wade

And Tejada interests me because technically his lie was to not give up info. on other players. Clemens' took a hit recently because the judge threw out most of his defamation suit against MacNamara. Even one of the congressmen that was especially hard on Mac (called him a liar and drug dealer, pandering to Clemens) during the meeting is now saying Roger's full of it. Sadly, everyone else watching didn't need this long, but whatever.

Most aren't talking about the court of law, but the court of public opinion. That's what the 'scandal' has done- opened up guys who get bigger and stronger and hit way more homers than usual to questions. They definitely shouldn't, and probably won't ever, be punished unless there's some hard, reliable evidence. The problem with the court of public opinion here is that it is dominated by the usual sportswriting characters, like ESPN and such, who are more interested in gaining readers/viewers than they are in telling the full story. Obviously, there are many exceptions. But doesn't it seem that for every great article out there you have to wade through a ton of crap -- particularly where controversy is involved? And, yes, I used wade there on purpose. I think it should be a new Board rule that when quoting a post from Wade, you have to topically use wade in your own post. Oh, I agree with you and I cited a Joe Sheehan article (def. not crap) from BP in either this or the A-Rod thread where he says these talking heads all missed the boat with this story back in the day either on purpose or from stupidity and they're trying to make up for it now be being as shrill as they can be. So, yeah, there's that crap to deal with. At the same time, I don't like Clemens, and watching his ordeal has not only been dramatic, but enjoyable for me as well. And, I like the board rule. I tried to return the favor, but brinoch doesn't offer much in the way of vocabulatory flexibility.

Most aren't talking about the court of law, but the court of public opinion. That's what the 'scandal' has done- opened up guys who get bigger and stronger and hit way more homers than usual to questions. They definitely shouldn't, and probably won't ever, be punished unless there's some hard, reliable evidence.

I think you're being sarcastic, but one of the fallouts from the 'scandal' is that what you described is what will happen- guys with these huge outlier years will be scrutinized a little. And you know what, I'm for the most part cynical anyway, so I don't see a big problem with it. Unless I have the guy on my fantasy team and he can't repeat the numbers.

Great post. Sorry I missed the guess on your age, I'm still older than you, just not nearly as much as I figured! You're right in one respect, if anyone can get stronger, it's the genetically gifted (something I am def. not). But, I'd still wager the majority of these guys that go 'on' started out lifting in the first place- and lifting pretty hard at that. Giambi testified that he met guys at Gold's, if I recall, and locker room talk led to his start. Anyway, I was just nitpicking, so I didn't disagree with much of what you said anyway. I'm really on board with the last paragraph- this whole thing fascinates me as a baseball fan and a gymrat. I've never dabbled in steroids, but I've read up on them proabably as much as just about anyone for the reasons you said- interest in muscular growth, etc. and while I probably come across as an apologist, I realize they're wrong and it was against the rules. But, as many have said, there's all kinds of rule-breaking and this whole thing is very dramatic, what with HOF's named, the Feds closing in, etc.- just a very interesting story.

atcfootball, a couple of things. I see lots of people say that either a. these guys aren't off the juice because they're not shrinking, or b. some guys never took becuase now there's testing and they're not shrinking. My response to this line of thinking is that people who use testosterone to increase muscle mass do not lose 100% of their gains if they stop taking it. Do you keep it all? No. But you don't go back to gettting sand kicked in your face a month after you stop, either. Also, I understand your using evidence of yourself as the possibility to gain muscle (I use this type of evidence because it's what we know best, oftentimes). Anyway, in this instance it's probably not a good measuring stick when dealing with an elite athlete. Some have said Sosa may have been malnurished when he got to MLB, so let's throw him out of my argument. If we can use Bonds, for instance, I say comparing what me and you can do improvement-wise in the gym naturally is no indicator for for what an athlete can do. These guys, by the time they get to MLB, have very likely lifted weights for years. They also are already at the very high percentile genetically, as far as being fast, strong, etc., just by the fact that they are pro athletes. I would argue that for these reasons, it would be harder for them to see a sudden improvement in muscle mass than it would be for me, who never lifted weights, started, then saw results. Plus, look at age. If you say you gained 18 pounds in Iraq, I might assume you are in the military and maybe less than 20 years old. If that's wrong, this next point won't make sense, but anyway, these guys are making gains in their mid-twenties to mid-thirties and it's much, much harder then because your body is for sure not just still growing. And, like you said, testosterone levels tend to go down as men age. Anyway, it was a good post, but I felt like nitpicking.

one would think not, but there are a lot of eyewitness accounts that seem to emanate from within rather than without. Pills in a bottle could be anything. meh, the pills are usually more toxic, I think that's why the majority inject.

Yeah, but this is probably not a contending team.

Maybe they talked Dunn into playing first. Can the cut Johnson and / Young?

that's not how testing works It was in Salem, circa the late 17th century.

Momentum finally picking up on these free agents?

Ha. Yeah, if Abreu goes for 1/5, there's much better deals out there than Miles. Of course, there were probably better options in house, I guess.

Brady Anderson, Gabe Kapler too?

I want to see if anything comes of this Orza guy from the Player's Union. Some players are saying he was telling players when their test would be and to 'make sure nothing shows up'. One thing those who strongly feel these players cheated the game might consider would be that the game (those in charge, anyway) may be culpable of cheating itself, if that makes sense. You have a Union that fought tooth and nail to keep testing out- and maybe people tipping players about upcoming tests. You have owners that had to at least suspect ignoring it. And, you have journalists closest to the game that had to at least suspect either ignore it or punk out about reporting it.

I just keep drooling over Harden's projections. I'm really trying not to believe he might stay healthy all year.

So, are some of the guys on here so pissed about the steroid era in baseball that you're ready to give up on the game?

Kevin Brown.

That's very understandable, and as Ole Miss said, players are saying the same thing. That said, most of the mocking (at least what I condone and engage in) is in regards to the journalists who are up in arms now that almost assuredly knew back in the day these guys were on stuff, but either didn't report it or didn't think it was a big deal then. I mentioned it in another thread, but Joe Sheehan touched on it at Prospectus in what I felt was a pretty good essay.

He has a plea arrangement in place. We'll know what the terms of that plea agreement are in the near future. More names in exchange for leniency? I'm guessing it was more of a cost/benefit analysis on the everyone's part. Tejada has a lot of money and can hire some really good lawyers. A trial would have been a media circus and could have dragged out in impressive fashion. Tejada could have lost playing time as a result of a trial and could have received some serious penalties if he was found guilty. My gut is that neither side wanted to go to trial and they worked out an arrangement. Very well could be. Usually the authorities try to get the supplier out of a person that gets pinched, though. I was at lunch and the bar had on ESPN. From what I gathered Tejada is being charged with lying about whether some dude was using, not that he used. It's all nonsense anyway. When is someone going to go after Bud Selig for his knowledge of what was going on under his watch. He had to know and he testified he didn't. He's a god-damn liar just like all the rest. Ah. On your second point, Joe Sheehan has a good article on prospectus about the whole thing and one point he made is how a lot of journalists close to the game are up in arms- Joe thinks they are driven by the fact that they ignored this back in the day (how could they not know, if they were as close to the game as they want us to believe, etc.) and are trying to make up for it by blasting the players now.

He has a plea arrangement in place. We'll know what the terms of that plea agreement are in the near future. More names in exchange for leniency? I'm guessing it was more of a cost/benefit analysis on the everyone's part. Tejada has a lot of money and can hire some really good lawyers. A trial would have been a media circus and could have dragged out in impressive fashion. Tejada could have lost playing time as a result of a trial and could have received some serious penalties if he was found guilty. My gut is that neither side wanted to go to trial and they worked out an arrangement. Very well could be. Usually the authorities try to get the supplier out of a person that gets pinched, though.

Drunk with power.

He has a plea arrangement in place. We'll know what the terms of that plea agreement are in the near future. More names in exchange for leniency?

Yes I dunno about that. Let's assume the vast majority (say more than 70%) of players used PED's in any given year. Isn't the point of cheating to gain an unfair advantage? Is the advantage unfair if everyone has access to the method and no one is punished for utilizing it? Yes cheating is getting an unfair advantage. 30% of baseball players did not have that advantage. Your train of thought punishes some people - the people that played by the books for doing what was right and not taking advantage of a situation where the league and the player's union decided not to do anything. They are the real perpetrators here. They share about as much blame as the players who were on the juice. I have never seen so many people defend illegal activity. I'm hardly "defending" it. What I am doing is asking how some activity can meet the definition of "cheating" if most everyone is engaging in it. Forget how some governing body defines cheating. I am asking the question in more of a broad sense. If most of society engages in theft or robbery, is it still a crime? The answer is yes. My SOC professor wouldn't agree so quickly. I.E., a hypothetical world where thievery is the norm wouldn't likely punish those who are thieves.

Hadn't seen that yet. I'm sure he's pissed at her and MLB for attatching names to the samples in what was supposed to be an anonymous survey. But, he made the bed.

Good point. By the way, the lady who wrote the article for SI personally talked to Arod before the article came out to get his side. He denied everything. She gave him two days to come out. He didn't, so she did. He didn't deny to her, he told her to go to the union about it. He gave a non-response.