IBC

Tony LaRussa is a manager, not a sports marketer, and please don't you "we" when talking about him.

Fair point - I was referring more towards the tactic of leaking McGwire than anything else - but you are absolutely correct.

Athletics wrote:

Padres wrote:Does Mac think that 'coming clean' will get him in the hall? Because it sure as hell shouldn't. This isn't much differnt than Rose admittinng he bets on basebal. Nothing we didn't know already and just proves what skeezes they are.

There is a very fundamental difference between this and Pete Rose. Since 1919 baseball has had one very simple rule that has hung in every clubhouse on every level, with clear enforcement guidelines and expectations, and that rule is, DO NOT BET ON BASEBALL.

On steroids, on the other hand, players were given absolutely no guidance, and one could reasonably argue they were tacitly encouraged to use them. Pete Rose deserves worse than Mac and the steroid guys because by breaking the rule he broke he also gave baseball the middle finger on the one thing that baseball cares about the most. Mac and the steroid guys extended baseball a helping hand, and the biggest hypocrite is the guy who enjoyed everything they did and now wants to throw them under the bus for it.

Is no one going to call Jake out on this horse shit? Clearly not...

MLB had been issuing an annual warning about Steroids since the 1980's. On top of which.... THEY WERE FUCKING ILLEGAL! Very minor detail.
MLB wasn't testing but that doesn't mean they weren't banned or that MLB didn't address it.

Papi and Manny are and will always b, in my eyes, cheats. The difference between being a cheat and being a skeeve is that cowardly crap Mac pulled in front of congress.

Padres wrote:

Athletics wrote:

Padres wrote:Does Mac think that 'coming clean' will get him in the hall? Because it sure as hell shouldn't. This isn't much differnt than Rose admittinng he bets on basebal. Nothing we didn't know already and just proves what skeezes they are.

There is a very fundamental difference between this and Pete Rose. Since 1919 baseball has had one very simple rule that has hung in every clubhouse on every level, with clear enforcement guidelines and expectations, and that rule is, DO NOT BET ON BASEBALL.

On steroids, on the other hand, players were given absolutely no guidance, and one could reasonably argue they were tacitly encouraged to use them. Pete Rose deserves worse than Mac and the steroid guys because by breaking the rule he broke he also gave baseball the middle finger on the one thing that baseball cares about the most. Mac and the steroid guys extended baseball a helping hand, and the biggest hypocrite is the guy who enjoyed everything they did and now wants to throw them under the bus for it.

Is no one going to call Jake out on this horse shit? Clearly not...

MLB had been issuing an annual warning about Steroids since the 1980's. On top of which.... THEY WERE FUCKING ILLEGAL! Very minor detail.
MLB wasn't testing but that doesn't mean they weren't banned or that MLB didn't address it.

Papi and Manny are and will always b, in my eyes, cheats. The difference between being a cheat and being a skeeve is that cowardly crap Mac pulled in front of congress.

If you listen to his explanation along with Senator Davis backing him up, Mac had sound reasoning for what he did in congress.

Padres wrote:

Athletics wrote:

Padres wrote:Does Mac think that 'coming clean' will get him in the hall? Because it sure as hell shouldn't. This isn't much differnt than Rose admittinng he bets on basebal. Nothing we didn't know already and just proves what skeezes they are.

There is a very fundamental difference between this and Pete Rose. Since 1919 baseball has had one very simple rule that has hung in every clubhouse on every level, with clear enforcement guidelines and expectations, and that rule is, DO NOT BET ON BASEBALL.

On steroids, on the other hand, players were given absolutely no guidance, and one could reasonably argue they were tacitly encouraged to use them. Pete Rose deserves worse than Mac and the steroid guys because by breaking the rule he broke he also gave baseball the middle finger on the one thing that baseball cares about the most. Mac and the steroid guys extended baseball a helping hand, and the biggest hypocrite is the guy who enjoyed everything they did and now wants to throw them under the bus for it.

Is no one going to call Jake out on this horse shit? Clearly not...

MLB had been issuing an annual warning about Steroids since the 1980's. On top of which.... THEY WERE FUCKING ILLEGAL! Very minor detail.
MLB wasn't testing but that doesn't mean they weren't banned or that MLB didn't address it.

Papi and Manny are and will always b, in my eyes, cheats. The difference between being a cheat and being a skeeve is that cowardly crap Mac pulled in front of congress.

There are a whole host of things that are illegal that baseball turns a blind eye too because baseball is a sport not a police force. Beating your wife is illegal, yet has had very few consequences in baseball (just ask Dutch Daulton, Brett Myers, and others). DUI is illegal but has very few consequences in baseball (just ask Rafael Furcal), same with stalking or driving your car into a kid who just egged your house (Albert Belle). So arguing that there should be baseball related consequences for steroid use because it's illegal in the real world is a stupid argument.

As for baseball's relationship with steroids, Bowie Kuhn got some drug testing in for illegal drugs to try and remove cocaine from the game, but Peter Ueberroth blew his relationship with Marvin Miller and Donald Fehr and set the players irrevocably against testing for 20 years. Bart Giamatti was only commissioner long enough to ban Pete Rose, though it's likely he would have handled steroids better than either of his successors. Unfortunately, coulda woulda shoulda. Fay Vincent did issue the memorandum you're talking about in 1991 (as far as I can tell MLB's first official position on steroids, at least 2 years after McGwire and Canseco had started using them), but every big thing Fay Vincent tried to do was overturned (see the bannings of George Steinbrenner and Steve Howe), and even Vincent himself acknowledged that he didn't see steroids as a major problem. I understand that you aren't capable of reading between lines, so I'll spell out for you what the combination of this weak declaration (which had no prayer of surviving any challenge from the players union) and no steroid testing, plus the big money that teams were paying for home runs told players who were interested in steroids: THERE IS HUGE UPSIDE TO STEROIDS, THERE IS NO RISK OF BEING PUNISHED, GO FOR IT!

As I'm sure you're aware, the toothless memo that Fay Vincent put out was infinitely more than Allan H. "Bud" Selig did on the issue. Prior to Selig's appointment drug testing was a hot topic, but he squelched debate on the issue by offering to take the players at their word that they weren't using steroids in exchange for labor peace. Meanwhile, as you know, McGwire and Sosa take over America for one captivating summer thanks to steroids, even when McGwire is caught with Andro in his locker. Once again, I'll have to spell out for you what this means: USING STEROIDS WILL MAKE YOU FAMOUS AND RICH! YOU WILL FACE NO SCRUTINY FROM THE LEAGUE! GO FOR IT!

It's a shame they can't teach people to understand subtlety, it would add so much richness to your world if you could see even the teensiest bit under the surface.

Forgive me if this has already been said, because I did not bother reading the post of this scumbag.

This piece of shit is still lying, and this is ALL about the 'Hall'. Just FYI, the dude hired Ari Fleisher!

I can't wait to get to a Cards game and yell out "Lying-Scumbag" before the game when he's out there with the fungo.

Athletics wrote:

Padres wrote:

Athletics wrote: There is a very fundamental difference between this and Pete Rose. Since 1919 baseball has had one very simple rule that has hung in every clubhouse on every level, with clear enforcement guidelines and expectations, and that rule is, DO NOT BET ON BASEBALL.

On steroids, on the other hand, players were given absolutely no guidance, and one could reasonably argue they were tacitly encouraged to use them. Pete Rose deserves worse than Mac and the steroid guys because by breaking the rule he broke he also gave baseball the middle finger on the one thing that baseball cares about the most. Mac and the steroid guys extended baseball a helping hand, and the biggest hypocrite is the guy who enjoyed everything they did and now wants to throw them under the bus for it.

Is no one going to call Jake out on this horse shit? Clearly not...

MLB had been issuing an annual warning about Steroids since the 1980's. On top of which.... THEY WERE FUCKING ILLEGAL! Very minor detail.
MLB wasn't testing but that doesn't mean they weren't banned or that MLB didn't address it.

Papi and Manny are and will always b, in my eyes, cheats. The difference between being a cheat and being a skeeve is that cowardly crap Mac pulled in front of congress.

There are a whole host of things that are illegal that baseball turns a blind eye too because baseball is a sport not a police force. Beating your wife is illegal, yet has had very few consequences in baseball (just ask Dutch Daulton, Brett Myers, and others). DUI is illegal but has very few consequences in baseball (just ask Rafael Furcal), same with stalking or driving your car into a kid who just egged your house (Albert Belle). So arguing that there should be baseball related consequences for steroid use because it's illegal in the real world is a stupid argument.

As for baseball's relationship with steroids, Bowie Kuhn got some drug testing in for illegal drugs to try and remove cocaine from the game, but Peter Ueberroth blew his relationship with Marvin Miller and Donald Fehr and set the players irrevocably against testing for 20 years. Bart Giamatti was only commissioner long enough to ban Pete Rose, though it's likely he would have handled steroids better than either of his successors. Unfortunately, coulda woulda shoulda. Fay Vincent did issue the memorandum you're talking about in 1991 (as far as I can tell MLB's first official position on steroids, at least 2 years after McGwire and Canseco had started using them), but every big thing Fay Vincent tried to do was overturned (see the bannings of George Steinbrenner and Steve Howe), and even Vincent himself acknowledged that he didn't see steroids as a major problem. I understand that you aren't capable of reading between lines, so I'll spell out for you what the combination of this weak declaration (which had no prayer of surviving any challenge from the players union) and no steroid testing, plus the big money that teams were paying for home runs told players who were interested in steroids: THERE IS HUGE UPSIDE TO STEROIDS, THERE IS NO RISK OF BEING PUNISHED, GO FOR IT!

As I'm sure you're aware, the toothless memo that Fay Vincent put out was infinitely more than Allan H. "Bud" Selig did on the issue. Prior to Selig's appointment drug testing was a hot topic, but he squelched debate on the issue by offering to take the players at their word that they weren't using steroids in exchange for labor peace. Meanwhile, as you know, McGwire and Sosa take over America for one captivating summer thanks to steroids, even when McGwire is caught with Andro in his locker. Once again, I'll have to spell out for you what this means: USING STEROIDS WILL MAKE YOU FAMOUS AND RICH! YOU WILL FACE NO SCRUTINY FROM THE LEAGUE! GO FOR IT!

It's a shame they can't teach people to understand subtlety, it would add so much richness to your world if you could see even the teensiest bit under the surface.

Jake - you have a well reasoned argument. Unfortunately I just can't agree on basic principle. When Brett Myers hit his wife, he in no way, shape, or form changed the outcome of a baseball game. When Albert Belled tried to run over some kids, that had nothing to do with the game on the field. To that extent, the gambling we know that Pete Rose did, did not change the outcome of any game (as I recall, he only bet on the Reds to win - PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG - also, if someone says "he managed harder" I'll find you and break your throat). Steroids have clearly had unbelievable ramifications on the sport. They ushered in the long ball era, created video game numbers, and allowed athletes to return to health at light speeds and healthier than there predecessors.

To this - do I believe Mark McGwire does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? Hell no. Mac should have been a first ballot, no doubter. Steroids are one in a very long line of ways that athletes have been using advantages to get ahead - they just had MUCH more positive outcomes. It's not like "Greenies" were legal in real life, and it's not like the spitball wasn't illegal in baseball. Should we hold their numbers under a bit more of a microscope? Absolutely. The bar should be set higher for these players - either way, Mac eclipses it.

To your last point on Commissioners - and I argue about this all the time - the Commissioners honestly don't care about the fans, or the play on the field as much as you think. The Commissioners are beholden to the owners - and as long as they turn a profit, they love the Commissioner. Bud Selig has ushered in UNBELIEVABLE financial rewards for the owners - and that's why he's the highest paid Commissioner in sports. Bud Selig probably had a pretty good idea what was going on with steroids - but the sport was coming off a down time with the strike, owners were starting to lose money, and the boost was needed to spike the bottom line for teams. Home Runs were flying out of stadium, the Yankees were winning, all was right in Bud Selig's world. Since then, and please argue with me, but he has done another UNBELIEVABLE job keeping steroids from crushing baseball and its attendance. It's shocking that almost all the best players of the past era have come out, and, yet, the sport keeps chugging along in the black. The WBC brings merchandise royalties to teams, the Wild Card puts two extra teams in the playoffs (as well as more home games), etc etc etc. From a gameplay and fairness standpoint, Bud Selig has been a disgrace. For his job as Commissioner, he has done a terrific, terrific job.

Brett, I wasn't basing my argument around steroids being better or worse than any of the other crimes listed, just saying that their legal status was not relevant to the debate. You are correct, as far as I know, that there is no evidence for Rose betting against the Reds. The "managed harder" argument is flimsy, its based more on the idea that he may have taken different risks (eg pitching his best relievers on short rest or playing players who might not be 100% and risking the teams long term interests to win the few games he'd bet on). The issue with Pete Rose was an issue of credibility, not so much of the game itself as of the games rules. There is one big ironclad rule, Rose was the first significant figure to break it, for the rulebook to have any credibility it had to be enforced, and that it's still an issue is the fault of Pete Rose and his arrogant behavior.

As for the roles of the commissioner of baseball, I'm really surprised you'd say that. Unlike other sports, baseball had a long tradition of independent commissioners who often bucked owners' wishes (perhaps the most famous example is Kenessaw Landis banning the Black Sox), in fact Fay Vincent was ultimately ousted because he blocked an attempt by Selig, Jerry Reinsdorf, and the owner's chief labor negotiator Richard Ravich to lock out the players in 1990. Selig was the first commissioner to be a puppet of the owners, and I'm sure we can expect the commissioner to play that role for a long time, but it's wrong to say that any commissioner before Selig was simply a tool of the owners.

As far as steroids' impact on the game: of course there was an impact. Did steroids have more of an impact then gloves, catching equipment, the dead/juiced ball eras (the history of how baseballs have evolved and its impact on the game is really fascinating), black players, new breaking pitches, and a whole host of other things? We can't really say. What we can say is that the league and the owners absolutely created an environment ripe for steroid abuse, and to punish only the players who took advantage is asinine. I'm not saying that we just ignore, brush off, and condone steroid use, but what I've said over and over again is that having the names of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, and the rest of the gang all over the record books and hallowed halls of baseball is the appropriate punishment for the game. It would be truly hypocritical for baseball to reap all of the benefits of the summer of `98 and force McGwire and Sosa to bear all of the negative consequences.

Athletics wrote:Brett, I wasn't basing my argument around steroids being better or worse than any of the other crimes listed, just saying that their legal status was not relevant to the debate. You are correct, as far as I know, that there is no evidence for Rose betting against the Reds. The "managed harder" argument is flimsy, its based more on the idea that he may have taken different risks (eg pitching his best relievers on short rest or playing players who might not be 100% and risking the teams long term interests to win the few games he'd bet on). The issue with Pete Rose was an issue of credibility, not so much of the game itself as of the games rules. There is one big ironclad rule, Rose was the first significant figure to break it, for the rulebook to have any credibility it had to be enforced, and that it's still an issue is the fault of Pete Rose and his arrogant behavior.

As for the roles of the commissioner of baseball, I'm really surprised you'd say that. Unlike other sports, baseball had a long tradition of independent commissioners who often bucked owners' wishes (perhaps the most famous example is Kenessaw Landis banning the Black Sox), in fact Fay Vincent was ultimately ousted because he blocked an attempt by Selig, Jerry Reinsdorf, and the owner's chief labor negotiator Richard Ravich to lock out the players in 1990. Selig was the first commissioner to be a puppet of the owners, and I'm sure we can expect the commissioner to play that role for a long time, but it's wrong to say that any commissioner before Selig was simply a tool of the owners.

As far as steroids' impact on the game: of course there was an impact. Did steroids have more of an impact then gloves, catching equipment, the dead/juiced ball eras (the history of how baseballs have evolved and its impact on the game is really fascinating), black players, new breaking pitches, and a whole host of other things? We can't really say. What we can say is that the league and the owners absolutely created an environment ripe for steroid abuse, and to punish only the players who took advantage is asinine. I'm not saying that we just ignore, brush off, and condone steroid use, but what I've said over and over again is that having the names of Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmeiro, and the rest of the gang all over the record books and hallowed halls of baseball is the appropriate punishment for the game. It would be truly hypocritical for baseball to reap all of the benefits of the summer of `98 and force McGwire and Sosa to bear all of the negative consequences.

I'll handle by paragraph:
1) Like I said, I think you've raised a justified point - but since steroids are technically illegal AND a performance enhancer, I would imagine that would preclude them from using them in baseball at any point in time. As far as I can remember, people have been handed suspensions for off field behavior (Steve Howe) and allowed to return - this is still EXACTLY the same as steroids.

2) I'm not arguing the Commissioners of baseball past. Many past Commissioners were dealing with amounts of money that had no impact on an owner's wealth - today's sports, for the most part, have a DIRECT impact on an owner's wealth. Many are putting a large part of their fortune on the line each season, and losing money is DEVASTATING. The minute that this started to cross was the minute the owner's looked for the Bud Selig's of the world. Unfortunately Fay Vincent was an early victim of that. Also, Selig isn't technically a puppet of the owners - he was an owner. He knows EXACTLY what he should be looking out for to make them money.

3) There's not a word of this I truly disagree with. Unfortunately, the players injected themselves, and sports writers are scared shitless of losing access to the locker room - ADVANTAGE OWNERS. The day the owners of baseball care what the record books look like on a daily basis is a day that we will already be dead.

I just skimmed this thread, but am I correct in believing Mark McGuire used steroids? Un-freaking-believable. What next, Palmeiro used Viagra for a bigger bat?

Jake,
You claimed the players were offered no guidance on steroids. The illegality of steroids is certainly guidance on the subject and as toothless as the annual memos may have been, it does represent some guidance. Ergo, you are wrong. And we all know why you're so quick to shift blame off the players.

If you're going to lecture on subtlety, perhaps you should avoid the use of absolutes, which allow for now subtlety.

No matter how much money is involved, no matter how much you try to blame Selig, Vincent, the owners and everyone but the players. It comes down to two basic facts. The players KNEW it was wrongto do and they made the individual decision to cheat. Notone MLB regular is a poor man, they make far more in one season than any of us could ever hope to make in a year. It's a matter of personal responsibility and their individual lacks of value for the fans, the game or anything other than their wallets and egos.

Bren, it's proven over and over again that people are motivated by incentives. As we see time and time again, the law does not apply to celebrities (Plaxico Burress excepted), so steroids being illegal is not guidance, nor does it create an incentive to not partake in steroids. A toothless memo is not guidance, it is proven over and over again that whatever the commissioner does an arbitrator is going to overturn, so it's not guidance about what the real rules are, and once again, it does not create an incentive to not partake in steroids. On the other hand, obvious steroid users were getting big contracts, accolades, star treatment and all sorts of other perks from the league. Therefore the de facto guidance was (as always) where the incentives were, which was go for it and use steroids.

I know you want to bring Barry Bonds into the conversation, because for some reason you think I'm a diehard Bonds guy, but Bonds played with no fewer than 11 steroid guys just based on names in the Mitchell Report. My issue is that people like you would rather pile on the players who have already come and gone as though it means anything when the guys who created the situation in the first place (Selig, Fehr, Orza, and everyone else) are still employed and facing no real consequences.

I didn't know Fehr was still employed

Didn't know that Fehr had resigned yet, but he did get an honorable sendoff even though he did as much as anyone to ensure steroids were a part of the game.

I wouldn't tie you just Bonds (no pun intended) but Mac as well. I'm sure you have a soft spot for him.

Money is an incentive? Really? See, the part where i'm really confused here, is why you even brought that up. Gee, it's like you're saying that I suggested that they had no reason or incentive to cheat and then disproving me... except I never said anything of the sort. You on the other hand said there as no guidance not to use steroids, when there clearly was. Way to have a leg to stand on there Jakey...

You keep wanting to pass the buck to someone else, pass on the personal responsibility (and I keep thinking about you at law school for some reason...). Lay the blame on Selig, the owners, the unions... the buck starts and stops with the individual players though. End of story. Every single player in the majors has weighed the incentives... More Cash than they already had and more fame than they already had... against the drawbacks... illegality, personal integrity and their personal health to name a few. Every player made a choice and that's nobody's fault but theirs. Should the Commish have done more? Absolutely. Would it have made much of a difference? Fat chance. What exists now for testing is a joke, even I could beat the current system. The players will never allow blood testing or a truly effective testing regimen.

I think Bren's 2nd paragraph really hits the nail on the head. Going into my junior year of high school, as I started doing college showcases and camps, there was certainly pressure to use steroids - and I saw some people at these showcases injecting themselves. I made the decision not to - but, ultimately, only you agree to put something in your body.

Nationals wrote:I think Bren's 2nd paragraph really hits the nail on the head. Going into my junior year of high school, as I started doing college showcases and camps, there was certainly pressure to use steroids - and I saw some people at these showcases injecting themselves. I made the decision not to - but, ultimately, only you agree to put something in your body.

Not going to lie but that I don't believe that one bit. I believe you played basketball correct? I've been around baseball my whole life. 4 years in high school and very briefly at the Division 1 college level, as well as camps and I can't say that once I've seen people injecting themselves let alone talk about it. I know that people do do it, but I can't ever imagine people at that young of an age doing it in front of others in a locker room.

Rockies wrote:

Nationals wrote:I think Bren's 2nd paragraph really hits the nail on the head. Going into my junior year of high school, as I started doing college showcases and camps, there was certainly pressure to use steroids - and I saw some people at these showcases injecting themselves. I made the decision not to - but, ultimately, only you agree to put something in your body.

Not going to lie but that I don't believe that one bit. I believe you played basketball correct? I've been around baseball my whole life. 4 years in high school and very briefly at the Division 1 college level, as well as camps and I can't say that once I've seen people injecting themselves let alone talk about it. I know that people do do it, but I can't ever imagine people at that young of an age doing it in front of others in a locker room.

Really not asking you to believe me. I played baseball at Hamilton College - I played baseball, basketball, and football in high school. I never heard a word about steroids while I was at Simsbury High School. The summer after my junior year I went to baseball camps in Massachusetts, Virginia, and in Connecticut - as well as three or four showcases in New England. At each of these stops I would have roomates - certainly not in all the places I saw steroids, but it was talked about at a few of them - and I saw one of my roomates inject himself after a day of working out with one of his high school teammates. It was pretty jarring for a kid who had lived a pretty sheltered New England life. When you're in a situation where you're playing with and becoming friendly with kids who are all at these places to promote themselves to college coaches, you often talk about things you do to get ahead - and steroids is certainly one of the things that was discussed - again, not as much as fielding or hitting drills - but it was brought up.