FanDuel - WFBC

January 07, 2008

Clemens Files Defamation Suit: Roger Clemens beat Brian McNamee to court, filing a defamation suit against the former trainer who claimed to have injected him with performance-enhancing drugs.

posted by brainofdtrain to baseball at 09:55 AM - 126 comments

One of the main reasons why i posted this is that everyone said that if clemens was truly innocent he would have sued mcnamee. I think that argument is bull, so i'm interested to see what those who used that argument think now. Not that i think clemens is innocent. I just think the idea that someone will always sue to protect their integrity is a weak argument.

posted by brainofdtrain at 10:10 AM on January 07

Good luck, Roger. Here's hoping that your telling the truth and that your name will be cleared. /crosses fingers

posted by texasred at 10:23 AM on January 07

In short, we're witnessing a "legal" version of a game of "chicken." Each side is trying to make the other blink or back down with the threats of all these lawsuits. Problem is, Rocket will lose all the respect he has left if he loses, so that should be considered here with what he just did today. If he really did take all those steroids, you can bet McNamee is going to present the proof in court, and not just the Mitchell report either. This is as tough a jam as he's been in during his career, and he's going to need far more than steroid-powered high heat. If he's drug-free, the Wallace interview should've been enough. If he's juiced like McNamee's been saying, the lawsuit is nothing more than a bluff; high-and-inside fastballs when he needs to just go down the middle with everyone in this crisis.

posted by NerfballPro at 10:32 AM on January 07

I'm with you on this, brainofdtrain. This might be the first time that anything negative about Rocket has reached his ears. He's long had more money than any of his teammates (or many deities, for that matter), and he's never been one to shy away from surrounding himself with sycophants and fartcatchers. Seriously, this might be the first time he's not getting his own way, and that's why he's throwing a very unbecoming tantrum. I truly believe he feels he can bluff his way out of this one, because he has never, not once, not been able to bluff his way out of anything in the past. The concept of him being wrong about anything is inconceivable to him, which is where all the why-me and after-all-I've-given-you histrionics come from. He spoke the night before with McNamee, and I'd bet a dollar that Rocket only heard what he wanted to. I'd bet that Rocket tried to throw a large financial under-the-table offer at McNamee to hush him up, and that McNamee turned him down. (Perjury's a bitch, bro, and not everyone has a friend like Greg Anderson.) Rocket's not going to win this case. Even if he gets a settlement out of it, which I doubt, it'll be merely a technical and pyrrhic victory. And I never want to hear Rusty Hardin speak again. Whatever he says, I find myself believing the exact opposite.

posted by chicobangs at 10:39 AM on January 07

I gotta agree, chico. Clemens throwing mud at McNamee isn't seeing the forest for the trees. Cheating at baseball via the use of performance enhancers is being taken very seriously by the public in general, much more than anyone will admit. If that were me being fingered, I'd be busting my tail trying to clear my name instead of using the media to fuel a name-calling battle. This should've been answered within an hour after the Mitchell report was released, not a month. No wonder nobody believes Roger. What a waste of a great career. Rocket has nobody to blame except for the man in the mirror.

posted by NerfballPro at 11:30 AM on January 07

If it is a bluff, it might work. Where exactly is the burden of proof in a defamation suit, and what is the standard of proof, anyway? Truth is obviously a defense, so if McNamee can prove the truth of his allegations in court, Clemens is completely sunk -- but what if he can't?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:53 AM on January 07

Not that i think clemens is innocent. I just think the idea that someone will always sue to protect their integrity is a weak argument. It depends on whether Clemens drops the suit or not. If he allows it to get to depositions, where McNamee's attorneys will be able to question him under penalty of perjury, it's time to start considering the possibility that Clemens is telling the truth. Until then, though, filing a suit could just be a move in a PR war. Where exactly is the burden of proof in a defamation suit, and what is the standard of proof, anyway? If it's anything like libel, public figures like Clemens will have a tough time winning.

posted by rcade at 11:53 AM on January 07

I thought we lived in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. As I see it nobody has proven anything on either side of the fence yet. And by the away, Rusty Hardin is paid to speak out. All I have heard from Rusty is him defending his client, maybe someone has heard more than that. Ithink that is earning his retainer fee. There were countless numbers of players in MLB not on the Mitchell report that we all know were juicing. Why is nothing said about that? I have not heard anybody bad mouth the Mitchell report as false, even knowing the guy that put it together was on the board of the Boston Red Sox, and made big,big money for authoring the report. I suppose he was paid by Bud and the boys. And I'm sure you all trust big Bud, HA HA! I'm not defending anybody in this circus, but lets face it, it is all crap. And the SAD, SAD true fact of the matter is MLB would be dead without performance inhancing drugs. Maybe someone should put big Bud in front of a Grand Jury and ask him for the truth, and watch his nose grow then. One more thing, isn't Bud affiliated with some team in MLB ? iT'S ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP. I guess my question to all is can MLB ever recover again and be the sport it once was, I don't think so. I would like to hear some opinions on that.

posted by sportnut at 12:06 PM on January 07

I thought we lived in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. [...] There were countless numbers of players in MLB not on the Mitchell report that we all know were juicing. Classic!

posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:27 PM on January 07

Explain Classic Doc, I'm confused.

posted by sportnut at 12:40 PM on January 07

I guess my question to all is can MLB ever recover again and be the sport it once was I have no doubt that it can. Honestly, this is a scandal, but I don't think most baseball fans will care about it in two years anymore than voters cared about Marion Barry's prison time a few years back...

posted by Joey Michaels at 12:44 PM on January 07

One of the main reasons why i posted this is that everyone said that if clemens was truly innocent he would have sued mcnamee. I think that argument is bull Everyone? I think that's bull. That would be number 100 on why I believe he's guilty. Not to mention we'll have to see where this goes before giving it any great weight. It depends on whether Clemens drops the suit or not. If he allows it to get to depositions, where McNamee's attorneys will be able to question him under penalty of perjury, it's time to start considering the possibility that Clemens is telling the truth. I hate the guy, and I think he's guilty, but I think there's a possibility he's not guilty. And if he's not guilty, I wish that would come out so we could move on to other topics like his record in decisive playoff games /snark. And just as I'm willing to consider the possibility that he didn't do it now I disagree with the idea that if he testifies under oath it changes everything. If he truly believes that there's no hard evidence that can back up the charges, no way to prove he's not lying, then he's hard headed enough to go through with it.

posted by justgary at 12:45 PM on January 07

I guess my question to all is can MLB ever recover again and be the sport it once was I posted a link not too long ago that pointed to ticket sales going through the roof. Baseball is fine right now. The idea that it's in trouble is only in your head.

posted by justgary at 12:47 PM on January 07

If anyone watched the 60 Minutes interview,it seemed to me that he answered some of those questions in a round about way trying to avoid some of the questions such as the one about the lie detector test.I personally think Clemens is as guilty as anyone else mentioned.He went out and filed a lawsuit and is trying to clear his name in that form of way.I guess they are all innocent until proven guilty,but this has tarnished the game of baseball and all the players mentioned to the point where it'll be hard to clear not just Clemens' name,but all that have been mentioned.

posted by Ghastly1 at 12:52 PM on January 07

Rusty Hardin may be defending his client, but there's a way to quote your party line without losing your own credibility in the process. He might be saying exactly and exclusively what Rocket tells him to say, but not only is that not really addressing the issues facing his client, but it makes him sound (to me, anyway) like a tone-deaf blowhard. That may be what Rocket likes about him, but this is one of those times where maybe a little bit of honey would go a lot further than a mound of manure.

posted by chicobangs at 12:55 PM on January 07

I thought we lived in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. [...] There were countless numbers of players in MLB not on the Mitchell report that we all know were juicing. Practically in the same sentence you declare innocent until proven guilty, then in next breath, you say, I know there are players using steriods. If, you know these players, give names and proof.

posted by Nakeman at 12:58 PM on January 07

I don't think most baseball fans will care about it in two years I'm having a hard time caring about it right now. Until baseball itself steps up and proves to me once and for all it cares and wishes to do something substantial about the issue, I'll do what I've been doing for years. Watch and follow the game on the field, which is still a pretty good game.

posted by dyams at 12:58 PM on January 07

able to question him under penalty of perjury, it's time to start considering the possibility that Clemens is telling the truth. That possibility did not stop Bill Clinton from lying. And the SAD, SAD true fact of the matter is MLB would be dead without performance inhancing drugs. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Baseball, like any other sport draws it's appeal from competition (i.e, teams struggling as equals to produce a final, decisive result). If a team of juiced up roid freaks beat up on everyone else, no one would want to watch - or - if they did watch, it would be to witness a David take down a giant. have not heard anybody bad mouth the Mitchell report as false, even knowing the guy that put it together was on the board of the Boston Red Sox, and made big,big money for authoring the report. I suppose he was paid by Bud and the boys. How can you believe that Clemens would be a fool to risk everything to support a lie yet believe that Mitchell would be such a fool? Mithcell would stand to destroy himself and everthing that he has worked for over a lifetime by producing a report that he had good reason to know was false. Why would he take that risk? Concerning Mitchell's association with the Red Sox, the fact of the matter is, if Mitchell wanted to help the Red Sox by setting up Clemens, he would have completely left Clemens' name out of the report and later strongly suggested in public that Clemens resign with the Yankees and play 2008. Clemens, on balance, was as much a distraction for the Yankees in 2007 as AROD was, plus Clemens with something like 6-6 with an ERA over 4. As far as wealth is concerned, my guess is that Mitchell is a multi-millionaire several time over since leaving the US Senate given all the corporate boards that he has served on and investments in some companies that have done well - again, a basic question is why would he risk losing that and going to jail to bag Clemens? You also failed to mention that Mitchell fingered a pitcher for the Red Sox in 2007 and a player that played on the 2004 team. Wouldn't those disclosures produce some form of risk to the Red Sox's reputation as a team and potentially cast clouds over some players not mentioned in the report? My feeling on the Clemens versus McNamee saga is that it is going to come dowm to what the Mets trainer and Andy Pettite say under oath. The Mets trainer supposedly gave McNamee the PEDs that McNamee used to inject Clemen with, if the Mets trainer confirms McNamee's dates under oath, Clemens is probaly sunk and would either have to counter that information under oath (either lying or telling the truth when doing so), or take the Fifth. If the Mets trainer's account conflicts with McNamee's account, Clemen's case will be stronger. The best and potentially worst case scenario for Clemens would be if the Mets trainer or McNamee saved a used syringe or two, because that would potentially connect contents in the syringe to Clemens' genetic material. The most intriguing person in this sage is Pettite. Pettite is close to Clemens and trained extensively with Clemens under the watch of McNamee. Pettite probaly spent time at Roger's apartment, where McNamee claims the injections were done and may have witnessed something that would support either Clemens' or McNamee's version of accounts. Pettite probaly also shared personal secrets with Clemens and McNamee. What comes out of Pettite's mouth under oath, assuming he does not take the fifth (can he do that if the questions being asked do not pertain to his personal wrongdoing?) will loom large. My sense of Pettite is that he is basically an honest, decent person and would fall toward being truthful, especially if he is under oath.

posted by Cave_Man at 01:12 PM on January 07

There is no smoking gun ..... at least yet. If a smoking gun turns up, then that would convince me... Until then, he said, she-said, he-said without corroboration has got to come down in the favor of Clemens. I am doubtful, but not sufficiently to "convict"... there is still considerable and reasonable doubt that Clemens took steroids.... so until otherwise supported, I give him the benefit of the doubt. That said, If McNamee does not have a blue dress with something that looks like creamed spinach on it... then McNamee is going to be shown just a weak soul that crumbled under Fed pressure.

posted by Fly_Piscator at 02:39 PM on January 07

A lawsuit is not a bad move by Roger's legal team it will limit what if anything either side can say to Congress. Strike one for team clemens.

posted by evil earl at 03:10 PM on January 07

There is no smoking gun ..... at least yet. If a smoking gun turns up, then that would convince me... Until then, he said, she-said, he-said without corroboration has got to come down in the favor of Clemens. But this isn't a court of law, and I'm betting most people don't require a smoking gun. You can believe bonds didn't use steroids, that OJ is innocent, and rose didn't bet on his own team (until he admitted it), that clinton didn't lie until you saw the blue dress if you wish. But most people will use the gifts of logic and common sense to choose a side. A lawsuit is not a bad move by Roger's legal team it will limit what if anything either side can say to Congress. Strike one for team clemens. The theory that you're referring to is that he makes the lawsuit, then can't testify for congress, and then later drops the lawsuit after everything has blown over. And you think people won't realize that? You don't think sportswriters won't jump on that? Strike one for team clemens sure, if they're at bat.

posted by justgary at 03:19 PM on January 07

A lawsuit is not a bad move by Roger's legal team it will limit what if anything either side can say to Congress. Strike one for team clemens. How does this work?

posted by yerfatma at 04:01 PM on January 07

A lawsuit is not a bad move by Roger's legal team it will limit what if anything either side can say to Congress. Strike one for team clemens. Limit what he says? How? They (committee) are going to ask him one question under oath. Did you use steriods during your major league career? He already stated that that testimony from McNamee to the Mitchell committee was false, and the alledged shots in the ass (for steroids) "never happened". If He doesn't answer the question, he'll look guilty, after already publical stating that he has not used PED's. Most of the committe member are lawyers and are not going to ask Clemens anything that would compromise his case. But, if I was his lawyer, there's no way my client would testify. Which will lead to more spectulation and inunendo.

posted by Nakeman at 04:24 PM on January 07

One of the main reasons why i posted this is that everyone said that if clemens was truly innocent he would have sued mcnamee. I think that argument is bull Everyone? I think that's bull. That would be number 100 on why I believe he's guilty. Not to mention we'll have to see where this goes before giving it any great weight. Gary, sorry there. Poor word choice. Obviously i don't agree with that view. I should have probably said something like: "most who argue that he is guilty do so on the grounds that he would've sued Mcnamee for defamation if he was really innocent." Hopefully that makes better sense. Thanks for catching that.

posted by brainofdtrain at 04:34 PM on January 07

How interesting it will be, on the other hand, if it is shown that McNamee did lie - or cannot prove his claims. That would undermine the Mitchell report's credibility significantly in my opinion. In fact, if this ends up coming across as a smear job, its almost worse than if they'd just swept it under the table.

posted by Joey Michaels at 05:34 PM on January 07

How interesting it will be, on the other hand, if it is shown that McNamee did lie - or cannot prove his claims. That would undermine the Mitchell report's credibility significantly in my opinion. This thread has drifted from the defamation suit to the Mitchell committee and back again, so I'm not sure which you're referring to when you talk about McNamee proving his claims (or failing to do so). The question, in either case, is: does he even have to?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:40 PM on January 07

How interesting it will be, on the other hand, if it is shown that McNamee did lie - or cannot prove his claims. That would undermine the Mitchell report's credibility significantly in my opinion. So you think the mitchell report has to be 100 percent accurate? Let's say tomorrow McNamee says he only gave clemens because he thought he needed a big name to stay out of jail. How can you throw out the report when it was correct on pettitte? I can think of at least 3 or 4 players that have admitted that the report is correct. How would Clemens being proven innocent change that?

posted by justgary at 05:47 PM on January 07

This is the public disgrace of Roger Clemens we see. He is heading to where we see Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson.

posted by Joe188 at 06:08 PM on January 07

CaveMan, After the strike the home run derby brought baseball back period. Correction, I guess I don't know that for a fact, but if you looked at the players that were hitting most of the home runs at that time they were all juiced up. I think 9 out of 10 fans would say the home run brought baseball back. I live in Detriot and that seems to be the gereral concensus here And by the way, just today there are rumors are flying that the fine up standing Mr. Mitchell threatened Mcnamee if he did not mention Clemens when he was being questions for his input to the report. Funny when the Tigers were not beating up on other teams the attendance was a fraction of the times when they were beating up on teams. Do you go to the park and pay $60.00 a ticket to see a loser? And finally what did we learn after the report that we didn't already anticipate or know. The whole thing was a waste of money. Answer me this how can anybody take any kind of actions against something that was not illlegal at the time. There was and still is no test, unless muscel tissue is taken to prove a player is taking HGH. I don't think juicing is right but I also don't think a player should be crucified for something that can't be tested, or something he may have done when there were no rules against it.

posted by sportnut at 06:11 PM on January 07

And by the way, just today there are rumors are flying that the fine up standing Mr. Mitchell threatened Mcnamee if he did not mention Clemens when he was being questions for his input to the report. It's very strange that you demand a positive test for a player but then just throw out that line as a 'rumor' about mr. mitchell. There is no consistency in your view points.

posted by justgary at 06:20 PM on January 07

Well, if part of the Mitchell Report turns out to be based on a slanderous lie, then it calls into question other parts of the report based on a person's word without corroborating evidence. Yes, some parts have been confirmed as true, but not all are confirmed as true. If it turns out that McNamee was not telling the truth about Clemens, any other player listed (with only the word of another person against him) who has not confessed has an open door to say "Well, I'm in the same boat as Clemens..." So, a few slightly more ethical players who confess will be the only ones who definitely used banned substances and everyone else on the list could potentially claim to be unfairly accused. Personally, I have no idea whether Clemens used anything banned or not. To a large extent, I am more concerned about what MLB is going to do to prevent people from using performance enhancers from this moment out. I fear that if the Mitchell Report is undermined that it will weaken MLB's resolve to take action.

posted by Joey Michaels at 06:22 PM on January 07

Source: Roger Clemens' private eyes asked Brian McNamee to recant "He told them they were in the report," said a source in the McNamee camp who asked not to be identified. "And he told the (private) investigators he had told the truth to the feds and couldn't change his story." It was unclear if that conversation with the private investigators was taped or not, but Earl Ward, one of McNamee's attorneys, called for the release of the full contents of the tape this afternoon, if one exists. "It appears that these investigators may have recorded the interview," Ward said. "And we hearby demand the tape be released in its entirety immediately." If true, that would make things interesting.

posted by justgary at 06:27 PM on January 07

Answer me this how can anybody take any kind of actions against something that was not illlegal at the time. This is why we should have an entrance exam before we allow people to participate in PED threads, I swear.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:52 PM on January 07

I was one of those people who thought that Clemens should have sued right off the bat to try to clear his name. I thought that's all he could do to attempt to clear his name -- BUT I think he should have done it immediately, right out of the gate. Why? So much has transpired over the course of the last 24 hours: the 60 Minutes interview, the press release, the taped conversation...and now, finally, the lawsuit. All this weeks after the Mitchell Report. The timing and orchestration of these events doesn't bode well for him IMO. In the court of public opinion, this is so messy now that there's no way he'll ever definitively clear his rep., even if he's telling the truth.

posted by diastematic at 07:15 PM on January 07

This is why we should have an entrance exam before we allow people to participate in PED threads, I swear. Technically, he's right. If they can only prove he used hGH between 1997-2002, then he literally has broken no rules in MLB. If he has a (fishy) doctor's prescription, then there isn't anything anyone can do about that. The timing and orchestration of these events doesn't bode well for him IMO. Well, he arranged for the 60 Minutes interview almost immediately, and CBS put him in the first available slot (since they were probably running old shows during the holidays). As for lawsuits, it's always a good idea to consult a lawyer and determine the validity of your case before you rush into court with papers in hand. Considering there is a VERY strong possibility he won't win the case (whether McNamee is guilty of wrongdoing or not, defamation suits are almost impossible to win if the "defamed" party is a public figure), you better have all your ducks in a row before you start. It's been less than a month since the report came out. In news-cycle terms, that's an eternity, but in legal terms that's probably as fast as he could go.

posted by grum@work at 07:56 PM on January 07

Technically, he's right. Technically, he isn't. If he'd said, "It wasn't against the rules," he would have been. The difference is significant.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:01 PM on January 07

Clemens' ex-trainer reacts to 60 Minutes interview Well, he arranged for the 60 Minutes interview almost immediately, and CBS put him in the first available slot (since they were probably running old shows during the holidays). No one forced clemens to use 60 minutes. He could have been interviewed by anyone at any time. Clemens could have told 60 minutes that he couldn't wait that long. That's a poor excuse. But it did allow him to be interviewed by an icon that's also is friend while at the same time having almost a month to get his story down.

posted by justgary at 08:05 PM on January 07

Answer me this how can anybody take any kind of actions against something that was not illlegal at the time. There was and still is no test, unless muscel tissue is taken to prove a player is taking HGH. I don't think juicing is right but I also don't think a player should be crucified for something that can't be tested, or something he may have done when there were no rules against it. posted by sportnut at 6:11 PM CST on January 7 Hall of Fame voters will be hard on Clemens, if the allegations against him are proven (they have not yet and he can show that they are lies). Mark McGwire supposedly did not take anything that was illegal at the time, but he most likely will not be voted into the HOF. Your attempts to blacken Mitchell are unseemly. If it is proven that he slanted things against Clemens, that will come out. A logical person likely will see no reason why Mitchell would risk his wealth and good standing as a person to bring down a spent pitcher.

posted by Cave_Man at 09:46 PM on January 07

I could be wrong on this, but if i remember right at the press conference when mitchell discussed his report as it was coming out he himself said that none of the accusations in his report could be verified conclusively. Based on that, i think that Roger Clemens should have repreatedly pointed that out, and refused to try to defend himself further. Frankly, i'm a bit surprised that none of the players implicated have used this important admission by mitchell as a basis to refuse trying to get into defending themselves (whether truthfully or by lying, whichever the case may be). Am i missing something here?

posted by brainofdtrain at 11:37 PM on January 07

Technically, he isn't. If he'd said, "It wasn't against the rules," he would have been. The difference is significant. If he has a doctor's note for the prescription, then he didn't break the law either. If he doesn't have a note, there is nothing illegal about RECEIVING the injection. Acquiring it for the sake of distribution would be illegal. Giving it to someone else would be illegal. Based on that, i think that Roger Clemens should have repreatedly pointed that out, and refused to try to defend himself further. Frankly, i'm a bit surprised that none of the players implicated have used this important admission by mitchell as a basis to refuse trying to get into defending themselves (whether truthfully or by lying, whichever the case may be). Am i missing something here? Just to confirm your point of view: It would have been better if the accused player DIDN'T say anything in their defense? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Essentially, it comes down to this: If you are in the report, there is nothing you can do. You are guilty in the eyes of the public and you can't possibly defend yourself. Heaven forbid that it is determined later that there is no evidence against you, don't expect the media to immediately raise the same ruckus to defend you. Remember that report a year ago about Jason Grimsley, and the "names" on his list? The L.A. Times published an article that said Clemens' name was on that "list". However, it came out later that Clemens' name WASN'T on that list. Did anyone else remember the big stink in the media when that was found out? No? Here is the retraction, more than 14 months later. Surprisingly, it came out at the same time as the Mitchell Report, so it kind of got lost in the news cycle, which was dominated by (of course) accusations against Clemens. Nevertheless, I still see people on other sports chat boards that refer to the Grimsley story as "more evidence against Clemens".

posted by grum@work at 11:52 PM on January 07

Nevertheless, I still see people on other sports chat boards that refer to the Grimsley story as "more evidence against Clemens". Then those people are idiots. I haven't read that anywhere, haven't read it here. It wasn't lost. Clemens has made several references to it. It was ignored because it has nothing to do with the mitchell report and is nothing but a red herring. The newspaper got the names wrong. The report didn't. If the report had said clemens had done steroids and it proved wrong, it's a fair comparison. That's not what happened. His name was never on it. you can't possibly defend yourself. Other than somehow having the trainer recant, I agree with you. However, if there is a way for clemens to defend himself this: I should have a third ear coming out of my forehead ain't it. I'm not sure of his guilt, but that's an idiotic statement.

posted by justgary at 12:12 AM on January 08

Based on that, i think that Roger Clemens should have repreatedly pointed that out, and refused to try to defend himself further. Frankly, i'm a bit surprised that none of the players implicated have used this important admission by mitchell as a basis to refuse trying to get into defending themselves I have no idea why players were so quick to admit guilt. Why did pettitte cave so quickly? Why didn't he deny, deny, deny? Maybe he felt guilty? Maybe he's trying to just get it out in the open and get it over with. Maybe he knew that by saying he didn't do it there would be more searching for the smoking gun and if found he'd look worse? But what it did do is put clemens in a position where he couldn't just ignore it. To me, that was where everything went wrong for clemens up to this point. I'm still trying to figure out, if not guilty why Roger when asked by McNamee "what do you want me to do" didn't say "come to the press conference and tell them the truth, that you never injected me with steroids". Maybe I'm missing something, but that amazes me.

posted by justgary at 12:23 AM on January 08

And the SAD, SAD true fact of the matter is MLB would be dead without performance inhancing drugs. posted by sportnut Nothing could be farther from the truth. Baseball, like any other sport draws it's appeal from competition (i.e, teams struggling as equals to produce a final, decisive result). If a team of juiced up roid freaks beat up on everyone else, no one would want to watch - or - if they did watch, it would be to witness a David take down a giant. posted by Cave_Man sportnut hit the nail right on the head. If it weren't for Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa blasting homeruns like it was going out of style back in 1998, baseball would not be as popular as it is today. They practically brought baseball back to life since the 1994 strike, only Cal Ripken breaking Lou Gehrig's long-standing record for consecutive games played in 1995 made news. If anyone can remember, during the time Sosa & McGwire were in the chase, the motto for baseball was "Chicks dig the long ball".

posted by BornIcon at 07:19 AM on January 08

If he has a doctor's note for the prescription, then he didn't break the law either. If he doesn't have a note, there is nothing illegal about RECEIVING the injection. Acquiring it for the sake of distribution would be illegal. Giving it to someone else would be illegal. That's true, but not really relevant. PED regulation in sports has never depended on, or really been connected with, whether possession or use of the drug is illegal. It's perfectly legal to use Sudafed, for example -- it's just that the substances in Sudafed are banned as PEDs in a number of different sports. Now, possession and/or use of a PED could be illegal as well as against the rules, but that confuses an issue that IMO suffers most from confusion on this very point. I believe that the biggest problem with PED regulation in sports today is that so many of those concerned seem to have forgotten the reasons behind the regulations. Unless those reasons are clear -- and legality is not one of them -- the regulations and their enforcement will most likely do more harm than good.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:51 AM on January 08

Just to confirm your point of view: It would have been better if the accused player DIDN'T say anything in their defense? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Grum, What i'm saying is that since mitchell stated up front that no one named could be conclusively found out, then why should Roger be working so hard to defend himself? If Clemens calls a press conference and says: "i deny every using peds, and since Mitchell himself admitted that i cannot be found guilty, i will not address the matter further" then what can the media/public do? Demand that he defend himself against a charge that the investigator already said he couldn't be found guilty of? If you are in the report, there is nothing you can do. You are guilty in the eyes of the public and you can't possibly defend yourself. That's exactly my point grum. Since some people will think what they do no matter what, how is Clemens helping himself right now? The more publicity on this, the worse. With every word, people are dissecting his body langauge and story, trying to find an inconsistency. Plus, the more he defends himself, the guiltier he looks to many, simply b/c they'll assume (incorrectly perhaps) that he is trying to protect himself. To me, pointing out the obvious (that mitchell admitted he couldn't conclusively prove Clemens used) and then laying low is a better alternative. Everything Clemens does adds more fuel to the media machine. I'm sure many do think he's guilty, but at the end of the day, is what joe bob in Yucatan thinks really that important? I would like to think not. There is so little to gain by allowing this to become a national story, and so much to lose (family, friends, etc). I don't know if he did it or not, but i highly doubt that the high level of publicity is helping his cause.

posted by brainofdtrain at 08:05 AM on January 08

I'm just a little sick of McGwire and Sosa getting all this love for personally "saving" major league baseball. That being said, even back then I remember fully believing, in my own mind, both players must be taking some sort of drug to enhance their strength, size, etc. I doubt seriously I was the only one with those beliefs, and I dare say many, many fans thought this. Same goes for Barry Bonds. Who thought he never utilized some sort of PED to morph into the body type he did in the past several years? My point is people, many of them fans of the game, thought they were using PEDs but wanted (or chose) to look the other way, just like major league baseball. Sure McGwire and Sosa was fun to watch, and people ate it up, just like they ate up Bonds hitting so many homers a few years back, Ripken breaking the consecutive game streak, etc. It's only lately we're having these steroid issues shoved down our throats to where we, the fans, are made to feel we need to now shun the players that have been the most exciting to watch over the years. And it's become, "Screw the masses of marginal (at best) players who used these drugs, let's jump all over the BIG names. Just because Clemens or Bonds, two of the best players in baseball history, may have used they are bigger pieces of shit than the hundreds of crappy players who used also? Baseball was all too happy to reap the rewards of Clemens, Bonds, etc., but now want to sit back and let them crash and burn because they (MLB) were too gutless and greedy to strictly outlaw these substances from the game. I don't buy it and I'm not going to fall in line with this steroid witch hunt.

posted by dyams at 08:15 AM on January 08

is what joe bob in Yucatan thinks really that important? Well, he is the guy paying for the games and buying the merch, for what it's worth. You lose enough Joe Bobs, your sport starts to go South. (Further South than Yucatan, even.) The thing is, Clemens couldn't stop talking if he wanted to. He doesn't sound so much like a guy who's been wronged as a guy who can't believe there's someone in the universe who doesn't adore him. Even McNamee, as his main accuser and primary witness for the prosecution, clearly still worships him, if that phone call is to be believed. "Whaddya mean, you don't love me?" is the only reaction I'm hearing from Rocket here, and he's going to need a stronger defense than that if he wants to win a lawsuit. (None of this has anything to do with whether he did PEDs or not, and neither will the lawsuit.)

posted by chicobangs at 08:21 AM on January 08

To me, pointing out the obvious (that mitchell admitted he couldn't conclusively prove Clemens used) and then laying low is a better alternative. Everything Clemens does adds more fuel to the media machine. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If Clemens is innocent, it would be extremely hard to watch his legacy in baseball be completely trashed by a false accusation and do nothing in response. Especially since he has money to burn and a surplus of free time on his hands. During his last several retirements, Clemens was going into that good night as the greatest pitcher in the game. Now he's a cheater under a cloud. That's gotta hurt. I don't think there's anything Clemens can do here, short of getting his accuser to publicly recant, that helps him.

posted by rcade at 09:14 AM on January 08

is what joe bob in Yucatan thinks really that important? Well, he is the guy paying for the games and buying the merch, for what it's worth. You lose enough Joe Bobs, your sport starts to go South. (Further South than Yucatan, even.) Not to be a jerk, but what does that matter to Clemens at this point?

posted by brainofdtrain at 10:08 AM on January 08

Oh, it doesn't matter to Clemens at all at this point, of course (or at any point in the past, going back to the Pliestocene Era, when the tar pits first began to cool and the resulting smoke was first blown up Rocket's butt, setting the precedent for a million acolytes and pundits to follow). I was just talking about the external viewpoint, where, say, some kind of governing authority might want to maybe make some kind of statement to assure the rank and file that all this legal foofaraw is going to help clean up the sport and admonishing everyone involved to get to the truth and stop pfutzing around with this schoolyard bullshit. (Golly gosh, if only there was some kind of head person in charge of administration for Major League Baseball who had the authority and backbone to help this along to a less acrimonious and more decisive conclusion, some kind of ... I don't know, Commissioner or something.) (Nahhh.) I'm fully aware of the fact that everyone in this discussion's back is up on this one already, so I'll get out of the kitchen.

posted by chicobangs at 10:19 AM on January 08

Oh, it doesn't matter to Clemens at all at this point, of course (or at any point in the past, going back to the Pliestocene Era, when the tar pits first began to cool and the resulting smoke was first blown up Rocket's butt, setting the precedent for a million acolytes and pundits to follow). chico for the win!

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:36 AM on January 08

I think Clemens is employing a different strategy - perhaps after seeing what slience did for Mark McGwire and Bonds. Frankly, I'm seriously impressed. He's planted a couple seeds of doubt with his throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach. You can sense them growing. The taped conversation, lawsuit, 60 minutes interview and constant denials will work on a whole bunch of people - some of them HoF voters, I'm sure - regardless of validity. All he needs is some benefit of the doubt. Is more crafty than I would have given him credit for. He looks so... dumb. The man has an aggressive group of handlers. I think this can pay big dividends for him. Of course - it could all hugely (and wonderfully) blow up in his face - but I admire the balls.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:05 AM on January 08

I admire the balls. After all those years of steroid abuse, how can you be sure he has any left? After all, it's been a few years since he sired another child that he could use for his catchy I-name-them-all-starting-with-Ks-for-strikeouts-because-it-reminds-me-of-myself ploy.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 11:37 AM on January 08

His other body parts may be telling part of the story as well.

posted by yerfatma at 12:15 PM on January 08

To me, pointing out the obvious (that mitchell admitted he couldn't conclusively prove Clemens used) and then laying low is a better alternative. Everything Clemens does adds more fuel to the media machine. Pre-Pettitte, sure. But after Pettitte said the accusations were correct there's no way that defense would work. He would have been buried. I think his defense has been pretty bad, but I give him credit for coming to strong when he finally decided to come out of hiding. I'm seriously impressed. He's planted a couple seeds of doubt with his throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach. You can sense them growing. Looking at surveys, reading what's being said, I'd say you're in the minority. He's done a terrible job in my opinion, and this is with handlers telling him what to do. There are so many holes in his story. From the interview. Body hasn't changed / yes it has. Why don't I have an ear coming out of my head / That's dumb. Why haven't I been injured? / well, he has been injured. His excuse is B12/ ever heard of B12? Said he had never been injected by his trainer / changed story in interview. His press conference. Talked about a dying kid, answered a few questions, left the stage in a huff. All predictable. His lawyer gave him a 20 minute intro. The had a call that they taped and thought would be huge and not only was it not many people actually believes it hurt him. I simply don't see how clemens has changed the opinion of very many people. I don't see how anyone that actually has examined what he said can't see that a lot of it is anger and bluster. He looks so... dumb. He is. Even now I think Clemens will get in the hall (and should), but the only way he's going to be respected as he was before (and of course he wants that) if he's guilty is to hope McNamee cracks and recants. If clemens is not guilty he still needs Mcnamee to recant. And listening to the phone call McNamee doesn't sound very stable.

posted by justgary at 12:23 PM on January 08

Looking at surveys, reading what's being said, I'd say you're in the minority. He's done a terrible job in my opinion, and this is with handlers telling him what to do. There are so many holes in his story. Oh, I agree - but I think some hay can be made.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:42 PM on January 08

Does anyone have any ideas or opinions as to why no one else on the list has come out and fought so vehemently in their own defense? Bonds also tried a defamation suit and lost, but never used the media to his advantage, like Clemens did. As I see it the only one standing to make a gain on this is good ole Jose Canseco, New book , new names, maybe new investigation? Just makin some hay, LOL.

posted by volfire at 01:26 PM on January 08

Oh, I agree - but I think some hay can be made. I think what I was trying to say is that by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks he also opens himself up to everything that does not. So while I'll give you that I'm impressed with his mode of attack I wonder if in the long run it will come back to bite him.

posted by justgary at 01:31 PM on January 08

One great advantage to Clemen's using McNamee is that Clemen's via the 'discovery' process will get to see exactly what McNamee has for evidence. And if there is a smoking gun, that will have to be declared in the discovery process. Not that the discovery/depositions will be made public... but Clemen's then will know for sure... and not have a doubt. So it will be put up or shut up to McNamee.

posted by Fly_Piscator at 01:39 PM on January 08

So it will be put up or shut up to McNamee. and Clemens too, if McNamee files suit in return which I can only imagine he will. Clemens insinuated that McNamee was trafficking drugs on 60 Minutes.

posted by jerseygirl at 01:40 PM on January 08

As I see it the only one standing to make a gain on this is good ole Jose Canseco, New book , new names, maybe new investigation? he's got to get himself a new co-author first.

posted by goddam at 01:44 PM on January 08

OK, just for arguments sake how do you prove you shot some guy in the butt with steroids. And he willing bent over and accepted the fact that it was steroids, knew it and took the shot. Unless there are some audio tapes of him accepting steroids haow does McNamee prove his client knew what he was getting? I mean you had Bonds at one point saying he got some stuff just walking by somebody locker and decided to take it. How does a multimillion dollar athlete come to that decision?

posted by volfire at 01:46 PM on January 08

The bending over and taking the shot in the butt part is agreed by both parties, volfire. Rocket isn't arguing that McNamee did that to him. He's just claiming that was how he was getting his daily vitamin intake. Take that how you will. And McNamee's lawyers have already indicated they fully intend to countersue. Strap in, Rocketeers. This is going to get uglier. One other thing. If the Mitchell report is a lie, why isn't Rocket suing Mitchell as well?

posted by chicobangs at 01:56 PM on January 08

I thought the whole 60 minutes interview was very poorly done, almost as if they let Roger off the hook, when they could have basically proven him guilty. Clemens' response of, 'If I'm taking all of these drugs, why don't I have a 3rd eye growing from my forehead? Why arent' I pullin' tractors with my teeth?' was idiotic. I haven't noticed a 3rd eye on Pettite or Palmiero. Clemens' repsponse of, 'If I'm taking all these drugs, where did i get them from?' makes about as much sense as Whitney Houston saying you can't prove she's on drugs unless you show her a receipt from a drug dealer. "crack is whack." Clemens' response of, 'After 25 years why would I want to take the stuff?' Well, because you love the sport, the fame, the money and the adulation and you don't want it to stop, you know that your glory days are nearing an end and you want a few more. Clemens' response of, 'I don't know if a lie detector test would help me, or not.' If you're innocent, say Hell Yes, hook me up to the damn machine right now. I thought the whole interview made him appear more guilty, not less. I recommend a book by Malcolm Gladwell called, Blink. It helps in the identification of inauthenticity when it presents itself.

posted by Bill Lumbergh at 01:57 PM on January 08

OK, just for arguments sake how do you prove you shot some guy in the butt with steroids. how does McNamee prove his client knew what he was getting? That's the exact reason I think Clemens will beat this thing, and the reason I think McNamee has the real problems. He's the moronic strength/conditioning coach who wanted to play physician and stick needles in someone. All Clemens has to do is continue insisting he was under the assumption it was anything else but a product containing a illegal substance. I thought the whole interview made him appear more guilty, not less. Unfortunately, how he "appears" has nothing to do with it. It's all about what can be proven, period.

posted by dyams at 01:58 PM on January 08

Moronic doesn't equal wrong, any more than sycophancy or hero-worship does. McNamee is a stooge, but he was right every other time, and most importantly, his testimony under oath is already on public record. Clemens hasn't said a word under oath yet. All we have is a Youtube clip, a puff piece by a personal friend on 60 Minutes, and a few statements from his attorney. In other words, in legal terms, absolutely nothing whatsoever. He could claim he heals the sick and shits candied yams if he wants, but put his right hand on a bible and that changes everything. Put Rocket in a place where lying is a felony, and then ask him all these questions again. Then and only then will I believe one word of his babble.

posted by chicobangs at 02:05 PM on January 08

All Clemens has to do is continue insisting he was under the assumption it was anything else but a product containing a illegal substance. To what end though? That's all he has to do to do what? Get into the hall of fame? Or help his public image? And if it ever gets to the point where rogers only defense is "if it was steroids I didn't know that" then he will lose all support except his biggest fans. That's basically bonds defense, and most people don't buy it. The bending over and taking the shot in the butt part is agreed by both parties, volfire. And from what I've read getting a shot in the butt with Lidocaine doesn't help the joints as clemens said. Just another way the interview let him off the hook. Put Rocket in a place where lying is a felony, and then ask him all these questions again. Then and only then will I believe one word of his babble. See, I think clemens will do that no problem if he knows there's no smoking gun. What I want to see is clemens cross examined by someone who knows what the hell they're talking about. Not his media friend, and not a joke press conference where he can leave in a storm at any time.

posted by justgary at 02:11 PM on January 08

Agreed. Here's hoping McNamee's people are doing their homework, and that Rocket will have to actually tell the truth instead of bullshitting his way through the conversation and trying to coast on money and smarm, like he has in every other situation in his life.

posted by chicobangs at 02:54 PM on January 08

That's the exact reason I think Clemens will beat this thing, and the reason I think McNamee has the real problems. He's the moronic strength/conditioning coach who wanted to play physician and stick needles in someone. All Clemens has to do is continue insisting he was under the assumption it was anything else but a product containing a illegal substance. Well, let's clarify. In the context of the defamation suit, Clemens isn't trying to beat anything -- he's the plaintiff, the accuser; he stands accused of nothing, as far as that suit is concerned. Now, I'm not so sure that claiming he didn't knowingly take PEDs is enough for him to win his suit -- he claims that McNamee's statement that he injected Roger with PEDs is defamatory, and I don't believe you can claim a statement is defamatory if you don't somehow establish either that it is untrue, or that the person making it has no basis for knowing one way or the other. In the context of being dinged by MLB over PED use, it might be sufficient for Roger to claim that he didn't know. I took a quick look to find the actual regs in question, and couldn't find them. I'm pretty sure the MLB regs are soft on both enforcement and consequences when compared to WADA or any of the federations that kowtow to it...but are they soft enough to give a player a free pass for simply not knowing what it was he was taking? Not so sure there. I know that if it were WADA and co., it doesn't matter how it got there, having it in your bloodstream is enough. Lotta different "courts" here, lotta different standards of proof, and I'm not sure Roger's actions make sense to me according to any of 'em.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:00 PM on January 08

All Clemens has to do is continue insisting he was under the assumption it was anything else but a product containing a illegal substance. "It's not a lie if you believe it's true" George Costanza

posted by Nakeman at 03:17 PM on January 08

WOW! This thread is starting to sound like a mix of chemistry class and second year law and all we have to do is consult lil_brown_bat because it is apparent she knows everything. Must have gotten an A on the thread entrance exam.

posted by sportnut at 03:39 PM on January 08

Or maybe I just took the extra fifteen seconds to read what I'd written and thought about whether it made any sense. Chacun a son gout, sportnut. Oh, I'm so sorry...was that latter too highbrow for you?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:44 PM on January 08

This thread is starting to sound like a mix of chemistry class and second year law Geez, sorry we can't have more knuckle-dragging and screaming of unfounded opinions.

posted by yerfatma at 04:04 PM on January 08

Sorry to rough your feathers, I was just pulling your chain. I guess that is ok for you to do because I forgot you are all knowing. LIGHTEN-UP

posted by sportnut at 04:05 PM on January 08

"It's not a lie if you believe it's true" George Costanza Ridiculous as that sounds, it's true. Without substantial proof, a guy like Clemens can lie and only lingering doubt will remain. Oh yeah, and flawed as the entire testing system is, he still never had a positive test for PEDs. Without proof he absolutely used these substances, knowingly took them, or ever tested positive, I actually believe Clemens will make the Hall of Fame eventually. It's not like McGwire, who was as one-dimensional as any player there ever was; Clemens has a long career as one of the most dominating pitchers the game has ever seen.

posted by dyams at 04:41 PM on January 08

WOW! This thread is starting to sound like a mix of chemistry class and second year law and all we have to do is consult lil_brown_bat because it is apparent she knows everything. Must have gotten an A on the thread entrance exam. And you must have gotten an F on this site's membership guidelines. This isn't a place to take cheap shots at members and then tell them to "LIGHTEN UP." Stick to the issue or get lost.

posted by rcade at 05:01 PM on January 08

Oh yeah, and flawed as the entire testing system is, he still never had a positive test for PEDs. Without proof he absolutely used these substances, knowingly took them, or ever tested positive, I actually believe Clemens will make the Hall of Fame eventually. It's not like McGwire, who was as one-dimensional as any player there ever was; Clemens has a long career as one of the most dominating pitchers the game has ever seen. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. How can he pass or fail something that he never experienced? Maybe if he had been given surprise tests over his career, there will be no need for a discussion on whether he did or did not take PEDs. We should let the Congressional investigation play out and see who blinks.

posted by Cave_Man at 05:33 PM on January 08

Oh yeah, and flawed as the entire testing system is, he still never had a positive test for PEDs. Neither did just about everyone on that list. Neither did pettitte. I think the 'never failed a drug test' time has passed. It means you've never failed a drug test, but certainly that you've never taken drugs. I don't think I've even heard clemens use it over the past few days.

posted by justgary at 05:43 PM on January 08

I actually believe Clemens will make the Hall of Fame eventually. It's not like McGwire, who was as one-dimensional as any player there ever was; What? If you "one-dimensional" you mean "hit for power" (one of the greatest of all time) + "gets on base" (league leader) + "fields his position well" (Gold Glove + well-above average fielding numbers for a career), then sure. And we aren't talking about regular "hit for power", we're talking "legendary hit for power", from the moment he entered the league as a rookie, until injuries finally ended his career. If there wasn't the taint of not testifying in front of Congress, he would have been in the HOF on the first ballot. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. How can he pass or fail something that he never experienced? I'll correct you, since you are wrong. Clemens has been tested as a player since 2004, including off-season testing for the World Baseball Classic.

posted by grum@work at 06:01 PM on January 08

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. How can he pass or fail something that he never experienced? Technically Grums correct. But the accusations against clemens are all well before 2004, so he wasn't tested. And there was no test for HGH. So in dealing with the charges, you're correct.

posted by justgary at 06:26 PM on January 08

If there wasn't the taint of not testifying in front of Congress, he would have been in the HOF on the first ballot. OK, your probably right, and the past 500 plus homer players made it all on first ballot, with exception of Eddie Matthews (who made on the third, I think). But, McGwire was one dimensional player albeit with great power (some of his shots were lengendary). In my opinion, he should not get into the Hall of Fame until his nomination goes to the veteran committe. He was a adequate first basement- nothing special. On base pecentage had a lot do do with walks. Which is not common with power hitters (see Bonds walks stat). If, McGwire did state one way or the other, if he used PED'S (at congressional hearings), not so sure if he would have gotten in on the first ballot. Take Dave Kingman another one trick pony. Although he didn't hit 500 home runs. I see the same problem for McGwire as Kingman.... Clemens is a different story. The statistics are there and no one is going to argue his validity to be inducted. The steriods scandal is the only thing hanging over his head.

posted by Nakeman at 07:12 PM on January 08

I actually believe Clemens will make the Hall of Fame eventually. It's not like McGwire, who was as one-dimensional as any player there ever was; What? McGwire was a .263 career hitter, seven seasons of over 100 RBI, and won a gold glove in '90, mainly because Mattingly missed half the season. If McGwire deserves to be in the Hall, Rafael Palmiero should be in before him. Better hitter, fielder, and all-around player.

posted by dyams at 08:25 PM on January 08

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. How can he pass or fail something that he never experienced? I'll correct you, since you are wrong. Clemens has been tested as a player since 2004, including off-season testing for the World Baseball Classic. posted by grum@work at 6:01 PM CST on January 8 I posted a timeline of MLB PED drug testing below. By that guideline if Clemens had taken PEDs during the time that he was alleged to have taken them, he would not have been identified as having taken PEDs. Mandatory testing did not start until 2004, that would have been after Clemens was alleged to have taken PEDs. PED Testing Timeline for MLB: Aug. 7, 2002: Players and owners agree to their first joint drug program since 1985, calling for anonymous testing to begin in 2003. If more than five percent of the steroid tests are positive in 2003 or 2004, players would be randomly tested for a two-year period. Players won't be punished for testing positive. Feb. 17, 2003: Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler collapses on the field during a workout in Florida and dies from heat exhaustion. The medical examiner finds ephedra in his system. The league places ephedra on the list of banned drugs at the minor league level. Oct. 29, 2003: Less than two weeks after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency says several track athletes tested positive for tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), baseball places the drug on its testing list for 2004. The league is barred from retroactively retesting 2003 urine samples by its own agreement. Nov. 13, 2003: The league announces that of 1,438 anonymous tests in the 2003 season, between five and seven percent were positive, triggering the start of random testing with penalties in 2004. A first offense will lead to counseling and a second offense to a 15-day suspension. December 2003: Ten players, including Bonds of the Giants and Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield of the Yankees, are called to testify in front of a grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO), founded by Victor Conte. Feb. 12, 2004: Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, Conte, BALCO vice president James Valente and track coach Remi Korchemny are charged in a 42-count federal indictment of running a steroid-distribution ring that provided performance-enhancing drugs to dozens of athletes. April 12, 2004: The Food and Drug Administration bans the sale of androstenedione, the steroid precursor used by Mark McGwire while setting the home run record in 1998. The FDA action automatically triggers a ban by baseball. June, 2004: The league begins testing major leaguers. Punishment for a first offense includes counseling, and names of offenders are to be kept anonymous.

posted by Cave_Man at 09:25 PM on January 08

On a related note, McNamee does not seem to be a boy scout. The press is reporting a rape allegation (with what appears to be solid physical evidence taken at the scene of the alleged rape) against him in Florida in 2004. The Yankees fired him after the issue surfaced, but Clemens hired him as his personal trainer. At the least, Clemens is blind to bad character.

posted by Cave_Man at 10:16 PM on January 08

Mandatory testing did not start until 2004, that would have been after Clemens was alleged to have taken PEDs. The original question statement was: Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. The statement was wrong. I stand by my answer. If other people want to extrapolate from it, they are free to do so.

posted by grum@work at 10:22 PM on January 08

The original question statement was: Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. The statement was wrong. I stand by my answer. If other people want to extrapolate from it, they are free to do so. posted by grum@work at 10:22 PM CST on January 8 Show me his test dates. He was not tested during the time that the allegations cover. BTW, do you believe Bonds never took PEDs? Bonds has not tested positive by MLB either. Some information on Bonds indicated that he was notified of upcoming test periods. Would it not be reasonable that a player of Clemen's status also get the same information that Bonds got? The Congressional investigation should uncover answers to questions that exist.

posted by Cave_Man at 10:39 PM on January 08

Wait, are you suggesting neither Bonds nor Clemens was tested in 3 seasons? That would be a bit of an oversight on MLB's part. Beyond simply gainsaying others, what's the point you're driving at?

posted by yerfatma at 11:05 PM on January 08

I think you're confused cave man. 1. The question was originally asking if clemens had ever taken a drug test. 2. Grum said that he had. 3. I said Grum was technically correct but that the allegations from his trainer were before testing began, and never included HGH, so it's basically meaningless. Someone might claim that Clemens has been tested recently and come up clean, to which I would say A. He very well could have stopped and B. it's been proven time and time again that drug test can be beat. As I said before, even clemens seems to realize that since it hasn't been a big part of his defense (I haven't heard him say it at all, but I might have missed it).

posted by justgary at 12:48 AM on January 09

McGwire was a .263 career hitter, seven seasons of over 100 RBI, and won a gold glove in '90, mainly because Mattingly missed half the season. If McGwire deserves to be in the Hall, Rafael Palmiero should be in before him. Better hitter, fielder, and all-around player. Given that McGwire was a slugging first baseman, I don't think a low batting average and lack of Gold Gloves is really the issue. The guy had a .982 career OPS and a career OPS+ of 162. He was in the All Star game a dozen times (with six starts) and put up 583 home runs (8th all time) and 1414 RBI (62nd all time, ahead of a lot of Hall members) in his career. In an average 162-game season his line looks like this: 101 R, 141H, 50 HR, 122 RBI, .263/.394/.588. If there were no PED accusations against this guy, I can't imagine he would miss the cut. Those numbers are way better than Jim Rice's, who just missed by about 15 votes. Palmeiro's offensive numbers are also quite impressive, but I don't think they quite measure up to McGwire's: he had a career OPS of .886 and OPS+ of 132. He was also less heralded during his career, elected to the All Star game only 4 times (one start) and only cracked the top 5 in MVP voting once (5th in 1999). Additionally, unlike McGwire, Bonds, or Clemens, he actually failed a PED test during his playing career. I don't doubt that his defense was better than McGwire's, but I think that's about the only category where he wins out.

posted by Venicemenace at 07:28 AM on January 09

If anyone still believes McGwire's huge build and strength was the result of using performance-enhancing drugs, then he is a player who utilized that strength as HIS only real strength in the game. This is what bothers me about him as a potential Hall of Fame inductee. He hit homers, and his OBP benefited from so many walks (many of the intentional variety). Even though Jose Canseco is a jackass and an embarrassment (both categories I'd never place McGwire in), McGwire's game wasn't all that much different. McGwire could field better, but Canseco could steal bases. I think the thing McGwire benefits most from is the feel-good moments he and Sosa get credit for during their pursuit of Maris' single-season home run record.

posted by dyams at 07:44 AM on January 09

then he is a player who utilized that strength as HIS only real strength in the game You need to go back and look at his stats. And his OBP wasn't high because of intentional walks. Then again, even if it was, that speaks to what an amazing threat he was.

posted by yerfatma at 08:51 AM on January 09

He hit homers, and his OBP benefited from so many walks (many of the intentional variety). But isn't that also true of your man Raffy? McGwire: 1317 BB, 150 IBB (11.3%) / career OBP .394 Palmeiro: 1353 BB, 171 IBB (12.6%) / career OBP .371

posted by Venicemenace at 09:02 AM on January 09

The fact that you guys are now going back and trying to minimize McGwire's accomplishments on the field is ludicrous. He wasn't Fred McGriff or something, where he threw up one impressive number amid what could be considered an otherwise kind of low-key, if not ordinary, career. Mark McGwire might be a liar and a cheat, but even as a straight-up power hitter, he was among the two or three best in the sport, and often the best, for over a decade. Exclude him from the Hall for the drug issue and the way he weaseled around in Congress if you like, but his on-field accomplishments were virtually nonpareil. Picking apart his numbers to find something you don't like is disingenuous and petty.

posted by chicobangs at 09:06 AM on January 09

The bending over and taking the shot in the butt part is agreed by both parties... Clemens claims it was B-12 and Lidocaine. Lidocaine is a numbing agent that is supposedly injected to relieve pain in the joints. Injecting Lidocaine into one's butt will have the effect of enabling one to sit for a really long time without feeling it. In other words, it won't do too much good for a sore arm, hamstring, or whatever. I do not know the effect of vitamin B-12, but it could be that it is usually injected into the butt.

posted by Howard_T at 09:14 AM on January 09

I do not know the effect of vitamin B-12, but it could be that it is usually injected into the butt. ...by a close friend in a hotel room in a foreign country. Yeah, that's how I usually take my vitamin shots. It's a real bonding experience.

posted by chicobangs at 09:31 AM on January 09

He hit homers, and his OBP benefited from so many walks (many of the intentional variety). But isn't that also true of your man Raffy? McGwire: 1317 BB, 150 IBB (11.3%) / career OBP .394 Palmeiro: 1353 BB, 171 IBB (12.6%) / career OBP .371 True, but Palmiero's base-on-balls came throughout 10,472 at-bats, compared to McGwire's 6187. Palmiero also made it to that 500 homer plateau, as well as getting over 3000 hits. He had a positive steroid test, but Canseco claims he injected McGwire with steroids. It comes down to what criteria involving PEDs you want to require before giving a player credit for a career of accomplishments. Is is positive drug tests? The word of someone else (Canseco or McNamee, for example)? I agree McGwire was a great power hitter, but it remains likely he was a power hitter who acquired that power largely by artificial means.

posted by dyams at 10:00 AM on January 09

I agree McGwire was a great power hitter, but it remains likely he was a power hitter who acquired that power largely by artificial means. dyams: McGwire hit 49 HR in his rookie year in the majors. He also set HR records when he was a college player. This was all well before anyone ever thought he might be on any form of PED. He has ALWAYS been one of the greatest power hitters in the history of the game. To suggest that his power was "largely" fueled by "artificial means" is to completely ignore evidence to the contrary.

posted by grum@work at 11:26 AM on January 09

All I know, grum, is that Canseco has said quite a bit about both he and McGwire using steroids together, talking about steroids, and Canseco having injected McGwire a couple of times with steroids, all, according to him, in the '80s. That encompasses practically McGwire's entire career. Even though McGwire, as you point out, was destined to be a power hitter in the majors, I fully believe he did produce much of what he did largely due to strength enhanced artificially. After his big rookie season he began a gradual decline in production, hitting .201 in '91. After terrible, injury-plagued seasons in '93 and '94, he reemerges and begins pounding homers on a record pace? I really only bring him up because there are similarities between McGwire and Clemens (even though Clemens, in my mind, is head-and-shoulders beyond McGwire as far as accomplishments). Both had/have substantial claims regarding steroids made against them, and both have not truly helped themselves by the way they chose to handle those allegations. McGwire's brief statement in front of Congress about not wanting to talk about the past seems to be a sort of admission of guilt without actually admitting anything. McGwire was fun to watch, I'll admit, but I will always view him as a poster child for how steroids can turn a one-trick pony into a potential Hall of Famer.

posted by dyams at 12:08 PM on January 09

dyams: McGwire hit 49 HR in his rookie year in the majors. He also set HR records when he was a college player. This was all well before anyone ever thought he might be on any form of PED. He has ALWAYS been one of the greatest power hitters in the history of the game. To suggest that his power was "largely" fueled by "artificial means" is to completely ignore evidence to the contrary. posted by grum@work at 11:26 AM CST on January 9 WOW!!!! I did not realize that steroids were not around when McGuire was in college. Thanks for informing of that. You KNOW everything.

posted by Cave_Man at 03:34 PM on January 09

I really only bring him up because there are similarities between McGwire and Clemens (even though Clemens, in my mind, is head-and-shoulders beyond McGwire as far as accomplishments). That's true - and I agree that Clemens is ahead - but it's closer than you think. Clemens may be the best righty of the last 50 years - but McGwire's numbers would suggest he is one of the top 5 power hitters of the same period.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:34 PM on January 09

WOW!!!! I did not realize that steroids were not around when McGuire was in college. Thanks for informing of that. You KNOW everything. Well, he sure knows how to spell Mark's last name. Grum and I are in the same camp. If sticking a needle in your butt made you a hall of famer then we'd see more of them. Baseball isn't all about higher/faster/stronger.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:37 PM on January 09

Grum and I are in the same camp. If sticking a needle in your butt made you a hall of famer then we'd see more of them. Baseball isn't all about higher/faster/stronger Baseball has a code of conduct clause, written or otherwise, that is the problem for Big Mac (oh, did I spell that right?). Steroid use potentially (get that, I said potentially) extended McGwire's career, why should he sit in the HOF with players that retired when their god given ability was diminished by advanced age and/or injury? In Roger Clemens' case, if allegations against him look to be true to a reasonable person after all information is in and analyzed, he should be completely denied enshrinement in the HOF. You are right. Most of us were not born to turn on a 95 MPH fastball, but try cheating at your day job and see how far you will get (that is assuming you and I work day jobs that require ethical conduct).

posted by Cave_Man at 04:13 PM on January 09

Baseball isn't all about higher/faster/stronger. "The hardest thing to do in baseball is to hit a round baseball with a round bat, squarely." - Ted Williams

posted by cjets at 04:20 PM on January 09

"The hardest thing to do in baseball is to hit a round baseball with a round bat, squarely." - Ted Williams I agree. There's no question McGwire can hit a baseball. I'm not questioning that. My only question is where do people draw the line with regards to PEHs that supposedly give players an unfair advantage. McGwire, I'm sure, saw his opportunity for a long career in the game as being a big, imposing power hitter since he was obviously never going to be able to hit for average, like, for example Albert Pujols. That being said, he had to make sure he stayed stronger by any means possible, and that likely meant steroid use. This is the same problem people had with Bonds, that he developed into some huge muscle-freak and started hitting balls out of the park like crazy. Is it OK or isn't it? If McGwire used steroids to better himself, to make himself into a potential Hall of Famer, is that acceptable? If so, let's stop getting worked up over McNamee, Clemens, Bonds, Balco, etc. Just because Bonds was a much better all-around player than McGwire shouldn't mean he's a cheat/fraud for using and McGwire's not.

posted by dyams at 04:45 PM on January 09

I agree with you heartily, dyams, as you make excellent points. If they were both on the juice, then they should be treated equally badly. It's been asked many times why people don't regard Mark McGwire with the same vitriol that they do Barry Bonds. It's also been hinted at (although not by you, that I can recall) that perhaps it has something to do with the race of each man. When I first saw Barry Bonds, he was 6'1", 185 lbs.; at the (potential) end of his career, he weighs 228 pounds, and if you've seen him recently without a shirt on, or wearing his UnderArmor, it's not fat. When I first saw Mark McGwire, he was 6'5", 225 lbs.; at the end of his career, he was 250 pounds. He was also an impressive physical specimen. Gaining 43 pounds of muscle mass over 21 years is certainly possible, but to claim that nothing but good ol' fashioned hard work is responsible is a tough line to accept. For McGwire, to gain 25 pounds over roughly the same stretch of time is easier for me to accept. One, becuase of the sheer amount of weight; and two, because McGwire admitted he had some help. His admitted use of Androsterone (a legal supplement, not banned by Major League Baseball at the time), at least in my opinion, gives him enough wiggle room to not be painted with the same brush as Bonds. I'm also unaware of any real evidence that McGwire ever used steroids; his "lack of candor" was noted in the Mitchell Report, as well as the fact that he refused to talk to Senator Mitchell's investigators; if there is testmony out there from somebody other than Jose Canseco (who I simply can't bring myself to believe regarding any subject or person), then I've forgotten it, or never saw it in the first place. Bonds, however, admitted in grand jury testimony that he used products given to him by a trainer that were later identified by Victor Conte as steroids. Besides Bonds' admission, there is no concrete evidence against either man regarding long-term or habitual use of any illicit substances (that I'm familiar with). I think there are more factors at work as well, such as people's opinions of the two men's personalities and Bonds' and McGwire's public perceptions. McGwire was shy, almost painfully so at times, while Bonds appeared, at times, insolent, arrogant, and impatient with anybody who wasn't as great as he was. You can throw in a healthy dose of jealousy, too, because, while I don't know if Barry Bonds is the best baseball player in history, I'm quite certain he's one of the best ever, and that will always inspire hate among some. And, of course, there are a small (I hope) number of people who just don't like black guys. I'm not one of them, but I can't bring myself to be sympathetic to Bonds, or condemning to McGwire. However, if they both are proven to have cheated, they (as well as everybody from the era, whatever that ends up being) don't belong in the Hall of Fame, and they should be looked on with derision the rest of their days. Didn't mean to write a column. Stupid Sam Adams.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:29 PM on January 09

My only question is where do people draw the line with regards to PEHs that supposedly give players an unfair advantage. I'm not condoning the use of PEDs. I'm simply agreeing with Weedy that McGwire had skills that no PEDs can give you. As do Bonds and Clemens. All three were exceptional athletes before they every used PEDs. If I have more sympathy for McGwire, it is because, as TBH pointed out, my perception is that McGwire is a much better human being than Bonds or Clemens. I was particularly impressed by his charity work with Children. That being said, if McGwire is a sacrificial lamb to the war on PEDs and forever denied induction to the HOF, I can live with that. I would, however, expect the same treatment for Clemens and Bonds.

posted by cjets at 06:26 PM on January 09

WOW!!!! I did not realize that steroids were not around when McGuire was in college. Thanks for informing of that. You KNOW everything. Well, hold up here. If I remember the McGwire accusations correctly, everyone pointed at McGwire-huge (1998 version) and McGwire-tiny (1987 version) and said "See! Look at the difference! It's obvious that he's using steroids in 1998!" So if he was also using steroids in 1987, then how small would his natural state have been? Is this his normal form? Or did he simply upgrade from regular steroids in 1987 to SUPER-steroids in 1998? What if he started with the SUPER-steroids in 1987? Maybe he would have looked like this in 1998? So which story are we going with? That he's always been on steroids, or he used them around the time of his monster home-run season?

posted by grum@work at 06:30 PM on January 09

So which story are we going with? That he's always been on steroids, or he used them around the time of his monster home-run season? I realize you were being funny while making a point, grum, but I do believe after truly bursting on the scene as a rookie, then falling off in both production and health the next few years, McGwire probably did dramatically turn his training regiment up. How that worked in relation to any illegal substances he may have used, and why, I can't really say (I'm obviously no expert). But increasing his use/reliance on certain steroids would enhance his body's healing as well as increase the strength he accumulates from his workout routines. As with Clemens, I'm sure he put in hours and hours of diligent, strenuous training. Even though McGwire was always a very large person, he did increase his size and muscle mass dramatically following the early years of his career. And even though I may not fully support McGwire's spot as a historical player in the game, I don't condemn him (or any athlete) at all for doing what he/they do in order to stay in the game and keep making a phenomonal living for as long as possible.

posted by dyams at 07:29 AM on January 10

The more he talks the more I think he did take steroids!

posted by skippy79 at 01:27 PM on January 10

McGwire probably did dramatically turn his training regiment up. How that worked in relation to any illegal substances he may have used, and why, I can't really say (I'm obviously no expert). Steroids, without an increase in physical workout, will not produce any results. It's not a magic pill. Sitting on your ass all day while popping steroids isn't going to do a damn thing. In fact, you pretty much have to push your body even harder than you normally would in order to see results. Without the steroids, your body wouldn't recover from the workouts fast enough. With the steroids, you can workout longer and harder as your body will recover (faster).

posted by grum@work at 06:09 PM on January 10

Steroids, without an increase in physical workout, will not produce any results. It's not a magic pill. And that's exactly what I hope everyone shunning these athletes knows and understands, and why I still consider Clemens the best pitcher, arguably, of all time. I doubt any pitcher the game has ever seen, or will ever see, has worked harder (and worked out harder) than him.

posted by dyams at 07:30 PM on January 10

I doubt any pitcher the game has ever seen, or will ever see, has worked harder (and worked out harder) than him. And for me, this is the only solid argument on his behalf. If he did all this working out while taking steroids, where are the muscles? Yes, Rogers a big, solid guy, but have look at his arms. There's nothing special in muscle definition or bulk. Granted, working the arms with weights is probably not a priority for pitchers, but come on. His upper arms look average at best. Now, of course he has the big butt, child bearing hips and big thighs, but there's nothing particularly muscular in all that....area. So, where's the beef?

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 07:54 PM on January 10

If he did all this working out while taking steroids, where are the muscles? That's what his chiropractor from his Toronto days said as well. (I'm not saying it exonerates Clemens, I just thought the article sheds a bit more light on "Dr." McNamee)

posted by goddam at 09:27 PM on January 10

Now, of course he has the big butt, child bearing hips and big thighs, but there's nothing particularly muscular in all that....area. I think you'd better look again, especially considering those are the source of his fastball's speed.

posted by yerfatma at 06:21 AM on January 11

The lack of bulky muscle is probably intentional by Clemens and the trainer(s) he has worked with throughout his career. His body-type seems to be perfect for a pitcher looking for a long career. The workouts he was so famous for were evidentally a lot of endurance drills and lifting meant to keep his lower-half incredibly strong. He is one of the pitchers, ala Tom Seaver, who knows the secret to a long pitching career comes from his mechanics, lower body, and push he generates off the rubber (along with, of course, a strong, limber arm). I'm sure workouts such as he endured, if anything, led him towards utilizing banned substances in order to continue workout intensity as well as aid his aging body in recovery. Like Goose Gossage said in his interviews, if these drugs would have been as readily available when he was young and working his way into the league, he probably would have been tempted to use them, too.

posted by dyams at 07:14 AM on January 11

I doubt any pitcher the game has ever seen, or will ever see, has worked harder (and worked out harder) than him. posted by dyams See, this is where clemens' fans lose me (and generally, not you specifically). Clemens certainly has that reputation, enjoys it, and isn't shy about sharing it. And it's certainly true that he works out hard. Plenty of people have said that he works as hard as anyone. I'll take their word for it, since I've never seen him workout. But worked harder than anyone? Probably not. I'm sure over the history of pitching someone has worked harder, or at least as hard. Probably someone who had to work hard just to stay in the game. Clemens has the advantage of also being super talented, so it's easier to say 'wow, he's such a hard worker' because the results are so great. But this whole "he works harder than anyone EVER" shtick has been repeated so often everyone believes it on face value. It reminds me of the satirical piece ESPN did several years ago about Clemens work habits. Pretty funny, though I can't find it now. And for me, this is the only solid argument on his behalf. If he did all this working out while taking steroids, where are the muscles? Yes, Rogers a big, solid guy, but have look at his arms. There's nothing special in muscle definition or bulk. As you said, his arm workouts would be very specialized. Bulk wouldn't be the goal. Strength and flexibility would be. As far as his legs, they're tree trunks. Again, he's not going for a ripped look. I'm sure he's not going for defining exercises, nor the type of diet he would need to achieve a muscular look. But I assure you his legs are super strong. That's what his chiropractor from his Toronto days said as well. (I'm not saying it exonerates Clemens, I just thought the article sheds a bit more light on "Dr." McNamee) I read that article earlier and its certainly one-sided in Clemens' favor. But that's fair, because I've read a multitude of articles unfair to clemens. That said, the Doctor said in two years he didn't see any muscle/body change. And in times when Clemens had come back he still hadn't seen any. Now take a rookie card and compare it to now. Compare his latest yankee season to his years in toronto. There's big changes. So when did it happen? What he's saying makes no sense. His body has changed significantly. (and I say this as someone that thinks the whole "look at his body", for any player, one of the weakest accusations. I don't think it proves anything. But I'd have to be blind to not say it exists.) That doctor is basically telling me water isn't wet, at least when he's touched it. The trainer saying he would be huge if he took the steroids mcnamee said he did? Mcnammee has also stated that clemens did not "abuse" steroids, only taking them a couple of months a year. I don't think the trainer realized that. So I disagree with him because of that. As far as mcnamee's credibility with his history yes it's sketchy. But his being correct in other cases certainly gives some of that back. The big question for me is did the prosecutors pressure him on clemens, or was it simply tell the truth and you'll be a free man. That's a huge difference. As someone who dislikes clemens, I'd like to dislike him for what is true, not made up. With mcnamee's history I'd give clemens the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't for the interview and then 'wrestling style' press conference. If anyone was swayed by either I'd love to hear what clemens said that added to his case. For me he came off badly and answered not a single key question (he can't even tell us where the prescriptions came for the drugs he says mcnamee DID inject him with). To sum up, if Clemens had answered questions in a real interview instead of insulting the audience with 'I'd have an ear coming out of my forehead' nonsense and Wallace following up Clemens' denials with the comical "swear", and had a real press conference where he actually answered questions before storming off, if Clemens answered questions without the whole 'how dare you question me' attitude I'd tend to believe him. While I can understand someone claiming they believe Clemens over Mcnamee, I can't understand someone not at least giving the chance that Clemens is lying, unless one believes anger and bitterness = innocence.

posted by justgary at 10:18 AM on January 11

justgary, you're right. It is impossible to say or know how many pitchers from the past or in the present work out harder than Clemens. I just remember stories in the past of different people who have participated with Clemens in his workouts, even during the season and on days when he pitches, and claim it's extremely difficult to keep up with him. One of the things I have always wondered is how some players in pro sports, especially the ones who have achieved major success, approach conditioning both during the season and in the off-season, especially when they now live in giant homes, have money to afford anything they want in the world, can go anywhere they want at anytime, can go to the finest restaurants, etc. I have to believe quite a few of the star players who all of a sudden struggle in their performance do so because they've lost some, or most, of their dedication to training and conditioning. Some guys just start looking different, break down with nagging injuries, or become totally ineffective, especially as they become older. The players who can continue to compete and even dominate well into their 30s or 40s amaze me. Do I think Clemens did use steroids? Yes. I don't think McNamee is lying. I'm sure these substances enhanced Clemens' conditioning, play, recovery, etc. But the combination of baseball never taking strict action to ban these substances, along with me knowing Clemens is one of the individuals who is insanely dedicated to his craft, I just don't find myself angered by his possible use of these substances.

posted by dyams at 10:50 AM on January 11

It is impossible to say or know how many pitchers from the past or in the present work out harder than Clemens. I just remember stories in the past of different people who have participated with Clemens in his workouts, even during the season and on days when he pitches, and claim it's extremely difficult to keep up with him. Oh I know. Like I said, it wasn't really towards your comment. I understood what you were saying. Elsewhere I've read that clemens didn't do steroids, didn't need them, because he works that much harder than everyone else, and that was what I was referring to. I'm sure these substances enhanced Clemens' conditioning, play, recovery, etc. But the combination of baseball never taking strict action to ban these substances, along with me knowing Clemens is one of the individuals who is insanely dedicated to his craft, I just don't find myself angered by his possible use of these substances. Agreed. I think baseball would be better off just noting that steroids was a problem during this 'era' instead of this wild goose chase of finding a few players to take the fall. And as much as I dislike clemens, I'd vote for him for the hall of fame even if it's proven true he took steroids.

posted by justgary at 01:04 PM on January 11

Agreed. I think baseball would be better off just noting that steroids was a problem during this 'era' instead of this wild goose chase of finding a few players to take the fall. And as much as I dislike clemens, I'd vote for him for the hall of fame even if it's proven true he took steroids. Gary, I agree with you. If peds are half as widespread as many think they are, i don't see how else you can maintain the integrity of any win or loss unless you wipe the slate clean and give everyone a pass. I know that this seems like giving in, and i guess it is. However, this train has already left the station, and i'm not sure how baseball can ever catch up.

posted by brainofdtrain at 02:29 PM on January 11

I agree with you. If peds are half as widespread as many think they are, i don't see how else you can maintain the integrity of any win or loss unless you wipe the slate clean and give everyone a pass. I know that this seems like giving in, and i guess it is. However, this train has already left the station, and i'm not sure how baseball can ever catch up. But maintaining the integrity of the wins and losses isn't the point. Maintaining the purity of baseball isn't the point. It has never been the point where PED regulations are concerned. The point is to try and avoid a situation where athletes feel that in order to be competitive, they must take a harmful substance for a short-term gain. The problem is a simple one; it isn't an easy one. It becomes a lot harder when it gets confused with this notion of purity, because what does that mean, anyway? A player who takes ginseng has an advantage over one who doesn't; is the "integrity of the wins and losses" shot if one player can afford to buy ginseng and another one can't? Maybe, and if you like that kind of philosophical argument, more power to you. If you want to create baseball regulations aimed at maintaining (or restoring) some standard of "purity", go for it. I think it's a waste of time, myself; furthermore, I say that arguing the purity-and-integrity line is likely to do fatal harm to the cause of ever creating sensible, workable PED regulations in baseball or any other sport.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:39 PM on January 11

Well observed. Thanks for that.

posted by yerfatma at 03:38 PM on January 11

Now take a rookie card and compare it to now. Compare his latest yankee season to his years in toronto. There's big changes. I hate, hate, hate that argument. From rookie to now, he's aged twenty-three years. I challenge someone to find me a baseball player that is in the same shape he was twenty years after he started playing.

posted by grum@work at 09:14 PM on January 11

Kenny Lofton

posted by tron7 at 11:35 AM on January 12

me: Now take a rookie card and compare it to now. Compare his latest yankee season to his years in toronto. There's big changes. grum:I hate, hate, hate that argument. Did you actually read my entire post grum? It wasn't an argument for anything other than the bluejays doctor saying clemens body "had not changed", when of course it's changed. He said he had seen no muscle increase. Which means roger has gotten really fat (which couldn't be since he works out constantly) or he had an increase in muscle. Did you also miss the part where I said it was a weak arguement and proved nothing (body changes)? Please don't just pick out a sentence here and there and present it as my argument.

posted by justgary at 01:35 PM on January 12

Please don't just pick out a sentence here and there and present it as my argument. You're right. That wasn't the gist of your argument. My apologies.

posted by grum@work at 06:00 PM on January 13

No problem grum. I just don't want to be listed in the camp that points to before and after pictures as proof of anything. I'm in your camp. It doesn't.

posted by justgary at 06:20 PM on January 14

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