Jump to content

McGwire Admits Steroid Use


flavum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2010 -> 03:35 PM)
How did cheaters of today make the HOF irrelevant when it has been accepting cheaters for years?

 

Who cheated first:

 

Gaylord Perry

 

Big Mac

 

Barry Bonds

 

Which of them is in the HOF?

 

The saddest chapter in baseball is the current chapter where people have evolved this "holier than thou" attitude, and forget that the Hall is filed with cheaters from all eras, and that baseball needed a few scapegoats to cover up the fact that everyone was cheating.

 

Either ban all cheaters, or ban no cheaters.

 

It would be nice of they could go back and remove those players from the HoF, but it is impractical. Yes, mistakes have been made in the past, cheaters have been allowed in. Now we learn from those mistakes and move on without continuing to make the same mistakes. Why would anyone advocate for continuing to make the same mistake over and over again?

 

And standing up for rules is "holier than thou"? Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 11, 2010 -> 04:04 PM)
If anything a spitball is worse. You can scientifically see the difference between a doctored ball and a nondoctored ball.

 

Conversely there is no absolute correlation between steroids and being a better player.

 

This is a crimson herring, counsellor, even if it may be technically true.

 

Steroids may not make someone a better ballplayer overall, but I don't think anyone other than the most hard core apologist could rationally deny a correlation between steroids and being a better home run hitter.

 

No, steroids probably don't improve things like hand-eye coordination, timing, reflexes, or the ability to guess which pitch is coming. But of the many reasons why baseball's Jim Thomes and Frank Thomases have hit more home runs than its Freddy Pateks and Harry Chappases, comparative size and stength is one obvious and undeniable factor. Steroids build muscles that make you big and strong; big and strong guys may still need instrinsic talent to make solid contact, but big strong muscles, whether obtained in a gym or a lab, help them hit the ball harder and farther when they do. That's a matter of simple physics, not chemistry or biology.

 

McGwire is delusional when he says the drugs don't diminish his totals (if he truly believes it, which I seriously doubt). Yeah, I'm sure he hit many upper deck shots that still would have cleared the fences by plenty, but we'll never know how many warning track fly balls went over the wall because of an extra measure of artificial oomph.

 

The steroids users cheated, and broke the law in order to attain their unfair competitive edge. You make some good points, especially about MLB being tactily complicit and hypocritical, but imo, saying that the spitballers were worse is really stretching things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, this issue is a hell of a lot more complicated than it ever gets credit for.

 

You're talking about athletes who are paid based upon their performance relative to their peers. When some percentage of their peers are using PED's to improve their performances, it begins to affect the pay, as well as a host of other issues, of players who are staying clean. No more is this evident than with Frank Thomas, who no doubtedly has been shortchanged money, awards, and perhaps even postseason titles and awards due to the behavior of a group of a select few who chose to seek out an "edge."

 

What would you have done? Do you stay clean and lose because others are being rewarded for cheating, or do you join in with the cheaters? Do you possible lose your ability to earn a livelihood by choosing to stay clean, or do you try to keep up with the Joneses' by taking PED's?

 

General Managers, Owners, and MLB personnel should be taking a hell of a lot more heat for this than the players.

 

As for guys like Mac, Bonds, ARod, they knew there was a risk when they cheated. Let's not feel too badly for them. They were rewarded with financial compensation for the risks they took with their bodies as well as their legacies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Jan 11, 2010 -> 09:55 PM)
This is a crimson herring, counsellor, even if it may be technically true.

 

Steroids may not make someone a better ballplayer overall, but I don't think anyone other than the most hard core apologist could rationally deny a correlation between steroids and being a better home run hitter.

 

No, steroids probably don't improve things like hand-eye coordination, timing, reflexes, or the ability to guess which pitch is coming. But of the many reasons why baseball's Jim Thomes and Frank Thomases have hit more home runs than its Freddy Pateks and Harry Chappases, comparative size and stength is one obvious and undeniable factor. Steroids build muscles that make you big and strong; big and strong guys may still need instrinsic talent to make solid contact, but big strong muscles, whether obtained in a gym or a lab, help them hit the ball harder and farther when they do. That's a matter of simple physics, not chemistry or biology.

 

McGwire is delusional when he says the drugs don't diminish his totals (if he truly believes it, which I seriously doubt). Yeah, I'm sure he hit many upper deck shots that still would have cleared the fences by plenty, but we'll never know how many warning track fly balls went over the wall because of an extra measure of artificial oomph.

 

The steroids users cheated, and broke the law in order to attain their unfair competitive edge. You make some good points, especially about MLB being tactily complicit and hypocritical, but imo, saying that the spitballers were worse is really stretching things.

 

Au Contraire, good sir.

The Cream and the Clear were known to increase fine motor skills, quickness, even vision, along with the other benefits such as improved strength and ability to recover more quickly from insane workout habits as well as injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't forgive McGwire and the like for artificially erasing some of the most storied numbers and accomplishments in baseball. 61* and 755 would probably still be in place if not for steroids.

 

However, I give McGwire credit for admitting that he took steroids. I would have preferred for him to step forward previous to him becoming STL batting coach, but it's better than Bonds has done, better than Clemens, better than Sosa. Sure, he probably just wants to get it out of the way so Spring Training isn't a circus. He might even think it will lead to a chance to be voted into the HOF. It shouldn't.

 

Still, though, nobody has come forward and said they cheated because they were afraid for their careers, or they were making great money and didn't want to stop. In other words, nobody has been honest, yet.

Edited by Middle Buffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 12:26 AM)
Just saw the MLB stuff on ESPN. At least he seemed sincere in his apology.

 

And at least he was honest about how long he used the stuff. You get guys who get pinched and mention "oh yeah, first time" or "I did it for a week 7 years ago"... COME ON!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:06 AM)
I'm just going to go ahead and blame Ronald Reagan for the fact that baseball, and society in general, looks down upon steroid users, but not gamblers or pitchers who doctored the ball. Silly 80s and the war on drugs....

 

It started even before Reagan....

 

elvis_presley_and_richard_nixon.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the key diferences between steroids and spit balls is steroids cannot be caught on the field. Our first line to catching cheaters are the umpires. We can look at the pimples, the bulging muscles, and ornery personality and say, yep, he's on steroids, but that isn't proof. We can check a pitcher for foreign substences.

 

And anyone that thinks this didn't make a huge impact on player's performances is kidding themselves, why else did they take them. And they knew it was wrong, why else did no one admit usage while they were doing it?

 

"Hey, I'm Barry Bonds for Balco. The Clear™ has helped me to extraordinary results and they can for you to . . . "

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 11, 2010 -> 10:03 PM)
IMO, this issue is a hell of a lot more complicated than it ever gets credit for.

 

You're talking about athletes who are paid based upon their performance relative to their peers. When some percentage of their peers are using PED's to improve their performances, it begins to affect the pay, as well as a host of other issues, of players who are staying clean. No more is this evident than with Frank Thomas, who no doubtedly has been shortchanged money, awards, and perhaps even postseason titles and awards due to the behavior of a group of a select few who chose to seek out an "edge."

 

What would you have done? Do you stay clean and lose because others are being rewarded for cheating, or do you join in with the cheaters? Do you possible lose your ability to earn a livelihood by choosing to stay clean, or do you try to keep up with the Joneses' by taking PED's?

 

General Managers, Owners, and MLB personnel should be taking a hell of a lot more heat for this than the players.

 

As for guys like Mac, Bonds, ARod, they knew there was a risk when they cheated. Let's not feel too badly for them. They were rewarded with financial compensation for the risks they took with their bodies as well as their legacies.

 

For all the talk about Bonds. McGwire & HRs, I think people also forget about the borderline players who also had their livelihood/money taken away by the PEDs as well. I'm sure there are tons of players in AAA who refused to cross the line and never got their big day in the majors, while other guys took the juice, which gave them that extra that they needed to get in the majors. They may have just been bench players, but thats still much better than AAA forever.

 

Juan Rincon is an example. He was a lights-out set up man for the Twins for 4 years. Then it turns on out he was taking steroids. After his suspension, he hasnt been able to keep his ERA under 5. If he had stayed clean, he knows if he would have been able to stay in MLB so long, and he may have taken someone else's spot who was clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 01:26 AM)
Just saw the MLB stuff on ESPN. At least he seemed sincere in his apology.

You know, I'd like to believe he was sincere. But then he pulled out the crappy "I don't really think it helped me" B.S. as a defense as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty annoyed this morning. I hop in the car and on the way to work I pop on Mike & Mike. It turns out Mark McGwire wanted to come clean and testify in those infamous, televised hearings. He told the "prosecution" he would come clean, that he'd used steroids, etc etc, but of course he wanted immunity. They went to the Attorney General, made the offer (which would have been HUGE for those hearings) and he denied the immunity.

 

Big Mac then agreed that he wouldn't talk about the past in the hearings. He did not perjure himself, but he sure wasn't going to say something that would have him wind up in the slammer. He did nothing that any of us wouldn't have done, and now the nation has spent 5 years making fun of his "not here to talk about the past" statements, when he was more than willing. They should have given him immunity and that would have been much less of a joke.

 

I still like Big Mac.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 09:14 AM)
I'm pretty annoyed this morning. I hop in the car and on the way to work I pop on Mike & Mike. It turns out Mark McGwire wanted to come clean and testify in those infamous, televised hearings. He told the "prosecution" he would come clean, that he'd used steroids, etc etc, but of course he wanted immunity. They went to the Attorney General, made the offer (which would have been HUGE for those hearings) and he denied the immunity.

 

Big Mac then agreed that he wouldn't talk about the past in the hearings. He did not perjure himself, but he sure wasn't going to say something that would have him wind up in the slammer. He did nothing that any of us wouldn't have done, and now the nation has spent 5 years making fun of his "not here to talk about the past" statements, when he was more than willing. They should have given him immunity and that would have been much less of a joke.

 

I still like Big Mac.

Take the other perspective. Let's say he'd come out in 2005 and said all the things he said yesterday. That he did it, that he wished he hadn't, that he didn't really think that it helped him despite his enormous late-career power surge, that he couldn't remember which drugs he had used, and that Canseco was right in general but was wrong on the specifics. This would have been before stuff like the Bonds indictment, the Mitchell Report, Clemens, Palmeiro's suspension, etc.

 

Wouldn't it have: been an even bigger story, and made him come out looking just as bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 12, 2010 -> 08:18 AM)
Take the other perspective. Let's say he'd come out in 2005 and said all the things he said yesterday. That he did it, that he wished he hadn't, that he didn't really think that it helped him despite his enormous late-career power surge, that he couldn't remember which drugs he had used, and that Canseco was right in general but was wrong on the specifics. This would have been before stuff like the Bonds indictment, the Mitchell Report, Clemens, Palmeiro's suspension, etc.

 

Wouldn't it have: been an even bigger story, and made him come out looking just as bad?

You can project all you want as to what would have happened to him. The nation loves the truth, and as a country is quite forgiving (and will cheer Tiger at his first tournament, etc etc). We're all over A-Rod, Pettitte, etc... we don't care anymore. If they give Big Mac immunity, which they should have, we probably avoid the Mitchell Report or more players are possibly willing to come clean during that period. I blame the Attorney General. I'm not going to jail just to be made an ass of on tv, I can make an ass of myself (I'm not here to talk about the past) and spent the next 5 years enjoying the world and my freedom.

Edited by Steve9347
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole, "I wish I didn't play in the steroid era" and "I wish there was testing because then we wouldn't be having this conversation" thing really ruined the apology for me. Mark, you still had the opportunity to say no. You had a chance to take a stand and do the right thing when apparently there were a whole lot of people were doing the wrong thing. I respect him for coming clean, but I don't respect him for not manning up when the time was right. He has no one to blame but himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is MLB's mess not 1 individual players. Every player that is suspected or guilty of taking PED's should have to go through the same B.S. that Mark is right now.

And don't even get me going on the congressional hearing. WTF was congress doing in baseball in 2005. They had bigger deals on the table at the time. And what was their conclusion to those hearings. I don't feel even with all the HR's that McGwire is a HOF'er but Bonds sure is, for n other reason that baseball let him get away with it!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...