exemption. But larger than this, Congress holds hearings all the time on all kinds of subjects, some large and some small. I see nothing exceptional or inappropriate about calling a hearing related to drug abuse in professional sports.

posted by rcade at 07:33 PM on December 21

I see nothing exceptional or inappropriate about calling a hearing related to drug abuse in professional sports. Well, it's supposedly "for the children", since these pro athletes are setting a "bad example". How come they haven't brought a bunch of movie stars up in front of congress for using drugs? Or musicians? Why does this select branch of entertainment get a congressional hearing, but none of the other ones?

posted by grum@work at 11:12 PM on December 21

Oh yes he does and I can prove it with his contract, which has many clauses about personal conduct. Most of the contracts have provisions in them for correct behavior and correct behavior defined by me (and probably by the rest of the world) is to answer question asked of legal body. All I require of McGwire is to stay he didn't do illegal drugs (PEDS,with proper M.D.'s perscrition for the inteded purpose defined by the FDA) and I will believe him. Until that time, his testimony will cast a shadow of doubt on his credibility and character. I know I am, and I am sure others are too, waiting for you to provide us with a link to this proof you have of McGwire's contract. Don't forget to link us to the "many clauses about personal conduct." I will applaud you on one thing though, some contracts do have Personal conduct clauses in them, I don't know about most, so you got a half a point there. Other than that the rest of your post is pretty much laughable at best. As I highly doubt the league checks with you on their level of tolerance for player conduct. Plus, I'll lay 1,000,000 to 1 odds that McGwire could care less what you or any legal body would like him to answer. He doesn't have to. Are you sure you are not required to take some medicine several times a day that you may have missed? Last time I checked McGwire is retired and is no longer under any contract anyways! So, that would shoot this whole thing to shit, especially this one: All I require of McGwire is to stay he didn't do illegal drugs (PEDS,with proper M.D.'s perscrition for the inteded purpose defined by the FDA) and I will believe him. As was said above He doesn't Owe you or me or anyone else a damn thing.

posted by jojomfd1 at 12:52 AM on December 22

As for McGwire, it comes down to whether or not you believe Congress had any right or reason to get involved in this issue. I don't think it did, and apparently neither did McGwire. He politely refused to answer questions. He should have shit in his hat and handed it to them. What's bad Fraze is had he done that, they probably would have voted him in on the first ballot. Then his memoribilia would have tripled, and he would be a mayor somewhere by now! I see nothing exceptional or inappropriate about calling a hearing related to drug abuse in professional sports. I would have seen nothing wrong with it either had there been representatives from some other professional sports in there also. However there was not, it was just MLB players. I have yet to see the government step in to the NFL, NHL, or NBA. How about Pro wrestling, I know I am pushing it as far as it being a sport or entertainment, but there was an article just 2 months ago in Maxim Showing how many wrestlers have died in the last decade. The number was 64, they all were from some sort of steroid or drug related death, or Alcohol or Suicide. Even some of the suicides were tied in with the steroids. Sixty-four wrestlers since 1997, and no congressional panel looking in to that? How many baseball players have died due to PED's?

posted by jojomfd1 at 01:07 AM on December 22

Why does this select branch of entertainment get a congressional hearing, but none of the other ones? Why is baseball the national pastime? Why did the nation's capitol get a team after striking out twice with past franchises? Why do presidents throw out the first ball each season? The sport's a big deal in DC and a big deal to politicians since they are an older crowd. In 20 years, maybe baseball won't get this special attention. The chance my kids would sit down to watch a four-hour game on the tube, or listen on the radio, are around the same as them asking Santa for sweaters.

posted by rcade at 10:32 AM on December 22

Posting about contract provisions was a dumb. It was a weak arguement at best, and all the others that called me on it made me see the light. Obviously I don't have contracts for McGwire or Clemems for your inspection. I'll stay adamant about some explaination why McGwire basically said nothing to clear his name at the Senate hearing. It was my hope that he would be forthcoming and go on the record to stop all the spectulation about his alleged steroid use. Maybe I'm from the old school-if you did no wrong, you state so, with no reservations and emphatically. Others did state their denials and I believe them. jojomfd1- in the future, if so inclined to correct somebody spelling, I suggest you make sure to do for all, not just someboby you disagree with, unless of course you like felling superior to other opinion other than you own.

posted by Nakeman at 12:42 PM on December 22

I think baseball has no business complaining about the Congress meddling in its affairs, considering how long it has benefited from and fought to protect its anti-trust exemption. But larger than this, Congress holds hearings all the time on all kinds of subjects, some large and some small. I see nothing exceptional or inappropriate about calling a hearing related to drug abuse in professional sports. On the one hand, I see your point that an organization that seeks protections like its anti-trust exemption must accept Congressional meddling in other areas. However, I must agree with Fraze. Congress has something an like an 11% approval rating because it has simply been unwilling or unable to deal with the major issues of the day (an out of control administration, a "pre-emptive war", global warming, and on and on) wasting precious time on a steroids hearing seems like a frivolous thing to do. That fact that it has hearings on other small subjects just shows how horribly out of touch it is with the real problems in this country. The only thing congressmen care about is getting re-elected, and the steroids in baseball hearings are a good opportunity to be seen on TV without getting their hands dirty with any of the real and difficult issues that face us.

posted by cjets at 08:08 PM on December 22

Maybe I'm from the old school-if you did no wrong, you state so, with no reservations and emphatically. Others did state their denials and I believe them. Do you still believe Palmeiro? As far as correcting your spelling, I was wondering what word you were meaning to use. Plus, that was in a different thread.

posted by jojomfd1 at 03:00 AM on December 23

Do you still believe Palmeiro? No, not now, however I did at the time. McGwire never gave me the opportunity to believe or not, based on his public statements. Your explanation on the misspelled word is weak, however I believe you.

posted by Nakeman at 10:44 AM on December 23

This isn't worthy of a new front page post, but -- Roger speaks out via the Youtube. Apparently he'll be on 60 Minutes in the new year, and unless Mike Wallace can swear people in under oath now, it won't really solve anything. The video is totally not edited together and he sounds convincing, sincere and un-coached. Also, not.

posted by chicobangs at 02:42 PM on December 23

Maybe I'm from the old school-if you did no wrong, you state so, with no reservations and emphatically. That's not "old school". Old school is where you first consider whether the "wrong" that you supposedly did was any of the accuser's god damned business.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:32 AM on December 24

How about Pro wrestling, I know I am pushing it as far as it being a sport or entertainment jojomfd1, as far as I know, pro wrestling is called sports-entertainment for a reason. How about you try doing the things that these athletes do in the squared circle. Granted, it has it share of soap opera moments but the truth remains is that these athletes put their bodies and lives on the line in order to entertain the millions of viewers that tune in every week which is more than some actual pro sport.

posted by BornIcon at 09:49 AM on December 24

BornIcon, can you explain how pro wrestlers are putting their "lives on the line" more so than competitors in some other sport? I'm not a fan of pro wrestling, so perhaps I'm missing something -- do the rules of pro wrestling allow for the infliction of lethal injuries? If not, then any lethal injury would be incidental, no? And, if that's the case, how would pro wrestling be any different from many other sports?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:00 AM on December 24

BornIcon, come back and talk to me when you find out that the world series has been scripted. Or that the superbowl has been rehearsed the night before. Otherwise, the only reason those guys take any PED's are to get bigger than the next guy, so they can be on TV too. Go to Maximonline.com and read the article yourself. I only mentioned it because if congress wants to poke their noses into something kids watch, and love, then this would be one you'd think they would want to look into. 64 wrestlers dead in 10 years! Thats a lot of bodies for one profession to have, especially with their limited rank and file. Nakeman, don't ever tell anyone in here that their explanatioon is weak, especially after your contract shit, and at least get the right thread!

posted by jojomfd1 at 11:06 AM on December 24

That's not "old school". Old school is where you first consider whether the "wrong" that you supposedly did was any of the accuser's god damned business. You define "old school" your way and I'll choose my way. It's a matter of opinion without bringing God's name into. Which by the way is tacky and doesn't really help emphasize your point that well. I didn't say McGwire or Clemens was wrong for alleged use of steroids. I don't know if they used them or not. Clemens said he didn't and I believe him (based on denials), so if I was in his shoes, I'd sue my accuser. Of course, if that happens he'll have to take the stand and raise his hand and swear he didn't partake in PED's. As far as McGwire is concerned, he probably will continue to give non- answers and everyone, including me, will have to be content with status quo. Which is his right to do, but there will be cloud over him (as far as I'm concerned) until he states one way or the other. Whether it's none of my business or not, I'll take issue as I'm a baseball fan and care about the game. You telling me it's not, has no affect on me whatsoever. If you don't feel slighted by McGwire refusal to state one way or the other its ok with me, but please don't chastise me if I disagree with you.

posted by Nakeman at 11:48 AM on December 24

Nakeman, don't ever tell anyone in here that their explanatioon is weak, especially after your contract shit, and at least get the right thread! Well, I did state I was wrong about the contract shit (as you call it) and stated so in a previous post, however you seem not to have humility to state you were wrong. Reason I put in this post because it was directed at you. I was wrong and I'm sorry to other contributors. As far as stating "don't you ever....". I suggest you learn some manners and don't dictate to me what I should or should write on this blog, besides I wasn't telling anyone. My comments were directed at you.

posted by Nakeman at 12:10 PM on December 24

Reason I put in this post because it was directed at you. The reason you put it in here is you were hoping someone would jump in and help you out. As far as manners go how high up on the list is lying? If you have anything else to say my email is in my profile, keep it off the FPP's Lou! Sorry everyone, Lou has no Email address listed to send this, or the last to.

posted by jojomfd1 at 09:50 AM on December 25

I would like to add that I really never need to hear anything from Rusty Hardin ever again. He's not helping the national steroid discussion, and he's not helping his client.

posted by chicobangs at 02:08 AM on December 26

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.