756

[66-70-83-??]

When Canseco came out with his books, those names were big stories, there was tons of speculation.

It's possible, however, you would think "Tom House alledges that steroids were a big part of baseball in the 60's and 70's" would be mentioned many times and not totally forgotten. And if they did pursue it, wouldn't that story still be worth an Outside The Lines episode and a big part of PTI, Around the Horn, sports talk radio, etc? I don't recall seeing a bunch of quotes or player reactions to what House said, do you?

Based on what House and Waxman said, at the very least, the media shouldn't assume everyone was clean in the 60's and 70's like they currently do.

How do we know that the media didn't look into House's claims and couldn't get anyone to confirm it ? Are they suppose to take one man's claims about something he allegedly did 30 years ago ?

Is that the standard that you want a fair and balanced media to take ? All sorts of loons would be claiming all sorts of things.

As far as what Waxman says- he doesn't say anything that directly links steroids to baseball. You have to make a leap to come to that conclusion. Drugs- yes. Steroids- no.

I think there would be a lot more smoke if there was really a fire here, imo.

Why hasn't House been specific on which roids he was taking ? And what years, etc... ?

Why hasn't more players (his teammates for ex) come out and backed him ? After all, he gave them some cover by being the first to come out with the info ?

[mweb]

Pretty clear ? Not to me.

Why is it "clear" (no pun intended) ?

Just because one guy (Tom House) says so ?

A teammate of his claims he doesn't know where he is coming from.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/04/SPGAVCJNUS1.DTL&hw=tom+house&sn=002&sc=638

If roids were widespread in MLB, you can bet Bouton (for one) would have mentioned it in Ball Four.

Speaking of Jim, he talks about the greenies of his day vs the roids of today in an interview with THT.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-tht-interview-jim-bouton/

Do you have anything but the lone House admission ? I have done google searches. Other than the one House reference that specifically mentions steroids, I can't find any reference linked to baseball earlier than 1985.

I like how you stopped the bolding before it said unless he's making it up. Way to go.

Is it possible that he's making it up, sure, but I don't see any good reason for that. The statistcal analysis of that Braves team certainly would lead one to be skeptical as well. The Waxman comments are also interesting.

I also understand that baseball players and athletes have always been looking for an edge, steroids were out there, so I find it hard to believe that no one took advantage of them in a time where nothing was being done about it and they were already taking greenies all the time.

Why would Bouton bring it up? I doubt steroids were in bowls in the clubhouse like Greenies were. It's only natural for players of that era to say it wasn't going on.

[geschinger]

When Canseco came out with his books, those names were big stories, there was tons of speculation.

It's possible, however, you would think "Tom House alledges that steroids were a big part of baseball in the 60's and 70's" would be mentioned many times and not totally forgotten. And if they did pursue it, wouldn't that story still be worth an Outside The Lines episode and a big part of PTI, Around the Horn, sports talk radio, etc? I don't recall seeing a bunch of quotes or player reactions to what House said, do you?

Based on what House and Waxman said, at the very least, the media shouldn't assume everyone was clean in the 60's and 70's like they currently do.

You think that even if they couldn't verify any of his claims that it should merit a bunch of media coverage? I'd like the think that the media is more careful than that. And Waxman was big in the hearings, what he had to say was everywhere in the media.

[mweb]

How do we know that the media didn't look into House's claims and couldn't get anyone to confirm it ? Are they suppose to take one man's claims about something he allegedly did 30 years ago ?

Is that the standard that you want a fair and balanced media to take ? All sorts of loons would be claiming all sorts of things.

As far as what Waxman says- he doesn't say anything that directly links steroids to baseball. You have to make a leap to come to that conclusion. Drugs- yes. Steroids- no.

I think there would be a lot more smoke if there was really a fire here, imo.

Why hasn't House been specific on which roids he was taking ? And what years, etc... ?

Why hasn't more players (his teammates for ex) come out and backed him ? After all, he gave them some cover by being the first to come out with the info ?

I already addressed your media questions.

Yes, that is the standard I want them to take, if a guy comes out and makes accusations of that nature, a big deal should be made of it. I'm not saying it should be considered the gospel or anything, but it should be considered.

Not much of a leap.

Maybe there would be more smoke, but I haven't seen much evidence of an investigation.

He was pretty specific, I'm not sure how detailed you want him to be, it's not like he wrote a book on it.

Why would ex teammates come out and back him? I'm sure he got a ton of you know what from former players after saying that, why would anyone else want to go through that?

Look, I'm not saying anything definitive here, I'm saying you shouldn't be so sure Aaron or anyone else in that era was clean of steroids.

[mweb]

You think that even if they couldn't verify any of his claims that it should merit a bunch of media coverage? I'd like the think that the media is more careful than that. And Waxman was big in the hearings, what he had to say was everywhere in the media.

How much clearer do you want me to be on this? Yes, they should have given it more coverage! Careful? If an ex player makes a claim like that, it's a story, once again, I'm not saying ESPN should have started SC by saying "Shocking development, steroids were rampant in the 60's and 70's", I'm saying the claims should have been mentioned and people shouldn't assume all those guys were clean. Stuff like that is reported all the time.

[geschinger]

How much clearer do you want me to be on this? Yes, they should have given it more coverage! Careful? If an ex player makes a claim like that, it's a story, once again, I'm not saying ESPN should have started SC by saying "Shocking development, steroids were rampant in the 60's and 70's", I'm saying the claims should have been mentioned and people shouldn't assume all those guys were clean. Stuff like that is reported all the time.

His claims were mentioned somewhere, a quick googling of of Tom House and steroids shows that it was covered seemingly everywhere. I have no way of knowing whether or not it was on Sports Center; I'd be surprised if it wasn't. The media reports his claims but if they find no confirmation from others or evidence there is nowhere else for the story to go - it's a one or two day story before it becomes an unsubstantiated allegation. Unsubstantiated allegations usually have a short shelf life and rightly so IMO.

[mweb]

His claims were mentioned somewhere, a quick googling of of Tom House and steroids shows that it was covered seemingly everywhere. I have no way of knowing whether or not it was on Sports Center; I'd be surprised if it wasn't. The media reports his claims but if they find no confirmation from others or evidence there is nowhere else for the story to go - it's a one or two day story before it becomes an unsubstantiated allegation. Unsubstantiated allegations usually have a short shelf life and rightly so IMO.

That's great, but what I want is for it not to be totally ignored after the fact. It's like it happened, they reported it for a day, and shortly thereafter, they went back to saying the game was pure in the 60's and 70's. The way the media talks about illegal PED's, it's like they were just invented 20 years ago, they say things like steroids weren't available when Aaron played.

Sorry if I've been all over the map on this topic, but this is probably post #126 on Bonds and steroids. Thanks for being the main cog in this back and forth exchange, it's been fun. Oh, and that doesn't mean I'm stepping away from it, but it will probably die pretty soon.

[RShack]

That's great, but what I want is for it not to be totally ignored after the fact. It's like it happened, they reported it for a day, and shortly thereafter, they went back to saying [the same old thing].

But that's how the media deal with almost everything these days. If I could choose 3 issues (or 10 issues) to make them focus on better than that, topics about sports wouldn't make the cut. I think you can pin a fair amount of today's unacceptable nonsense on this very problem...

.

[geschinger]

That's great, but what I want is for it not to be totally ignored after the fact. It's like it happened, they reported it for a day, and shortly thereafter, they went back to saying the game was pure in the 60's and 70's. The way the media talks about illegal PED's, it's like they were just invented 20 years ago, they say things like steroids weren't available when Aaron played.

If another player came forward to substantiate what House has said I think it would get a lot more play. Thinking back to Canseco's book, if I'm remembering correctly many discounted the allegations and it took verification and confirmation from secondary sources before the public was convinced about certain players. Players mentioned in the book for which the allegation is not confirmed are not brought up much in the discussions of steroids.

Sorry if I've been all over the map on this topic, but this is probably post #126 on Bonds and steroids. Thanks for being the main cog in this back and forth exchange, it's been fun. Oh, and that doesn't mean I'm stepping away from it, but it will probably die pretty soon.

Heh, I know what you mean. I lost track of the initial debate long ago.