Rafael Palmeiro suspended 10 games

I don't know what that means.

I don't know if Craig Biggio used steroids....should I keep him out of the Hall??

Come to think of it...I don't know if Babe Ruth didn't use some primitive form of steroids....maybe we should kick his fat ass out of the Hall, too.

If we kept people from the Hall...or punished people...based on what we DON'T know...we'd all be locked up. Fortunately the law...and even the Hall...has a little tougher burden for the "prosecutor."

 

Acehigh, are you a body builder by any chance? Those guys start message boards devoted to using steroids.

 

In regards to Rafael Palmiero, everyone needs to look on the brightside.....

Yes it screws up his chances to get into the Basball Hall of Fame....

....but with his lying, dancing around the facts, and manipulation of the media.....

...there is now no doubt in my mind that Rafael Palmiero will be elected President of the United States in 2008!!!!

 

Who is going to get locked up for not voting for a guy to enter the HOF?

 

was using an analogy, Freak.

 

From www.sportsfrog.com:

According to ESPN last night, Bush said that he stands behind Raffy and still believes his testimony to Congress that he did not take steroids.

I hereby retract my previous post. He's guilty dammit! Send him to Gitmo!!

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2122193

Jayson Stark IS MadMax. This is EXACTLY what I would have written were I in his position. Don't know that I've ever read an article that I felt I agreed with more:

Palmeiro still worthy of CooperstownBy Jayson Stark
ESPN.com
Archive Related Video:
Baseball Tonight covers the possibilities

There are questions in life I never thought I'd have to answer.

And this is one of them:

Would I vote for a guy with 3,000 hits and almost 600 homers for the Hall of Fame?

Yeah, I would. On the first ballot. And every ballot.

Rafael Palmeiro
First baseman
Baltimore Orioles
Profile


CAREER STATISTICS
GM BA H HR RBI SLG
2824 .289 3018 569 1834 .516



It's some kind of commentary on the bizarro world we live in these days that stuff like this is now a subject for serious debate. But steroids have done that for us.

It was only a matter of time before some future Hall of Famer tested positive, right? So we'd like to thank Rafael Palmeiro for being the winner of that race.

In a way, it's almost fitting. This was, after all, a man who did commercials for the ultimate performance-enhancing drug (Viagra).

But Palmeiro was also a man who almost managed to turn himself into one of the good guys of baseball with that finger-pointing performance before Congress. Oops.

His life, his career, his legacy will never be the same now.

But I'd still vote for him. First ballot. Every ballot.

Why? Because I'm not a cop. I'm just a guy who covers baseball for a living.

So it's not my job to police this sport. It's the sport's job to police itself. And for 15 years -- maybe 20 -- baseball's police station was a place where the cops just sat around, played cards, smoked cigars and let the inmates hit 900-foot home runs.

Baseball's idea of policing itself in the '90s was to allow a whole generation of players to play -- without testing them, without punishing them, without preventing them from bulking up however they wanted.

So if they "cheated," it wasn't because I let them cheat. It was because baseball let them cheat.

Now it's too late -- for me, for any of us -- to retroactively pronounce these guys guilty of something baseball now considers illegal. It wasn't illegal then.

So they took what they took. They did what they did. And now, all I can do as a voter is vote on what they did on the fields they were allowed to play on.

Sorry. That's the deal.

So all I know is that Rafael Palmeiro had a Hall of Fame career on those fields he was allowed to play on.

Even if 3,000 hits and 600 homers don't mean what they used to, they still mean enough that any player who reaches both those plateaus is a Hall of Famer. Even if he once got suspended for testing positive.

You know, Gaylord Perry won 300 games in an age when 300 wins didn't mean what it did when Old Hoss Radborn did it, either. But it was still enough wins to make ol' Gaylord a Hall of Famer -- even though he might have been the most proud and famous "cheater" in the history of modern sports.

Baseball didn't seem to care if Gaylord Perry cheated for two solid decades. In fact, everyone mostly seemed to find it kind of amusing.

So the next thing we knew, his name was showing up on the Hall of Fame ballot. And I figured, if baseball didn't want to stop him from cheating at the time, why would a few thousand Vaseline-balls stop me from voting for him?

So I did.
I've written about this before, and I've heard from a lot of you who tried to convince me that that was a different form of cheating. This steroid stuff -- it's much more sinister. It's more dangerous to our youth. It's destroying the meaning of the great numbers of baseball. You made those arguments beautifully.

I don't disagree with them, either. But I have a problem, as a voter, with using them to justify not voting for the Rafael Palmeiros of our time.

The problem is, I still don't know who, from that generation, "cheated" and who didn't. Baseball has provided us with no evidence to go on here. None.

It never tested anybody. It never suspended anybody. It never convicted anybody.

So it's all guesswork. Are we just going to deny votes to players who showed up in Jose Canseco's book?

Or to players who got subpoenaed by Congress?

Or to players who gained weight?

Or to players who had pimples?

What's the magic standard here?

We all have players we suspect. But what about all the players we don't suspect? You want to propose some foolproof way to judge? We'd love to have one.

But unless it involves the concept of a time machine, don't bother -- because it's too late.

Just as we have no idea what other pitchers of Gaylord Perry's generation loaded up the baseball, or scuffed it, or taught it a bunch of Harry Potter tricks, we have no clear idea which players of the '90s "cheated" their way to greatness and which didn't.

So are we going to vote for none of them? I've heard some of my fellow writers suggest they might actually do that, to "make a statement." Hey, great. Let them make it. But if they keep some players out of Cooperstown who did it clean, that's wrong, too.

And let us remind you of what the always-eloquent Jose Canseco told the Congress of the United States just last March:

There's no magic formula that can tell us how many home runs any player would have hit if he hadn't used steroids. Heck, there's no way to know how many he would have hit if the pitchers hadn't been using them, too.

And that reminds us: You never hear any outrage about those pitchers, do you?

Who knows how many pitchers from The Steroid Era will sail on into the Hall of Fame with pharmaceutically aided numbers? We couldn't tell you how many will -- but we bet it won't be zero.

There won't be any cloud hanging over any of those guys, though, because nobody ever gets heated up about what pitchers do. But those criminals who tarnished the hallowed numbers of the Babe and Ted and Willie -- we'll show them. We won't vote for any of them.

Sorry. It just isn't rational to selectively pick out a guy here or a guy there -- whether it's based on a positive drug test or a page in somebody's book.

There is an argument to be made that what separates Palmeiro from the rest is that he did test positive, so we know what he did. But wait a second. Do we?

I'd love to know a whole lot more about what Palmeiro did that caused him to test positive, actually. Not to mention when he did it, how much he did it, how long he did it and exactly how many more hits and homers he hit because he did it.

But I'll never get those answers, will I? He'll never tell us everything. And even if he wanted to, even he doesn't know the answer to that last question. And never will.

For Rafael Palmeiro, the reverberations of this positive drug test will be shaking his floor for the rest of his life. And should. Unless he spits out a darned compelling explanation for it some day, he deserves all of those reverberations.

But the one reverberation he doesn't deserve is to have someone like me look at his name on a Hall of Fame ballot some day and treat it as if he were just another Manny Alexander -- or Jack the Ripper.

I wish baseball had taken care of this mess a decade ago. For me. For all of us. But it didn't.

So I might not feel the same about him as I felt a week ago. But when that ballot arrives, I'll check off that box next to Rafael Palmeiro's name. First ballot. Every ballot

 

IMHO ~ it seems that the steroid problem really began to take off in the early 80s reaching its peak in the late 90s. Prior to the early 70s steroids weren't a problem because they weren't around. I'm sure they were taking speed - it's been a part of the game for a long time.
_____________

ESPN

Ken Caminiti, the National League's Most Valuable Player in 1996, says he won the award while on steroids and that at least half of major leaguers use the drugs.

''It's no secret what's going on in baseball. At least half the guys are using steroids. They talk about it. They joke about it with each other.''

Curt Schilling said steroid use was rampant within the game.

''I'm not sure how (it) snuck in so quickly, but it's become a prominent thing very quickly. It's widely known in the game,'' he told Sports Illustrated. ''When you add in steroids and strength training, you're seeing records not just being broken but completely shattered.''

After retiring from baseball this season, Jose Canseco said he planned to write a book about drug use in the majors. He estimated that 85 percent of major leaguers use steroids.

Kenny Rogers told Sports Illustrated: ''Basically, steroids can jump you a level or two. The average player can become a star and the star player can become a superstar. And the superstar? Forget it. He can do things we've never seen before.''

''Doctors ought to quit worrying about what ballplayers are taking,'' Bonds told The Associated Press last week. ''What players take doesn't matter. It's nobody else's business.
___________

Speed game
Amphetamines should have been part of new plan

Here's what Caminiti told SI about greenies: "I would say there are only a couple of guys on a team that don't take greenies before a game. One or two guys. That's called going out there naked. And you hear it all the time from teammates, 'You're not going to play naked, are you?'

This game is so whacked out that guys will take anything to get an edge. You got a pill that will make me feel better? Let me have it."

Former outfielder Chad Curtis agreed with Caminiti: "You might have one team where eight guys play naked and another team where nobody does, but that sounds about right. Steroids are popular, but quite a lot more guys take [amphetamines] than steroids.

"If the starting pitcher knows you're going out there naked, he's upset that you're not giving him more than what you can," Curtis said. "The big-time pitcher wants to make sure you're beaning up before the game tonight."

SI link
_____________

SI Flashback: Totally Juiced

Steroid use, which a decade ago was considered a taboo violated by a few renegade sluggers, is now so rampant in baseball that even pitchers and wispy outfielders are juicing up--and talking openly among themselves about it. According to players, trainers and executives interviewed by SI over the last three months, the game has become a pharmacological trade show.

What emerges from dozens of interviews is a portrait of baseball's intensifying reliance on steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. These drugs include not only human growth hormone (hGH) but also an array of legal and illegal stimulants, ranging from amphetamines to Ritalin to ephedrine-laced dietary supplements, that many big leaguers pop to get a jolt of pregame energy and sharpen their focus (box, page 38). But it is the use of illegal steroids that is growing fastest and having a profound impact on the game.

And steroids are not just for sluggers anymore. They're used by everyone, from erstwhile singles hitters to aging pitchers. Says Rogers, "Just look around. You've got guys in their late 30s, almost 40, who are throwing the ball 96 to 99, and they never threw that hard before in their lives. I'm sorry. That's not natural evolution.

Steroids are changing the game. You've got players who say, 'All I want to do is hit,' and you have pitchers who say, 'All I want to do is throw 97. I don't care if I walk [everyone].'" Steroids have helped even mediocre pitchers turn up the heat. "The biggest change I've seen in the game," says a veteran major league infielder, "is seeing middle relievers come into the game throwing 91, 92 [mph]. Those guys used to be in the mid-80s or so. Now everybody is throwing gas, including the last guy in the bullpen."

Says Caminiti, "They come to the arena to watch gladiators. Do they want to see a bunch of guys choking up on the bat against pitchers throwing 82 miles an hour or do they want to see the ball go 500 feet? They want to see warriors."

SI link

 

Another thing you have to remind people about Palmero is that his career isn't over. I remember the debate a few years ago about whether or not he should be in the Hall with 500 HRs. All I kept saying was that it's a completely irrelevant debate because he's most likely not going to drop dead today and finish with 500. Well, he's near 600 and over 3,000 hits and people are arguing again, so I'll say it again. There's a good chance he'll finish at 650+ HRs and 3400 hits. There is absolutely no way that he does not get in the Hall with those numbers, steroid controversy or not. None. Zero. Zilch.

 

A couple of things to consider. I don't know that they are too relevent, but just various thoughts.

One thing here - I think there is at least one difference between steroids and all the other stuff (corked bats, etc). Steroids going beyond the game of baseball - they are illegal in society in general, as opposed to only being against the rules of the game. So I think this goes at least one step farther and can be distinguished in that respect from other forms of cheating.

One thing to look at here is the evidence from the players we know took steroids. We know Caminiti did in his MVP year - and his HR totals definitely shot up substantially. Canseco has said his numbers were the result of steroids. We know the BALCO stuff happened in 2000 or 2001 (not sure which year). We know Giambi worked with BALCO, and his numbers shot up in 2000. We know Barry did them - he admitted it in his grand jury testimony, although he bizarrely insists the clear and cream are not steroids - and we know his numbers shot up dramatically beginning 2001 as well.

So while we can't be specifically sure what specific impact steroids have, I think there's a pretty clear stream of evidence that it does infact have the potential to dramatically increase your numbers. It can turn good players into great players (Caminiti) and great players into best-of-all-time types. I think this is another distinction in terms of the nature of cheating. This is a level of cheating at a far, far different scale than anything before it.

 

Doubt about a career created from fact (positive test) is very different from doubt created from suspicion. One would see the courtroom and one doesn't. One would be arrested and one would not. Palmeiro is in a class all his own so why he is now linked with every other player in the Hall is beyond me. He is the only one who had a positive test putting everything he's done in doubt. This is very different form of "I don't know" if he used or not.

 

I have to disagree with this. Doctoring a ball so that it moves in a way that you could not have naturally made it move is just as bad if not worse.

 

i COMPLETELY agree. gaylord perry without the spit-ball ain't in the hall of fame. sorry...he just isn't.

i want to talk about mike scott here, but i won't because he's an astro!

 

Count me as one who has a hard to believing he would be stupid enough to take roids this late in his career trying to make a legacy. He's gotten bigger over the years, but I've always thought he would never take roids. He's got the sweetest swing in the game. It's almost effortless. Still if he's guilty which it looks like, it's ashame. I'm personally more inclined to believe he was taking some home medication or something with a small percentage of steroids, then going out there with the intention of juicing to hit better.

 

But that's always been self-policable (?). If a ball is moving like it shouldn't, just don't swing at a pitch and ask the ump to look at it. If pitchers were doing that, hitters and opposing teams should have called them out on it. To me, that is more like stealing signs or something like that.

Doctoring a bat (cork) or something like that which can't be detected or policed on the field (without breaking bats all the time) is more similar to the steroids-type cheating to me.

 

yes..he'd be arrested and charged with THIS OFFENSE at THIS PARTICULAR TIME.

he would not, however, be convicted of failing a drug test he didn't take 5 years ago when he was banging the ball around the yard.

 

This kind of cheating went before congress. Yet, you are willing to say it is on the same level as scuffing the ball. Not even close. You are unlikely to find a congressional hearing about people scuffing the ball. People could die because of steroids. It's a big deal. The same goes for gambling. People's lives could be at stake. I think this takes the cake as far as cheating.

 

what if the pitcher is just really good at it? what if he gets away with it?

or what if he's caught...like perry? and still gets in the HOF because his career numbers are so impressive??

 

it went to congress because of public health concerns.

irrelevant for the purposes of whether or not Rafael ends up in the HOF.