2007 Baseball Season is about to start--talk about anything you want

[pilferk]

Amnesty?  people don't even want that for illegal immigrants - no way they'll stand for that for our athletes! 

all jokes aside, i think EVERYONE from the fans to the owners has let too much slide as it is.  As a fan, I want to see the hammer come down b/c if all they get is a slap on the wrist then they'll simply find another way to cheat.  These guys knew there were doing shady stuff - I don't feel bad for them.

Sorry, I don't buy it.  "Bringing the hammer down" won't discourage anyone from trying to find an edge in pro sports.  Especially not when the "cheating" was this widespread.  All "bringing the hammer down" will do (and you have to do it comprehensively, not just on those named in the Mitchell report) is further damage the game and maybe satisfy some strange thirst for "vengance".  Essentially, nothing productive.

Now, going the amnesty route will allow those willing to come forward a chance to paint a picture as to just how widespread the problem was, and let baseball move forward.  THEN bring the hammer down on those who are still dishonest enough to not come forward.

They've tainted a great game, disenchanted a lot of fans and made some of the most amazing, honored records in sports meaningless.  There will be more * in the HOF than players.. 

I disagree.  The game isn't tainted.  An era is qualified.  There's a big difference, IMHO.

Lastly - guys like Clemens should REALLY have the book thrown at them.  Does anyone really believe he wasn't on something?  Categorically denying it this way just smacks of Palmiero and Mac at those hearings.  Had Bonds admitted it from the get go as well people would be more likely to forgive.  Give it up Roger, we'll respect you more if you own up to it. 

I don't know if he was on something or not.  I know there have been, for a long time, allegations to that effect.  I don't find his denial overly compelling, but I don't find a known drug pushers allegations that compelling, either.  I'm not ready to lynch Clemens quite yet.

I think the reason you find the denial so galling is because you've already made up your mind that he's "guilty" just based on a drug pushers allegations and your own perceptions. 

[sandman]

sure seems like clemens is guilty. the evidence in the report is it's a shame that he best hitter AND pitcher of our time both needed performance enhancing drugs.

and what's with his comment about "earning the benefit of the doubt" because he's a public figure??? what a jackass. 

pettitte's statement was kinda confusing as well..."if what i did was an error on my part..." does he think what he did was wrong or not???

[pilferk]

sure seems like clemens is guilty. the evidence in the report is it's a shame that he best hitter AND pitcher of our time both needed performance enhancing drugs.

Perhaps you can explain it to me, because I'm having hard time understanding: Why does it seem like Clemens is guilty?  All I see in that report is one persons accusations.  Why is that more compelling that Roger's denial?  Or the lack of any positive drug tests?  I just don't get it...why is he "guilty"?

and what's with his comment about "earning the benefit of the doubt" because he's a public figure??? what a jackass. 

On the contrary, I think it's a valid point.  Has he ever lied before?  Has he ever misled people/fans before?  He didn't say "he's earned the benefit of the doubt" BECAUSE he's a public figure, either.  He said, as someone who's been a public figure for years, he expected to have earned the benefit of the doubt.  In other words, considering his dealing with the public, his comments in the past, etc.....why, instantly, is he being considered guilty based on one (disreputeable) person's accusations?

Why, automatically, is he guilty when he's given no reason to be considered guilty in the past?  I actually agree with him.

In the end, it may turn out he IS "guilty"....or not.  But the guy deserves to defend himself, and not be called out when doing so as being a "jackass".  What if he ISN'T guilty? 

pettitte's statement was kinda confusing as well..."if what i did was an error on my part..." does he think what he did was wrong or not???

I wasn't confused by it at all.  It's simple phrasing that, I think, people are reading too much into....again, because they're angry and looking for reasons to bitch, yell, scream, and point fingers, IMHO.

[sandman]

i base my opinion on three facts:

1. Clemens is hiding behind his lawyer.
2. Mitchell offered him the opportunity to state his case in the actual report.
3. McNamee's credibility continues to increase as players confirm his accusations.

here's pettitte's quote...

"If what I did was an error in judgment on my part, I apologize,"

so is he apologizing, or not? does HE think it was an error in judgement?

not that it really matters. he has little credibility since he has previously lied about taking performance enhancing drugs.

[pilferk]

i base my opinion on three facts:

1. Clemens is hiding behind his lawyer.
2. Mitchell offered him the opportunity to state his case in the actual report.
3. McNamee's credibility continues to increase as players confirm his accusations.

1) Anyone accused of a crime, who could be prosecuted, would likely protect themselves, legally, in the same way.  An innocent man would take the same steps, if he was smart. Not that it's the same situation, but....remember the Duke Lacross players accused of rape?  They "hid behind their lawyers", too....as the public at large screamed for their castration.  It says nothing about Clemens guilt or innocence that he chooses to handle the matter seriously, and with some discretion, to ensure he's legally protected.  In addition, if he IS innocent, and has some mind to sue for slander and/or libel......you don't comment directly on the matter.  Again, that's just being smart....not displaying any bias toward guilt or innocence.

2) NO player, pretty much on the advice of the MLBPA, talked to the Mitchell investigators except Giambi...and he only did it because he HAD to because he's a stupid bonehead.  Nobody.  Not those guilty, and not those innocent.  They chose, as a collective unit, not to comment so as to make sure the report did not become a witch hunt.  Not "breaking ranks" doesn't seem like any sort of indication of guilt or innocence.  If he's spoken to the investigators, it would have been like crossing the picket lines and being a "scab"....something I don't think Clemens would be likely to do.

3) It's been a mixed bag.  Justice has violently denied use.  Vina has acknowledged HGH use, but denied steroid use.  So it seems like either memories were hazy or there was some creative story telling going on in order to appease the feds...with just enough verifiable truth in there to make sure to bolster the plea deals AND give the feds some "juicy" names.  In any event, the stories coming out so far would show the report is certainly not infailable.  Vina is the best example of that, but Justice's case is pretty strong, too.

So, again, I dont' see a whole lot, above, that points to Roger being "guilty".  Accusations have been made, certainly.  But beyond that, we have zero proof.  What we DO have is a "bloodthirsty" public looking for someone to lash out at and blame, so they can take out their anger and frustration, and a tank full of media sharks who smell the same blood.

If he's guilty, Roger deserves whatever he gets....but I think it's premature to lable him "cheater", piss on his career, and tatoo the scarlett letter on his chest.  Everyone wants answers NOW, is saying Roger is guilty because he hasn't provided them yet...well, it doesn't work that way.  Not really.

here's pettitte's quote...

"If what I did was an error in judgment on my part, I apologize,"

so is he apologizing, or not? does HE think it was an error in judgement?

not that it really matters. he has little credibility since he has previously lied about taking performance enhancing drugs.

Seems like an apology to me....unless you want to nitpick his semantics.  Given the context, and contriteness, of the ENTIRE statement, I think the meaning is obvious.  But when you want to get riled up, indignant, and extract vengance because you feel you've been "slighted"....you read/interpret what you want to read/interpret.

So lying shatters credibility?  Then why do you find McNamee's statements so credible.  You want to talk about a history of lying?  That guy should be the president of the NY chapter of the "Liars Club". 

[pilferk]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3157202

Good article, IMHO.

[The Dog]

Pilferk, just b/c someone is a scum bag or of low moral character, should their testimony mean less?  I don't think so.  Think of how many mob rat's testimony, or fellow inmates testimony, shitty politicians testimony's have helped put guilty people away or charge them for a crime.

wasn't he under oath or something or questioned by feds - meaning if hes caught lying he'll be in a SHIT LOAD of trouble (moreso than the average lying while being questioned).  I don't know all the details so if I'm wrong - I'm wrong.  But I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss it.

Like sandman said, i bet we'll see McNamee's testimony validated as more and more players own up to it.

[GeorgeSteele]

 

'Altar boy' Rose thinks 'roids soiled game
/ Associated Press


Pete Rose thinks players who use steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs are "making a mockery" of baseball.
The career hits leader, banned by the sport for gambling, weighed in on the Mitchell Report in an interview with Dennis Miller that was slated to air Wednesday night on Versus.

Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada and Andy Pettitte were among the big stars implicated in last week's report by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell on performance-enhancing drugs in baseball.

Clemens denied the allegations. Pettitte acknowledged last weekend that he used human growth hormone twice while rehabbing from an injury in 2002.

"I never thought anybody would make me look like an altar boy," Rose said.

"I've been suspended 18 years for betting on my own team to win," he added. "I was wrong ... but these guys today, if the allegations are true, they're making a mockery of the game."

Rose was banished from baseball for life in 1989 for betting on games while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds, his former team. He denied the gambling allegations until 2004, when he came clean in his autobiography. He is not eligible for the Hall of Fame.


"If you're going to put these guys that supposedly did steroids into the Hall of Fame, I mean I've got to get a shot somewhere," he said.

Rose finished with 4,256 hits, breaking Ty Cobb's career record.

And if steroids were prevalent in his day?

"I would have got 5,000 hits," he said.

[GeorgeSteele]

here's pettitte's quote...

"If what I did was an error in judgment on my part, I apologize,"

so is he apologizing, or not? does HE think it was an error in judgement?

not that it really matters. he has little credibility since he has previously lied about taking performance enhancing drugs.

Seems like an apology to me....unless you want to nitpick his semantics.? Given the context, and contriteness, of the ENTIRE statement, I think the meaning is obvious.? But when you want to get riled up, indignant, and extract vengance because you feel you've been "slighted"....you read/interpret what you want to read/interpret.

So lying shatters credibility?? Then why do you find McNamee's statements so credible.? You want to talk about a history of lying?? That guy should be the president of the NY chapter of the "Liars Club".?

I don't know, but if I used "If what I did was an error in judgment on my part, I apologize" on my wife, I would need to go on a hard-core HGH program after the ensuing castration.

[pilferk]

I don't know, but if I used "If what I did was an error in judgment on my part, I apologize" on my wife, I would need to go on a hard-core HGH program after the ensuing castration.

If you had just finished making a contrite, extremely apologetic statement just before that, and didn't suffix it with a "but...." I think it's reasonable to assume you're being sincere.

[sandman]

pilferk - my gut is telling me clemens used performance enhancing drugs. that's all i said. just giving my opinion. ?

but one thing i will say is that i don't fit your stereotype. i certainly am not "bloodthirsty," i'm not looking to lay blame and take out any anger. i have always blamed MLB, i have ZERO anger about the whole situation, and i don't have much of a problem with players that took 'roids.

and i certainly don't feel like i've been "slighted," and i hope you weren't assuming that i do. ?

[The Dog]

pilferk - my gut is telling me clemens used performance enhancing drugs. that's all i said. just giving my opinion. 

but one thing i will say is that i don't fit your stereotype. i certainly am not "bloodthirsty," i'm not looking to lay blame and take out any anger. i have always blamed MLB, i have ZERO anger about the whole situation, and i don't have much of a problem with players that took 'roids.

and i certainly don't feel like i've been "slighted," and i hope you weren't assuming that i do. 

I'm angry.  Not losing sleep over it and i'm not about to march on Washington or boycott games, but I'm angry for sure.  I don't see how any real baseball fans couldn't be angry.  Unless you're a Yankee fan and just don't want to admit that your guys were cheaters (and I'm sure there are many many other teams with players who cheated). 

i blame MLB, the owners, the players and the union.  everyone buried their heads in the sand and nobody took action.

[pilferk]

Pilferk, just b/c someone is a scum bag or of low moral character, should their testimony mean less?  I don't think so.  Think of how many mob rat's testimony, or fellow inmates testimony, shitty politicians testimony's have helped put guilty people away or charge them for a crime.

Ask any prosecuter (or defense attorney) that same question.  It DOES matter.

And "coerced" testimony, because of a plea deal, is ALWAYS pointed out by the defense attorney because it speaks to the credibility of the witness.  Why do you think that is?

I'm not saying McNamee has zero credibility.  I'm saying that, short of other evidence, I don't find his statements to be overwhelming evidence.  Not only because he's a scumbag who rapes women he's drugged.  Not only because he's a drug pusher.  But because he is a PROVEN liar, both to the MLB AND the feds, on different occasions...and a good one, to boot.  Given his self interest in giving up information, I can certainly see him having reason for "exaggerating", with enough truth in his testimony to ensure the feds would be happy.

wasn't he under oath or something or questioned by feds - meaning if hes caught lying he'll be in a SHIT LOAD of trouble (moreso than the average lying while being questioned).  I don't know all the details so if I'm wrong - I'm wrong.  But I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss it.

Sure.  But how do you prove him wrong?  It's "he said, she said"....one person's word against anothers.  If you tell just enough of the truth that they can corroberate....and "exaggerate" some more (or misremember, or whatever) to get that better deal...how are they going to prove it?

I haven't dismissed it.  I've said it's not, in and of itself, enough for me.  One disreputable person's word.  It's one thing.  Without more, I'm loathe to ruin someone's reputation.  I'm loathe to jump on a soapbox and call for Roger's head.  I'm loathe to dismiss the man's professional accomplishments.  Seems to be jumping the gun a little, doesn't it?

Like sandman said, i bet we'll see McNamee's testimony validated as more and more players own up to it.

We'll see.  So far, it's been a mixed bag.  Not remotely a slam dunk......

[pilferk]

pilferk - my gut is telling me clemens used performance enhancing drugs. that's all i said. just giving my opinion. 

but one thing i will say is that i don't fit your stereotype. i certainly am not "bloodthirsty," i'm not looking to lay blame and take out any anger. i have always blamed MLB, i have ZERO anger about the whole situation, and i don't have much of a problem with players that took 'roids.

and i certainly don't feel like i've been "slighted," and i hope you weren't assuming that i do. 

No, I was generalizing.  Given the depictions in the media, and the opinions displayed by many people, it's a fair stereotype at this point.

But I do have a question:

If you' re not angry, bitter, upset....whatever...why question Pettite's statement?  Why assume he was being disingenuous?  Why assume the statement was anything more than it appeared to be, at face value?  Something (or some source) had to motivate that and make you call it into question?

My assumption (and I could be wrong) was that you read an article somewhere (espn.com and msnbc.com both had one) doing the same thing an a little lightbulb went off in your head.

[pilferk]

I'm angry.  Not losing sleep over it and i'm not about to march on Washington or boycott games, but I'm angry for sure.  I don't see how any real baseball fans couldn't be angry.  Unless you're a Yankee fan and just don't want to admit that your guys were cheaters (and I'm sure there are many many other teams with players who cheated). 

Yanks fans are just as angry about the drug use. The OTHER issue is the venom directed at the team, from other fans, because of the information that came to light.  It's not fair...and chances are there were users in THEIR clubhouses, too, who just never dealt with McNamee and Radomski.  It's shortsighted, and belies the actual issue...making it about the Yankees, and not MLB's, drug problem.

And it's not about "not admitting" anything.  Whether what Pettite did was "cheating", I'll leave for others to discuss.  I don't really have a strong opinion, and see both sides.  What I do know is: It wasn't against the rules, at the time.  It was certainly unethical and unprofessional.  Cheating? Maybe, maybe not.  But it didn't break any MLB rules.....

Giambi cheated.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Clemens...if he did what he's accused of, he cheated.  The question now is: Did he.  I'm not yet convinced.  We'll see.

i blame MLB, the owners, the players and the union.  everyone buried their heads in the sand and nobody took action.

I'm right there with ya on that.

[The Dog]

Totally agree - its not just the yanks/mets that cheated - I'm sure every clubhouse has someone in it that is guilty/cheated.  I hope they keep investigating.

[D]

Clemens definitely did.

Remember when he left Boston?  He seemed finished.

Went to Toronto and had a career resurrection.

leading the league in ERA at 43, to me, is just as astonishing as Bonds hitting 73 Homeruns.

[pilferk]

Clemens definitely did.

Remember when he left Boston?  He seemed finished.

Went to Toronto and had a career resurrection.

leading the league in ERA at 43, to me, is just as astonishing as Bonds hitting 73 Homeruns.

Again, review the stats from the year he left Boston.  It is a myth that he "seemed finished".  He was unhappy, for sure.

But he led the league in strikeouts that year.  His ERA was right in line with his career numbers (3.6 vs 3.2).  The ONLY thing up was his walks (106...the ONLY season he gave up more than 100 walks in his career...typical average was between 65 and 75)...speaking to a control problem, not a velocity issue.. Roids aren't going to help your control much.   His win total was down, but that Sox team wasn't remotely the Sox of today.  They were 3rd in the AL East.  Offensive run support was not great...not "Houston" awful, butnot wonderful, either.  Defense wasn't much to write home about.  They were, at best, mediocre.  Look at their stats.  And look at their starting rotation as a whole.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1996.shtml

He went to Toronto...his numbers were not a whole lot different than his career stats.  His ERA dropped that year, his strikeouts jumped a little bit, but the biggest change was that his walks were BACK down to his career numbers.  Seems like he found his control/mechanics, again.

"Astonishing" doesn't mean "impossible" or "caused by performance enhancing drugs".  Unless you think Satchel Paige was juicing?

[D]

^True


I would love to believe Roger Clemens is innocent.

Canseco even said Clemens never took steroids in his book.


Just at 43......... I don't know how he could do all he did with Houston.

[GeorgeSteele]

Whether or not Clemens ever used steroids (and if I was forced to bet, I would say yes), I don't think it had a tremendous impact on his career.

First thing, people always point to the resurgence in Toronto.  The truth was that his resurgence was in Boston.  The 2nd half of the '96 season he was lights out.  Not unusual for a player going into free agency.  Also, I attribute his career years in Toronto as a just a player that was more comfortable out of the spotlight and did not respond as well to the Boston/NY media scrutiny.   

His first 2 years in NY were arguably worse than his bad years in Boston (1993-1995) when he was battling nagging injuries.

So, bottom line, the only parts of his career which appear suspicious to me are his last 2 years in Houston (and even then, probably not, as he was just a 5-6 inning pitcher) and his playoff performces in 2000 against the Mariners and the Mets when he was topping out at 99 mph.   Not enough to taint his career, IMO.