Grimsley implicates Clemens in steroid/HGH case [Archive]

Archive

10-02-2006, 07:35 AM

Posted By: JoannI agree. I've been just amazed that somehow he has stayed above the accusations despite his build, quick recovery and even size of head/face. I'm not saying he does or doesn't - I couldn't care less. But he should at least be subject to the same scrutiny and defensive posture as Bonds and the rest. Somehow it's seemed unfair to me that America's Jerk (Bonds) has been beat to hell the past few years, but somehow America's Hero (Clemens) gets a free pass. Makes me think it's the marketers and money guys behind it. Joann

Archive

10-02-2006, 07:36 AM

Posted By: barrysloateHe also implicated Andy Pettitte.

Archive

10-02-2006, 07:39 AM

Posted By: jay behrensJust to add, I'm willing to bet that Clemens doesn't make antoher comback. There was a lot of specualtion that he was trying to pass Sphan on the wins list, but this should pretty much end his career. Now it will be interesting to see if he goes into hiding like Magurie, which I what I suspect he will do. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-02-2006, 07:46 AM

Posted By: warshawlawThe sport is starting to rival football for the length of its police blotter.

Archive

10-02-2006, 08:03 AM

Posted By: JayTwo of the best seasons that Clemens has ever has ERA wise have been the last two, a time when testing was active. Makes you wonder if Grimsley's accusations are based on jealousy or fact.

Archive

10-02-2006, 08:05 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanThe proof against Clemens rests entirely on Grimsley's word (one witness). The proof against Bonds rests on the word of dozens of witnesses, his own testimony and documentary evidence.

Archive

10-02-2006, 08:08 AM

Posted By: Eric BThere is testing now, but not for HGH which, btw, makes your head grow. So compare their heads from pics in their 20's to now.

Archive

10-02-2006, 08:09 AM

Posted By: barrysloateImplications of steroid use are rampant these days. Some are true, and some aren't. And it's very difficult for the average fan to know who or what to believe.

Archive

10-02-2006, 08:12 AM

Posted By: John Kalafarski I'd like to see Roger go into hiding. Also, I'd like to hear no more talk about him being the greatest pitcher of all time. As Steve Somers of WFAN likes to say, "I mean, look already."

Archive

10-02-2006, 08:47 AM

Posted By: PaulInteresting that both Clemens & Pettite are named. From what I understand, the two of them are best of buddies.

Archive

10-02-2006, 08:48 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI thought Andy loves Jesus and doesn't curse, drink or smoke? No way could he be a juicer. Um, right?

Archive

10-02-2006, 08:58 AM

Posted By: MikeWJeff, If it's good enough for Pat Robertson... why not Andy Pettite

Archive

10-02-2006, 09:24 AM

Posted By: Josh K.its amazing that you are convicting the guy based on nothing but one other player's accusation. if you recall, there is a hell of a lot more circumstantial evidence indicating that bonds was on the juice than the accusation of one other player.

Archive

10-02-2006, 09:26 AM

Posted By: john/z28jd Id like an honest opinion from people. How many of you are surprised to hear anyones name? Im alot more surprised you dont hear any football players names which to me means they fudge the test results or theyre all on hgh.It wouldnt surprise me to hear anyones name and thats why it doesnt mean much to me,because if a majority are/were doing it then theyre all on the same level. People go by results and base their decisions whether a guy is guilty or not on that,but look at the people who have been caught and what they were doing,some of these minor leaguers getting caught were doing nothing. I personally know a former player who said half his teammates he knew were doing it at the time,and so did he. His help from juicing.... he went from 6 homers to 3,and his overall slugging dropped too.How do you look at those stats and say oh hes a juicer! You cant,and thats why i assume guilt and dont care anymore.All numbers are skewed but people are undoubtedly going to look back on this era and question everyone who succeeds,so the stats lost their meaning anyway

Archive

10-02-2006, 09:32 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJosh, you're obviously right: just one guy implicated Clemens and there is a hoard of evidence against Bonds. That being said, what did Grimsley have to gain by falsely implicating Clemens? If he wanted to get out from under, why not just name low level guys that will not invite scrutiny?

Archive

10-02-2006, 09:43 AM

Posted By: Josh K.jeff - its a good question, but Im sure there are a host of other possibilities - jealousy, maybe he just doesnt like clemens (not hard to believe that clemens isnt well liked), publicity (naming clemens is better than naming some common player) - just to name a few. Of course, he could be telling the truth - I just think we should wait before convicting.

Archive

10-02-2006, 09:47 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI don't disagree. Could be any reason, including the truth. That being said, while Bonds is not convicted yet - in my book he is convicted of using steroids. If steroid use was a crime, Bonds would be finishing his sentence about now....

Archive

10-02-2006, 09:52 AM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethAs I read the story, this is based on an anonymous source's description of what he saw in an affidavit filed by an FBI agent in support of a search warrant (which has been filed in redacted form) about a conversation the FBI agent had with Grimsley. Real solid evidence.

Archive

10-02-2006, 10:01 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanThe reporter apparently saw an unredacted version of the affidavit. And an eyewitness's statement is often used to indict and convict in federal courts all over the country (even in some of my cases - shock!). That Grimsely is now disavowing saying these things is expected as he wants to salvage any shred of self-respect he may have left.

Archive

10-02-2006, 10:12 AM

Posted By: AnonymousWhere's the eyewitness statement? So a reporter saw an affidavit in which an FBI agent wrote down some things he says Grimsley told him. By the way Grimsley was last on the same team as Clemens six years ago, is that the time frame he allegedly is talking about?

Archive

10-02-2006, 10:42 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanNo, Peter, by eyewitness statement I'm referring to Grimsely about Clemens. As for the fact that they were last teammates years ago, I presume Grimsely was referring to that period.

Archive

10-02-2006, 10:44 AM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethOh, of course, if Grimsley were to testify he saw Clemens do it or that Clemens admitted it to him, then if believed Roger's goose would be cooked, but right now all we have is hearsay from an FBI agent claiming Grimsley said some things to him and Grimsley denying he said those things.

Archive

10-02-2006, 10:47 AM

Posted By: runscottIt's absurd to equate a statement by Grimsley to all the evidence that's come out against Bonds.

Archive

10-02-2006, 11:00 AM

Posted By: cmoking"...and Grimsley denying he said those things." Of course he'd deny it. Even if he said it, he'd deny it. No one wants to be ostracized (sp?) from the game and other players like they ostracized Canseco. He has no choice but to lie if he wants to face other players or ex-players in the future. It's the same old philosophy of "don't tell on your teammates" kind of BS.

Archive

10-02-2006, 03:47 PM

Posted By: JayMy guess is that Grimsley did not say these things. If he did it would ultimately come out anyway so why deny them now.

Archive

10-02-2006, 04:01 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanOf course Grimsely said those things. He was terrified, told he'd go to jail forever unless he implicated others and revealed his sources and athletes he gave the drugs to. Unless he was taped for his statement (which he undoubtedly was not), it will be the word of a federal agent against Grimsley about whether he said those things. And no doubt Grimsely will tell the truth if put under oath with the prospect of going to jail if he lies.

Archive

10-02-2006, 04:10 PM

Posted By: warshawlawassuming Grimsley is at odds with the prosecution story as to what he said, is he in danger of being hammered for obstruction?

Archive

10-02-2006, 04:17 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI think it depends on whether they need him for their investigation. If he changes his story then yes (or testifies falsely under oath). But I'm not sure that he matters expect as to his particular HGH dealing and he's already toast. Just like Giambi played dumb to the press that he knew anything about 'roids, when put under oath he folded like a cheap suit; I expect the same from Grimsley. Lying to the press is not a crime; but rare is the athlete dumb enough to continue that lie under oath (Chris Webber and Bonds excluded).

Archive

10-02-2006, 04:36 PM

Posted By: RhysRoger does have a really big puffy head. My biggest problem though is that if Clemens is on Roids, why isn't he sharing with the Astros hitters who cost him every other game he pitches. Selfish jerk! The bigger question though, is how can I get Roger in touch with the Seattle Mariners pitching staff for next year so they can all get big swollen melons and be the best staff in the league?

Archive

10-02-2006, 05:23 PM

Posted By: jay behrensYou guys say give Roger a break and not Bonds becuase there is more evidence against Bonds? Why is Grimsley's word any less valid than those that ahve accused Bonds of using. At least he has first hand knowledge of who he sold to and who used. No one has stepped forward and said they sold Bonds steroids or HGH. Let's give this the same amount of time and see if you feel the same way. I knew this would be the pat response from the Bonds haters and those the like Clemens. If Roger was hated as much as Bonds, he would be crucified by now. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-02-2006, 05:44 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJay, you're missing the point because you seem to hate Clemens so much. The point we're trying to make is that there is only one witness thus far against Clemens and many against Bonds. And Grimsley's first hand account is now being disputed by...him. Compare that evidence to the many who are standing by their stories in which they claim they witnessed Bonds doing steroids.

Archive

10-02-2006, 05:56 PM

Posted By: jay behrensI don't hate Clemens. I just find the double standard between Bonds and Clemens hillarious. If I was conspiracy believer, I'd say it was race based. As I said, give this revelation the same amount of time to snowball as Bonds and see if you feel the same way. When Bonds situation first was revealed, he was instantly crucifed by everyone, yet Clemens is given every benefit of the doubt. Yes, I understand one is likable and the other less than personable, but this is no reason that they should be treated differently, unless there is some other reason that people aren't willing to admit to. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-02-2006, 05:56 PM

Posted By: FrankC'mon - if the Rocket really was a juicer, there'd be some sort of public evidence...like if he threw a splintered bat at someone unprovoked during the World Series or something unfathomable like that

Archive

10-02-2006, 06:05 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanClemens is well-liked? You're joking. Clemens is despised. And there is no double standard here just the mounds of evidence against Bonds compared to the minor evidence (thus far) against Clemens. I can't wait to trash Clemens and disparage his accomplishments because I find him to be an obnoxious jerk who lies through his teeth every year about wanting to play for a championship - and then signs for the most money. But I really won't feel comfortable calling him a juicer until there is irrefutable proof that he uses steroids - as there is presently with Bonds.

Archive

10-02-2006, 06:15 PM

Posted By: jay behrensCompared to Bonds, he is well liked. Then again, there aren't many people more despised than Bonds. Still, the media can't help but fall over themselves talking about his accomplishments. I agree with you that he gotten off way to easy for the way he has acted the past few seasons, waiting to decided to play, etc. Baseball needs to go the route of NFL in regards to steroids and HGH. Players are going to cheat, no matter what, so make a good PR effort but them cheat to their hearts content, that way, everyone is on a level playing field. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-02-2006, 06:40 PM

Posted By: BrettIf Bonds was never caught taking steroids, that means that he could still be on them, along with probably half of the league for all we know. its pretty "funny" that everyone's HR, RBI and AVG have gone up rediculously since 1998. OH YEAH !! thats when some guy hit 70 homeruns and another guy hit over 60 a couple times over the next few years. gee gollie, they must be legit players !!

Archive

10-02-2006, 06:59 PM

Posted By: Gilbert MainesSome think that MLB put more rabbit in the ball in '98 and for a few years thereafter. Then withdrew it and fostered the 'roid coverup. But not everyone is a conspiracy theorist.

Archive

10-02-2006, 07:55 PM

Posted By: MINE'S MINTthe true shame of all this in my eyes is that if both Bonds and Clemens did in fact use performance enchancing drugs.. then they have both squandered their pre-established hall of fame caliber carrers.. even without the juice these two players were already dominent figures in baseball and both on their way to becoming hofers.. (unlike sosa who never had the numbers and mcguire who couldnt stay healthy enough to ever display his true potential).. ive made the personal choice of not judging clemens until proven guilty because as of right now the stigma attached to accusing ball players of using is as ridiculous to me as the red scare, macarthyism and the salem witch trials.. plus it seems that the baseball community as a whole has casually let the evidence pass us by that even our beloved Babe Ruth was popping greenies before games and that they were used frequently for years by God knows which hall of fame players as they were readily availible in the dugout.. amphetamines have been proven to sharpen ones alertness, pereception and reaction time which would fall under the catagory of a performance enhancing drug as it would of course increase a hitters ability at the plate.. this being said should we pass judgement and tarnish their careers as well?.. long story short.. im not defending anyone but while you guys sit and drool waiting for the moment to chastise the most recently accused.. let the fed's conduct their investigations and prove these charges one way or the other before you decide to completely destroy a players reputation.. who's next to be pointed out?.. it could be your favorite player instead of one that has been catagorized as a total jerk by the baseball community at large.. the kind of player whom many of us love to hate.. psa/dna authenticated signature -> Richard M.

Archive

10-02-2006, 08:14 PM

Posted By: BrettYou can't really say that they would have been in the HOF before, because they could have been using steroids for 70 % of their career for all we know. Anyone who took steroids or used corked bats should be banned for life from baseball.

Archive

10-02-2006, 09:43 PM

Posted By: Rob LGreg Maddux is on roids!! Rob L

Archive

10-02-2006, 10:19 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Do they have names? Last I heard, "believed" witnesses were being wrongfully jailed because they refused to testify. P.S. I was at the game yesterday when Maddux stole 2nd. Must be on the juice.

Archive

10-02-2006, 10:23 PM

Posted By: runscottI heard that Rob L said that Greg Maddux is on steroids. I can't believe everyone crucified Barry Bonds when it's obvious, based on Rob L's comment, that Maddux is every bit as guilty as Bonds. You guys have a a double-standard and need to wise up.

Archive

10-02-2006, 10:30 PM

Posted By: MINE'S MINTbrett - "You can't really say that they would have been in the HOF before, because they could have been using steroids for 70 % of their career for all we know." well by using that theory.. any athlete since the advent of anabolic steroids is potentialy guilty of performing the same act.. people on this board have their doubts regarding these players due to recent performance and recent physical growth.. they are not based on their entire careers.. even you said "..its pretty "funny" that everyone's HR, RBI and AVG have gone up rediculously since 1998..".. so if we use 1998 as a rule of thumb of when steroids became a previalent part of baseball.. (as many tend to do).. bonds already had over 1200 rbi's, over 1300 runs, 411 hr's, closing in on his 2'000 hit while batting roughly .313.. an 8 time all star and 3 time MVP by the conclusion of the 1998 season.. not to mention the gold gloves .. this was all before anyone even suspected he was juiced.. before taking the single season home run crown and going from an athletic build to one of monsterous proportions.. he was without a doubt on his way to the HOF.. psa/dna authenticated signature -> Richard M.

Archive

10-02-2006, 10:54 PM

Posted By: jay behrensScott, BIG difference between Rob saying someone is juiced and Grimsley saying it. To my knowledge, Rob has never sold anyone steroids or HGH, Grimsley has. So go pack your snide comment. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-03-2006, 12:03 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackMy dog's nickname is Roids. When he was a puppy he looked like an alien, and I would call him Android, soon shortened to Roids. The irony of the nickname is he has to eat his dinner on the dining room table, otherwise his 10 poound big brother would take his food.

Archive

10-03-2006, 10:00 AM

Posted By: runscottJay, just trying to keep things light. Go back and re-read your posts on this thread, then come back and discuss 'snide' with me. Plus, Jay, I'm a Clemens fan and the new Clemens-bashing that you have started is just a bit irksome - if you are going to dish it out, be prepared for some backlash from those who think you are all wet. edited to add: but, in all seriousness, these discussions are fun and interesting, and it's good to be conversing with you again. Plus, I'm extra-cranky today given that my Astros fell short, and your Twins made that incredible comeback. It's always good to see a 'feel-good' story like the Twins taking the pennant on the final day of the season. I'll pull for you guys all the way through now.

Archive

10-03-2006, 11:15 AM

Posted By: ChuckkieBThis is NOT the first time Clemens has been implicated or accused. Jose Canseco mentioned Clemens as well as Tejada in his book.

Archive

10-03-2006, 03:23 PM

Posted By: AnonymousYeah, but didn't Canseco implicate everyone in his book? Plus, Canseco used that book to grind axes. I remember reading in the paper that Canseco thought he wasn't as popular with fans as Will Clarke, because Clarke was white!!!! OMG, that was hilarious - Canseco was a friendly guy who was always smiling, and Will Clarke was just a workman-like player. After reading that bit of racist rubbish, I never had any need to hear anything Canseco had to say - he has a chip on his shoulder the size of a log. So the fact that he implicated Clemens means absolutely nothing.

Archive

10-03-2006, 03:25 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJust because Canseco is an idiot does not mean he should not be believed. After all, he implicated Palmiero when everyone thought he was crazy to make such an accusation. He also implicated Tejeda, right? Sounds like he's been correct so far...

Archive

10-03-2006, 03:53 PM

Posted By: jay behrensScott, it's all good. I jsut got done working 34 of the last 60 hours, so I've been on the grumpy side too. A 'Stros v Twins series would be fun Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-03-2006, 04:08 PM

Posted By: Anonymous--

Archive

10-03-2006, 04:08 PM

Posted By: runscottYou are right - Canseco can't be discounted completely, nor can Grimsley, nor can the accused who say the two are lying. You kind of have to let the facts come out, like they did with Bonds and Palmeiro. If it turns out that Clemens and Petitte used 'roids, then I'll be very disappointed in both, since I only own two baseball shirts, and you know whose names are on the back....Clemens on the orange one, Petitte on the black one. Come on you two - make me an honest fan!!!! Thanks Jay - I'm trying to be kinder, but if I have to change my handle to 'CrawlScott', I will.

Archive

10-03-2006, 05:37 PM

Posted By: CyOn the topic of steroids we have heard quite a bit about Barry Bonds in this forum. Many have stated that if Bonds breaks Aaron's record, it still shouldn't count. OK, let's hypothesis here. What is Clemens IS found guilty or just as guilty as Bonds is to be now? Should we take away all of his Cy Young awards? Should the World Series victories be declared null and void for his teams? I would also like to see Bonds break Aaron's record and have MLB not recognize it, then let thousands of ticket holders sue MLB for giving them fraudulent entertainment. Could you see the repercussions if every season ticket holder sued for their money back plus damages? Cy

Archive

10-03-2006, 05:43 PM

Posted By: BryanLast week I attended a lecture by an ethics professor. She said, "never trust the person you cheat with, they will throw you under the bus."

Archive

10-03-2006, 05:52 PM

Posted By: BobWhat I find very interesting is the responses of Clemens and Pettit to the question, "Have you ever taken or used steroids or HGH (Human Growth Hormone)?" Pettit said, "I have never taken ANYthing, never taken or used either one." Clemens said, "I have never taken steroids and have been tested for it before." Hmmm, draw your own conclusions but Rog didn't mention a single word about GHG, his use, his non-use, only responding to the steroid part of the question. My understanding is that Grimsley specifically linked Clemens to HGH. I also agree 100% with the previous posts that if a nice White boy from Texas cheated, he needs to receive the same treatment from the press, fans and HOF voters that a surly Black dude from SF received. Clemens has been getting a free pass for years. I believe it is also time for Bud Selig to immediately resign as commissioner for thousands of reasons but most recently the evidence that he is totally incompetent and unable to handle the steroid and GHG scandals in baseball.

Archive

10-03-2006, 06:10 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI don't know who has or hasn't used steroids/HGH. The problem for the players is that for many years the players voted against testing and penalties for steroids use, and there is a well known lockeroom code of silence concerning steroids/HGH use, specifically about naming users. By definition, the code of silence exists to supress information from the public. So when the public doesn't take at face value players' protests of innocense, the players have laid the groundwork for this reaction. If someone says they aren't allowed to tell you the whole truth, it's natural for you to assume that what they tell you isn't the whole truth.

Archive

10-03-2006, 06:59 PM

Posted By: Josh K.Hypothetically speaking - if all the great power hitters are using steriods and all the great power pitchers are using steriods, doesnt that make it a level playing field? In other words, if the pitchers are enhancing their performance just like the hitters, all is equal and all the records should count. Of course, nothing that I said above should be interpreted as my condoning steriod usage.

Archive

10-03-2006, 07:07 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackIt's common knowledge that shrunken testicles and acne are of more benefit to hitters than pitchers.

Archive

10-03-2006, 07:10 PM

Posted By: Josh K.lmao

Archive

10-03-2006, 08:02 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Still haven't heard any credible evidence about Bonds' alleged steroid use...

Archive

10-03-2006, 08:16 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackBonds, Giambi and Sheffield testified before a Grand Jury that they used steroids. Though, Bonds and Sheffield said they were slipped mickeys.

Archive

10-03-2006, 08:23 PM

Posted By: Cobby33I suppose in the court of public opinion, there is no regard as to admissible evidence. But, in any legal proceedings, if the only "evidence" is Bonds' GJ testimony that he unwittingly used 'roids, whoever attempts to prosecute him on that evidence alone will lose their job.

Archive

10-03-2006, 08:36 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI don't know the answer, but I'd be curious to know when Bonds fired his trainer. Anyone who didn't use steroids and who discovered his trainer surreptitiously slipped him steroids instead of linseed oil, would fire the trainer and likely alert the police. I know of no one who would defend a trainer who surreptitiously gave him steroids or other illegal drugs, yet Bonds regularly defends his trainer. Bonds will sue the authors of a book because he doesn't want them to profit, but won't sue the guy who he says gave him steroids against his wishes and who thusly tainted his reputation and caused him to lose millions in endorsements, memorabilia profits, etc? In a related case, if you say a guy did a criminal act against you (ala, giving you steroids against your wishes), the judge will ask to see the police report. And if you say you didn't file a complaint with the police, the judge will expect a darned good reason for you to not file a report before he or she will accept your version of events. A judge or jury would look with great skpeticism at Bonds' "I didn't know" explanation if Bonds didn't pursue some kind of action against the trainer, considering what Bonds is claiming the trainer did is a felony.

Archive

10-03-2006, 09:14 PM

Posted By: Cobby33You bring up some good points- but ultimately, a jury would decide a case like this and whether a police report was filed or not would be irrelevant. Also, I'm not sure Anderson has ever testified (or otherwise admitted) that he gave Bonds anything illicit.

Archive

10-03-2006, 09:27 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI promise you that if Bonds or his lawyer says to a judge that someone gave him steroids against his wishes, the judge will ask to see the police or other official report, assuming that one was filed.

Archive

10-03-2006, 10:11 PM

Posted By: Cobby33The judge cannot and will not ask Bonds anything. It is the State's responsibility to prosecute him, if it wishes. The judge merely makes rulings on objections and motions and reads jury instructions and has no jurisdiction to ask any questions or order that any such information be provided, unless it is the subject of a motion by the State.

Archive

10-03-2006, 10:43 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackMany judges and juries would not beleive that Bonds acted in a way a person who unknowingly recieved steroids would act. As I explained, most people would act differently than Bonds acted. If it's already been established that the defendant used steroids, as it has, the judge or jury will need a good explantation why he did not act like a person who had unknownly received steriods. If there isn't a good explanation, most judges and juries will similar perceptions. And, without good defendant explanation, if this theoretical case is concerned with whether or not the defendant knowingly used steroids, it's not hard to predict the verdict.

Archive

10-03-2006, 10:59 PM

Posted By: BrettIf guys like Bonds and the other steroid users don't get banned from baseball, then whats the point of having these rules ? we might as well let guys like Joe Jackson and Pete Rose in the Hall if we don't punish them. I've gotten to the point that i just can't say these ball players who smack out 40 HRs a year are good players because i'll bet half of them are on steroids. If Bonds was never caught, the rest of them won't get caught. Steroids will eventually be used in breaking all of the most sacred baseball records ever. pretty sad...

Archive

10-04-2006, 12:07 AM

Posted By: Cobby33Playing the proverbial devil's advocate (or not)... Who really cares what they do to their own bodies?

Archive

10-04-2006, 12:24 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackParents of kids who have college or pro athletic aspirations. Personally, I compare steroids usage to graphic manipulations of the games. If I found out ESPN was computer graphically enhansing the home runs so the appeared to be going another 100 ft or, even words, manipulating scoring on the tv, I'd quit watching the sport. The reason I watch sports is not to have television execs fix the game. To me, players on steroids makes the game fake, like a video game. If you watch an Olympic sprint and someone tells you the guy won because he had a better strain of steroids than the guy who came in second, you get the sense you had watched an espisode of Red Dwarf. I don't watch sports to see who has the best biochemist. P.s., Red Dwarf (Pre-1997) is a great British science fiction comedy, with such episodes as when a space ship member put the lunch curry he was eating on the transmographier and accidentally created a monster half man half vindaloo that terrorized the crew.

Archive

10-04-2006, 12:35 AM

Posted By: Cobby33Fair enough. But are we going to take records away from athletes who are philanderers; who abuse alcohol and drugs and other human beings? What ever happened to parents teaching their kids "right" vs. "wrong." Why do we now depend on the State and oversight organzations to do this for us?

Archive

10-04-2006, 07:26 AM

Posted By: jay behrensThere is a big difference between cheatting to win a game and perform better and betting on or throwing games for gamblers. Taking drugs is the lesser of a sin. Gamblers are looking to fix the outcome regardless of how players perform. If they get control, then baseball is no better than pro wrestling. If the whole league is on performance enhancers, it still doesn't predertermine the outcome and the integrity of the outcome is still intact. That's why the drug users will never be permamnently banned. I also am in the camp that says let them do whatever they want to with their body. As someone else pointed out, it's the PARENTS!!! job to protect and inform their kids, not the governments. Jay I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive

10-04-2006, 07:30 AM

Posted By: runscottOctober 3, 2006 Doubt Cast on Report That Named Players By JACK CURRY Two days after it was reported that Roger Clemens was among the six major league players who investigators said had been identified as having used performance-enhancing substances, a federal prosecutor said the news media coverage contained “significant inaccuracies.” The Los Angeles Times reported late Saturday that Clemens, a seven-time Cy Young Award winner; Andy Pettitte, Clemens’s teammate and workout partner with the Houston Astros; Miguel Tejada of the Baltimore Orioles; and three other current or former Orioles were reportedly named by Jason Grimsley, a former pitcher, as players who had used the drugs. The names were blacked out in a federal affidavit that was made public in June. But Kevin V. Ryan, the United States attorney for the Northern District of California who is investigating steroids in baseball, issued a brief statement that cast some doubt on what was in The Times’s article. “In view of the recent news reports purporting to identify certain athletes whose names had been redacted from the government’s search warrant filings in the Grimsley matter, and in the interests of justice, please be advised that these reports contain significant inaccuracies,” Ryan said. The prosecutor’s office declined to elaborate. A message left for a Times spokesman was not immediately returned. Grimsley’s agent, Joe Bick, said Grimsley, who was released by the Arizona Diamondbacks after he acknowledged using steroids and other drugs and who subsequently retired, is not responsible for the naming of any players in the affidavit. “In terms of how those names got in the document, Jason disputes the fact that he put them there,” Bick said. “Jason’s attorney made that statement a while ago, and he still feels that way.”