Clemens and Steroids

[Oriole Baseball]

Listening to the Herd (say what you will), and Colin Cowherd is saying that you have to question whether or not Clemens took steroids. His career seemed to be ending in the early 90's and then he started bulking up and had a resurgence right around the time the other steroid users started bulking up.

I thought about this at the game on wednesday night, when they showed Ripken's homerun off Clemens on Opening Day in 1989 I think. He definilty was about twice the size and his head really has ballooned. Wondering what everyone on here thinks?

[Moose Milligan]

Clemens got fatter. I don't think it's all muscle.

Happens when you get older and your metabolism slows down.

He is/was notorious for a really intense workout regimen...I think 'roids is a possibility but I don't think there's that great of a chance.

I'd just like to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't really like him, but whatever...he's had an incredible career.

[ChrisP]

I think you have to question every player from the mid-90's to present.

[Dipper9]

No offense here, but who cares if Clemens was (or is) ever on steroids? Not the fans, that's for damn sure! I've been saying for years that the entire steroid controversy is all the media (and congress) blowing it way out of proportion, and that the fans don't care if the players use them or not. Need proof? Who's the starting left fielder for the National League All-Stars this year? If the fans gave even the slightest hair on a rat's a$$ about steroids, Bonds would not have been voted in! PERIOD!

I'm not saying steroids aren't bad and can kill people (Hello Mr. Benoit!) but what I AM saying is that if your team is winning and your players are doing well, the fans don't care if the players ARE using steroids, they just want a winner!

[mweb]

I'd be shocked if he hasn't used steroids.

[backwardsk]

I don't have a link, but I remember Clemens being mentioned when the Grimsley story came out. Also, unfounded rumors flew around when he would sit out the first couple of months to a season when he was with Houston. So I think the rumors have been around. Just like another poster said, everyone in this era will be under suspicion. I wouldn't doubt it.

[rolliefingers]

I'd be shocked if he hasn't used steroids.

I wouldn't go that far, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did, and this whole "Clemens is a superhuman workout fiend" thing was all an act.

[Leitch]

I wouldn't go that far, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did, and this whole "Clemens is a superhuman workout fiend" thing was all an act.

Steroids would simply make his superhuman workout fiend thing possible if they are indeed a part of his success, no?

[66-70-83-??]

I think you have to question every player from the mid-90's to present.

Absolutely !!!!!!

Every player from maybe late 1980's to the present.

Put an "*" on the whole era.

[Moose Milligan]

Absolutely !!!!!!

Every player from maybe late 1980's to the present.

Put an "*" on the whole era.

Even darling Cal?

[Objectivity]

I don't think it's fair to paint everyone with the same brush. Someone who hits a home run ever few seasons and steals a bunch of bases is probably not the poster child for sticking giant needles in your butt.

The one thing to keep in mind with Clemens is that he also adapted his pitching style as he got older. When he could no longer intimidate batters he started beaning them and that gave him the inside part of the plate and more. Even now he still gets that respect even though he doesn't deserve it because every batter knows if they approach the plate honestly he'll groove a ball into them.

[ScottieBaseball]

I think you have to question every player from the mid-90's to present.

Make them all prove their innocence? McCarthy called. He said he'd like his MO back, please. :rolleyes:

[mweb]

I don't think it's fair to paint everyone with the same brush. Someone who hits a home run ever few seasons and steals a bunch of bases is probably not the poster child for sticking giant needles in your butt.
The one thing to keep in mind with Clemens is that he also adapted his pitching style as he got older. When he could no longer intimidate batters he started beaning them and that gave him the inside part of the plate and more. Even now he still gets that respect even though he doesn't deserve it because every batter knows if they approach the plate honestly he'll groove a ball into them.

Well a couple of the guys who have been caught do fit that description. Alex Sanchez comes to mind.

[66-70-83-??]

Make them all prove their innocence? McCarthy called. He said he'd like his MO back, please. :rolleyes:

Please. :rolleyes:

So, what is your solution ? For MLB / MLBPA to put their collective heads back into the sand (where they were for years on this issue) and pretend there's no problems ?

No one ever suggested that players have to prove their individual innocence. Their collectively guilty in the court of public opinion- and they should be based on what has transpired over the years.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that steroid usage was widespread enough to suspect the integrity of the game.

The way MLB / MLBPA tried to ignore this problem and sweep it under the rug for so long- do they deserve any benefit of the doubt ? NO !

Therefore, it is reasonable to question every player of this era. Maybe it isn't fair. But, you had many who did use PED's and you had many who knew about it but chose to stay silent.

It may not be "fair" that people lump Cal or Gwynn in the group but hey- they (MLBPA collectively) have to be held accountable for their actions or inactions. The fact is that they vehemently fought ANY drug testing until they were cornered by Congress on a public stage.

Until a player with credibility like say Cal (or Gwynn) comes out and spills the beans- and tells it like it was, this issue will be a dark cloud over this sport.

[ScottieBaseball]

Please. :rolleyes:

So, what is your solution ? For MLB / MLBPA to put their collective heads back into the sand (where they were for years on this issue) and pretend there's no problems ?

No one ever suggested that players have to prove their individual innocence. Their collectively guilty in the court of public opinion- and they should be based on what has transpired over the years.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that steroid usage was widespread enough to suspect the integrity of the game.

The way MLB / MLBPA tried to ignore this problem and sweep it under the rug for so long- do they deserve any benefit of the doubt ? NO !

Therefore, it is reasonable to question every player of this era. Maybe it isn't fair. But, you had many who did use PED's and you had many who knew about it but chose to stay silent.

It may not be "fair" that people lump Cal or Gwynn in the group but hey- they (MLBPA collectively) have to be held accountable for their actions or inactions. The fact is that they vehemently fought ANY drug testing until they were cornered by Congress on a public stage.

Until a player with credibility like say Cal (or Gwynn) comes out and spills the beans- and tells it like it was, this issue will be a dark cloud over this sport.

I don't deny there's a dark cloud over the sport regarding steroids, but to blanket the entire era is McCarthy-esque.

Please let's keep in mind the difference between then-legal performance enhancing drugs and illegal means like HGH and anabolic steroids. I used plenty of PED's (creatine, multiple forms of andro, and ephedrine-based Ripped Fuel) when I was single and a gym rat in the late 90's and early 2000's. Until the negative side effects started coming to light, I was under the same impression that plenty of MLB'ers were...if I can walk into my local GNC, it must be okay.

I say this all the time...hindsight is 20/20. I wish I knew then what I know now regarding andro, ephedrine, etc. However, I firmly believe that a clear line needs to be established between what I took and actual illegal/illegally or illegitimately prescribed HGH and steroids.

I honestly don't know what the solution is a decade later, but I'm a firm believer in innocence until proven guilt. We can suspect all we want, but I refuse to accept a blanket scrutiny approach to an entire era until evidence surfaces otherwise.

[ChrisP]

We can suspect all we want, but I refuse to accept a blanket scrutiny approach to an entire era until evidence surfaces otherwise.


Ahhhhh, I'm guilty until proven innocent on some issues with this being one. I could see people 20+ years from now saying things about Griffey, AROD, Ortiz, etc: "Yeah, but that was the steroids era". You know what? They'd be right. Just my 2 cents...

To save the neg points, I'm in no way saying those guys were a part of it (actually picked them because they haven't been mentioned that I know of), but I think in time the whole era will have a "*".

[Mackus]

Ahhhhh, I'm guilty until proven innocent on some issues with this being one. I could see people 20+ years from now saying things about Griffey, AROD, Ortiz, etc: "Yeah, but that was the steroids era". You know what? They'd be right. Just my 2 cents...

To save the neg points, I'm in no way saying those guys were a part of it (actually picked them because they haven't been mentioned that I know of), but I think in time the whole era will have a "*".I don't really agree with this line of thinking. Theres no need for an asterisk. All these guys played against the same level of competition. You always have to account for eras when comparing players from different periods, and this will be no different.

The pitchers and hitters were on steroids, so its not like hitters had any advantage that pitchers didn't. I think that steroids help pitchers more than hitters anyways, especially relievers.

[ScottieBaseball]

Ahhhhh, I'm guilty until proven innocent on some issues with this being one. I could see people 20+ years from now saying things about Griffey, AROD, Ortiz, etc: "Yeah, but that was the steroids era". You know what? They'd be right. Just my 2 cents...

To save the neg points, I'm in no way saying those guys were a part of it (actually picked them because they haven't been mentioned that I know of), but I think in time the whole era will have a "*".

That's downright un-American, and so close to the 4th of July...you should be ashamed! ;)

Seriously...I understand your point-of-view, but I neither agree with nor condone it. I think if there exists just one star from that era who we can reasonably deduce did not use ILLEGAL (unprescribed or illegitimately prescribed steroids and/or HGH) PED's, then an asterisk can't be applied. Instead, I think there should be repercussions (even if it's an asterisk next to each individuals' name in the official record books) as the offenders get outed. Canseco? Palmiero? The late Ken Caminiti? Guys that are proven to have used illegal PED's through either admission or failed tests? Absolutely put an asterisk next to their name.

The others like Giambi, McGwire, and the like? You can be suspicious, but to convict them without tangible evidence and on gut feelings is wrong and unfair.

[RayFink1e]

Bonds is also well known for his crazy workouts. Someone should def. look into Clemens.

[Migrant Redbird]

I think you have to question every player from the mid-90's to present.

Absolutely !!!!!!

Every player from maybe late 1980's to the present.

Put an "*" on the whole era.

Actually, anyone who played in the modern era may have used some kind of performance enhancing drugs. Given the number of athletes who have been documented to have used performance enhancing drugs in the last half century, it's unrealistic to assume that a few players wouldn't have at least tried them earlier than 1980 if they had been available -- and they were available in this country since at least the mid-fifties!

Testosterone was identified in the late twenties and synthesized in the thirties, but scientists were experimenting with using extracts from bull testes in the 19th century and one French scientist claimed to have used them to postpone the effects of aging in a report published around 1890. It's very possible that testosterone was a minor ingredient in a few patent medicines in the late 19th and early 20th century. The primary ingredient in patent medicines was usually alcohol, but many contained opium or cocaine and all claimed to contain "secret" ingredients. I doubt if testosterone would have had any efficacy if taken orally and injection of inadequately refined extracts from bull testes might have been pretty risky to one's health, but it's still impossible to rule out the possibility that sluggers like Babe Ruth or Jimmie Foxx might have had a friend with a chemical lab who was providing them with primitive PEDs.

The military of several different countries experimented with giving soldiers testosterone during WWII to improve strength and endurance, and it's documented that the Soviet Union was using synthetic steroids in the early fifties to enhance the performance of their weightlifters and other Olympic athletes. By the late fifties, body builders in Southern California were beginning to try out steroids to enhance their physiques, and it made its way into football by at least the late seventies, if not earlier.

I couldn't begin to name any names, but I think that it's almost certain that a few professional baseball players must have begun experimenting with steroids in the late fifties and in the sixties, when the body builders began using them. If we assume hypothetically that around 50 percent of major leaguers were using steroids at least occasionally during the nineties, then we could hypothetically project that to perhaps 30 percent in the eighties, 10 percent in the seventies, and less than 2 percent in the fifties and sixties.

I'm also pretty confident that ballplayers prior to 1950 used substances which they believed gave them an advantage, but I'm skeptical that they had access to anything that was actually effective -- any more effective than a placebo at least. However, it can't be ruled out when ballplayers were trying everything that they could find to gain an advantage and papers were being published before 1900 about the beneficial effects of extracts from bull testes. Well equipped laboratories and competent laboratory technicians existed in the 19th century; all that would have been necessary would have been the right kind of relationship between a ballplayer and a friend who was a technician.

Which is why it's silly to talk about making adjustments to statistics from the "steroids era" or putting an asterisk by those records. We can only prove that someone used PEDs -- and that only in very rare cases unless they admit to it -- we can never prove that anyone didn't use them. There is no practical point at which one could draw the line when it comes to adjusting statistics, much less determine how much they ought to be adjusted.

[Dr. FLK]

I've had this theory on Clemens since he started picking teams midseason.

Since he doesn't sign multi-year deals, he's not on a team each off season. So, is he still subjected to ML drug testing in the offseason? If not, wouldn't that give him all off season to be on the juice, get in shape for the next season, get it out of his system, and have enough muscle built up to be stronger for a shortened season? But, if he's still subjected to the same testing, then I guess this is all moot.

[Migrant Redbird]

Since he doesn't sign multi-year deals, he's not on a team each off season. So, is he still subjected to ML drug testing in the offseason?

I don't think that there is any drug testing during the off season for any of the players (except possibly for those having tested positive in the past). My understanding is that players get tested in spring training and randomly 2-3 additional times during the season.


If not, wouldn't that give him all off season to be on the juice, get in shape for the next season, get it out of his system, and have enough muscle built up to be stronger for a shortened season? But, if he's still subjected to the same testing, then I guess this is all moot.

If he's using HGH, which I suspect most affluent athletes have switched to, there's no test being administered for it at all. The only baseball player suspended for using HGH is Jason Grimsley, and he was caught by the DEA as a recipient of HGH from one of the dealers they were investigating. Clemens is a little smarter than Grimsley, and he probably has a lot more friends willing to help him acquire PEDs surreptitiously.

Bonds and Clemens are "freaks" in their ability to continue performing at a high level as they've aged past the point where virtually all their contemporaries see their abilities falling precipitously off the cliff. What is even more freakish about Bonds and Clemens is that they've actually increased their performance levels at an age where the performance of their peers is declining. Now is that freakishness the result of genetics or chemicals? I don't know, but I definitely have my suspicions.

[Chollie Eckman]

Bonds definitely is a user. Clemens? I think so. Before those 2, what players ever actually improved past the age of 35 and maintained it?