[Official}Astros or former Astros named in Mitchell report

Stephen Randolph is on the report to if anyone cares...
might of been to fight his nagging injuries

 

Power numbers went up across the board in baseball in 1994. Everyone had increases in power that year, not just bagwell. ****** Tony Gywnn slugged 570 that year. Frank Thomas put up virtually identical power numbers to Bagwell that year. Does that mean he took steroids too?

Caminiti and Bagwell were pretty tight and played together through 1995. Cammy been pretty frank about his usage. He's stated that he didn't start until 1996. You'd think that if bagwell were using during 94 that Cammy would have known about it and wouldn't have to wait until years later with the padres to start asking people about the benefits of steroids.


As far as i can tell the only evidence against bagwell is his increase in weight during his 20's and he subsequent muscle loss when he was crippled and forced to stop lifting weights due to his shoulder injury. That ain't exactly compelling evidence. A world-class athlete putting on 35 lbs over a 7-8 year stretch in his early to mid 20's isn't the same as Bond putting on 20 lbs in the offseason as a 40 yr old. Likewise he has a legitimate excuse for shedding the weight once his shoulder injury forced him to stop lifting.

That doesn't mean that he didn't use some illegal PED, but as far as i can tell there is little evidence that points to that. And what little observational evidence does exists is pretty flimsy.

 

Isn't andro practically a steroid? Isn't it banned from every sport? So we do know for a fact that he took something that was taken off the shelves later....

But I see where you are coming from. I should have said he more than likely took steroids

 

When was andro banned from baseball? from other sports?

 

Yes, but as you note it was allowed at the time.

Thanks for acknowledging this. It's really my only beef with the crowd that wants to accuse Bagwell.

Dickau, great post.

 

Don't remember the exact dates, but MLB was the *last* to ban andro (iirc) and did so some time after 1998.

 

I downloaded the report and am still sifting around, but I didn't see Bags or Pujols (cards suck anyways)...

I read Justice's poor excuse of a whine session and that's all he does...Didn't we all have a clue before the trade went down yesterday that Miggy was accused...Meaning there was a good chance he was going to be in the report? What a joke...

I'm not condoning what these guys did, but just don't spin it like, "OMG, I can't believe they cheated"...BS...

 

Has there been any word at all from Astro management? It would seem that they have to recognize that there is a PR problem at the very least that they need to address (just from the timing of the trade and report).

There were the expected articles raving about the move when it happened and Astros management understandably stood in the spotlight. Seems they should also be willing to step up now, even if to only say they are still working through the report and standing by their new player...

 

btw, would the same folks that are saying "it was naive to think Tejada was clean" or "it really doesn't matter now" that Tejada was named be pounding the other players and teams *if* Tejada hadn't been named?

 

The NBA has a few roiders itself, and the NFL has (estimated) hundreds more than MLB. I think you're a fan of those sports.

 

Bonds admitted to using something provided by his trainer. He never said it was steroids and his trainer never said it was steroids. What they have on Bonds is hearsay, the same thing this report is (at least at this point….the govt may now have new info but Barry has been convicted on heresay up until now).

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5376995.html


Dec. 13, 2007, 4:59PM


Clemens enlists attorney to fight steroid allegations


By JOSE DE JESUS ORTIZ
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


After being implicated of steroids use in the report former Senator George Mitchell released this afternoon, Roger Clemens has enlisted the services of powerful Houston attorney Rusty Hardin to defend him from the accusations.

"Roger Clemens vehemently denies allegations in the Mitchell report that he used performance-enhancing steroids, and is outraged that his name is included in the report based on the uncorroborated allegations of a troubled man threatened with federal criminal prosecution. Roger has been repeatedly tested for these substances and he has never tested positive. There has never been one shred of tangible evidence that he ever used these substances and yet he is being slandered today,” Hardin said in a release sent to the media.

“The use of steroids in sports is a serious problem, it is wrong and it should be stopped.

“However, I am extremely upset that Roger’s name was in this report based on the allegations of a troubled and unreliable witness who only came up with names after being threatened with possible prison time.”

In the release, Hardin's office specifically addressed the claims that were made in the Mitchell Report by Clemens' former trainer Brian McNamee, who also linked Andy Pettitte to steroids use.

"Brian McNamee, a former trainer who worked with Clemens on the Toronto Blue Jays and the New York Yankees, has repeatedly denied these current claims, including in June of this year when he was first contacted by federal investigators," the release stated. "According to McNamee, after a day of repeated denials to federal investigators, he changed his story under the threat of federal criminal prosecution. He says he was then forced by those federal prosecutorial authorities to tell the same story for inclusion in the Mitchell report."

McNamee was Clemens' trainer. On the last day of the 2006 season, Clemens and Pettitte vouched for McNamee after reports in the Los Angeles Times circulated linking Clemens and Pettitte to steroids use.

“I am at a total loss to understand how it is proper for federal prosecutorial authorities to use the threat of criminal prosecution to help in a private business investigation,” Hardin said in the statement. “I have great respect for Senator Mitchell. I think an overall look at this problem in baseball was an excellent idea. But I respectfully suggest it is very unfair to include Roger’s name in this report. He is left with no meaningful way to combat what he strongly contends are totally false allegations. He has not been charged with anything, he will not be charged with anything and yet he is being tried in the court of public opinion with no recourse. That is totally wrong.”

Clemens and Pettitte have the same baseball agents, Randy and Alan Hendricks of Houston.

"I have advised Andy that as an active player, he should refrain from commenting until we have had an opportunity to speak with his union and other advisors," Randy Hendricks said in a brief statement. "At the appropriate time, he will have something to say.”

jesus.ortiz@chron.com

 

Nonsense. He had every opportunity to talk to the Mitchell investigation and chose not to. Now he claims its unfair that the report was published without his side of the story?

 

Bingo!

 

Roger would have been crazy to talk to the investigators. There is no guarantee of due process in the Mitchell investigation.

I despise Clemens as much as the next guy, but he has a legitimate case and a damm good attorney.

 

A case for what? And against who?

 

Flimsy? I see a skinny kid who put on massive amounts of muscle right in the middle of the steroid epidemic, whose muscle mass, performance and body started to break down when MLB started drug testing. That raises a good deal of red flags to me.

And to answer your first contention - it is defintely possible that Frank THomas took steroids, though he seems to be a naturally bigger guy. However he did play football where steroids are commonplace as well, IIRC. Though it should be noted that Frank Thomas voluntarily spoke with Mitchell. DId Bagwell do so?

 

I don't know. As a former player not directly alleged to ever have taken steroids was he even asked to? Even if he did refuse to talk I don't find that of much probative value.

Regardless, my main point was that you can't single out Bagwell's (who was 26 and entering he prime years) 1994 increased HR totals without acknowledging the across the board increase in HR/PA and total offense throughout the major leagues that year.

Well i don't find find it particularly persuasive. Obviously, given baseball's/sports' culture any athlete that puts on significant muscle mass will be viewed with a certain amount of suspicion, but i don't see anything in Bagwell's case that rises above that. For age 21 to about age 30 he put on ~30 lbs of mostly muscle. First, it's substantially easier to build muscle for an early to mid twenty-year old than it is for someone 30yrold plus. Second, he put on the muscle over a period of years. It didn't just happen over night. So as an elite athlete in his 20's I don't find it unreasonable that he could put on 30ish pounds in an 8 year period without the help of illegal PED. I mean this isn't a 38 year old Barry bonds putting on a lot of weight in a very short period of time.

The weight loss looks shady as you put it, but you forgot to mention that he had perfectly reasonable explanation for it. Around 2002 he hurt his shoulder so bad that he needed shoulder replacement surgery at the end of his career. By 2004 he could barely raise he right hand over his head much less lift weights. Guess what, if you stop lifting weights you are going to lose muscle mass, which is actually what happened after bagwell crippled this shoulder. I guess his weight loss from the end of 2001-2007 could be attributed to him stopping steroid use, but his injured shoulder and the inactivity attributed to it, is an independent and completely sufficient cause of Bagwell's weight loss.

 

Well you asked why nobody questioned Frank Thomas - I'm willing to question him. I'm willing to question everybody. From Roger Clemens to Chris Donnels.

I don't think it took 8 years, more like 2 or 3. The guy came to the astros in 1991 - by 1994 at the latest he was significantly more muscled. Anyway, I don't find it totally unreasonable that an elite athlete in his 30's can add muscle mass. To some extent, as your metabolism slows as you get older, anabolic processes are helped rater than hindered.

Most of the champion world's strongest men are in their 30's - assuming that all of them are juicing (a good bet), why aren't 20 year old strongmen winning it? Granted there are many reasons, but I don't think, at least, as far as in terms of adding pure muscle mass goes, being over 30 means you're screwed. Another example, the current open division world powerlifting champ, Ove Lehto, has a listed birthdate of 1972.

Anyway - i don't see how it matters much, just because Barry used steroids & HGH in his 30's doesn't mean somebody else didn't do it in his 20's. I remember seeing bagwell's normal workout routine in a fitness website once - it was psycotich and unfathomable.

Again, it seems like a too convenient coincidence that his inability to recover from injuries began right around the time MLB began to get serious about performance enhancing drugs.

Perhaps he is just unfortunate victim of circumstance - but really nothing sruprises me anymore. If I had to bet money on it, one way or the other, I would bet on Jeff B having at least experimented with steroids at some point.

 

Preach it Dickau. The point is, there is no clear evidence that Bagwell never used roids, but simultaneously there is no clear evidence that he DID. Any speculation that he did is based on evidence that can easily be explained away. For that reason, the guy is innocent until proven guilty...to me.

And for those mentioning that Selig won't be able to successfully punish anyone based on this report; there is already precedence set for a player to be suspended based on evidence surrounding a player's steroid use in the absence of a failed drug test. The Player's Union agreed to the suspension and agreed to allow it as a precedence for the future. If the report has incontrovertible evidence that a player used, I think Selig could easily suspend them if he decides to. It's mentioned somewhere in the first 15 pages or so of the report. I'll go find it.

In addition, in June 2006 Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher Jason Grimsley was
suspended for 50 games based on “non-analytic” evidence that he had violated the policy, specifically, his reported admissions to federal agents that he had used steroids and human growth hormone. In September 2007, Cincinnati Reds catcher Ryan Jorgenson also was suspended for 50 games based on non-analytic evidence that he had violated the joint program.
In December 2007, two players, Jay Gibbons and Jose Guillen, were each suspended for 15 days based on non-analytic evidence of past violations of the joint program.

Then later on...

At the time, the Major League Baseball joint drug program did not provide for discipline based on “non-analytic evidence” (that is, evidence of use that is not derived from sources other than a drug test) of the use of prohibited substances. In suspending Grimsley, therefore, the Commissioner relied on his general authority under the Basic Agreement to impose
discipline in the “best interests of baseball,” which (subject to the requirement that discipline be based on “just cause”) had been the basis for drug-related suspensions before the joint drug program was added to the Basic Agreement in 2002. Suspensions can be imposed under the express provisions of the program: for failed drug tests; for failure to comply with a prior treatment program; for a conviction or guilty plea involving the possession or use of a prohibited substance; or for participating in the sale or
distribution of a prohibited substance. The Players Association said it would file grievances challenging both the threatened termination of Grimsley’s contract by the Diamondbacks and the Commissioner’s 50-game suspension of him. Negotiations followed, and a settlement was reached between the
Players Association and the Commissioner’s Office, which also acted on behalf of the Diamondbacks. Under the settlement, the salary that Grimsley would have lost as the result of the 50-game suspension was retained by the Diamondbacks, which agreed to donate it to charity.
Grimsley was paid the salary remaining due under the contract, and he also agreed to donate the funds to charity. In the settlement, the Players Association and the Commissioner’s Office also agreed to two statements as binding precedent under the joint drug program: the Players Association agreed that the imposition of a 50-game suspension under the circumstances
presented was permissible; and the Commissioner’s Office agreed that a club’s termination of a player contract under the circumstances would be a violation of the joint drug program.