Baseballs "All Clean Team" from SI.com

[Migrant Redbird]

MigrantRedbird,

You have defended McGwire several times here suggesting that he never used steroids.

Then go search up my posts and quote them, because I don't recall ever using quite those words or words to that effect. What I have said is that there is no evidence that McGwire used steroids aside from his performance/injuries and the discredited allegations by Jose Canseco.

McGwire has admitted to using androstenedione and creatine to speed up his ability to bounce back from workouts, though the available studies (sparse) suggest that any such result was likely to be only a placebo effect. Both substances were perfectly legal over the counter "nutritional supplements", no different in principle than taking multi-vitamins or aspirin. There has been a "rush to judgment" to infer that taking androstenedione means that McGwire must also have been using steroids when actually the opposite is more logical -- if McGwire was using anabolic steroids for which there is a great body of scientific and anecdotal evidence for their effectiveness, why would he be using androstenedione for which there is no body that indicates efficacy? The use of androstenedione implies (but does not prove) that McGwire was not using steroids when he broke the Maris home run record.

McGwire has publicly denied that he ever used steroids. However, when he refused to answer questions about possible steroid use in sworn testimony before Congress, he definitely cast a shadow across his previous denials of steroid use. The logical inference -- which has not been proven -- is that McGwire did use steroids or some other controlled substance at some point during his life and that he was not willing to go down the pathway of

(1) admitting the indiscretion and trusting the public to understand;

(2) trying to talk his way around it (e.g., Clinton: "I smoked pot when I was in college, but I didn't inhale."); or

(3) lying about it and hoping that evidence didn't surface later proving that he'd perjured himself -- leaving him vulnerable to charges like Bonds and Tejada now face.

McGwire grew up in near Los Angeles in the heart of Muscle Beach country where steroids use has been endemic since at least the early sixties. If he was playing football, hanging gyms around with buddies, and doing a lot of weight lifting when he was in high school and college, it's almost inevitable that he was exposed to the opportunity to use steroids, just as he was undoubtedly offered pot at a relatively early age. The stigma against steroids (and the knowledge about their risks) was much less back then and it would have been very easy for a young kid like McGwire to have succumbed to peer pressure from his buddies and tried steroids while in high school or college. Perhaps he even "did a Pettitte" and only took them once or twice before abandoning them for more natural stimulants?

So, if that's what happened, should McGwire have taken option (1) and simply explained it to Congress, trusting the public to accept his version of what happened? Well, perhaps, but McGwire is an extremely private person who doesn't like to share any of his privacy with the public. He didn't like the circus back in 1998, but he went along with it as a necessity. A lower level of scrutiny back in 1961 affected Roger Maris so profoundly that his hair began falling out. If McGwire admitted to using steroids as a kid, then he also admits that his statement at the time of the 60 Minutes interview of Canseco was technically a lie -- even if he'd never used steroids while playing professional baseball. Moreover, I am confident that a large majority of the American public -- faced with a confession by McGwire that he'd used steroids as a kid but not as a professional ballplayer -- would not have believed him about not using steroids in his pursuit of the home run record.

As for option (2), that wouldn't have worked for McGwire. We saw with Clinton's pot smoking confession that very few people believed him, but most of them didn't care (especially among the liberals inclined to vote for him). The acceptance of pot smoking indiscretions way back during one's youth is generally accepted by most people today as "no big deal". It makes an amusing sitcom plot when a parent who smoked pot as a kid tries to crack down on his or her own children who used it, but it's not regarded nearly as seriously as steroids use because the general public doesn't do that -- only the athletes do. Plus, baseball fans tend to be very fanatical about the purity of their sacred records. Option (2) worked more or less for Clinton; it wouldn't have been viable for McGwire; he's not the kind of guy to point his finger at the camera and say "I did not have sex with that woman!" (Palmeiro, yes, but not McGwire.)

If McGwire considered option (3), he was fortunate that he listened to his lawyers and didn't do a Barry Bonds (or a Palmeiro, if you think Raffie was lying). If McGwire did use steroids, somewhere there's a supplier or multiple suppliers who provided him the product. As soon as McGwire perjured himself, he'd be susceptible to blackmail which would bleed him dry.

Greg Anderson of BALCO plea bargained to the charges of conspiracy to distribute steroids and to money laundering and served 3 months in jail, but then he served an additional year in jail for contempt for failing to testify about his relationship with Barry Bonds. I find it rather difficult to believe that Anderson was loyal enough to Bonds to go to jail for him, so I have to wonder how much Bonds has paid or promised Anderson for not giving up his client.

But regardless, when it's all said and done, no one has yet come forth with any credible evidence that McGwire used steroids. It's a reasonable inference from his refusal to give sworn testimony, but it's not proven.

You earlier wrote Pujols was the "least likely" player in MLB to use steroids.

When you take my statement out of context, you can make it sound very different from what I actually said, can't you?

I happen to think that Pujols is one of the least likely of the current players to have used steroids, but I have to go through a lot of rationalization to reach that point.

First of all, it is a commonly held "fact" that PED abuse has been endemic in the Dominican Republic, which means that any player from the Dominican, be it Tejada or Pujols, automatically comes under a higher degree of scrutiny than other ballplayers]. That's just a given.

.... I can't really argue that Pujols hasn't used steroids because I don't know. What I would point out is that his performance has been so absolutely and incredibly consistent in his first five seasons:

So consistent that Albert's at bats per season only ranged from a low of 590 to a high of 592 over those 5 seasons. In addition, Pujols is the only player in baseball history to hit over .300, hit over 30 home runs, and drive in over 100 RBIs in each of his first three seasons. He has now extended that incredible streak to his first 7 seasons! It is almost incomprehensible that any player could be so absolutely consistent from year to year. Given the documented tendency of steroid use to increase the strength of muscles and to subvert the integrity of connective tissues, it's not surprising that both scientific studies and anecdotal evidence is that steroid users are more likely to suffer injuries as their super muscles react upon their weakened joints and ligaments. If Pujols had been using steroids, it seems likely that his incredible consistency would have been even more difficult to sustain!

So, two things: (1) I can't say absolutely that Pujols didn't use steroids, and (2) I was responding to another poster who specifically challenged me to comment on the likelihood of Pujols having used steroids. I did the best that I could with it. If you don't like my rationale, you're quite free to go on believing that Pujols is a steroids driven 30-something freak for all I care.

You even threw all these players under the bus- Ralph Kiner, Roger Maris, Jimmie Foxx, Hank Greenberg, Ken Griffey Jr., Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Hack Wilson, Mickie Mantle, Lou Gehrig, Harmon Killebrew, Ted Kluszewski, Frank Robinson, or Ernie Banks.

You have a rather loose "definition" of what "throwing someone under the bus" means. Anyone who has played baseball since testosterone was isolated in the thirties and synthetic anabolic steroids became widely available in the early fifties could have used steroids to enhance their performance. I did not allege that any of those ballplayers actually used steroids; I merely pointed out that they played in an era when those steroids were available and were being used by body builders and football players, so it is virtually certain that some finite percentage of baseball players from that era also experimented with them too. I didn't state that Musial or Maris or Williams used steroids; I merely listed them as players from that era, which means that they would have had the opportunity to use steroids along with all the other players of their generation.

I think that is ridiculous to assume that any of those guys even knew what these substances were, let alone tried them. The science behind these wasn't widely studied. There is no evidence at all.

There is a wealth of evidence if you take the time to look for it instead of putting on blinders and pretending that the golden days of baseball were absolutely pristine.

University of Michigan Medical School article

Bodybuilders and weightlifters first latched onto them in the 1950s as a way to build muscles, and soon other athletes were using steroids to enhance their performance. Athletes in the 1950s and 1960s used steroids during the Olympics, before the International Olympic Committee banned them.

We simply don't know! We have House's confession that he used steroids in the seventies and his allegation that about half the pitchers in baseball were also playing around with them at the same time; if the pitchers were doing it, then the usage among position players was probably approximately the same level.

From football, we also have John Mutuzak's admissions of using steroids and his apparent case of "roid rage" in 1969 which caused Dan Devine to kick the freshman off the Missouri football team.

According to ESPN, in 1974, Arnold Schwarzenegger told Barbara Walters, "I take steroids because they help me an extra 5 percent. Women take the [contraception] pill. They are somewhat similar. I do it under a doctor's supervision."

That is all OK, though. You are entitled to believe whatever you want and tell us in your posts here. FWIW, I believe that the steroid era is where all the evidence points too- the last 15-20 years.

You "believe". I have done a tremendous amount of research and analysis and posted my sources and conclusions here for you to evaluate for yourself. Instead, you've closed your mind and implied that I'm guilty of partiality towards my favorite Cardinals players that blinds me to their apparently "obvious" usage of steroids.

But, OTOH, all this SI author does is give us some of his "opinions" in his article, which is his job.

Why do you have such the problem with that ? PS- isn't it his job to write pieces that evoke emotion and opinion from readers.

Because it's one of the crappiest articles that I've run across in years. I explained what was wrong with it in my previous post.

It is ironic: I remember months ago reading posts from some of the "player apologists" (for lack of a better term, not meant as a slam) that told us it isn't fair to accuse any players of doing steroids without proof.

I still believe that. There is a world of difference between saying that some players during a particular era almost certainly used steroids (or amphetamines, which were also illegal) and alleging that any particular player actually did use them. I have pointed out time and time again that (1) the "steroids era" goes back much further than is commonly believed, and (2) that anyone who played sports in the fifties and sixties, particularly at a high level where they would have come into contact with top level Olympic athletes using steroids and competing against Eastern Bloc athletes on steroids, would have been aware of steroids and would have been able to acquire them if they had wanted to do it.

But I still believe it's possible that Palmeiro received his Stanazol from a B12 product combined with it that I personally viewed advertised on a website about 5-6 years ago. I believe it was Baltimoron who provided a link a couple days ago to a website advertising Stanazol tablets containing B12; the link which I recall was for an injectible form where the B12 was listed as prominently as the steroid. It's been proven that Palmeiro took steroids and it has been proven that Tejada gave him a B12 injection; what has not been proven is that Palmeiro was aware there was Stanazol in that injection Tejada gave him.

I also am generally careful to continue referring to Clemens' alleged use of steroids, even when I post a profile of his career performance which appears to support the allegations by McNamee of when he was injecting Clemens.

It's been proven through first person sworn testimony that Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, and Canseco used steroids. Caminiti admitted it to before he died from recreational drug abuse. Unless it's this class of athletes I'm discussing, I continue to use the qualifier "alleged", even if I'm personally convinced (as in the case of Clemens) that there was actual steroid use.

I agree that it is hard to tell who is/isn't clean in MLB. All we have to go by is which players have actually been caught.

And it's generally a useless form of mental masturbation to speculate on who's the "cleanest" player around, which is why that article was such a piece of trash!

I can understand being suspicious of all MLB players. They, as a group, lost the benefit of the doubt long ago with me. But, the "anger" directed at a writer for suggesting some players are clean is puzzling.

You're using the term "writer" loosely. Donovan had some column inches to fill and nothing worthwhile to fill them with except garbage.

[RShack]

In my mind, Selig = ownership. Major League Baseball IS the clubs. Selig is their mouthpiece, he represents them.

Perhaps I'm giving the owners a break here, but I consider Selig as admitting everyone has some fault. We'll see if Selig attempts to act against the Giants' ownership for failing to investigate Bonds. I don't know if he can even do that.

Mitchell explicitly mentioned the union, the owners, and the commissioner.

Waxman explicitly mentioned the the union, the owners, and the commissioner.

Bud mentions the union and the commissioner, but never mentions the owners.

I think this is neither accident nor coincidence. I think it was about 99% of why he chose to do the "investigation" in the bogus way he did it. So far, it looks like "mission accomplished" in every sense of the phrase (including whatever connotations you might have from the aircraft carrier). It's not about peace, it's about using roids to re-declare war on the union. Instead of using it to come together and get over it, it's using it as a wedge. Sadly for all of us, it gives the players Yet Another Reason to distrust both Bud and the owners. It was entirely needless, and IMO it is the opposite of what is good for the game.

[66-70-83-??]

You have a rather loose "definition" of what "throwing someone under the bus" means. Anyone who has played baseball since testosterone was isolated in the thirties and synthetic anabolic steroids became widely available in the early fifties could have used steroids to enhance their performance. I did not allege that any of those ballplayers actually used steroids; I merely pointed out that they played in an era when those steroids were available and were being used by body builders and football players, so it is virtually certain that some finite percentage of baseball players from that era also experimented with them too. I didn't state that Musial or Maris or Williams used steroids; I merely listed them as players from that era, which means that they would have had the opportunity to use steroids along with all the other players of their generation.

There is a wealth of evidence if you take the time to look for it instead of putting on blinders and pretending that the golden days of baseball were absolutely pristine.

University of Michigan Medical School article

We simply don't know! We have House's confession that he used steroids in the seventies and his allegation that about half the pitchers in baseball were also playing around with them at the same time; if the pitchers were doing it, then the usage among position players was probably approximately the same level.

From football, we also have John Mutuzak's admissions of using steroids and his apparent case of "roid rage" in 1969 which caused Dan Devine to kick the freshman off the Missouri football team.

According to ESPN, in 1974, Arnold Schwarzenegger told Barbara Walters, "I take steroids because they help me an extra 5 percent. Women take the [contraception] pill. They are somewhat similar. I do it under a doctor's supervision."

You "believe". I have done a tremendous amount of research and analysis and posted my sources and conclusions here for you to evaluate for yourself. Instead, you've closed your mind and implied that I'm guilty of partiality towards my favorite Cardinals players that blinds me to their apparently "obvious" usage of steroids.

I still believe that. There is a world of difference between saying that some players during a particular era almost certainly used steroids (or amphetamines, which were also illegal) and alleging that any particular player actually did use them. I have pointed out time and time again that (1) the "steroids era" goes back much further than is commonly believed, and (2) that anyone who played sports in the fifties and sixties, particularly at a high level where they would have come into contact with top level Olympic athletes using steroids and competing against Eastern Bloc athletes on steroids, would have been aware of steroids and would have been able to acquire them if they had wanted to do it.

I would hardly call that one article a "wealth of evidence".

Just because anabolic steroids were discovered before all those great players of the 50's, 60's etc played doesn't mean any of them tried it. Heck, why not just suggest that Ruth and Gehrig took them, as the modern anabolic steroids can be traced back as far as 1931.

But, that would be as silly as saying that computers have been "used" since the first one in 1936. It would be technically correct, but in the practical real-world sense computers werent common until the 1980s.

So, technically, steroids were around before many of these greats, but that doesn't mean that you can connect the dots.

There isn't any evidence that I have seen to suggest that there was type of common use of steroids by any group until the late 50's when anabolic steroids were used by weight-lifters for adding muscle in the 50's thru 70's.

Baseball players were not looking too muscle bound in the 50's.

Tom House ? If the standard is only finding one (dubious) source for something that supposedly happened over 30 years ago, then any of us can claim all sorts of "black helicopter" stuff.

Can you find others to back House's story ?

If, as he claims, half of every pitching staff was using- don't you think that more would have come out ?

Wouldn't there have been some with health problems associated with steroid abuse ? The "science" of using these drugs and the quality of these drugs had to have been "primitive" back then compared to today.

Do you really believe there was all this steroid use by players in the 50's, 60's and 70's ? And they, team doctors, trainers, etc.... have ALL (except House, of course) kept it quiet since then ?

Sure, steroids have been around. But, there is no credible evidence that any baseball players of the 50's, 60's 70's ever used them.

I don't know what your point is trying to cast doubt on those players ?

Perhaps it is tied to your strong defense of McGwire. If we are supposed to cast doubt on every player since the 40's or 50's- then how can we discriminate against McGwire ?

I am not buying it Redbird.

From everything I read, steroids were primarily a weightlifting drug in the 50's and 60's. Then East Germans and Chinese started using it for swimming and other sports.

The science behind PEDs has evolved over the last 50 years. Baseball was never on the cutting edge of it. After all, they aren't athletes- they are "baseball players".

I don't think it reached baseball (other than MAYBE a few mad scientist experimenters like House) in any meaningful way until late 80s or so.

[Migrant Redbird]

Albert Pujols spoke out bitterly at the Cardinals Winter Warmup about the false reports just before the Mitchell Report was released that his name would be on it.

Expresses disappointment in media over Mitchell investigation

On Monday, Pujols made his first extensive public comments since his name was falsely reported to be contained within former Sen. George Mitchell's report on illegal performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. And he made them with the local FOX affiliate in St. Louis not in the room.

An erroneous report that started with WNBC in New York was picked up by a number of outlets on the morning the Mitchell Report came out. KTVI, FOX-2 in St. Louis, was one of the more aggressive outlets in reporting the story -- even sending reporters to Pujols' restaurant in St. Louis County.

As a result, when Pujols held his media availability on Monday afternoon at the annual Cardinals Care Winter Warm-Up, he insisted that KTVI not be permitted to record the session.

.... When first asked, Pujols indicated he had no desire to rehash the situation.

"I don't want to go through that," he said. "Because if you want to hear how I feel, it's going to get real bad here. So we don't want to start that. And I think you should respect that."

In a follow-up question, Pujols was asked whether he planned to take any legal action in the wake of the reports. He said he did not, then started to express the depth of his displeasure with the story.

"It's a good thing that it happened so that the people out there in the United States and here in St. Louis, they can look at it and say 50 percent of the things that you guys write are not true," he said.

"I'm really disappointed about the media in St. Louis, whoever from Channel 2 or FOX that started that thing here in the city of St. Louis. I didn't appreciate that. If it was New York or somewhere else, I wouldn't care. But here in St. Louis? My people? It hurt. It hurt."

.... Asked if he felt any need to prove himself all over again in light of the report, Pujols didn't hesitate.

"I don't have to prove myself," he said. "Since 2001, I've been proving myself with the numbers. I've been proving myself every year. How much better can I get? Only God knows how much better [i can] get. But do I need to cheat in this game to get better? This is nothing for me.

"Baseball is just a hobby, man. God has blessed me. And I fear God too much for me to do a stupid thing. I fear him. If I do some stupid things to help me out, to hit .400 or three-something or hit 30 home runs, he's going to take that away from me. So why not be the natural guy like I've been since I was in the Minor Leagues? To cheat in this game, that's not right."

Sorry, Albert, but you're going to have to live with this taint of suspicion the remainder of your life -- you and every other ball player for the last 50 years. It will die down, but it's never going to go away, and you might as well accept it and move on. Yes, it will probably rankle; it still rankles me that I received an "undeserved" paddling from a male teacher when I was a high school freshman, but I've almost let it go after 46 years.

I guess that explains some of his surliness during the autograph signings. One of our Cardinals fans did a nice writeup. 2008 Cardinals Winter Warmup

Two days down, one to go.

I am now a big fan of our bullpen guys. They are definatly the most fan friendly of the bunch. Brad Thompson is quite possibly one of the nicest guys on the team. No one walked away from his line unhappy, and he even spent quite a bit of time joking around with this little girl.

.... When Glaus was announced and came out on that stage, he had a look of shock when he saw all the Cardinals fans. He spoke for awhile and seems very excited to be a Cardinal.

.... Colby Rasmus looks like he should still be in high school. His autograph was in high demand and people were even chanting his name when he was on stage. I just hope he can handle the pressure.

One of my favorite things to do was to go into one of the side rooms and hear two women from the All American Women's League speak about their experiences in the 40's and 50's playing ball. They were very interesting, then signed autographs for free. They were selling pictures of their playing days. They had one copy of them with Jim Edmonds (sill my favorite baseball player) that was intended for sale, but when they found out I was a huge fan of his, they autographed their pictures for me on it and let me have it.

I got autographs of Tyler Johnson, Skip Schumaker, Josh Kinney, Scott Spiezio, Aaron Miles, Joel Piniero, and Andy Benes. I still have Adam Wainwright tomorrow and am going with my sister to get Yadi's.

Wow! I wonder what all that cost? This is a young gal working her way through college at a day care center who buys Cardinals season tickets. Yet she's so shy that, when the forum had a get together at the ballpark, she was in attendance but wouldn't even go over and introduce herself to her fellow forum members. She takes pictures at the warm ups and posts them for her fellow fans, but she's not in any of the photos.

Yadi was ALL smiles today. I mean, he smiled nonstop the entire two hours he was signing. I guess a new contract will do that for ya! My sister and I waited in his line and when we got up to him, we presented him with a homemade Gold Glove. I told him that we made it for him because we feel he deserved to win a gold glove last season so we were giving him a gold glove. He flashed that great smile at us and said "That is so sweet of you! Thanks!" (highlight of the day for me!).

Wainwright was another smiley guy. Shockingly though, his autograph didn't sell out. I think is has to do with the fact that it was $80, but I believe his was the only one, or one of the only ones that didn't sell out. He posed for pictures, shook hands, signed and even posed with a little stuffed dog when asked.

Pujols on the other hand looked bored to tears. I overheard him telling one of the WWup people that he was tired. The man hardly ever smiled and there were many disappointed fans walking away from his line. For a guy who's autograph is going for $175 a piece, I think it wouldn't be too tough for him to manage a smile once in a while.

Mark Mulder and Rick Ankiel were also on hand. Ankiel got one of the biggest ovations when he was announced and he was very engaging with the fans as well. Mulder seemed to be interacting with the fans also and then took time to come up on stage for a brief interview. He said he will not set a timetable for his rehab because as he put it "look how well that timeline worked last year". Did say that he feels better now then he did at anytime last season. Says he can't even stand to look at some of the pictures people were having him sign because he could see how wrong his arm angle was in them. He has been throwing off the mound for about 2 weeks now.

I really wish that Pujols wouldn't make it quite so hard to like him as a person. That religious act only goes so far with me, when he's doing his best to walk in the footsteps of Barry Bonds.

[Why Not?]

Mitchell explicitly mentioned the union, the owners, and the commissioner.

Waxman explicitly mentioned the the union, the owners, and the commissioner.

Bud mentions the union and the commissioner, but never mentions the owners.

I think this is neither accident nor coincidence. I think it was about 99% of why he chose to do the "investigation" in the bogus way he did it. So far, it looks like "mission accomplished" in every sense of the phrase (including whatever connotations you might have from the aircraft carrier). It's not about peace, it's about using roids to re-declare war on the union. Instead of using it to come together and get over it, it's using it as a wedge. Sadly for all of us, it gives the players Yet Another Reason to distrust both Bud and the owners. It was entirely needless, and IMO it is the opposite of what is good for the game.

I'm a pretty cynical guy myself, but I think you're looking way too deep. I don't think MLB is smart enough to come up with such a grandiose scheme. The steroid issue is a tough one and there's no easy way to solve it. Though I wish something had been done earlier and the Mitchell Report is sorta ham-handed, at least something is being done now. I don't think anybody would benefit from more coverup.

[RShack]

I'm a pretty cynical guy myself, but I think you're looking way too deep. I don't think MLB is smart enough to come up with such a grandiose scheme. The steroid issue is a tough one and there's no easy way to solve it. Though I wish something had been done earlier and the Mitchell Report is sorta ham-handed, at least something is being done now. I don't think anybody would benefit from more coverup.

Who said anything about a coverup? It was a sham investigation that singled out a few among the many.

Look, they could've done this the right way or in a sham way. The owners and the commissioner unilaterally decided to do it in a sham way, one that would get everybody mad at the players and the union, while the only people who they wanna blame on the mgt side is the FO employees. Yeah, Bud chips in with "I share the responsibility too" while waving a 400pp report in the air. So what? It was still done as a wedge to diss the union, meanwhile nobody except Waxman and Mitchell is saying the owners are to blame just as much as the players. Bud sure isn't.

[Why Not?]

Who said anything about a coverup? It was a sham investigation that singled out a few among the many.

Look, they could've done this the right way or in a sham way. The owners and the commissioner unilaterally decided to do it in a sham way, one that would get everybody mad at the players and the union, while the only people who they wanna blame on the mgt side is the FO employees. Yeah, Bud chips in with "I share the responsibility too" while waving a 400pp report in the air. So what? It was still done as a wedge to diss the union, meanwhile nobody except Waxman and Mitchell is saying the owners are to blame just as much as the players. Bud sure isn't.

What could they have turned up that would have convinced you the report is not a sham? I suspect nothing. There just isn't going to be tangible evidence that, say, Peter Angelos knew Palmeiro was using steroids.

Obviously a small percentage of users were exposed by the federal investigations. It's still a deterrent. Do steroids, you might get nailed, just like that your rep is shot. It's not perfect, but it's worthwhile.

Ownership had ideas that something was awry and should have done more and done it earlier. Let's hope McGowan gets nailed pretty hard for ignoring Bonds. The problem is being faced and MLB is trying to clean it up.

[Migrant Redbird]

I would hardly call that one article a "wealth of evidence".

There is a "wealth of evidence" which I didn't post, although I have posted portions of it before. Just because you're too lazy to go research it yourself and too close minded to accept it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Just because anabolic steroids were discovered before all those great players of the 50's, 60's etc played doesn't mean any of them tried it. Heck, why not just suggest that Ruth and Gehrig took them, as the modern anabolic steroids can be traced back as far as 1931.

According to CBS News, they did

Ruth also was a habitual user of a banned substance that was deemed unambiguously illegal by the federal government — a drug Ruth believed enhanced his performance: alcohol. Ruth was a star during the roaring prohibition 1920s, and as teammate Joe Dugan said, "Babe would go day and night, broads and booze."

But Ruth didn't just stop at the watering hole to find an edge. According to "The Baseball Hall of Shame's Warped Record Book," by Bruce Nash, Allan Zullo and Bob Smith, the Bambino fell ill one year attempting to inject himself with extract from a sheep's testes. This effort by more than a few athletes of his era to seek the healing and strengthening properties of testosterone prefigured the craze for steroids. When Ruth fell ill from his attempted enhancement, the media was told that Ruth merely had "a bellyache."

I have pointed out in this forum before that a French chemist presented a study in 1879 which extolled the benefits of extracts from bullock testicles for enhancing performance and health. I've speculated that animal testes may have been a component in some 19th century patent medicines, along with the alcohol and cocaine which has been documented as ingredients. It would probably have been about as effective as the androsterone that McGwire admitted using, but would have been a lot more dangerous, especially if it were being injected (unlikely).

So it's quite possible that Ruth and other early ballplayers were experimenting with patent medicines containing testosterone and other hazardous ingredients. However, I think it's likely that the story about the Babe's stomach ache being from sheep testes extract injections is apocryphal, even though I've seen it on several internet sites during my research.

Would The Babe Have Used Steroids?

steroid experimentation has been around longer than most realize. In the 1860's the experiments actually became tangible when a scientist, Arnold Berthold, started castrating roosters and re-injecting them with their own testosterone while monitoring the difference in their aggression and other behaviors. About twenty years later scientists had figured out how to extractPudgalvin200_2 testosterone from the testes of mostly sheep and guinea pigs and inject the fluid back into themselves. Their observation was an increase in mood with more energy and more vigor.

According to author and researcher Robert I. Abrams, by 1889 at least one well known ballplayer, Hall of Fame pitcher James "Pud" Galvin was openly injecting an elixir of animal testosterone known as the Brown-Sequard Elixir. The press welcomed the discovery with great enthusiasm as an article from that year's New Haven Register exemplifies, 'The discovery of a true elixir of youth by which the aged can restore their vitality and renew their bodily vigor would be a great thing for baseball. We hope the discovery is of such a nature that it can be applied to rejuvenate provincial clubs.' Another article in the local press touted the elixar's effect directly on Galvin's pitching, 'If there still be doubting Thomases who concede no virtue of the elixir, they are respectfully referred to Galvin's record in yesterday's Boston-Pittsburgh game. It is the best proof yet furnished of the value of the discovery.'

There is another story about steroids that has been around long before the Bonds' controversy and it has to do with the Babe himself. According to The Baseball Hall of Shame's Warped Record Book, by Bruce Nash, Allan Zullo and Bob Smith, "the Bambino fell ill one year attempting to inject himself with extract from a sheep's testes. This effort by more than a few athletes of his era to seek the healing and strengthening properties of testosterone prefigured the craze for steroids. When Ruth fell ill from his attempted enhancement, the media was told that Ruth merely had 'a bellyache.' "

Knowing about Ruth's more written about follies, this story seems far from impossible....

Well, yes, but there's a little, teensy problem with this particular case. It says that the account is from the Baseball Hall of Shame's Warped Record Book. I bought myself the book for Christmas, for one penny plus $4 shipping. I haven't actually read it yet, but I've skimmed it pretty thoroughly several times attempting to find any reference to the Babe's belly ache being from mutton testes, and I've not been able to find it! Unless I'm blind, this particular story may just be another urban myth. (It's not much of a book, but the price is right!)

There isn't any evidence that I have seen to suggest that there was type of common use of steroids by any group until the late 50's when anabolic steroids were used by weight-lifters for adding muscle in the 50's thru 70's.

I have never claimed that it was common, just that it almost certainly occurred within the baseball community to some extent during the period when it was spreading rapidly through the body building and football communities.

Baseball players were not looking too muscle bound in the 50's.

Uh, yeah, you could tell whether they were using steroids under those baggy uniforms and long sleeved wool undershirts? What kind of "evidence" is that for your case? Aren't you getting a little desperate to come up with some shred of a logical argument?

Just for your enlightenment, here are the heights and weights posted at B-R for some of the players named in the Mitchell Report.

     Player          Height   WeightManny Alexander      5' 10"   165 lbDavid Bell           5' 10"   170 lbMarvin Benard        5' 10"   180 lbKevin Brown          6' 4"    195 lbPaul Byrd            6' 1"    185 lbChris Donnels        6' 0"    185 lbLenny Dykstra        5' 10"   167 lbRyan Franklin        6' 3"    165 lbJason Grimsley       6' 3"    180 lbJose Guillen         5' 11"   165 lbJerry Hairston       5' 10"   175 lbTim Laker            6' 3"    195 lbMike Lansing         6' 0"    180 lbNook Logan           6' 2"    180 lbDan Naulty           6' 6"    210 lbStephen Randolph     6' 3"    185 lbF.P. Santangelo      5' 10"   165 lbBenito Santiago      6' 1"    182 lbScott Schoeneweis    6' 0"    185 lbGary Sheffield       5' 11"   190 lbMike Stanton         6' 1"    190 lbRicky Stone          6' 1"    168 lbMiguel Tejada        5' 10"   170 lbIsmael Valdes        6' 3"    185 lbFernando Vina        5' 9"    170 lbTodd Williams        6' 3"    185 lbGregg Zaun           5' 10"   170 lb

Now, I'm not saying that being tall and/or skinny would keep a player from being a little "muscle bound", but I'm skeptical of your claim that you could tell much about the possibility of a few isolated experimenters among the players of the fifties because they didn't have an "ripped" physiques. (The first fellow I recall associated with that image was Ted Kluszewski.)

Tom House ? If the standard is only finding one (dubious) source for something that supposedly happened over 30 years ago, then any of us can claim all sorts of "black helicopter" stuff.

Tom House is "dubious"? On what basis would you make that allegation? Just because his account of his playing days conflicts with this image you've concocted of the purity of baseball in yesteryears?

Can you find others to back House's story ?

Why don't you write ? He interviewed House and didn't find any reason to challenge any of House's claims. I don't know House, nor am I likely to have an opportunity to talk to him.

Once weight training got into baseball, then came steroids and growth hormones. I started noticing it in the late '80s when I was the pitching coach for the Texas Rangers [1985-92]. Players were getting bigger and bigger. The ones who were using weight training in conjunction with steroids were getting exponentially bigger. Guys came back from the winter 30 to 40 pounds heavier. And they had that look. The weight room look, not the baseball look. It wasn't my business. I'm a pitching coach. We don't deal with everyday players.

My pitchers noticed, though, and it came up in conversation in the weight room. It was still a very naïve time. It was not punishable until the '80s, it was not tested for, but guys were getting bigger, stronger and faster. My pitchers weren't doing steroids because they had heard the lecture from me many times about nutrition, supplements and enhancements. They heard my story, they saw my knees and they knew not to build bulk.

I guess that this clears Nolan Ryan?

... in 1969, I started lifting weights in the offseason. But my manager said, "If I see you lifting, one of two things will happen: I'm going to kick your rear end, or you are going to the minor leagues." So I lifted secretly.

I was living in Santa Monica, Calif., and I'd see guys at the gym. They were huge. I asked, "How are you guys doing this?" That's the first time I heard the word Dianabol. Dianabol compared to today's steroids is primitive. I asked what it did. They said, "Not only does it make you bigger, it makes you want to be in the weight room throwing stuff around."

So I tried it. Steroids were easy to get -- this was California in the '60s. It was before sharing needles was a problem. It was inexpensive: $40 to $80 depending on how many shots and how long you wanted to stay with it. I think the most I ever spent in a given winter was probably around $400.

I was injecting Dianabol. You shoot it in the back of your thigh. Or have someone hit you in the rump with it. I shot myself. For me, it was once a week. Three weeks on, a week off, three weeks on. I did steroids for two offseasons. I would have done them during the season, but they were much harder to find in conservative Richmond, Virginia [home of the Braves' Triple-A team] than at home.

I felt results immediately. I weighed 185 pounds when I started lifting and doing steroids. In two years, I got up to 225. I'm 5-foot-9. I looked good at the beach. I had a 17- to 18-inch neck and big thighs. I could hardly wait to get to the weight room. I was more aggressive about everything. I was on the freeway fighting with people. My wife would say, "Hi, how are you doing?" and I would scream at her for asking how I was doing.

If, as he claims, half of every pitching staff was using- don't you think that more would have come out ?

I do suspect that House may have exaggerated a little bit, but this is from a story in USA Today.

House, 58, estimated that six or seven pitchers per team were at least experimenting with steroids or human growth hormone. He said players talked about losing to opponents using more effective drugs.

"We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed," he said. "And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."

This was from the same ESPN Segment that had the interview with House.

ESPN spoke to five GMs from 1997, three of whom (from the Royals, Dodgers and Rockies) couldn't recall that a steroids policy even existed -- not that it would have mattered. "I hate to say this, but it didn't do a whole lot of good to know the policy," says Herk Robinson, the Royals' GM during 1990-2000. "You weren't going [to] solve anything. You couldn't test. You couldn't walk up to a guy and say, 'What are you taking?'"

That sense of futility, brought on by the union's refusal to allow drug testing, descended from Vincent, who concedes he made no effort to enforce the league's first drug rules. "We could have done a lot more lecturing, lobbying and educating," he says. "But I didn't know anything about steroids." He says steroids were included in the 1991 memo because of rumors involving one player, Jose Canseco.

Wouldn't there have been some with health problems associated with steroid abuse ? The "science" of using these drugs and the quality of these drugs had to have been "primitive" back then compared to today.

According to House....

I got bigger, but my fastball didn't get any better. The weight was too much for my frame and my right knee went on me. I'm 58 now and I've had seven surgeries on my knees.

Do you really believe there was all this steroid use by players in the 50's, 60's and 70's ? And they, team doctors, trainers, etc.... have ALL (except House, of course) kept it quiet since then ?

Again, you're exaggerating the degree of steroid use I've claimed for the fifties and sixties. The 50 percent in the seventies (" six or seven pitchers on every staff were "fiddling" with steroids or growth hormone") is House's estimate, not mine.

Sure, steroids have been around. But, there is no credible evidence that any baseball players of the 50's, 60's 70's ever used them.

No credible evidence??? You've got your head in the sand!

I don't know what your point is trying to cast doubt on those players ?

Perhaps it is tied to your strong defense of McGwire. If we are supposed to cast doubt on every player since the 40's or 50's- then how can we discriminate against McGwire ?

Now we're back to attacking the messenger? Give it up! You've hardly made a single valid point.

I am not buying it Redbird.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

From everything I read, steroids were primarily a weightlifting drug in the 50's and 60's. Then East Germans and Chinese started using it for swimming and other sports.

You're research has been too limited and you're relying too much on a faulty memory. Use google a little more and you'll make fewer foolish statements.

The science behind PEDs has evolved over the last 50 years. Baseball was never on the cutting edge of it. After all, they aren't athletes- they are "baseball players".

I don't think it reached baseball (other than MAYBE a few mad scientist experimenters like House) in any meaningful way until late 80s or so.

You've reached the point of utter absurdity now! The only good thing about your posts are that they inspired me to do additional research, which only adds to the evidence that a FEW ball players have been trying to garner the benefits of anabolic steroids since the 19th century, even before anyone knew what testosterone was. They apparently even knew that it needed to be injected for efficacy, which was something that I doubted. I figured that they were drinking the stuff, and that injections would probably have made them sick.

[RShack]

What could they have turned up that would have convinced you the report is not a sham? I suspect nothing.

Good job of giving my answer before you even ask me.

There's lots of things they could've done, including (but not limited to) the following:

• Worked with the union to figure out how to do a thorough report that would explicate the scope of the problem without just throwing randomly-ratted-on guys under the bus without a fair hearing.
• Interview *everybody* with hard questions. For example, what does the SF owner have to say about how come he was buying bigger hats and shoes for Barry all the time? What does George have to say about what questions he asked about roids before paying more than a $million per start to a 44-yr-old P?
• Ask Bud when he first heard of roids being an issue, and documenting exactly what he did to look into it.
• Have a process that let people know what was being said about them, and give them a chance to respond to their accuser without the sham of "we won't tell you squat, but you can talk to us".

Those 4 would be a start. However, I have an open mind about how they could have done it properly. The ways this thing was a sham are both obvious and disgusting, IMO. The game is too important for Yet More owners-vs-the-players crap. The idea that what they did was the best way to clean-up the game is just silly. It was 95% a PR move by MLB to stick it to the players and their own employees. It's exactly like investigating an organization to see if it's got problems from top-to-bottom without bothering to grill the guys at the top. It's like those sham Pentagon things where they ring up a bunch of privates and sergeants, but somehow the officers in charge get off scot-free. Same kind of thing: when the bosses control the agenda and decide exactly what the investigation will and won't cover, who investigates the bosses? Nobody does, that's who.

[66-70-83-??]

There is a "wealth of evidence" which I didn't post, although I have posted portions of it before. Just because you're too lazy to go research it yourself and too close minded to accept it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Uh, yeah, you could tell whether they were using steroids under those baggy uniforms and long sleeved wool undershirts? What kind of "evidence" is that for your case? Aren't you getting a little desperate to come up with some shred of a logical argument?

Just for your enlightenment, here are the heights and weights posted at B-R for some of the players named in the Mitchell Report.

     Player          Height   WeightManny Alexander      5' 10"   165 lbDavid Bell           5' 10"   170 lbMarvin Benard        5' 10"   180 lbKevin Brown          6' 4"    195 lbPaul Byrd            6' 1"    185 lbChris Donnels        6' 0"    185 lbLenny Dykstra        5' 10"   167 lbRyan Franklin        6' 3"    165 lbJason Grimsley       6' 3"    180 lbJose Guillen         5' 11"   165 lbJerry Hairston       5' 10"   175 lbTim Laker            6' 3"    195 lbMike Lansing         6' 0"    180 lbNook Logan           6' 2"    180 lbDan Naulty           6' 6"    210 lbStephen Randolph     6' 3"    185 lbF.P. Santangelo      5' 10"   165 lbBenito Santiago      6' 1"    182 lbScott Schoeneweis    6' 0"    185 lbGary Sheffield       5' 11"   190 lbMike Stanton         6' 1"    190 lbRicky Stone          6' 1"    168 lbMiguel Tejada        5' 10"   170 lbIsmael Valdes        6' 3"    185 lbFernando Vina        5' 9"    170 lbTodd Williams        6' 3"    185 lbGregg Zaun           5' 10"   170 lb

Now, I'm not saying that being tall and/or skinny would keep a player from being a little "muscle bound", but I'm skeptical of your claim that you could tell much about the possibility of a few isolated experimenters among the players of the fifties because they didn't have an "ripped" physiques. (The first fellow I recall associated with that image was Ted Kluszewski.)

You are missing the point. Context- steroids was a weight-lifting drug in that era.

Just because you're too lazy to go research it yourself and too close minded to accept it

You've got your head in the sand!

Give it up! You've hardly made a single valid point.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Use google a little more and you'll make fewer foolish statements.

How ironic that you suggest that I was "attacking the messenger".

All I did was suggest that your undying loyalty to McGwire was the motive for attempting to tarnish the reputation of those stars of yesterday. Perhaps the truth hurts.

All those little barbs above are much closer to "attacking the messenger" than anything I wrote. And those were all in ONE post!

You've reached the point of utter absurdity now! The only good thing about your posts

LOL, but important enough for you to spend hours "researching" and responding to it ?

Speaking of being "lazy to look things up"- you suggested that I research your homer defense of McGwire in an earlier post. Ok.

I didn't say that McGwire didn't use, although there's no real evidence that he did

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=57755

Also from same thread:

the majority of the public would have simply assumed he used steroids to break the home run record. They're making that assumption now, without any credible evidence to support it

So, let me get this straight: you say there is no credible evidence that Mark McGwire used steroids, but when I say the same about players from Ruth to players of the 1950's- you say :

No credible evidence??? You've got your head in the sand!

and

There is a "wealth of evidence" which I didn't post

Very interesting.

The biggest difference between me and so many others is that I apply logic to ascertain what I can reasonably believe and what I can't.

I know- it is logical to assume Ruth, Maris, Williams, Killebrew,etc.. used Steroids. But not McGwire, Pujols- because there is no credible evidence.

And when a story on Albert and PEDs usage hits the street, I'll evaluate it upon the basis of what appears to be the facts in the story, and wait until I have a reasonable basis before developing firm conclusions.

I know- it is a fact that players in the 1950's used steroids but it is not a fact that McGwire and Pujols did.

My experience with the media has been that, in every story with which I've had any personal knowledge, the reporter has made significant errors of fact, sometimes to the point of invalidating the main thrust of his article

Except the few specific ones that you have linked as your evidence, of course. I guess they are the rare exceptions to your rule.

[Migrant Redbird]

You are missing the point. Context- steroids was a weight-lifting drug in that era.

You seem to be deliberately missing the point and misstating what I'm saying. Many high school baseball players participate in other sports -- track and field and especially football. Football players were into weight lifting long before it took off in baseball. You can't divide athletes neatly into groups and claim that weight lifters began using steroids in the fifties and sixties; football players began in the seventies; and baseball players began in the eighties and nineties. It simply doesn't work that way and to suggest that it does is a really naive argument. Steroid use was a lot more prevalent among weight lifters in the fifties and sixties, but it wasn't completely confined to those athletes.

So, let me get this straight: you say there is no credible evidence that Mark McGwire used steroids, but when I say the same about players from Ruth to players of the 1950's- you say... I know- it is logical to assume Ruth, Maris, Williams, Killebrew,etc.. used Steroids. But not McGwire, Pujols- because there is no credible evidence.

A fine job of rewording what I wrote in order to build yourself a straw man!

There is no credible evidence which proves that McGwire used steroids. There is his unwillingness to testify to Congress which implies that he used steroids, but does not prove it. I can hypothesize any number of explanations why McGwire wouldn't testify, some of which involve using steroids and some of which do not, but I can't prove any of them. And neither can anyone else at this point.

By the same token, I can not prove that any baseball player of any era did not use steroids, because they've been more or less available from the time that baseball began. As we progress forward in time, the availability and efficacy of steroids has increased, but we don't know the slope of that curve nor do we know any data points on it except for the confessions and failed drug tests that exist.

I most emphatically did not state that "it is logical to assume Ruth, Maris, Williams, Killebrew,etc.. used Steroids". You are misquoting me to give yourself something to argue against. What I said is that they played in an era when steroids were becoming increasingly available and that we can't prove that they didn't use steroids.

I am not assuming that Ruth used steroids. I pointed out that there are internet sites which allege that he did; I purchased the book which those sites reference as their source for their "proof"; and I couldn't find any discussion of Ruth and steroids in that book, destroying the basis for that particular little internet urban legend. It still doesn't prove that Ruth didn't use steroids; it only refutes that particular citation which claims that he did

I know- it is a fact that players in the 1950's used steroids but it is not a fact that McGwire and Pujols did.

What I know is that your entire discussion strategy is dishonest. I don't mind it if you don't accept my opinions -- that's your right -- but I am infuriated when someone repeatedly lies about what I've said, especially when it's posted directly above what he's writing.

My experience with the media has been that, in every story with which I've had any personal knowledge, the reporter has made significant errors of fact, sometimes to the point of invalidating the main thrust of his article.

Except the few specific ones that you have linked as your evidence, of course. I guess they are the rare exceptions to your rule.

I'm not claiming that they are exceptions, but neither am I assuming that I know which portions of their articles are incorrect, nor am I assuming that the errors in those articles invalidate the articles themselves. Sometimes errors in newspaper articles are that bad, but most of the time they're just annoying to those who are aware of the facts. That group does not include most of us who are reading them because we don't have the inside information to spot the errors most of the time.

But we can't simply assume that all news articles are inaccurate; we have to examine each based upon the information we obtain from other sources and based upon what makes sense. When Canseco wrote that he had "often" injected McGwire and McGwire denied it, I didn't know which one to believe. When Mike Wallace grilled Canseco and he fell apart, I concluded that Canseco spiced up his book with exaggerations to boost its sales.

"You write repeatedly about injecting steroids and growth hormones with and into Mark McGwire," says Wallace. "Tell me about your firsthand experiences with McGwire and steroids."

"Just the first time, injecting them in his buttocks," says Canseco, laughing. "It wasn't like you gave a lot of thought. It was something so common."

"What we did more times than I can count was go into a bathroom stall together, shoot up steroids," read Wallace from Canseco's book. "After batting practice or right before the game, Mark and I would duck into a stall in the men's room, load up our syringes and inject ourselves. I would often inject Mark."

"I injected him probably twice," adds Canseco. "But it wasn't like, I mean, we would just walk in and a lot of times they were pill form. A lot of times, you would just, a quick injection of whatever and that's it."

"I'm just repeating what you say in the book," says Wallace. "And if we're to believe what you say in the book, 'I would often,' not twice, 'inject Mark.'"

"Well, I think it was more inject ourselves. I think I injected him. I mean, this is a long time ago. Once or twice for sure. I didn't keep track," says Canseco. "An athlete may prepare his needle and may ask another athlete to inject him quickly. And that's the way it works."

All Mike Wallace established was that Canseco's account wasn't credible, not that Canseco was lying about McGwire using steroids. We don't know if Canseco was telling the truth when he said "once or twice for sure", especially when he preceded that statement with "I think I injected him. I mean, this is a long time ago."

McNamee's allegations about Clemens appear at this point to be more credible than Canseco's allegations about McGwire. The most damning point against McGwire is his refusal to testify to Congress, not Canseco's allegations, not the androsterone, not the minor boost in his home run production, not the acne on McGwire's neck which some swear is evidence of steroid use.

I'll believe Canseco when he admits that he used steroids himself, but I won't believe or disbelieve him when he makes statements about others unless there is corroborating evidence from a credible source.

[66-70-83-??]

A fine job of rewording what I wrote in order to build yourself a straw man!

What I know is that your entire discussion strategy is dishonest.

How is it dishonest or rewording ? Nice try.

I am simply using your own words. But, I understand- there is no way to reconcile the inconsistency in your stances.

I write:

Sure, steroids have been around. But, there is no credible evidence that any baseball players of the 50's, 60's 70's ever used them.

You respond:

No credible evidence??? You've got your head in the sand!

and

There is a "wealth of evidence" which I didn't post

In ref to McGwire you respond:

There is no credible evidence which proves that McGwire used steroids

and an earlier thread

the majority of the public would have simply assumed he used steroids to break the home run record. They're making that assumption now, without any credible evidence to support it

In your own words- there is a lot of credible evidence that players from FIVE decades ago did steroids, but no credible evidence that McGwire used.

I find that very interesting that you believe that. I think you are on an island. I doubt anyone else is going to join you with those beliefs.

I don't mind it if you don't accept my opinions -- that's your right -- but I am infuriated when someone repeatedly lies about what I've said, especially when it's posted directly above what he's writing.

That is basically where I started in my opening post here. I posted in response to your complete intolerance of the SI writers opinion-

That is all OK, though. You are entitled to believe whatever you want and tell us in your posts here.

But, OTOH, all this SI author does is give us some of his "opinions" in his article, which is his job.

Why do you have such the problem with that ?

You are "infuriated" ? Perhaps I am the one who should be infuriated. I was the one who was called lazy, close minded, a little desparate to come up with a shred of logical argument, havent made a single point, your head is in the sand, blah, blah, blah.

I thought you were above that kind of behavior. But, then again, it is easier to deflect attention by spewing barbs at the messenger than admit you might be wrong.

[Migrant Redbird]

This discussion is over.

[RShack]

This discussion is over.

My condolences. It's like banging your head against a wall, but worse.

[66-70-83-??]

My looong posts. It's like banging your head against a wall, but worse.

Finally, I agree with you.