current reality being, let's say, a tear in your shoulder, the true effects of which you can't feel because you're hopped up on an endless supply of pills. but you play anyway risking potential long-term physical ramifications - that you're OK with? well they are banned, and have been, irrc, since 2002. i'm not arguing for or against steroids (for the record, i couldn't care less what they do to their bodies), only the self-righteousness that has accompanied this "news" - we've all known that the levels these athletes attain physically - and that we demand they attain and then maintain - are not, by and large, possible given our limitations as humans. they're all being supplemented somehow. and legal or not, they all have potentially long-term negative effects on the individual. so, again - why should we condemn steroid usage while, by extension, condoning other forms of equally dangerous supplementation?
Aaaahhh; thanks for clarifying. His job is to pitch. His main pitch is a split finger. If you honestly think that the effect of scuffing a ball for a split finger pitcher (or Neikro, for that matter) are minimal, then we shall agree to disagree. Mike Scott's career ended in injury. Clemens's career lasting long had as much to do with his workout regimen as it did with steroids--in fact, it had *more* to do with it. How amazing that people who are so quick to point out the breaking down affect of steroids on our bodies are now saying Clemens extended his career with them. Remember the people who were using Bagwell's injury as "evidence" that he was supposedly using steroids. Which is it?
whoah..... this is msn's "fight" but... scott's alleged cheating was every bit as impactful as clemens'. i mean if he did in fact scuff baseballs, then scott had NO career without doing so. so there would have been no cy young, no million-dollar contracts - you could even argue no 1986 division championship. to a certain extent, this is EXACTLY what i'm getting at - we're picking and choosing our battles ratherly piously (as msn stated originally). this is OK; that's not - but it's all founded on the same "win at all costs" foudation, a culture we embrace & encourage 99.9999999% of the time.
Ric, if you dont care whether athletes use steroids, then you are on the margins of opinion on this. Does it really not matter to you that much of the inflated statistics were achieved chemically rather than through work, training, and skill? Putting aside the hazardous health effects of 'roids, the fact that it has distorted baseball statistics and the game is probably what bothers people most. And again, what other forms of "equally dangerous supplemenation" are you talking about? Cortisone shots and pain pills? Those do not help performance, and when used correctly by a trained physician they aid in the recovery. Creatin? I dont know that there is any long-term negative effect from it's use, not to mention it doesn't work much like steroids. Of course I would be concenred about athletes being hopped up on legal drug cocktails to mask pain. This is concerning mostly for their health, not as a matter of cheating, though. But I think most of those abuses are in the past as players have gotten richer, better (gauranteed) contracts and better medical care.
Man, I sure wish I learned to scuff a ball. I find it hard to believe that it made THAT much of a difference without him ever being caught. And you keep accusing me of being pious. But have I said anything about Tejada?
Yes. Yes, they do--in the simple context that when you don't hurt you can perform. But they're artificially masking the pain. And when there's less pain, there can be greater performance. It was only in the last five years that more articles came out about players popping ephedrine like M&Ms. Guys are *always* looking for a competitive advantage. Always.
I dont think there is any doubt, when looking at guys like Bonds and Clemens, that players have been able to play longer and better with steroids. I mean working out definitely helps, but steroids took it to a new level as we see with the inflated stats. Now, I do think they are more prone to injuries that nag them. But they are obviously willing to make that tradeoff. And I want to make clear Im not singling out Clemens just for the 'roids. He's done a bunch of things that make me dislike him.
Well ok, but I see a clear difference between medical procedures and steroids. To me it's black and white. One is keeping a player healthy so he can perform, the other is chemically enhancing performance beyond what is normal. To me, that's a real difference, not semantics. Yes, guys are always looking for an advantage. But thre are certain places they should not go. Steroids should be taken as seriously as gambling.
How some of you could even root for this guy if he were to come back to the Astros is beyond me. This article pretty much sums up my feelings. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7577358?MSNHPHMA
I would not have so much of a problem with Clemens IF he didn't try and portray that nice wholesome Texan guy family image. The guy is a douche, he isn't a family man, he has extremely questionable character, he's definately a bully, he's in his 40s and still gets blonde highlights put into his hair? Are you kidding me? He talks about his hardcore work ethic. Give me a break, if you have a hardcore work ethic, then you aren't as FAT as he is. The guy takes the juice, hgh, probably adderrall and everything else these baseball players are taking, there is no reason to think he wouldn't. He has no character, he has no conscience, there is nothing stopping this guy from doing ANYTHING. He's a first class douchebag in my book and his image is beyond repair. This is a great article IMO and sums up how I feel about Roger Clemens. I felt this same way when he threw the bat at Piazza. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7577358?MSNHPHMA Bully Clemens not talking; you surprised? It should surprise absolutely no one that Roger Clemens won't be answering questions regarding performance-enhancing drugs. "I'm not talking to y'all about it," he told reporters Monday. "We'll handle this our way." Once again, he's looking for an edge. Roger Clemens isn't interested in a fair fight. Never was. For all his 354 wins, there was always a whiff of something fraudulent about him, as evidenced by his woeful record in elimination games. He was a bully on the mound. And like most bullies, he wanted to be feared, but needed to be protected. For all its shortcomings, the Mitchell Report — five solid reporters, members of the much-maligned media, could have come up with a lot more for about $20 million less — seems proof enough of Clemens' true character. While other ballplayers did their admitting or denying on their own, Clemens sent his lawyer, Rusty Hardin, into the fray. The lawyer emphasized that Clemens had never failed a drug test. This, of course, is the Marion Jones defense. What's more, the lawyer called the accusations of steroid use "slanderous." This was a big mistake, as Clemens will never sue for slander. The last thing a bully wants is to be called on his bluff. For years, Barry Bonds has faced armies of inquisitors. To his credit, at least he wasn't two-faced, remaining as surly to the many as he was to the few. No one mounted a credible but-Barry's-really-a-nice-guy defense. By contrast, Clemens' unnatural longevity as a power pitcher was advertised as proof of his virtue, his holy work ethic. Hence, the speech he was scheduled to deliver next month before the Texas High School Baseball Coaches Association: "My Vigorous Workout: How I Played So Long." Now it's believed that his long life as a power pitcher owes much to his association with Brian McNamee, a former New York City cop. McNamee told Mitchell and his investigators that he injected Clemens — at the pitcher's request — four times with Winstrol during the '98 season. In 2000, after being traded to the Yankees, Clemens convinced his new employers to hire McNamee. From the Mitchell Report: "During the later part of the regular season, McNamee injected Clemens in the buttocks four to six times with testosterone from a bottle labeled either Sustanon 250 or Deca-Durabolin. ... McNamee stated that during this same time period he also injected Clemens four to six times with human growth hormone. ... On each occasion, McNamee administered the injections at Clemens' apartment in New York City." McNamee — who last summer cut a deal with the Feds compelling his testimony for Mitchel — is a bad guy. Required reading on this subject is Luke Cyphers' piece "Clubbies Gone Wild" in ESPN magazine last May. In October of 2001, Clemens' workout guru "was found naked in a hotel pool, having sex with a woman rendered nearly comatose by the date rape drug GHB. Had security not dialed 911, the woman could well have died." McNamee, found to have lied to police in his initial interview, was declared a suspect. And though the Yankees got rid of him after the case eventually fell apart, Clemens stood by his man, keeping him on his personal payroll. When asked about McNamee last spring, Clemens said: "I'll train with him anytime." Now, suddenly, after the release of the Mitchell Report, the pitcher has his lawyer portraying McNamee — suspended once by the NYPD for reasons unknown — as "a troubled and unreliable witness who came up with names after being threatened with possible prison time." You think? Actually, the two of them sound like an exceedingly dark indie version of a buddy flick, what with The Rocket dropping trou for the Bad Lieutenant. Then again, bullies will do anything to get that edge. Consider the night of Oct. 22, 2000, the second game of the World Series at Yankee Stadium, Clemens vs. Mike Piazza, who always hit him hard. Earlier that season, Clemens had beaned him right in the helmet. Unable to beat Piazza in a fair fight, the bully tried to intimidate. Piazza was blessed to have left the ballpark that day with only a concussion. Now, months later, they met again in the Series. It's worth noting that Joe Torre opted to have Clemens pitch at Yankee Stadium rather than Shea, a National League park where he would've had to assume the position in the batter's box. Again, bullies must be protected. This time, Clemens shattered Piazza's bat. Piazza began running toward first as the ball went foul. Meanwhile, Clemens in a full fury, picked up a sharp shard of wood and flung it toward Piazza. There was a moment of stunned silence, as 56,059 people tried to comprehend what they had just seen. Maybe it was 'roid rage. Or maybe, the juice had put a man's true nature on display, the inner bully of Roger Clemens.
Wait, hold up. I'm no Clemens fan at all. But let's not jump to conclusions. I'm guessing you have no real knowledge of anything that would suggest otherwise. Jose Canseco said in his book that Roger Clemens was the ONLY player he ever played with who never cheated on his wife. I don't know if that's true or not....but absent something to suggest otherwise.....
A family man sets a good example for his kids to follow. A family man would own up to what he did and apologize for it all. But nope, not this douchebag.
I didn't even read the entire thing. Two things caught my eye right at first that cause me to dismiss the entire thing as drivel. Really, now? I'll hazard a guess that I could pull up (if I cared enough) at least five articles from this same writer praising Clemens prior to whatever--prior to the first steroid accusation, prior to lobbing the bat at Piazza, whatever. So, the whole point of this piece is to demonize one guy? Check. Guess they've gotten bored with Barry. a) Power pitchers have more longevity than junkballers. Check the last 100 years of MLB history, dumbass. b) Using words like "virtue" and "holy" in a weak attempt to discredit Clemens's work ethic by setting up the standard "hypocrite" paradox, but it's not working for you. Because Clemens can be a media w****, an attention grubber, a prima donna, and a jerk and still have a fantastic work ethic. And he does. Finally, why does the writer have to go for the charged language and the illogically applied paradoxes in an attempt to sway the reader's opinion to "Clemens is the son of satan?" Clemens has enough warts all on his own without this guy needing to invent more. Whoever this writer is, he was Richard Justice in disguise. Drivel. Mindless drivel.
mr. clutch, let's not glorify the effects of steroids - these guys ALL work hard, train hard, and have an abundance of skill. steroids were used to supplement those efforts/gifts. independent of steroids, barry bonds and roger clemens were GREAT baseball players. as for chemical alterations, cortisone and drugs of its ilk are indeed chemicals. if you're masking the pain associated with an injury through medical supplementation, you are risking long-term physical ramifications. the jump to the long-term ramification of steroid usage is not as far as you seem to think. i'm not a doctor, but the same thing COULD be said for steroids; after all, it is a prescribed form of rehabilitation for certain illnesses, etc. i've taken steroid injections under the medical supervision of a doctor. and if you can artificially deaden pain that might otherwise sideline you... that is impacting performance. again, you're choosing to assign levels of cheating as you see fit - which, frankly, is OK; we all draw lines, i just find it a little - let's go with disinegenious; mainly because, based on some of your comments, this sounds a little more "personal" - clemens is a fat, backstabbing loser, etc. if we replaced "clemens" with "bagwell," my sense is that your line would move accordingly. hell, we did replace "clemens" with "scott" and sure enough, "cheating" took on a different look and feel. i don't care if they use and abuse steroids; and i thought the mitchell report was a self-serving witch hunt that has unfairly damaged reputations. but i find the huffing and puffing that's greeted its arrival silly. did any of it surprise you? were you unaware this was going on? how have you rationalized jeff bagwell's performance? if there were EVER a player that PERFECTLY fit the steroid profile, it's him... did you ever consider it? did it impact your cheering for him?... or was the head content to rest in a box of sand? again, blissful ignorance is great. i eat meat, but i sure as hell don't want to know how it got on my plate - know what i mean?
Well, the balls were checked by the umpire in the '86 series. Apparently, they weren't scuffed. Which means he was able to completely dominate that championship team twice without the aid of scuffing.
I heard--but of course have no proof--that Doran would scuff them when the balls were thrown around the infield. So, if the ump just came up to the mound after throwing the ball to Scott, there'd be nothing to find.
They are chemicals but come on we are talking apples and oranges. One is illegal, for darn good reason. To me, you are trying to blur the lines between steroids and legitimate medicine, and I'm just not convinced. Heck, no one is convinced, which is why pretty much everyone supports a ban on steroids but not on other types of medicine you mentioned. We might just have to agree to disagree. Of course I thought of Bagwell and if he had come out in the report I would call him a cheater and a punk too. It's pretty sad, but the fact that baseball didn't address this earlier and people makes even innocent people look guilty, which makes me dislike steroid users even more. Go back in my posts from before and I didn't have anything bad to say about Clemens before I found out he used steroids, so it's not personal. I do think using steroids is pretty unethical and people will look at the steroid era as a dark spot in baseball's history.
but i'm not arguing whether or not steroids should be banned; only that we're all guilty of creating a culture of "win at all costs" and that it seems silly and useless to arbitrarily pinpoint steroids - and steroids alone - as the sole embodiment of that ideal as if its the ONLY element that's potentially harmful.
