Warning!! Danger!! Annual Off-topic Baseball Thread '07!! Beware!!

[mick]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Clemens speaks out: "I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life."

I wonder if he was pointing his finger at a Congressman when he issued this statement. . .

Help me out here. What are you/Clemens implying about whom?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mick

Help me out here. What are you/Clemens implying about whom?

mick - I think Chuck is referring to Rafael Palmeiro and his testimony in front of Congress. Palmeiro said essentially the same thing, while pointing to a Congressman. Not too long after that, we found out he was lying.

Is it just me, or does anyone else look at Clemens' statement with the same degree of cynicism? "I did not take... any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career." There are many substances that were not banned by baseball, but were still considered illegal to obtain without a doctor's prescription. Or, perhaps, he found a "less than honest" doctor who could prescribe the substances for something other than their original intent. This way Clemens could say he was "legally" taking these substances, because he had the prescription.

[mick]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

mick - I think Chuck is referring to Rafael Palmeiro and his testimony in front of Congress. Palmeiro said essentially the same thing, while pointing to a Congressman. Not too long after that, we found out he was lying.

Is it just me, or does anyone else look at Clemens' statement with the same degree of cynicism? "I did not take... any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career." There are many substances that were not banned by baseball, but were still considered illegal to obtain without a doctor's prescription. Or, perhaps, he found a "less than honest" doctor who could prescribe the substances for something other than their original intent. This way Clemens could say he was "legally" taking these substances, because he had the prescription.

Oh, I understand now.
Now, what am I missing that it was wrong for a player to take prescription, non-banned drugs?
[You don't have to reply, I imagine it's way to complicated for me to grasp.]

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mick

Now, what am I missing that it was wrong for a player to take prescription, non-banned drugs?
[You don't have to reply, I imagine it's way to complicated for me to grasp.]

That's ok, I don't fully understand it, and I even stayed at a Holiday Inn Express...

I think in some cases the issue is a player taking a known, "banned by baseball" substance. In some cases, it might be a player receiving a substance that was not banned by baseball, but would be illegal in general society to receive without a doctor's prescription. In some cases, the doctor might prescribe the substance for the player, but the substance might be labeled to treat something entirely different than what the player is using it for. In the case of Mark McGuire, he was found using something that was not only not banned by baseball, but was able to be obtained at any GNC store in any mall in the country.

Also, has anyone noticed there's a name noticably absent from the Mitchell Report? Has anyone seen Sammy Sosa's name mentioned anywhere? Afaik, he has never had a negative drug test, and has never been mentioned in any of these Balco scandals or the Mitchell Report.

Maybe, in the minds of most fans, baseball is still the "old-fashioned" game we play in the backyard, so anything outside of that Norman Rockwell picture is considered "cheating".

[tomegun]

This is what I have to say about this whole thing and I think some will roll their eyes or get defensive.
Mike Wilbon is the only person on TV that I have seen that has said the obvious. The media doesn't jump on Clemens because they like him, but they have been jumping on Bonds for years because they don't like him. There are people on the Mitchell report that are coming out and admitting to doing what the Mitchell report says, but they are wrong about Clemens. I don't think so.
I'm sure they've been testing Bonds recently, and he has bad knees, and he is other players are supposed to be the best in the game (A-Rod, Griffey at one time, Pujols or whatever the flavor of the day is), BUT they still don't pitch to Bonds. Why is that? I will tell you why, because he can flat out hit. He wasn't hitting 400ft popups like Sosa and McGwire, he hits the ball great and it goes out. Even with bad wheels, which help generate power, he is a threat. But they pitch to the suppsedly best players in the game.

Sort of like all of Tiger's competition that has come and gone: Duvall, Garcia, Leonard, Vijay, Mickelson. The main difference is Tiger has his PR in check like Jordan. Don't for one minute think Tiger or Jordan are model citizens while having Barkley as one of their best friends.

Sorry for the rant.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Mike Wilbon is the only person on TV that I have seen that has said the obvious. The media doesn't jump on Clemens because they like him, but they have been jumping on Bonds for years because they don't like him.

You really need to get out more. I read a whole bunch of newspapers every day. There is little or NO support of Clemens in the major newspapers. Clemens and Bonds are the poster boys for the steroid era, and it looks good on both of 'em.

For instance, read the 3 daily NY papers today and see what they say about Clemens.

If either of 'em had any defense at all, the lawsuits would be flying. You've never seen one from Bonds, and you'll also never see one from Clemens.

A great Christmas present for me would be seeing a story saying that Clemens has been subpoenaed to appear before Congress. Let him get up in front of them and deny that he's a 'roid rat.

[tomegun]

If this is true, and I have no reason to not believe you, why doesn't the television media talk about it as much or run 100 polls asking what everyone thinks? Bonds has obviously been the target for a long time. I think the whole thing is funny.

Steroids or not, it is hard to deny the fact that Bonds is one of the most talented baseball players to ever live. On the other hand, pitching is a position that could be helped more by steroids. Especially if you've always been known as a power pitcher like Clemens.

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by tomegun

The media doesn't jump on Clemens because they like him, but they have been jumping on Bonds for years because they don't like him.

I agree with JR here. You just aren't reading or watching the same things I am if you think Clemens is getting a free (or free-ish) pass. In fact, Jon Heyman of SI.com has a column today in which he describes Bonds as a "winner" in the Mitchell aftermath since nothing new really came out on him and now everyone gets to see a portion of the players all around him who were cheating, too. (Clemens, by the way, was labelled a "loser" in the column.)

I think the evidence is rather compelling that both Bonds and Clemens cheated. I think the evidence is rather compelling that both of them were great (Bonds, to a more obvious degree than Clemens) BEFORE they started cheating. So, they didn't cheat to keep their MLB jobs (like others surely did); instead, they cheated for glory or records or "domination" that they could not or would not earn honestly.

I do feel some sympathy towards players like Pettitte and Roberts who dabbled and now have admitted. I do not feel any sympathy toward players like Bonds and Clemens who enhanced themselves regularly and now continue to lie about it.

[tomegun]

Of course you don't feel sympathy for Bonds - you probably don't like him either (an opinion many share that has been formed by the media). Pointing out a few articles doesn't compare to the years devoted to hunting down evidence on Bonds.

Here is part of what Heyman says about Bonds being a winner: "The point is drilled home again that he was far from the only user."
Meanwhile, this is part of what is said about Clemens, the loser: "He is a superstar who's used to folks fawning at his feet, and 2) As an all-time great..."

On the surface it may seem as though he is getting the same treatment, or worse, as Bonds, but I think you should review the last 5 years or so; Clemens has a lot of catching up to do!

Any talk of putting an asterick on any of Clemens' Cy Young awards?

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Of course you don't feel sympathy for Bonds - you probably don't like him either (an opinion many share that has been formed by the media). . . .

On the surface it may seem as though he is getting the same treatment, or worse, as Bonds, but I think you should review the last 5 years or so; Clemens has a lot of catching up to do!

Yes, tomegun, when it comes to Bonds, I'm just a lemming. Whatever the media feeds me, I accept without thinking or evaluation. I must not like Bonds only because the media tells me not to like him, not because I have seen him interviewed and found him to be a self-absorbed prick. I wish I had the courage and insight to like, and feel sympathy for, Bonds.

Fortunately, when it comes to Clemens, I have wisdom and fortitude. Apparently, the media has been telling me all my life to like him and fawn over him and think he's just swell. But I have found Clemens to be a self-absorbed prick and I don't like him or feel sympathy for him. Strange.

Tomegun, are you serious about "review[ing] the last 5 years"? The evidence, such as it is, about Bonds came out a long time ago. The evidence, such as it is, about Clemens just came out. Should the media have criticized Clemens as much as Bonds based on an assumption that someday some evidence would materialize? Frankly, I think Bonds has a lot of catching up to do. Pete Rose (yet another self-absorbed prick whom I do not like and for whom I have no sympathy) has been vilified since way back in 1989, whereas through much of the 1990s Bonds was praised as one of the best players, if not THE best player, in baseball.

And while we're at it, Larry Craig is getting a free pass from the media, too! I mean, they only started getting all over Craig this year when poor old Bill Clinton has been criticized for dropping his pants for many, many years.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Any talk of putting an asterick on any of Clemens' Cy Young awards?

Um, yeah, as a matter of fact......

http://www.boston.com/sports/basebal...g_on_th_1.html

And that's from one of his fellow players too, not a sportswriter.

I'm with bgtg19. Bonds, Clemens and Rose were and are azzholes. They all deserve everything they get.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Of course you don't feel sympathy for Bonds - you probably don't like him either (an opinion many share that has been formed by the media).

Could you enlighten me as to what exactly has shaped your obvious sympathy of Bonds?

[Jimgolf]

Clemens has been soundly lambasted by the NY media, while Petitte has been lionized ("I only tried them twice", sort of like the old Clinton defense, "I didn't inhale.")

The media have harped upon Clemens' "banned substances" phrase, since steroid use was not banned by MLB until 2003 and HGH not until 2005.

Michael Kay, the Yankee broadcaster who appears on the local ESPN radio outlet, claimed that taking steroids or HGH was as bad as what Pete Rose did, since both things jeopardized the integrity of the game.

I don't think I need to go into how ridiculous that is, but how bad is what Clemens and Bonds have been vilified for?

I think too many people think steroids and HGH are a magic formula for throwing a fastball or hitting home runs. The only thing they do is allow an athlete to lift weights more frequently. They don't need to take off for recovery like a typical weight lift regimen requires. The player still has to do the work to improve.

The number of players on the list that made you ask "Who?" shows how little effect steroids really have. The player with talent can work to get significantly better, but the scrub or the lazy athlete is still a bush leaguer.

The real impact of this is that all these former or current players have been named by 2 or 3 sources. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no doubt in my mind that this period of baseball history will long be referred to as the "Steroid Era" and that all accomplishments from this era will be viewed with an invisible asterisk, and that all players will be under suspicion for some time to come.

ARod is sure to become ARoid at some near point of time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Clemens has been soundly lambasted by the NY media, while Petitte has been lionized ("I only tried them twice", sort of like the old Clinton defense, "I didn't inhale.")

You need to get out more too. Maybe read Mike Lupica's column at the NY Daily News, for example. He went after Pettitte big time. And he sureasheck wasn't the only one.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...crocodile.html

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Clemens has been soundly lambasted by the NY media, while Petitte has been lionized ("I only tried them twice", sort of like the old Clinton defense, "I didn't inhale.")

The media have harped upon Clemens' "banned substances" phrase, since steroid use was not banned by MLB until 2003 and HGH not until 2005.

Michael Kay, the Yankee broadcaster who appears on the local ESPN radio outlet, claimed that taking steroids or HGH was as bad as what Pete Rose did, since both things jeopardized the integrity of the game.

I don't think I need to go into how ridiculous that is, but how bad is what Clemens and Bonds have been vilified for?

I think too many people think steroids and HGH are a magic formula for throwing a fastball or hitting home runs. The only thing they do is allow an athlete to lift weights more frequently. They don't need to take off for recovery like a typical weight lift regimen requires. The player still has to do the work to improve.

The number of players on the list that made you ask "Who?" shows how little effect steroids really have. The player with talent can work to get significantly better, but the scrub or the lazy athlete is still a bush leaguer.

The real impact of this is that all these former or current players have been named by 2 or 3 sources. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no doubt in my mind that this period of baseball history will long be referred to as the "Steroid Era" and that all accomplishments from this era will be viewed with an invisible asterisk, and that all players will be under suspicion for some time to come.

ARod is sure to become ARoid at some near point of time.

I can agree with some of this. Getting stronger will allow someone to pitch more and longer. On the other hand, if someone is just a brute they will either whiff a the ball or hit 400ft popups. Bonds is very talented with or without steroids - that is probably why they still pitch around him with bad wheels and all. Bonds is probably the greatest player to ever play the game, but people will forever look at him because of what they saw in interviews.

JR, I feel the way I do about Bonds because I have actually met him and made my opinion based on how he treated me. I can't recall what, but his attitude with the media started because of something that either happened with his father or Willie Mays. I'm not going to have my opinion shaped by some interview when I met the man for myself. Also, I'm from the Charles Barkley school of thought on this one. An athlete is an athlete. I don't have to feel all warm and fuzzy about them, I'm just looking to see how they perform.

Picking one, two, ten or twenty media sources to compare to all the media out to get Bonds isn't accurate. I also don't have the time to scour so many papers, sites etc. The witch hunt has been on for some time and unfortunately one of the fan-favorites got caught with his pants down. When talking about Clemens, if you are from houston, boston or new york your opinion could be biased.

What is a good estimate of home runs Bonds would have had if he saw pitches like ARod or Pujols? 850? 900?