Jeter, Rivera and Mussina.

Posada and O'Neill wouldn't shock me, to be honest. Mussina needs to be clean to get in the Hall, and I really want him to get into the hall.

Does Madden ever answer who would play third in his scenario?

[2] Does Madden ever really answer anything about anything?

Is Madden the biggest idiot in sportswriting?

I suppose that Bill Madden has never made a mistake in life, never apologized for anything, and never sought a second chance. Sweet.

Madden is an idiot, loud and proud.

Ken Rosenthal, however, has him beat:

Rodriguez evidently believed the upside of trying to salvage his reputation was greater than the downside of any potential fallout from his ESPN interview.

Well, by “coming clean,” he has compromised the other 103 players who tested positive in ‘03, putting pressure on them to be just as forthcoming if their identities are revealed.

But Rodriguez isn’t worried about them, is he?

Apparently, Rosenthal thinks that that A-Rod should have lied.

[5] Wow that Rosenthal thing is completely moronic. It blows my mind that that guy is paid cause anyone values his opinion, cause what he writes there is worthless.

MLB would be well-served by just releasing EVERYTHING, imho. Instead of dribs and drabs, let's just get it over with and move on.

[5] Ugh. Time to milk this story for all its worth, now that A-Rod surprised everybody by admitting to it and apologizing, thus letting all the air out of the bag early.

[1] Oh no. O'Neill would definitely be the biggest shocker, seeing as he retired after 2001 and (so far as we know) wasn't part of the 2003 survey testing. If his named turned up in there, it would call the whole thing into doubt, which would be the biggest surprise of all.

After that, Moose who be my #1 shock. You'd think a guy who went to college and so was subjected to NCAA drug tests for 4 years would know well enough to leave it alone. Mo would be #2, just because if any modern baseball player truly has a moral compass, it seems like it would be the guy who wants to retire, build a church in his hometown, and spend the rest of his life being a minister to the Lord.

Jeter using would not surprise me, only because he's so darn competitive. I have no doubt, none, that the Captain (and all the other position players), used amphetamines. Thus it would not surprise me if he used something stronger.

But really, we can adjust the story to put suspicion on anyone, Yanks or not. Mo went from throwing 88-90 to throwing 96+ with ease. Jeter ALWAYS played through hurts - and after hitting no more than 5 HRs in any year in the minors, averaged 17/year in the big leagues. Big Papi went from released nobody to hitting 40 HRs in months. Moose had a couple of incredible seasons at a late age. And on and on we could go.

I just hope the traditional media doesn't go there.

I have no sympathy for Rodriguez, so why would I care about the 103 other cheaters he "compromised?"

Also, its pretty hilarious that he seems to buy Pettitte's nonsense hook like and sinker.

BTW, to be clear - in [7] I'm not saying that I believe that Mo, or Jeter, or Ortiz, or Moose, used PEDs. But using half-truths and "evidence" of strange statistical anomalies (eg, Brady Anderson's 50 HRs in '96 = PED user!), we could make a (flimsy) "argument" about any big league ballplayer being a PED user.

[7]

"I just hope the traditional media doesn’t go there."

It doesn't need to, the fans have already gone there on their own. That's the beauty of it--because a few, or 103 or probably even more used PEDs, and because we will never know who or how much or with what impact, the entire generation of on-field achievement is cast into doubt. Every peak season (Jeter '99?) will be viewed with suspicion, whispers whispered about every sudden improvement (Ortiz, Mo) or sudden decline (Pudge), every seemingly long career (Clemens, Maddux). The players did this to themselves--with of course the owners, coaches, media, fans going along for the ride), so why should we blame anyone for "going there"?

Regardless of where you come down on this issue, statement like the following are incredibly irritating:

"“Perhaps this latest news will make the owners put more pressure on Major League Baseball to institute a tougher policy with regard to steroids,” Cramer said."

This "latest" news is a 6 year old leak. MLB HAS already instituted a tougher policy as a result of this information. Arod's revelation does not reflect on the current drug policy. The above statement is so sloppy, you have to question both Cramer and the reporter who used it.

[10] [7] In fact, I hope people *do* "go there." There seems to be a prevailing sense that there is/was a don't ask-don't tell attitude, or even a "lots of guys do it" attitude pervasive in the sport, which gives cover for players who used, and cover for everyone else who turned a blind eye.

But maybe, when every single player is implicated, when every on-field achievement is called into question, when the validity of every HR and K, and every streak and record is challenged--at least in terms of popular perception--the players will take notice and police themselves more forcefully.

Time to milk this story for all its worth, now that A-Rod surprised everybody by admitting to it and apologizing, thus letting all the air out of the bag early.

Exactly. Alex did what is so rare - he owned up and so now owns the dialogue. The mediots will flail about for a year or two, but by the end of his career and hopefully with a championship or three, he'll have added an emphatic "So what?" to the entire era. Alex will have wrestled back the storyline from the people least able to tell an honest version without the "OMG!!1!" moralizing.

More to the point, who remembers the sportwriters that demonized Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle or Joe Dimaggio just to sell a paper or book? Lupica and Madden are the pimples on the butt of history.

I wish we still had Halberstam. It takes someone like that to put this into a proper historical perspective, not some hacks at tabloids on a slow sports day.

these idiots, especially rosenthal, just show how hypocritical most of the media is. almost to a t, they instructed arod to just fess up and come clean and that would be the best for him and everyone invloved. then bam! the sucker punch they always throw comes.

if the media doesn't see their complicitness in every facet of all the bs going on everywhere they are more clueless, incompetent, and harmful than ever, and they need to be made to re-watch season 5 of the wire until they get it.

now, when are the yanks going to sign manny or even dunn - might as well keep the news coming at this point.

@9

That's exactly why this admission is so amazing to me. Dude had many avenues to deny, deny, deny especially based on this report. Props to him for saying "Fuck it" and finally having the buck stop with him. He does have the benefit of playing the next nine years with rigorous testing. If he performs any where close to what he did over the last two seasons, he shuts up all the loud mouths who want to rail against something they weren't apart of and had no ability to control. It's a Greek chorus where the tragic hero shuts them up through his actions and words.

As to your summation, we live in an overmedicated society. Almost every other commercial is a drug. I realize these are legal substances (many steroids are as well), but do we really know what were are putting into our body. When I looked up Primobolan on google, I found about 3-4 other names for the steroid. It doesn't surprise me to learn that an athlete would take something without really knowing what is...focusing on the end result, not the chemistry. Also, by not really investigating these chemicals, it allows the athletes a kind of dont ask, don't tell illusion.

Furthermore, what do you gain by admitting to using PEDs, but keeping quite on which one? The only thing I can think of would be legal reasons, not culpability reasons.

[2-4] Would anyone be reading Madden otherwise. This is a big story and going off the cliff with reason is a sure fire way to get noticed.

[5] You made that up!

On the bit about not knowing what he took: Who cares? How does it matter one way or another? If he now admitted to taking bong hits before every at-bat for the last twenty years, what would that change?

Well, it would make me a much bigger fan of his...

Whoa guys. I understand fans of A Rod getting annoyed with some of the media coverage but now you're going a little overboard lauding him for simply doing what EVERYONE should do when they screw up. There's absolutely nothing heroic about having the basic decency to admit when you did something wrong. I mean, good for him because lots of these guys can't be bothered to even do that, but using Bonds, Clemens or McGuire as a standard won't get us very far.

Morning coffee and hard to drink with a dropped jaw at the utter imbecilities out there in Diane's links (and elsewhere). Rosenthal may win the Upper Class Twit of the Year Award with his argument which essentially means - as noted here by Rich - that Rodriguez is a slimy bum for not hiding, denying, no-commenting. Nothing about the sliminess of ONE name being leaked and covered so far? No, that would require a bit of THOUGHT! Maybe even a larger picture approach. MAYBE even comparing baseball to football. Saw one good note this morning saying that a similar drug use in the NFL TODAY would get 4 games, a small headline, and another urine cup in six weeks.

But as I re-read Madden, he may actually give Rosenthal a run for it. Query: if the other 103 names come out (of course that would be a breach of confidentiality) do their teams drop them, too, to make a statement? Just askin'... And let's remember that best I can tell, those 104 names are NOT the full picture, by any stretch.

I'm all in favour of sacking Bud (whose contract was at 17.5 million, right?) and Orza to make a statement about complicity and complacency, but I suppose to be fair (SOMEONE has to be, why not the Banterers?), we need to look beyond baseball and ask questions about the NFL's attitude to PEDs, too. Could we argue that baseball (with a gun to its head) is doing a far better job NOW of addressing this?

A few here were unhappy with ARod's 'loosey-goosey time' comment in his interview. Me, I see it as no more or less than a truth and one that echoes other things we've heard. An analogy? The 60s were a loosey-goosey era for drugs and sex. Is someone noting that to be condemned for the remark, or are they just saying the truth? Isn't it human nature to run with the prevailing trends of your culture? We can shake our heads at collective stupidity from the past, but we'd better have a look at our own collective stupidities, too. AND we wanted those homer chases.

As to your summation, we live in an overmedicated society. Almost every other commercial is a drug. I realize these are legal substances (many steroids are as well), but do we really know what were are putting into our body.

That's exactly what we'll remember in twenty years. People started injection shit into their faces to remove wrinkles. Other people were taking pills to get a hard on. Kids started getting drugs to pay attention in school. Some folks took stuff to get and stay strong.

Legal or not legal doesn't bother me when pharmaceutical companies have huge lobbies to approve their latest, even when sufficient testing hasn't been done, nutritional supplements are regulated, but a weeds that could easily grow in your garden is deemed illegal (but the last three presidents have used).

We're finally waking up to the folly of of these distinctions. It's just going to take another few decades for the mediots, and their propaganda, to reflect that.

[19]

"There’s absolutely nothing heroic about having the basic decency to admit when you did something wrong."

Correction: "...having the decency to admit you did something wrong, only after getting caught, and qualifying your admission by slipping in that it was a looser era."

Then again, the growing consensus around here is that he didn't actually do anything wrong, and that he didn't know it was wrong either. I say, just go with the flow.

[19]

Bonds, Clemens and McGwire (and Sosa and Palmeiro) are not the standard in terms of ethics, they have been the NORM in terms of conduct. There's a difference. It is entirely reasonable to compare Rodriguez to that norm ... and do note what Rosenthal does with it to blast him! As far as 'he only did it cause he was outed' ... anyone else, ANYONE else in that 104 come forward? Or will they use the Rosenthal Defence? (I couldn't admit, even though I wanted to, cause it would put pressure on other guys.)

To be honest, I'm uneasy enough about the contempt of court and illegality of the leak, to feel that there may be a good argument that in the larger scheme of things, the other guys SHOULD be protected and keep silent, because this is about more than baseball ... but on the baseball issue, it feels lame beyond words to attack Rodriguez for an admission and apology and stupid to some nth power to suggest sacking/dropping him as some sort of uniquely guilty user.

There’s absolutely nothing heroic about having the basic decency to admit when you did something wrong.

Yeah, you say that as someone who likely doesn't know what it means to have your identity of the last twenty to thirty years tied to that one admission. I don't. All lies are not created equal.

I honestly can not think of a bigger lie for a public figure in my lifetime. Spitzer and Clinton come close, but who thinks politicians are ever trustworthy? And A-Rod just went further than they ever did in owning up.

Everyone thought A-Rod was clean and so would save the sport. He still might. In twenty years, the argument for A-Rod and Bonds looks very similar. If they are afforded their historical place, then so will be everyone else of the era.

[19] I basically agree, but 'decency' may be the highest standard we can hope for these days. Beats the alternative, I guess.

Are Madden & Rosenthal trying to make A-Rod look good here by writing moronic columns? Everyone connected to the steroids issue is looking bad.

Personally, I think a lot more than 104 players were using some sort of banned PED. But they knew the test was coming and cycled off, or were able to mask it or it wasn't tested for.

Just not Mo.

Joba as #5 starter sounds about right. Less pressure in that slot, he just needs to work on being more economical with his pitches.

[17] I wish.

[20] "Is someone noting that to be condemned for the remark, or are they just saying the truth? Isn’t it human nature to run with the prevailing trends of your culture?"

Hi, my name is Hans, and in 1943 I was just following orders--you know, just going with the crowd. Its just human nature.
.
.

It may be human nature to follow the crowd, but I still subscribe to the old-fashioned notion of personal responsibility. If I get drunk at a frat party, where everyone is drinking, and then run over a coed, my apology had better not contain the words "well, it was a crazy time back in college...a lot looser then." While what he said may be true, in the context in which he said (a public admission and sort-of apology), his loosey-goosey statement was objectionable. Being an adult and admitting to wrongdoing should mean not trying to mitigate your actions, even if just that one time.

[28] No need to Godwin the thread. There's a huge difference between being part of the crowd by ingesting substances (reminds me of my college years) and killing people.

I could very easily see a younger player, with the richest contract ever, coming into a new clubhouse where a bunch of established players were using substances to try and improve their performance. Doesn't make it right, but I can understand it.

monkey ... wow, we got to the Nazi card fast! I value the Banter so much because discussions tend to remain polite ... this IS just baseball, after all. But when you ratchet up to that level, you are profoundly insulting those who disagree with you, and have to expect a reply.

Forgive me, but that feels like lazy, lame and even hysterical arguing. NO one will argue for the virtue of the person involved here (in a vastly and unspeakably lesser case), just as no one will argue that doing pot or acid in the 60s was 'right' just because a whole dorm was. But if you want to argue that norms mean nothing in terms of human conduct, you have some thinking to do, I'll suggest, respectfully.

I subscribe as much as you, I daresay, to personal responsibility as a measure of maturity and basic decency. But if you want to say that someone who decides not to jaywalk in New York is equally virtuous compared to someone in Singapore where it is a serious crime ... you're missing too much of life. Want another example, a more dramatic one, pitched towards the level you invite? A woman walking with her head uncovered in Manhattan, and one doing so in the Swat Valley in Pakistan. The actions are completely different.

Loosey-goosey was a REALITY. It is snapshot of an era and almost undeniably a true one. Or why are we talking about so many athletes? Actually ... we're only talking about one guy right now. No one else is on record are they? Oh. Right. Canseco.

Query: is it really not self-indulgent to use 'old-fashioned' as a reason to declare nothing mitigates anything? If you say 'yes' then we'll just have to disagree, pretty decisively. I'll add that the criminal justice system in every democracy I know of distinguishes between the fact of guilt and issues relevant to sentencing, where mitigating circumstances are cited to measure culpability.

[24] Why are people looking to anyone to save a sport that is thriving? In a way, this controversy, as overblown as it is, is heartening to me, because it illustrates how baseball is still very special and unique. No one cares about what NFL players really do, but we still want our baseball players to be walking saints who live in cornfields. Ironically, the scrutiny baseball receives is a good thing...it shows that people care and the game remains the national pastime.

That ESPN commercial kills me. I hadn't seen it in a while. Something tells me that little girl was probably hopped up on goofballs in order to stay up all night and practice her presentation.

[28] This isn't a black and white issue. Taking steroids and committing genocide are light years apart. While I agree that nothing mitigates against certain moral absolutes (the sanctity of human life), I don't think steroid use comes close to meeting that level.

It's kind of unfair to ask to Arod to cone clean, but then refuse him the opportunity to explain some of the factors that led him down the path. In that case, it seems the only correct approach would be a simple statement: "I did steroids. Sorry."

[29] [30]

"No need to Godwin the thread."

"monkey … wow, we got to the Nazi card fast! I value the Banter so much because discussions tend to remain polite … this IS just baseball, after all. But when you ratchet up to that level, you are profoundly insulting those who disagree with you, and have to expect a reply."

Guilty as charged. My point is that just once I want to see someone (a player, politician, myself, whoever) apologize or make an admission without mitigation. I do not want to hear implicit justifications (well, everyone was doing it) or false or conditional apologies (if anyone misunderstood me, I apologize for their own reaction).

The reference to the loosey-goosey era was bullshit mitigation in that context, and as such it undermines his sort-of admission-apology. And I stand by that assessment.

I also stand by my extreme comparison in as much as that is where these generally permissive, relativistic, society-made-me-do-it justifications, er, apologies, lead. When I posted on this topic a few days ago--a list of ten or so arguments--one was that I thought the way in which fans have either chosen to deem steroid use no big deal, or to lap up these lame apologies, betrayed a disheartening cynicism in our society. When it becomes impossible for an adult to be an adult--a man to be a man--and own up to his own actions, without mitigation or rationalization, then we live in dark times indeed.

[30] "is it really not self-indulgent to use ‘old-fashioned’ as a reason to declare nothing mitigates anything?"

I'm not sure I follow the precise semantics of this sentence. But I will admit to using terms like quaint and old-fashioned self-indulgently. I just get the feeling that I am a simple sort, not as sophisticated or nuanced as most everyone else here. I see right and wrong where everyone else sees grey. I subscribe to ideals of right and wrong, even if they cannot be reached, whereas others seem to cast these aside as outdated morality. So I conclude that I am an old-fashioned sort.

[30] "But if you want to say that someone who decides not to jaywalk in New York is equally virtuous compared to someone in Singapore where it is a serious crime … you’re missing too much of life. Want another example, a more dramatic one, pitched towards the level you invite? A woman walking with her head uncovered in Manhattan, and one doing so in the Swat Valley in Pakistan. The actions are completely different."

No, this is where you and I differ. At root, you are are a relativist, because you see right and wrong as defined by the culture within which an action takes place. I see right and wrong as universals (even though we imperfect humans always strive to figure out what right and wrong is), so that societies in which "wrong" behavior is condoned are "bad" societies. Otherwise, I am not sure where you are going with this line of reasoning.

[23] Well listen, that sounds like a bit of semantic hair-splitting between "standard" and "norm" ... You are welcome to compare, as you say, but I'm talking about praising the guy. My point remains: Giving someone credit for NOT being a complete heel doesn't make much sense to me. Similarly:

[24] I can't subscribe to the notion that A Rod should get more credit because his lie was especially big. That amounts to rewarding a bigger crime over a smaller one. Instead of praising someone more for admitting a big lie, I'll save my admiration for those that kept their nose clean in the first place. Even then, my admiration is pretty limited. As I mentioned, they're just doing what they're supposed to do.

Again - Chris Rock:

"'I ain't never been to jail!'

What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!"

[33] "It’s kind of unfair to ask to Arod to cone clean, but then refuse him the opportunity to explain some of the factors that led him down the path. In that case, it seems the only correct approach would be a simple statement: 'I did steroids. Sorry.'"

That is exactly what I want to see. I would love to see such a statement come spontaneously (more or less), not in some rehearsed "interview" format or staged statement (a la Andy). It could then be followed by another simple statement: "Now is not the time to discuss my thinking at the time any further. I will talk about that openly on X date. For now, I want to make clear that what I did was wrong, and I take full personal responsibility for my actions."

Now, this being said, I do not really "blame" A-Rod for going the route that he did. The entire public square is full of such fake apologies and carefully crafted half-omissions. Indeed I fully expected A-Rod to present us with such an apoligexplanexcuse. I simply am not going to be impressed by his statement. And, it only deepens my belief of what a screwed society we live in.

Quote of the day thus far:

"Taking steroids and committing genocide are light years apart. "

For the record:

A-Rod

Career: .306 .389 .578

2001
Home - .361 .439 .677
Away - .276 .359 .567

2002
Home - .323 .403 .700
Away - .277 .381 .547

2003
Home - .314 .407 .621
Away - .282 .384 .577

Seems like the steroids only worked in Texas, Abraham!

[34] Let's courteously disagree, then. There is a long space, I think, between abject relativism and 'moral universals'. In that long space I think most people live. The Taliban have moral universals, too, monkey. They just aren't YOUR moral universals. Until you sort that through, it doesn't really work to say 'right and wrong' are universal. Among other things, you end up forced to declare, for example, Revolutionary America a 'bad' society' for slavery (among other things), and no discussion of global or historical context is allowed. If we aren't careful we'll end up straight at evaluating Jefferson as a good or bad man (he'd have been a decent shortstop, mind you). YOU have no choice but to declare him evil, based on what you have said. My point (I'm leaving this angle now, just answering your query about what I meant) is that context is relevant to our actions. This is NOT the same as saying they are 'right' actions. I believe (not sure) this is where you are misunderstanding me.

[38] Bum Rush, thanks for the digging. William suggested this yesterday, and I was pretty sure his career blips were Texas-park-factor. Looks that way, doesn't it?

Of course now stand by as Our Man William comes back to use this data to argue steroids don't help! (William, I've agreed with you so much the last two days, you can't object to a BIT of needling, right?)

[34]
Guilty as charged. My point is that just once I want to see someone (a player, politician, myself, whoever) apologize or make an admission without mitigation. I do not want to hear implicit justifications (well, everyone was doing it) or false or conditional apologies (if anyone misunderstood me, I apologize for their own reaction).

OK, I'd like to see that too. However in an interview, with one person or a horde of media the first question is going to be "Did you do PEDs" After "Yes. I was wrong I apologize", the next question is "Why", to which the answer is "it was the culture of the time".

I'm not much for moral relativism, but I do look at the punishment for the crimes. Speeding gets you a small fine, while murder gets a lengthy jail sentence. That tells me speeding is mush less of a crime.
Steroid use 2001-03 was against the rules, but there was no punishment as there was for other drugs like cocaine.
That tells me that steroid use then wasn't such a major issue. It is now, but I'm not going to retroactively use the current standard for past behavior.

[34] There's too much philosophy in that argument to debate here, but I think you are making a mistake in suggesting that to be "wrong" an action can't have an explanation: I stole the food because I was hungry; I cheated on the test because I needed to pass the class; I lied on my resume because I needed a job.

Just because you provide context and explain the factors that led you to do something wrong doesn't mean you aren't accepting responsibility. It seems as if you are really making an argument of good versus evil, in which all wrong actions are committed by inherently evil people.

[39]

"Among other things, you end up forced to declare, for example, Revolutionary America a ‘bad’ society’ for slavery (among other things), and no discussion of global or historical context is allowed."

OK, we'll agree to disagree and step away. But before I leave this topic, you have misunderstood me here. One need not conclude that revolutionary America was "bad" in its totality. But, in my book, the practice of slave owning was bad, because slave owning is wrong. There is no context that makes slavery right. Context does, however, help us understand how and why individuals and groups behaved the way the did (or do).

[41]

"OK, I’d like to see that too. However in an interview, with one person or a horde of media..."

Point taken.

[38] I mentioned this yesterday...ironically, the ignorance of people could play into Arod's favor as they will look at those three years, see they stand out, and conclude he only took steroids those three years. Now, the real story is park factor is the culprit, and Arod has been a great player since high school and after testing, but it's almost easier to just get people to believe that 2001-2003 is the only illegitimate period.

[42]

"Just because you provide context and explain the factors that led you to do something wrong doesn’t mean you aren’t accepting responsibility."

Maybe. It just seems that such explanations are really implicit excuses, which in effect take away from responsibility.

" It seems as if you are really making an argument of good versus evil, in which all wrong actions are committed by inherently evil people."

Incorrect. I never said anything about "inherently evil" people. I said that certain actions are wrong. People are flawed and we make mistakes all the time--that does not make people "evil." It also does not make "wrong" or "bad" actions any less wrong or bad. My argument has always dealt with actions, not with "inherent" characteristics of individuals or groups as a whole.

The thing is - how does that explanation come about - is it volunteered, rather quickly after admitting guilt, like with A Rod - and what IS the explanation? In the case of "I was hungry so I stole food" there is a problem that is solved in an unethical way. In the case of "He pissed me off so I shot him in the face", a problem is also solved in an unethical way. It's a question of the nature of the problem and the nature of the solution.

I don't think A Rod had a very compelling problem so ANY solution is suspect. And to me it sounds like he's making an excuse for what he did. Even more so when you say "No I'm not making an excuse. Totally my fault, 100%. Remember though ... it was a loosey goosey era."

[40] I don't mind needling at all...what might rattle me a little is some evidence showing that I am wrong! :)

Is it wrong to point out that the discussion of good versus is evil is exactly why I love the show "Lost"? It's an entire meditation on the subject and the initial flashbacks as a plot device were a convenient way to show how interpreting a character one way was extremely malleable if you showed that same character from a different angle.

@ 45

But those same simpletons will have a very hard time explaining 2007, for instance, and any year now that comes close. He's got at least nine years to keep proving them wrong. And he already knows they are.

What A-Rod should do now is, with the Union's blessing, start pushing for blood testing. Prove beyond any doubt he's now clean AND top his numbers from 2001-03.

"Cheating is baseball's oldest profession. No other game is so rich in skullduggery, so suited to it or so proud of it." - Thomas Boswell

To me, I have a hard time getting bent out of shape over "tarnished HoF careers" when Whitey Ford and Gaylord Perry have been inducted.

I think its pretty unreasonable to expect anyone to "just come clean" when we are talking about something seemingly so important or big issue. Of course it isn't such a big deal in the long run when you really look at it, but to A-Rod, and most of the country, it is treated as a huge deal. I mean, its hard enough for people to tell the truth on an hour by hour basis, let alone on more important topics. And then the lies pile onto each other and make it even more difficult, carrying with them a weight disproportionate to the actual crime/original lie itself.

Sure, it would be a wonderful world if everyone would just come clean without any prompting, and nobody did bad things, but lets be perfectly honest with ourselves--we don't work that way. People lie and do bad things. All the time. In fact, its far easier for people to try and cover things up then come clean. Or at least it appears that way to the person involved.

Who in the world, for no other reason than to be honest/truthful, is going to go up to a policeman and tell him/her that they just ran a stop sign? Who is going to go back to the grocery store and tell them that they undercharged you for something? Who is even going to confess to their professor/teacher that they saw someone's answers while taking a test?

And in terms of sports, when was the last time somebody, who wasn't retired/trying to sell a book, came out and admitted to cheating/doing something bad? It took Mantle what, 30 years?

Obviously it would have been better if A-Rod's guilt drove him to admit steroid use unprompted. On the other hand, it would have been even better had he just not taken anything.

[48] "I don’t mind needling at all…"

Hm, I always took you as the rubbing kind, as a lot of things do seem to rub you the wrong way. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that none of that would be liniment >;)

[49] Sweet. I'm totally a Lost junkie.

And on another related note, when you look at the idiots running baseball and writing about it, its really hard for me to care about players using roids. There is such generalized incompetence in baseball and the media, that it is really hard for me to read anything they wright without turning against them. Its amazing that their writing coul actually make me feel for A-Rod...Yikes.

[51] Lucky for me, I stopped caring about the HoF years ago.

[56] Second...

[50] There was testing in 2007, so he doesn't need to worry about that year. The blood test is also meaningless because HGH is not a PED (according to scientists, not the media). Then again, most people listen to the media over science, so you are probably right.

Yeah but HGH is still a banned substance. Technically maybe it's not a PED, but come on - talk about hair-splitting.

Aside from Howard Bryant and Steve Goldman, I don't believe there are any 'mainstream' sports writers that publish anything of value. We are all starved for baseball news, and like The National Enquirer and reality TV, no matter how stupid or exploitive the media are, we will read them and comment.

It's a waste of oxygen. Almost nothing I read (outside of blogs) is interesting or thought provoking. And at the bottom of the pile are moralist who suggest "we dump ARod and his salary". I hate to read stuff that was written purely to generate controversy in it's stupidity. I feel I promote them by giving them traffic.

Frankly, I read almost nothing that is as well written as Alex's posts. For real info I come here, RLYW, RAB, Think Factory, BP and a few other sites. I'm amazed thet many blogs are much better then mainstream news/writing.

[59] It's not hair splitting when our focus is the integrity of the stats. Marijuana is a banned substance, but that doesn't make it a PED (unless the competition is attacking the post game spread)..

I attribute some of A-Rod's vagueness to an awkward attempt to protect his forward teammates. "It was a loosey-goosey culture back then" really meant that steroids were as accessible as jelly doughnuts (pre-Girardi) in the Texas clubhouse. But by singling out the Texas clubhouse, he would be inviting the follow-up question of "who else was using."

[61] I was hoping that the A-Rod revelation would put the "statistical integrity" nonsense to sleep once and for all. We are no longer talking about a handful of super-juiced "cheaters." We are talking about an era (1995-2002) that was power-intensive for several reasons, PEDs being one of them. Historical statistics have always required adjustments for era, and stats from this era are no different.

[61] I'm not trying to say HGH is or isn't a PED, (because I don't know technically what its category is or even how stringent these definitions are) just that unlike marijuana but like PEDs, it is used for in-game advantage.

[63] It will never put that "nonsense" to rest, for reasons that I have mentioned. Rather, the widespread (but surely not universal) use, in varying degrees, for varying lengths, and with (no doubt) varying impact from person to person, will mean that a cloud of suspicion will always hang over this generation. How can we ever really know if (in my favorite example) Frank Thomas was a better player than Mark McGwire or Jeff Bagwell, if we don't know who used? And if we can't evaluate players, via statistics, within the generation, then surely comparisons across generations are compromised.

[65]

Tom House mentioned in an article that steroids have been around since the 60s & 70s. I'm sure you can make cases in every decade about substances players ingested. So what makes "the steroid era" any different?

[66] Gut instinct answer: the (apparent) widespread use, including by a number of the game's best players, who went on to put up historical great numbers both in terms of single season and career totals, using substances that most believe provide some sort of real competitive advantage--these combine to make this era of a different sort.

That's my impressionistic response.

[67]

From the article;
House, later an accomplished pitching coach with Texas and now co-founder of the National Pitching Association near San Diego, said performance- enhancing drugs were widespread in baseball in the 1960s and '70s. He and his teammates laughed and rationalized losses by saying, "We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed. And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."

House described the dynamic as similar to the majors in recent years: Players knew their competition had chemical help and felt compelled to keep pace. He said he and several teammates used amphetamines (known as "greenies"), human growth hormone and "whatever steroid" they could find.

so, according to House, it was just as widespread back then. Who knows, maybe the games best players were on the stuff back then too.

substances that most believe provide some sort of real competitive advantage

But do they really? Have you seen some of the guys that have taken the stuff? For every Bonds, there is an Alex Sanchez, for every Pettitte, there's a Ryan Franklin.

Just because one believes something does not make it true; ask any MLB hitter about protection in the order, and they'll swear by it. And on the surface, it makes sense. However, the analysis shows that it doesn't exist.

why am I listening to Mike Francesa right now? Why am I doing this to myself?

[68] Again, I said it was a combination of many factors. No one in the 1960s and 1970s was setting HR records. The offensive explosion, the shattering of a number of single season and career records, as well as a number of high profile career "freaks" (Clemens, R. Johnson to a degree, Maddux, Ripken, Bonds, to name a few) *seems* to indicate something more fishy is going on.

And that is why there will long remain more suspicion--and more anger--over this era. Whether the suspicion is rooted in reality will never be known for sure, as you say. But the suspicion will remain.

BTW, the following: "He and his teammates laughed and rationalized losses by saying, “We didn’t get beat, we got out-milligrammed." I'm not sure this quote can be pushed too far as evidence.

[64] It may be used with the intention of providing an in-game advantage, but studies show that it doesn't provide those effects.

[70] Perhaps no one was setting records because, although taking steroids, they didn't have the advanced equipment and wealth-induced time to dedicate themselves to training. Assuming that's true, then when you eliminate the common denominator, what's left in the equation is today's players have better access to training aides as well as the time to dedicate themselves to it (off season work outs instead of off season jobs)?

We all know steroids were rampant in the NFL in the 1970s, so why not baseball? The difference between then and now was the substances were legal and no one knew about them. The fact that they are illegal now doesn't mean they are more of an advantage then they were before the government got involved.

[72] "We all know steroids were rampant in the NFL in the 1970s, so why not baseball? "

An interesting point. But it used to be common wisdom that bulking up did not help in baseball (some even held that it hurt flexibility) as it did in football, or (for example) body building. So it is entirely reasonable that steroids were NOT as widespread in baseball as in football (indeed, I suspect that is still the case).

"Perhaps no one was setting records because, although taking steroids, they didn’t have the advanced equipment..."

Perhaps. But the suspicion will remain. And I contest that steroids are the common denominator--you need to show that the usage was the same, by the same caliber of player, with the same caliber of PEDs--in order for roids to be a common denominator that can be subtracted from both sides of the equation.

Since this cannot be demonstrated, suspicion will remain. Since the very best players of this generation are linked with usage (were there suspicions about Mays or Mantle using PEDs?), attention is heightened and suspicion is deeper and more enduring.

[68] Interesting quote, Raf. And steroids were REALLY dangerous back then ...there's an article (I think SI) about the tragedy of those East German female swimmers who looked like men - we all hated them back then as vile cheats. But they didn't WANT to be taking those horse steroids, the drugs ruined their lives.

I haven't heard a comment on my question about football. That quote this morning about using the same steroids NOW in the NFL would get four games and a new urine cup. It is possible to argue that baseball is taking a BETTER line (or at least a more aggressive one) under pressure than other pro sports. It is also pretty obvious (seems to me) that posters here and elsewhere are right ... the greenies epidemic surely affects all THOSE records too, from 60s on. In other words, Hank, Mays, Gibson, Koufax (remember how much pain he had), Mantle, Maris ... aren't they equally 'tainted' or put in doubt by that culture?

More I think about it, much as I hate the notion of a non-steroid user at a disadvantage in keeping a job, or pursuing the top-echelon, isn't there at least a whiff of piety and narrow focus on THIS decade's scandal? I agree with monkey (!) that what seems to arouse outrage is the offensive explosion, the records, but there were pitching records in the 60s, and Hank and Roger.

Hmm, I wonder if it might be that greenies were EVERYWHERE in 60s and 70s, levelling that field completely, whereas top-end designer steroids and careful programs for them were some percentage of players.

I suppose if I follow my own (sort of) reasoning here, everyone we're debating, whose stats are good enough, gets in the HoF, since all the greenie guys are in already. You use the sliding assessment of 'good enough' to keep Palmeiro out! This generation's guys ... Sosa, Pudge, McGwire, Bonds are no more or less tainted than those 30 years before them.

(Bonds or Clemens may be special cases, if perjury charges stick. That's a distinct 'bring the game into disrepute' though the irony would then be, if they'd told the truth ...) Hmm. ARod looks smarter by the post.

[74] I think baseball has absolutely taken a stronger line against steroids, although our society is more to thank for that. While the policies may be the similar, the stigma is much different. Maybe that's why baseball players resisted testing for so long...because they knew they would be held to a much higher standard than in the other major sports?

[75] We need to start disagreeing again William!

But that's essentially what I'm thinking. Plus, your comment about 'our society is more to thank for that' takes us right back to absolutes and relativism, doesn't it?

We're in an age where there's a lot of aggressive environmental awareness, health awareness, a lot of awareness of foods, diet supplements (vitamin D, whatever), and more of a sense it is 'our business' if people smoke, drink too much, weigh too much (puts economic pressure on the medical system, you know). This is, in other words, NOT a loosey-goosey time. If congress is chasing baseball, that just about proves it. And so I'm now thinking about how much of the current anger at players is a function, in relative terms, of the age we're in. (I'm aware this isn't NEW, these things are cyclical, I suspect.)

The reasoning I find odd is that it's ok to have steroids, PED's whatever in baseball (and they have been around for a while now) as long as the players don't set any records?

The offensive explosion

So then how do you explain the 30's in baseball?

as well as a number of high profile career “freaks” (Clemens, R. Johnson to a degree, Maddux, Ripken, Bonds, to name a few) *seems* to indicate something more fishy is going on.

*seems* would be accurate, as in a few names that you mentioned, the stats really don't jibe.

From PeteAbe's blog:

"Meanwhile, Miguel Tejada apparently cut a deal to plead guilty to lying to Congress about steroids. The charges were filed today.

It’s certain that some grandstanding Congressman will try and get A-Rod to Washington. Rep. Elijah Cummings already has mentioned it. As I have written before, I find it a complete waste of time and money for Congress to investigate ballplayers.

Let the leagues handle it and have Congress deal with — oh, I don’t know — war, terrorism, the economy and education. What A-Rod did in 2003 is not really a pressing matter."

(Agreed. Maybe the outrage should also focus on grandstanding congressmen?)

In baseball news, he mentions that Wang and Phil are in Tampa already with Eiland, Thomson and Oppenheimer and things look good for them so far. Fresh air!

[78] Also, I mentioned yesterday how Alex was the first big star to openly admit steroid use and that this could lead to others doing the same. With Tejada cutting a deal so soon after the "revelation", could the floodgates be about to open? I would actually be interested in the reaction if every roster in MLB had at least a couple of their stars on that list; perhaps the outrage would dissipate or the conversation would change dramatically if this issue were spread around fairly evenly and thick.

P&C in what, t-minus 3-1/2 days and counting??

[77]

"The reasoning I find odd is that it’s ok to have steroids, PED’s whatever in baseball (and they have been around for a while now) as long as the players don’t set any records?"

You are distorting my position. I never said it was "ok" (nor do I believe that upset fans think it was ok). Rather, it is easier to brush off steroid use if it is believed not to be widespread, mostly by fringe or mediocre players, whose achievements will have no lasting "historical" impact. The thought that record holders obtained their marks through PEDs undoubtably will bother people more. This is intuitive, no? We care about who is #1 on the HR list, not who is #273. Such concern about a place-holder is, one could argue, irrational. That may be, but that's the way it is, I think (and especially with baseball, where certain numbers have achieved such mythical status).

"So then how do you explain the 30’s in baseball?"

Quite simple, really. The relatively new live ball and the recent adoption of a new offensive strategy (try to hit HRs) led to an increase in scoring, before defensive and pitching strategies changed.

Again, I am not saying that other factors have not contributed to the offensive explosion of the 90s. Nor am I denying that features of the "steroid age" are present in other decades. But it is hard to escape noticing, I think, the particular combination of factors in the "steroid age," which (I believe) has contributed to the very strong reaction. Really, has there ever been an era when the era's best pitcher and tope few hitters--arguable the greatest of all time--have been implicated in performance-related behavior that is seen by most as cheating (at worst), shady (at best)?

"as in a few names that you mentioned, the stats really don’t jibe."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. My point is that doubt will be cast on the entire era. Thus, in thirty years, instead of celebrating Maddux's amazing career, there will be whispers that maybe--just maybe--his longevity was the product of PEDs. Or that A-Rod's (or Pujols, etc.) HR totals are chemically enhanced. The innocent will be balled together with the guilty, and looking for the stats to "jibe" won't make a difference, since conflicting studies and arguments and the variety of contributing factors will make it impossible to determine who was helped how much when.

For many, presumably like yourself, the ambiguities will make it easy to say "who cares." In thirty years this will be an era just like any other. For others, like myself and (i suspect) many more, the entire era will always have that taint of suspicion. I am now suspicious of every star player for the last twenty plus years, of every amazing performance, of every stellar season and remarkable career.

Moreover, instead of leaving me with a sense of wonder that we enjoyed a golden age of baseball, with feats not seen in generations, I am left numbed by staggering stat totals and numbers that have long since lost meaning. 50 HRs? Big deal.

Bah to those baseball writer idiots who think they know the inner workings of the Yankees and can dictate what actions they should take! After listening to Joe Girardi on Mike Francesa today, the last thing they are going to do is "sever ties" with A-Rod! At $300M guaranteed, it's not going to happen. Rather, we are going to see his numbers decline for nine more years the way we did with Giambi during his contract. We are fortunate in that A-Rod really didn't need banned substances to be better than his contemporaries though, and that will reflect itself on what he can still do for quite a while. Giambi? Not so much...

I'd be more interested in knowing if these guaranteed contracts would continue to be paid if there is a work stoppage when the current CBA expires!

Hell, I'd rather the Yankees close their clubhouse to all these "journalists" once and for all! I mean Ken Rosenthal hangs out by the grounds crew during games for a reason! He's always trying to get the wrong kind of dirt!

;)

Thank god, someone had to say it.

"The American people need leaders who will focus on stemming job losses and getting credit to flow in the marketplace before hearing from yet another person who cheated both himself and the game of baseball," said House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Edolphus Towns, a Democrat from New York.

I wonder if Tejada is going to prison.

So Alex gets lucky and doesn't have to go before Congress. Good thing. I don't think that I could stomach any more of his lies. I hope that he goes silent and focuses on baseball from now on.

[82] Clever lad...

I do wonder if now that the cat's out the bag, so to speak, if those sky-rocketing salaries that GMs and such were so concerned about will begin to fall back to earth a little in the coming years. It should follow that with diminished production should be diminished reward; after all the argument's been made that the reason why many PED takers did so in the first place was to make more money. The owners and management had some amount of complicity in this, so if they are so shocked and awed by the extend of PED use, should not the market reflect that (or is it just me)?

I am now suspicious of every star player for the last twenty plus years, of every amazing performance, of every stellar season and remarkable career.

And my point is that you should be suspicious of players for the past 40 years, if what House is saying is true. And he isn't the only one talking about steroids. Bill Lee talks about drug use at USC when he played there

My point is that wrong is wrong, no matter who says it or does it. Whether the player is Alex Rodriguez or Matt Lawton, there should be an outrage that there are steroids in the game. That people are willing to shrug when the offender is Ryan Franklin, Neifi Perez, Damian Moss, etc, etc, etc, then get the torches and pitchforks ready when the player is Rafael Palmiero, Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, etc, etc, etc reeks of hypocrisy.

looking for the stats to “jibe” won’t make a difference, since conflicting studies and arguments and the variety of contributing factors will make it impossible to determine who was helped how much when.

Then why are people getting bent out of shape? Seems to me we're looking for reasons to be outraged. WRT statistics if PED/Steroids have any affect, shouldn't we at least prove that something is there before we decide to gnash teeth and render garments over the sanctity of the game? The metrics exist, we have better means of analysis at our disposal than generations past.

And that doesn't even cover the fact that spikes in player performance have happened long before "the steroid era." Were Davey Johnson & Darrell Evans shooting up in 1973? At the age of 39, when players are starting to slow down, Hank Aaron posted the following line; .301-40-96 (.402/.643). Was he on something? Bonds was on something in 2001. Was it something different from 2000 when he hit 49 HR? Was it something different the year later when he hit 46 HR?

We can do this all day for different players, different teams, different eras. Too much to worry about. I'd rather enjoy the game.

[83] Not if he turns informant; don't know what the plea agreement entails, but it's not likely. He was facing a year in prison before the plea deal.

You are distorting my position. I never said it was “ok” (nor do I believe that upset fans think it was ok).

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that was your position; I have heard that argument before, I just wanted to throw that out there, which is the reason I quoted your text afterwards. Sorry for any confusion.

[85]

"...then get the torches and pitchforks ready when the player is Rafael Palmiero, Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, etc, etc, etc reeks of hypocrisy."

I actually agree with you. But the reaction is understandable--the bigger names will be held to a higher standard, especially if their behavior is perceived to have greater impact (ie, mucking up the record books).

"Then why are people getting bent out of shape? Seems to me we’re looking for reasons to be outraged. WRT statistics if PED/Steroids have any affect, shouldn’t we at least prove that something is there before we decide to gnash teeth and render garments over the sanctity of the game? The metrics exist, we have better means of analysis at our disposal than generations past."

Because we will NEVER know entirely who used, when, etc. So all the metrics in the world will still not be able to overcome the basic doubt cast on the data. Moreover, while studies may one day demonstrate conclusively to what degree (if at all) PEDs actually improve performance, any scientist or doctor will admit that the general tendencies will manifest differently in each individual (assuming we even know who used what when, that players disclose their use honestly, and that we have access to detailed medical records for each individual). So even when everything is known, nothing will still be known.

Thus, forever and always this generation of players will have the shadow of doubt.

"We can do this all day for different players, different teams, different eras. Too much to worry about. I’d rather enjoy the game."

Here is where you and I differ. You say, in effect, don't worry be happy. I, on the other hand, have lost the ability to enjoy this game, at least just a bit. One of the aspects that I enjoy the most--the statistical side of the game--has been compromised in a way that will take a long, long time to fix. At least for me.

Wow..wake up to 90+ comments on moral relativism & steroids..Kant reply on the topic now, need to brush up on my categorical imperative first..maybe will head to LoHud's comments while I have my coffee, the "Can-noSuxxx" level of commentary there is more suitable for a just-woke-up brain...

[79] 3 days till P&C!

Ladies and Gentleman -

Your discourse on the topic has been very educational, but I'm ready to get back to the basics.

Pitchers and catchers report on Friday: a new season will begin.

A-Rod, and now, Miguel Tejada are getting their 15+minutes of exposure. I'm over it, and I'm not giving them more than their 15 minutes (though I will admit I watched the whole A-Rod interview on ESPN and gave it an hour, screamed at my TV and made a huge batch of brownies - there was no one else to constructively beat up over my frustration but eggs).

I'm impressed by the dedication of the fans of the Yankees, which lead me to the team in the first place (I'm a transplanted MN Twins observer - but was never a fan of baseball until I moved to the NYC area).

Call me naive, but lets get back to the basics. We love the game and we care. We are concerned about the legacy and the stats. Now I'm ready to move on and support my team. Baseball is 160+ opportunities of hope - as the moniker on this blog states (and I paraphrase): This ain't football - we do this everyday." I'm ready to get back to the everyday business of baseball. Play ball.

Had the ego's and greed of all involved not been so incredibly obscene from BOTH MLB and the MLBPA, they would have taken the high ground and used the same testing of blood samples done by FINA for international competitions including the Olympic Games years ago.

I'm afraid we really don't have such people of conscious and of morality in this country to have taken that productive path to clean up their game or their industry. I mean human lives were sold out to profits by corporate America long ago, right?

I'm reminded of the comic book genre used as a recent ad campaign with MLB's stars "lookin' all swole" like super heroes! Anyone remember that?

Although I think A Rod is a pill, one thing that annoys me is that some people will treat him as though he is part of some unethical minority in baseball. Anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise (or at least that the minority is pretty freaking large) ; I'd love it if everything was just laid bare so a few superstars don't have to shoulder the burden for the entire sport.

Let me say this: if the entire list of names is released to the public, they (whomever that may be) should also prosecute the people who leaked these names to the press. You shouldn't be allowed to break one rule and then get a pass on another. I'm still suspicious and cynical about Roberts' intentions when she reported only one name (it may or may not imply that she knew very well the sensitivity of the information and how much trouble she could cause for herself, never mind the person she reported on), but she had the right to report the information she had.

However, that information was given to her illegally, so if you are going to go after the athletes on the list, you also have top go after the people who compromised the protection of the names on that list. Otherwise... well, you either have rules, anarchy or revolution. Half-assing the prosecution of the law is one reason why we're having issues now, I believe, so either enforce it or change it, but either way get the eff out of the way.

Here is where you and I differ. You say, in effect, don’t worry be happy.

That isn't my attitude. My take is that if I'm going to be "morally outraged," I'm going to need a bit more proof than what is currently being presented from the public and sportswriters. Especially when it has been shown that steroids and associated performance enhancers have been around the game for 40 years. It's not that easy with me.

What annoys me, what bothers me is wasted talent. Vida Blue, Darryl Strawberry Dwight Gooden, etc will get me more bothered than anyone in this current era.

Yeah, that chattering little monkey, Mike Lupica, has been swinging down from the tree tops on a daily basis lately, apparently till he gets his fill of bashing ARod. Lupica sees himself as the guy to put all the bad people in their place, professional athletes or whoever, according to his self-righteous, holier than thou point of view.

Watching him on ESPN's "The Sports Reporters" is comical and telling. He'll babble out some sort of crap that he considers witty and insightful, and then quickly look over to the other members of the panel with a look on his face as if to say, " How 'bout that? That was a real gem, ya think?"

That part of his article mentioned above about the American League manager and the kool aid comment sounds phoney to me. Lupica quoting an anonymous American League manager. What American League manager said this, and to whom? To Lupica himself, or did he hear about this from somebody else? What AL manager would make such a comment about one of his opponents on the field, ARod and the Yankees, knowing it could come back to haunt him in many ways? Not too many managers are stupid enough to make insulting remarks about an opponent no matter what they're thinking. I swear, Lupica makes stuff up in an attempt to spice up his articles.

Anyway, sorry about the rants the last couple of days. It's sort of like therapy for me, getting it off my chest or whatever. This whole ARod business has been hard on all of us, I guess.

[94] Interesting perspective...and I agree. I am much more disappointed that we were deprived of seeing Strawberry hit more HRs and Gooden strike more guys out than I am in the possibility that lots of players may have added some performance to what otherwise would have been their normal output.

[95] I haven't read Mike Lupica in years, and feel much wiser as a result. I know it's hard to drive by the scene of a wreck without looking, but Lupica is so inane that I don't ever feel tempted to click on any link associated with his name.

how is bernie not ahead of moose in this poll?