Jump to content

Chasing Jose (Canseco)


Migrant Redbird

Recommended Posts

ESPN Interview with Jose Canseco to discuss his books, "Juiced" and "Vindicated".

(1) Insists A-Rod's "no comment" is the equivalent of a confession.

(2) Refused to identify "Max", the dealer he introduced to A-Rod, because that's his "ace in the hole" if anyone accuses him of being a liar.

(3) Claims to have passed polygraph on everything he alleged in "Juiced" and on the A-Rod/Max introduction.

(4) Says he didn't inject Giambi or provide him steroids, but believes that McGwire did introduce Giambi to them.

(5) Says Tony La Russa "knew everything". Claims Tony had "snitches" and had the trainers go into the locker room at certain hours of the day to check on things. "How could he not have known?"

(6) Says Tony and Dave Duncan are close as brothers, and everything that Tony knew, Dave knew.

(7) Says he doesn't qualify for the HOF, not because of the steroids but because he didn't hit 500 home runs, although he would have reached that level if he hadn't been "blackballed" at age 38.

(8) Says Palmeiro belongs in the HOF. Says that no one should be excluded from the HOF over steroids. "If you're going to exclude anyone, then you'll have to exclude everyone from 1980 to 2000, leaving a gaping void in the HOF.

(9) Is convinced that Jeter hasn't used steroids; considers Derek an "old style player" who did things the old way.

(10) Swears that he personally injected Maglio Ordonez when they both played on the White Sox.

OK, I'm just trying to capture the points in the Canseco interview; I don't endorse any of them. As far as I'm concerned, Jose's credibility hasn't improved any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ESPN Interview with Jose Canseco to discuss his books, "Juiced" and "Vindicated".

(8) Says Palmeiro belongs in the HOF. Says that no one should be excluded from the HOF over steroids. "If you're going to exclude anyone, then you'll have to exclude everyone from 1980 to 2000, leaving a gaping void in the HOF.

Wow. That is just ridiculous.

Yes, many players from that era used steroids, but to say you need to exclude everyone is pretty drastic. Does he really think that Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, and Eddie Murray should be excluded? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. That is just ridiculous.

Yes, many players from that era used steroids, but to say you need to exclude everyone is pretty drastic. Does he really think that Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, and Eddie Murray should be excluded? I don't think so.

I dunno, I kind of agree with his basic point. Since most players were using performance enhancers, they had to compete against other people also using performance enhancers. So if they were the best of that era, then they deserve to be in the HOF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, I kind of agree with his basic point. Since most players were using performance enhancers, they had to compete against other people also using performance enhancers. So if they were the best of that era, then they deserve to be in the HOF.

Well, the real point is that we don't know who was NOT using steroids. We know that Caminiti, Bonds, Giambi, and Canseco were. We suspect that Juan Gonzalez, Mark McGwire, and Roger Clemens were. We figure that Gwynn and Ripken weren't, but we don't really know. I would never have guessed that Kirby Puckett had a problem of molesting women.

But each HOF voter will apply his or her own criteria for whether proven or suspected steroids use discounts a player's credentials. Much of what I've read suggests that most voters will discount Barry Bonds' record, but still conclude that enough remains to justify putting him on their ballots. That could change, especially if his perjury charge sticks, but I think Barry still probably gets in on his first ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...