There's an almost 100% certainty that Maris was amped to the gills on most if not all gamedays. If you're sick & tired of the inclination you describe, don't read this from Stark's blog: Then Souder got into a really sticky area -- whether baseball could use spikes in statistics to target a player for more testing? Selig said he thought that would be a reason to do more testing.
Except that your version makes no sense. McNamee had nothing to lose by naming Clemens. Clemens can't prove he didn't so his defamation suit will be almost impossible to win. In the very few cases where celebs have been able to win such suits it was because they could prove whatever was said didn't happen (wasn't actually there, 10 other witnesses say it didn't happen etc like in Carol Burnett's case). Plus McNamee is broke so it doesn't really hurt him even if Clemens wins. OTOH if the prosecution thinks he was holding back then they could pull his immunity. When you evaluate the risk there simply is zero risk in naming Roger and a LOT of risk in not doing so. That isn't opinion, LTF unless you can explain how there is risk for McNamee in naming Clemens. I understand, but you even talk about other potential explanations - sticking it to the Sox GM, etc. But the last season in Boston puts the lie to the 'suddenly turned his career around after meeting McNamee' thing that is so often repeated by lazy journalists it drives me crazy. A spike in performance is what everyone points to but there really wasn't a spike out of the blue. Other than run support the last season in Boston (a contract year btw, in which his GM labeled him done which are two huge motivators) and his next in Toronto are almost identical. Hell, he even pitched more innings in the last year in Boston than in his second Cy Young year in Toronto. Canseco never he knew Clemens did steroids, so I don't think that corroborates McNamee's claim.
HGH isn't tested for, so the fact that players are tested for steroids now will never prove anything. Why is it that people think you can't retain strength without steroids anyway. Steroids help you recover so you can work out harder and more often. Steroids allow you to work harder than everyone else. You don't need to workout as hard to maintain. Note I am not saying the last part to refute your point, because you still would decline on age alone at some point, but in the prime of your career, it really doesn't seem like your stats should decrease dramatically unless you got lazy. HGH builds muscle with far less work, the only thing is that it is more expensive, so the steroid policy really only hurts lesser known players generally because of testing. HGH users are only at risk through all these federal probes. I've felt for years that Roger is on the juice, but that is just an opinion. I think it is ignorant to say there is zero chance that Roger is telling the truth, but it is short-sighted to not think there is at least a good chance that he was using at some point, even with the Astros.
