PALMEIRO SUSPENDED FOR STEROIDS [Archive]

Archive

08-01-2005, 11:23 AM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaGoodbye Hall of Fame.....I think this hits him even harder than it hit McGwire. While McGwire may have made it obvious by his avoidance of the questions at the hearings, Palmeiro flatly denied taking steroids and lied under oath. What a sad day just weeks removed from his 3000th hit and closing in on 600 HR. Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio? Indeed. edited to correct spelling.

Archive

08-01-2005, 11:32 AM

Posted By: Alanor Where have you gone Lipman Pike ???????!!!!!!!

Archive

08-01-2005, 11:42 AM

Posted By: jay behrensWe are banning Palmerio from board for steroid use? Isn't that a little harsh. Seems he'll just wear out a keyboard faster than rest of us by being able to hit the keys harder and I don't see a problem with that. Chris, you gotta put it back, it ruins my post if your's is missing :-p Jay My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

Archive

08-01-2005, 11:45 AM

Posted By: MarkDo members feel this will keep Palmiero out of the hall? If so, what should the hall do with the other top sluggers of the 80s and 90s who are suspected of juicing up (ie, 90% of them)? I can't see the writers keeping Bonds or Sosa out, especially without catching them red-handed. I also can't see them letting those guys in while keeping Palmeiro out for this violation, but perhaps that will happen. My guess is that players thought or known to have used will still get in if they have staggering numbers, however those who otherwise would have barely made it will not make it in they are thought to have used banned substances.

Archive

08-01-2005, 11:46 AM

Posted By: leonis Viagra a steroid <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> ?

Archive

08-01-2005, 11:48 AM

Posted By: Phil MichelThe SI.com article about this sad story features an advertisement for the Sportsman of the Year Sweepstakes and Trivia Challenge....sponsored by Viagra. <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/baseball/mlb/08/01/steroids.suspension/index.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/baseball/mlb/08/01/steroids.suspension/index.html</a>

Archive

08-01-2005, 12:42 PM

Posted By: Peter SpaethMaybe Palmeiro needed it to offset the side effects of his steroids. Isn't, uh, impotence one of the side effects?

Archive

08-01-2005, 12:59 PM

Posted By: scott ingoldI don't understand. He seemed the only believable one at the testimony. Is there anyway this could be a mistake ? Could Jose be the most believable one ?????????? What does that say about the state of the game ?

Archive

08-01-2005, 01:39 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackA legacy of Palmiero, Rose and McGwire is that the press and public are less likely to beleive an athlete when he denies doing something bad-- even if the athlete is telling the truth. My personal rule of of thumb for modern players and the Hall of Fame is to knock off 20 percent from totals and look at those numbers (I mean, come on, no one seriously considers Rafael Palmaiero a greater home run hitter than Frank Robinson, Reggie Jackson and Mike Schmidt). 500 home runs = 400 home runs. 600 home runs = 480 home runs. It's the second number I use to make my personal judgment as to the player's HOF worthiness.

Archive

08-01-2005, 03:06 PM

Posted By: warshawlawwhy is it that these guys all claim ignorance over what went into their bodies when they get caught. Does anyone here believe that these guys just take whatever pill or goo is put in front of them without any questions asked, in this day and age?

Archive

08-01-2005, 03:21 PM

Posted By: john/z28jdAdam i would agree with you if it werent for the fact he had to know he would be tested up to 5 times this year,and he knew far enough ahead of time where he couldve stopped.In his case he shouldve assumed he would be tested the maximum 5 times because in the steroid scandal he was a high profile person.Knowing all of this its very hard to believe he could test positive unless he didnt know exactly what happened.They stressed that a player could be tested once,twice,5 times,even on back to back days if they wanted and they switched it up so no one could figure a pattern. That basically means if you did it knowingly youre probably too stupid to tie your own shoes.I dont doubt that a player couldve been duped by a trainer,ive seen it happen to a couple people i know from work.

Archive

08-01-2005, 03:39 PM

Posted By: Andrew Parks <img src="http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesrc/palmeirotp.jpg"><img src="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2003/07/28/rangers_mariners_ap/t1_palmeiro_ap.jpg"> THERE'S JUST NO WAY I CAN BELIEVE THIS. I MEAN HE HASN'T CHANGED IN 15 YEARS!!!!!!!!! NOR HAS THIS GUY: <img src="http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesrc/bondstp.jpg"> <img src="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040918/040918_bonds_701_vmed.vmedium.jpg"> OR THIS GUY!!!!! <img src="http://www.sportsposterwarehouse.com/warehouse/mcgwire87sl-1.jpg"> <img src="http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/photos/McGwire_Mark011000.jpg"> I JUST WILL NEVER BELIEVE THESE GUYS TOOK STEROIDS. IF THEY DID SHOULDN'T WE SEE AN INCREASE IN SIZE?

Archive

08-01-2005, 03:55 PM

Posted By: Peter SpaethThe before and after on Palmeiro don't look nearly as dramatic to me. Bonds is truly scary. Barely any resemblance.

Archive

08-01-2005, 03:57 PM

Posted By: dennisandrew you forgot a b4 & after pic of slammin sammy.

Archive

08-01-2005, 03:58 PM

Posted By: john/z28jdI know what youre trying to say but this argument is one of the most ridiculous and ive seen it so many times so im not talking directly to you.If you take a picture of a guy in his early 20s right up from the minors,is it real hard to believe he could be 30 lbs heavier with the difference between minor league weight rooms and major league weight rooms and the salary they have for trainers and proper nutrition? If my job was to play baseball and i get paid more if i hit more homers and help my team more in the process then its not hard to believe i could put on 3 lbs of muscle a year for 10 years.Its when the players do it over the offseason it looks suspicious like Dykstra,Baerga,Sierra,Caminiti,Brady Anderson all did. Showing a 1986 picture and one from 2000 then saying wow look at the difference doesnt prove anything to me.It proves they went from young men to grown men because of their job.I need actual proof before i pass judgement.It would be like showing a pic of a player in their 20s next to one in their 50s and blaming their wrinkles on the stress of baseball writers bothering them without considering the obvious first

Archive

08-01-2005, 04:04 PM

Posted By: Andrew Parks<img src="http://members.aol.com/sportnut08/sosa_rc3.jpg"> <img src="http://www.internetfm.com/gif/sosa1.jpg"> I know John, but come on...guys in the past didn't change!!!!! <img src="http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/mlb/2000/0327/photo/c_babe.jpg"> <img src="http://www.saleschamps.com/images/Babe%20Ruth.jpg">

Archive

08-01-2005, 05:00 PM

Posted By: Anonymous<img src="http://espn.starwave.com/media/mlb/2005/0801/photo/a_palmeiro_275.jpg"> AP Rafael Palmeiro strongly stated in Washington back in March that he never used steroids.

Archive

08-01-2005, 05:27 PM

Posted By: JulieAnything that comes in a capsule--can be switched for diffent contents in an identical looking capsule, or, painstakingly, contents of same capsule can be switched. Suppose someone who did not wisdh you well got hold of your capsules? Just a thought.

Archive

08-01-2005, 05:40 PM

Posted By: Brian Weisner Hi Andrew, Nice photos, good argument, but the old guys drank BEER all night and the new guys get juiced in the morning and spend the day in the GYM. I bet Ruth had more fun............ Be well Brian PS Adam Moraine looks like "A dam moron" I'm sorry, I just never did think it was his real name.

Archive

08-01-2005, 05:51 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanThe thing that always struck me was, why on earth would Canseco lump Raffy into his group of obvious steroid users? I always felt that by naming a guy who was not suspected of steroid use Jose must have been telling the truth. It was too easy for people to say, "Oh, Canseco's full of it, he even named Palmiero." Now it's clear that Jose was telling the truth (why would he have to lie, we should consider, considering the fact that baseball is full of juicers). If you ban Raffy from the HOF you have to ban Bonds too. And Sosa. And McGwire. Which is all fine by me. What a disgrace.

Archive

08-01-2005, 06:26 PM

Posted By: dennis<a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=ratto_ray&id=2121968" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=ratto_ray&id=2121968</a>

Archive

08-01-2005, 06:41 PM

Posted By: Brad Green I read Rafy's statement this afternoon. It was amazing how many times he used the word "intentionally". As in, "I have never intentionally taken a banned substance." Perhaps someone help him down and forcefully gave him steroids. He kept saying "No!", "No!". But, he couldn't fend off the "attacker". His statement sounded like a big play on words to me. His statement is here. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164410,00.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164410,00.html</a>

Archive

08-01-2005, 06:42 PM

Posted By: john/z28jdCanseco wasnt on to anything,he just wanted to make money off book sales to pay back debt.He doesnt give a crap about baseball or its history so i dont give him credit for anything.If he got to sign with a team so he could hit his 500th homer then retire you wouldve never heard any of this stuff which just proves he did it for selfish reasons not because it was the right thing to do. Ken Caminiti also said the same thing years before its just he didnt write a book or go in front of congress or have malicious intent towards others so i give him more credit because he was trying to provide help not get back at people. The only person ive thought less of since all this became blown out of proportion is Canseco,i wasnt naive enough to believe nothing wasnt going on.I dont have to be told the obvious but it appears alot of people have to which is sad.These reporters became vultures when this story came out yet theyre around these guys all the time.If youre a professional writer youre smart enough to know whats going on.Same for owners,managers,etc etc

Archive

08-01-2005, 07:27 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJohn, how could you say that the only person you thought less of since the Canseco book came out is Canseco? What about Palmiero? And McGwire? Look, we all know Canseco is a lowlife. While he may be a venal cheater, at least he told the truth about steroids, even if he did it not to save the game but to make some cash. Palmiero cheated his way to the HOF and then lied to our faces UNDER OATH. (Hello Perjury charge!). I guess I'm just disgusted with all of them. A pox on the bunch and I hope the sportswriters have the balls to keep every last one of them out of the HOF. Palmiero gets in and Joe Jackson doesn't????

Archive

08-01-2005, 07:31 PM

Posted By: john/z28jdJeff i said that because i was smart enough to know better.Read it,its right above

Archive

08-01-2005, 07:41 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI have to honestly say that I thought Raffy was clean. Or maybe I just hoped he was. Unlike McGwire, Bonds, Giambi, Sosa et al. he hadn't really ballooned in size. He also has always behaved himself admirably unlike many of the other players. To have him lie under oath with such venom directed at Canseco is truly sickening on so many levels. Incredibly, I have some empathy for Giambi now. At least he told the truth under oath unlike Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Palmiero.

Archive

08-01-2005, 07:42 PM

Posted By: Greg EcklundPalmeiro couldn't really be charged with perjury could he? I'm not a lawyer, so forgive my ignorance, but I would think that you can't charge him with it in this case because he tested positive after his testimony. I'm sure that he took them before he testified, but it doesn't seem like there is any way to prove it.

Archive

08-01-2005, 07:46 PM

Posted By: tbobPalmeiro saying he never took steroids and then testing positive sounds a little like a former law professor of mine who said "I never had sexual intercourse with that girl." They crucified Bill, it will be interesting to see how many apologists come rushing to Palmeiro's defense.

Archive

08-01-2005, 07:47 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanGregg, he could certainly be charged, hell anyone can be charged with anything. That he tested positive for roids after his testimony could circumstantially establish that he was on them before. He'll never be charged, of course, but it doesn't mean that he didn't lie under oath.

Archive

08-01-2005, 07:47 PM

Posted By: davidcylebackA sportwriter pointed out that Palmiero both appologized and said he did nothing wrong. A track athlete making $15,000 while working nights at McDonalds might have an excuse that he didn't know what was in the diet pill. A multi-millionare baseball player, who can afford a staff to market his 3,000 hit jerseys and bats, can figure out how not to 'accidentally' take steroids. I've eaten and drunk many things, and have yet to accidentally eat steroids. I asked Henry and he says he too has yet to accidentally eat steroids-- though, according to the fine print on the dogfood can, he once ate turkey lungs (Only think keeping him out of the Hall, he says).

Archive

08-01-2005, 07:53 PM

Posted By: Mike MIs it coincidence that all the players suspended to date are Latin/South American? Alex Sanchez, OF Devil Rays April 3 Jorge Piedra, OF Rockies April 11 Agustin Montero, RHP Rangers April 20 Juan Rincon, RHP Twins May 2 Rafael Betancourt, RHP Indians July 8 Rafael Palmeiro, 1B Orioles August 1 I know when Juan Rincon tested positive, he said he was taking what his doctor in Venezuela had been giving him. Can the stuff they are testing positive for be purchased at GNC? I'm sure it's not all hard core steroids. Just a thought.

Archive

08-01-2005, 07:55 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanMaybe it's something in the water...<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

08-01-2005, 07:56 PM

Posted By: Greg EcklundBob, the difference is that is was proven that Bill lied under oath, but it doesn't seem possible to prove that Palmeiro did even though everyone knows he is a liar. Nothing against Clinton though, this is one Republican who thinks thought that the whole impeachment crap was a big waste of time. If we impeached every US President who was unfaithful to his wife and lied about it, we would probably be up to 35 trials by now. Jeff...my mistake...I was typing without reading what I was saying and used "charged" when I meant to say "convicted". I'm sure this test could be used as part of a case, but doesn't it take something more substantive to prove he perjured himself?

Archive

08-01-2005, 08:00 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanProbably would be difficult to convict him which is one of the reasons he would never be charged (the second, and most important reason, is that there's no point in indicting him as he's been punished enough).

Archive

08-01-2005, 08:01 PM

Posted By: john/z28jdDave i work at a restaurant that serves alot of health food and therefore caters to alot of people who go to the gyms in the area around us.It has happened before to people i know,due to their trainers, theyve unknowingly taken some form of steroids.Trainers get paid upon results,and one who trains a major leaguer who might pay them a ridiculous sum to get desired results might stoop to that level to keep his high paying client.I have no doubt that it could happen without him knowing and thats because ive seen it personally happen more than once to people i know. Im waiting for the full story with Palmiero before i pass judgement,it seems too ridiculous to be true.Theres too much for him to lose too late in his career for this to make any sense at all.Besides the fact he knew about the testing,it was even close to a surprise,it was talked about long ago.When you look at the whole picture with him,im sure he couldve been doing it in the past but its extremely hard to believe hes done in knowingly recently as in anytime in the last calendar year. I cant see them also proving he did it in the past where his congressional testimony would be considered perjury.How do you prove that at this point in time?

Archive

08-01-2005, 08:01 PM

Posted By: PHISHERMANIt takes real stupidity and misplaced balls for him to deny taking steroids when he tested positive. I think he has been largely overlooked throughout his career and he will now be dismissed as a cheat. The game is not pure...

Archive

08-01-2005, 08:13 PM

Posted By: john/z28jdI always thought it was odd someone from Mexico for instance,if he took steroids up until there was a rule against it, would be considered a cheat.If where he is from they arent illegal to use and he only used them there in the offseason and there were no rules against them in baseball at the time, then what would he be doing wrong? Technically nothing. Theres obviously a rule against it now but 2 years ago(and before) what would stop someone from doing that if they knew it wasnt illegal and gave them an advantage.It would be hard to blame them or bury them for it

Archive

08-01-2005, 08:19 PM

Posted By: davidcylebackConsidering Palmiero changed his uniform every inning while going for the records, there were many opportunites for a rogue club house attendant to covertly slip Rafael a booster. If this is the case, it would appear Rafael's only crime is trying to give back to the fans by making sure that anyone who wants a game used jersy from his 500th home run game can get one.

Archive

08-01-2005, 08:21 PM

Posted By: DJIf Canseco keeps quiet, Bret Boone isn't fighting for a starting job in the Majors. Sammy Sosa would have just hit his 30th home run. Ivan Rodriguez would actually still be "Pudge". I don't even want to get into my own personal Barry Bonds thinking. Palmeiro seems to be the only one in the bunch who is actually playing at his level before the book came out. But I agree 100% with you John. How can this guy be doing anything right now in the way of using anything that even closely resembled the "S" word. He's patrolling the Infield under a microscope. One of my best friends was a trainer (who made about 1/100th of a major league salary) for an MLB team and I spent some time behind the scenes in the club house when the team came to town. Reporters had no way of knowing. I honestly don't think that owners know for sure either. That's what I think. I also know who was and who wasn't for that particular team based on our conversations. Curt Schilling said that he didn't know anyone who was on steroids on any team he played for and said that the number (I think if I remember correctly) was 5%, meaning...what, only 25-30 players in all of the Bigs? I remember on one occasion the tale of a journeyman infielder who hit six home runs one year. He discovered "the juice" and the next year he tripled his home run total and earned himself in arbitartion a nice increase in pay. Sure Jose isn't a saint, a money-grubber desparate for cash (and perhaps the spot light) and desparate beyond belief but this witch hunt in the long run may have helped save the sport (why does X do it and Y doesn't? What if Y did it and X didn't?) and may have have increased some lives. That's what I think. Why can't players simply go out play. It worked for 100+ years where the players were much smaller. Now these players don't know what they're putting into their system's? C'mon. DJ

Archive

08-01-2005, 08:32 PM

Posted By: Fred (Judge Dred)In Rafael's case I would have hoped that the commissioners office took a close look at this because now that this shadow is cast over him it will never really go away, even if he is proven innocent. It just makes you wonder what the heck they found and if major league baseball will ever reveal their findings. The 10 day suspension is a slap on the wrist and really doesn't amount to much in the spectrum of this all. They said he violated the drug policy, everyone is speculating steroids, for all we know he could have tested positive for marijuana. All in all, it's just sad...

Archive

08-01-2005, 08:37 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeJeff Lichtman & TBob I'm a plaintiff's lawyer and will be the first person to admit that I don't know the ins and outs of all the drug testing stuff. What I do know is that he testified some time ago and has now been banned for what I presume is a relatively recent offense. How is that perjury? I guess I'm just dense, but I always thought they had to prove that you lied AT THE TIME in order to convict someone of perjury. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything close to proof of that. I am not a Palmeiro apologist. However, I suspect that if either of you were representing him, you could come up with somewhere around 1,000 reasons why the dirty test wasn't really dirty, some of which actually might have merit. I certainly have no idea what the deal is in that regard, but I do know that you (criminal defense lawyers) often tell folks to avoid a rush to judgement when things look bad for your client. So do I. However, based upon your responses, it seems to me that's exactly what you have done here. As a lawyer, I'm uncomfortable with that. Kenny Cole

Archive

08-01-2005, 08:38 PM

Posted By: dennismaybe palmeiro's been "unknowingly" taking steroids for 12 years?

Archive

08-01-2005, 08:44 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI think the perjury issue is only theoretically possible if we can assume that the guy took roids prior to this positive test. Is it possible to think that this is the first time in his life that he ever took a banned substance? Was Canseco a clairvoyant? As for proving he lied under oath, again, without hard proof you'd be stuck with a case built on Canseco's word and his subsequent positive test. Canseco's word could arguably be admissible as non-hearsay as an admission of a party-opponenet or a declaration against penal interest (who knows what Canseco would claim Raffy said about buying the drugs). So, it's not just as simple as a positive test prior to the sworn testimony to ensure a conviction for perjury. Plenty of criminal defendants are convicted based upon the word of a cooperating witness and nothing more.

Archive

08-01-2005, 08:50 PM

Posted By: Damian AndersonPalmeiro has been consistent for 15 years. Hardly the scenerio for steroids IMO. He doesn't appear to have bulked up or look any different build wise than at any point in his career. His HR's are usually fence scrapers and always have been. Maybe there is some validity to the Viagra. I hate steriods in baseball, but with all the nutritional supplements/vitamins out there, there has to be some that the testing board or whatever doesn't even know would show up as steroids or be masked as steriods that they would say are okay. Sceince isn't perfect. Steriods need to be gone from baseball, but I think there is a witch hunt factor here. As far as Jose Canseco, I think you can forget everything he says and not even factor it in. He is an egomaniac with an agenda. As other members have said Palmeiro would have to be an absolute moron for continuing to use steriods with current testing policy and Canseco's acusations. I am not a huge Palmeiro fan, but I have always respected him for being upstanding, uncontroversial, and quietly consistent. I am I in denial here?

Archive

08-01-2005, 09:36 PM

Posted By: PHISHERMANNo, you are not in denial. I think we may be rushing to judgement a bit because baseball hasn't identified the substance he tested positive for, but since he adamantly denied steroid use in his statement, we can infer that that is what he tested + for. What an idiot he is if it is true...

Archive

08-01-2005, 10:36 PM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaI believe every word that Jose Canseco put into that book regarding others taking steroids. If it were false we would see numerous lawsuits for libel. Bo Jackson was accused of using steroids by some small California paper and he threatened a lawsuit against them and the paper retracted. Thus far not a single player named by Canseco has threatened a libel suit against him.....that speaks volumes to me.

Archive

08-01-2005, 11:40 PM

Posted By: DamianWhy sue Canseco? He has no significant assets. If one sued him it would just draw attention and that is what he wants.

Archive

08-02-2005, 08:48 AM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaYou sue to clear your name not to get rich. You make Jose Canseco publicly retract the comments he made about you in the book. The only reason they're not suing is because it's true. Palmeiro tests positive - check, McGwire all but admits to steroid use in front of Congress - check, Ivan Rodriguez shows up to spring training 25 pounds lighter than he was last year - check. I know that Canseco is a jerk, but have any of these guys given any reason as to why he's lying? None that I've seen.

Archive

08-03-2005, 08:25 AM

Posted By: Max WederFrom a posting on SABR-L "The list of banned substances are outlined in the 2002-2006 Basic Agreement under the heading JOINT DRUG PREVENTION AND TREATMENT PROGRAM (search for pages 168-195 with Adobe Acrobat from the link provided below). The list of steroids is provided on page 171, and is as follows: 1. Boldenone 2. Chlorotestosterone (4-chlorotestosterone) 3. Clostebol 4. Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone 5. Dihydrotestosterone (4-dihydrotestosterone) 6. Drostanolone 7. Ethylestrenol 8. Fluxymesterone 9. Formebulone (formebolone) 10. Mesterolone 11. Methandienone 12. Methandranone 13. Methandriol 14. Methandrostenolone 15. Methenolone 16. Methyltestosterone 17. Mibolerone 18. Nandrolone 19. Norethandrolone 20. Oxandrolone 21. Oxymesterone 22. Oxymethelone 23. Stanolone 24. Stanozolol 25. Testolactone 26. Testosterone 27. Trenbolone Other substances tested for include Ethanol (Alcohol), Cocaine Metabolites, Opiates/Metabolites, Phencyclidine (PCP), Cannabinoids. The group of substances listed as "Schedule I" substances that are tested for are outlined on pages 189-194 of the Basic Agreement and listed as Addendum C. This is a large listing that has DEA numbers attached to each in the list. To view the Basic Agreement you will need Adobe Acrobat. It can be view here: <a href="http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs/2002_2006basicagreement.pdf" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs/2002_2006basicagreement.pdf</a> Thanks, Maury Brown Co-Chair SABR Business of Baseball committee <a href="http://www.businessofbaseball.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessofbaseball.com</a>"

Archive

08-03-2005, 08:37 AM

Posted By: Brent ButcherSince it seems most stories about Palmeiro are leaving this out....Stanozolol(Winstrol) can stay in your system for 18 months so this might be a result of use in the past. It is a potent anabolic steroid but will not put much water weight on you and therefore Palmeiro could stay relatively the same size while on this drug. It does increase red blood cell count which helps with stamina and endurance so this could be the benifit he was after.

Archive

08-03-2005, 08:52 AM

Posted By: warshawlawBetween the ingrate cheater junkie athletes who treat fans like crap and lie to Congress (of course, lying and Congress are somewhat related concepts), the greedy owners who knowingly field crap teams while jacking up prices on everything, and bad television coverage , I've stopped watching baseball entirely this year. I follow two teams: Yankees and Dodgers. The Yankees are soulless hacks. The Dodgers have been decimated in the interests of signing risky players who are willing to back-load salaries so that McCourt can refi his purchase price and then develop the land adjacent to the stadium. As far as tv goes, memo to Bud and Fox: I don't want to see up a player's nose, the manager looking bored or some idiot fan's reactions to what is happening on the field; ever hear of showing the field, you idiots?

Archive

08-03-2005, 09:16 AM

Posted By: Josh K.It should also be pointed out that if he was caught with Stanozolol in his system, it virually eliminates the "I didnt know" defense. even if you want to believe that a professional athlete didnt know what he was putting into his system, that excuse doesnt hold water since Stanozolol reportedly is not found in any dietary supplements.

Archive

08-03-2005, 11:05 AM

Posted By: R. CookBonds not playing this season is smelling more fishy each day. Knee injury? Yeah right! Hank Aaron should be the one publicly calling for Bonds retirement. Btw, how much do we need to substract from Sammy Sosa's numbers adding corked bats to his steroid use?

Archive

08-03-2005, 11:25 AM

Posted By: J LevineLet me first say that I do believe steriods should be banned. I think the damage done by dangerous drugs goes beyond the athletes and can be found all the way into grade school these days. Second, steroids in baseball rarely favor the player. Yes, it makes you stronger and lets you hit more homeruns but as anyone who played the game for any amount of time knows, it is bat speed and hand eye-coordination. Muscle mass does not translate into homeruns...Ted Williams was always correct when he said that the bat speed is the key to hitting homeruns. It is also ridiculous to compare pictures of athletes in their twenties to athletes in their mid-30s...human metabolism slows down as you age and nearly everyone puts on weight...many of us would love to be at the weight we were at in college (myself included). In athletes, that weight can be translated to muscle mass with training, etc. Is Shaq on steriods? Was Charles Barkley? Agassi? Arnold Palmer (although golf is barely a sport)? Dan Marino? Joe Montana? Clemens? Ryan? They all put on weight as their career progressed. I am more concered with Palmerio and others (possibly) lying. Come clean and admit you did it. Tell the world it was wrong. Tell them the negative effects. Be a champion for turning your life around. Maybe I will vote you into the HOF. My opinions. Joshua

Archive

08-03-2005, 12:29 PM

Posted By: identify7As always, times are different now. Baseball has a much greater impact on kids and adults than it formerly did, because in part your child could earn serious income, even from just his signature! So the pressure is on to excel. Professional training on all aspects of the game is readily available to pre-teens, and is used by more than the most affluent families. Parents are gambling that their child will hit it big in baseball. In many cases the money spent on sports training of children is better spent on lottery tickets. So yes, there are steroids and other tools used by grade schoolers to excel, most often under their parents ill advised monitoring. Do I think that the actions of big league players have an impact on the acceptability of steroids to parents and children? Yes, I do. But I think that the behavior of big leaguers has less of an impact than the rationale "if you take this drug you may make $10 million per year; if you don't take it - you won't". I wish that kids could be kids longer, but they now have to face many more sophisticated decisions than I ever had to, at their age. This type of pressure includes far more areas of potential achievement than just baseball, but those considerations are clearly OT. This is my opinion only. Gil

Archive

08-05-2005, 08:20 PM

Posted By: TomI was under the impression that this forum was only for the discussion of vintage baseball cards. What gives with this modern day event about steroids and all these names? We can say what ever we want to say about these modern day players, but there is only TWO TRUE HOME RUN HITTER THAT IS HANK AARON & BABE RUTH! FORGET THE REST THESE TWO ARE STILL THE BEST!