I just can't believe that Roger Clemons was implicated in the Mitchell Report. His post-40 career renaissance and massive increase in muscle mass just screamed out "here's a clean guy." Shocking stuff.
« King of All Internet-Related Political Media | Main | Love That Filibuster »
Innocence Lost
13 Dec 2007 03:25 pm
Comments (73)
Isn't Roger Clemons the antichrist? So steroids is kinda ho-hum for him, isn't it?
I don't follow baseball much, I only know what I read from the sports guy - thus the antichrist comment - but it seems to me the press at large reveres Clemons. Is this the case? Does anyone else think Clemons and his kabillion dollar deal to work part time in a non-committal way (especially compared to how the press treated Prime Time for flying between Braves/Falcons games) gets treated with kid gloves?
I always wondered how an athlete with Clemons’ stature (or say, favre) gets treated during a scandal. This'll be an interesting look at the media as they attempt to portray Clemons the Hero and Clemons the cheater in the same pen.
1) It's Clemens
2) He didn't have a renaissance, he continued to sustain the same level of performance for an unusual length of time/at an unusual age
BFR is right, as are those, like MY, who opine on Clemens' utter frigging jackasshood.
If I'm reading the report correctly, 2001 was the last time Clemens is alleged to have used steroids. This would have been both before he hit age 40, and before his 2004 Cy Young season.
I think one could certainly argue that his career was flagging when the Yankees let him go. He hadn't thrown a sub-3 ERA since 1998. His 2002 WHIP was 1.306, and in 2003 he "only" got 190 Ks.
Then he comes back at 41 with the stupid Astros and throws 2.98 with 218 Ks. Hmmmm...
Of course, if what you're trying to say is that Clemens was juiced for his entire career, I could probably go along with that. He led the league in hit batsmen in 1995, and there was that ridiculous dust-up with Piazza in Game 2 of the 2000 Series. Looks a lot like 'roid rage to me.
Toady,
I doubt his entire career, likely those years he struggled with the Red Sox were clean. His resurgence after that maybe due to more than just developing his forkball.
Now if only that turd Curt Schilling would show up on this list my day would be made.....
Any clear concensus on who is bigger a**hole - Schilling or Clemens? I am torn....
Any clear concensus on who is bigger a**hole - Schilling or Clemens? I am torn....
Only one of those guys is campaigning for Mitt Romney right now.
Clemens appears to me to have a more mercenary quality than Schilling.
Color me unimpressed. They got the most dirt off the guy they had under indictment and then followed obvious leads. Also, there is an odor about the report in that the Red Sox are almost entirely absent. In the heyday of steroid use, I can't imagine that they didn't have a couple of guys juicing. Also, the whole thing is aimed squarely at the players, aside from a few conciliatory statements to the effect that "everybody's to blame, but we're only going to name players and not speculate too much about management/MLB's complicity in this issue."
Schilling is supporting John McCain. Is Roger Clemens campaigning for anybody?
Dubious Joe,
As I understood Mitchell, his whole focus was to "look forward instead of back". The reality is you're never going to get the complete story on who took steroids, but you can take measures to address steroid use in the future.
I don't think the connection to the Red Sox is that big a deal, although I have say his attempt to compare it to Northern Ireland was unimpressive. I do think Mitchell's connection to the Owners is a more legitimate concern. Also, Mitchell apparently really pissed off Donald Fehr, which is one of the reasons why the Players Union was so uncooperative.
By the way, just because the report produced no evidence that Clemens used steroids after 2001 doesn't prove he stopped using them. Remember, most of the information in the reort about specific players came from interviews with one supplier:
I have reported what I learned. But I acknowledge and even emphasize the obvious: there is much about the illegal use of performance enhancing substances in baseball that I did not learn. There were other suppliers and there have been other users, past and present. Many of those named in this report were supplied by Kirk Radomski. Yet plainly he was not the only supplier of illegal substances to major league players. Radomski himself said that some players told him they had other sources. And the evidence demonstrates that a number of players have obtained performance enhancing substances through so-called “rejuvenation centers” using prescriptions of doubtful validity.
Your sarcasm might be misplaced. It's entirely possible through hard work and proper diet to "bulk up" as the saying goes. After 30 post-high school years of shambling along I decided it was now or never on the get in shape scene. A steady 6 day a week regimin over 5 years has produced a weight increase of 35 pounds, going from 170 to 205. Cut doesn't describe me but my strength and various muscle measurements are vastly improved. I run minis and chase most people half my age out of the weight room. It doesn't take steroids, drugs, chemicals, special foods or expensive trainers. Hard work and patience do just fine. A younger man would probably net more dramatic results in less time doing the same thing.
Good point, Peter H. This report doesn't identify any more than a small fraction of players who are or were using illegal PEDs, nor does it pinpoint exactly when the named players started or stopped using. NOR DID IT HAVE TO.
One thing that is really bothering me about the so-called expert analysis of this report is the whine about how it's unfair because only some players were named. Is that how rule or law- enforcement works? We have to catch ALL the criminals until we can punish anyone? Mmmm. Well then, since we have all kinds of unsolved crimes in this country, what business do we have singling out only those criminals whose guilt was proven in a court of law? Why should they be the only ones who get punished?
Moronic.
Yes it is not a shock to see Clemons on the list. But is it a coincidence that Nook Logan is left unsigned by the Nationals on the very day his name appears on the list?
steve,
That's great that you got stronger and bigger through hard work. But some of the guys talked about in today's report are guys who put on 35 pounds IN ONE OFFSEASON. That's unusual. Especially when some of these guys were not working out 6 days a week. Nobody is saying that it's impossible to get bigger and stronger without chemical help; we're just acknowledging that many many professional athletes do this stuff and it's pretty clear why. And the evidence, for some of them, is now in.
tinisoli, my only point is be careful the size of the brush you're using to spread the tar.
Rocket's roid use has been well known in baseball circles for years. The media is constantly slurping him though so it was ignored.
Note that he returned to in the 2006 season after 50 games. What's the length of suspension for steroids? Oh, right 50 games...
I agree wholeheartedly. It's always been pretty obvious that scanning the dugouts for the big guys was a dumb way to commence the witch hunt, and many of the guys who have been outed by testing or this new report aren't even remotely large or impressively muscled (Paul Byrd, Ryan Franklin, etc.). On the other hand, what Bonds and Sosa and McGwire were doing on the ball field and how they appeared in their snug uniforms should have merited suspicion from anyone who had seen them in their earlier years. I still have Sosa rookie cards and it's hilarious how skinny he was back then.
And I would assume that all your workouts have not made your jaw muscles swell, as McGwire's did.
As to the comment the report doesn't have many red sox, well one most of the info comes from one or two sources neither of which were on teh red sox. If you notice there are a lot of names connected to the mets since one of their clubhouse peopel was the primary source. Also the report does mention Mo Vaughn, a fairly popular ex Boston player.
Number of 2007 Yankees named in the report: 2
Number of 2007 Red Sox named in the report: 2
So what's all this whining about Mitchell protecting the Red Sox?
If anything, the Sox FO comes off kinda bad because they seemed to suspect that Gagné and Donnelly had been juice guys, yet they acquired them nonetheless.
For those wondering why there isn't a single Red Sox in the Mitchell Report, Mitchell is a minority owner of the team. Some people here in Boston actually complained about that fact here months ago. We really didn't expect our team to get some damage from that report.
I couldn't go through all the comments, so this was already mentioned.
exD,
If anyone is "wondering why there isn't a single Red Sox in the Mitchell Report," they ought to READ the report or at least the press about it, so they can realize that there ARE Red Sox in it. Two from the 2007 roster, and plenty from years past.
KINDA LIKE THE YANKEES. Is George Mitchell protecting the Yankees, too?
tinisoli, I just went through the names again, no major Red Sox player. If I missed it let me know.
As for the Yankees, Roger Clemens, Jason Giambi, Andy Pettite...
While I agree with all the criticism of this report, I have to say that it makes me very happy. I hate steroid use in sports and I can't understand why anyone would attempt to justify it for any reason. I don't know why SCMT would be in the Bonds camp just because Clemens did roids. To me Bonds and Clemens are in the same camp of scumbags.
Names I saw mentioned pre-2 pm that turned out not to be included in the Report (suspect players in my book)
Garciaparra
Pujols
Johnny Damon
Pudge Rodriguez
Miguel Cabrera
Mark Prior
Kerry Wood
Going forward, I think it's clear that Bud Selig needs to resign and a Mountain Landis type needs to replace him.
For those wondering why there isn't a single Red Sox in the Mitchell Report, Mitchell is a minority owner of the team.
tinisoli, I just went through the names again, no major Red Sox player. If I missed it let me know.
Where did those goalposts go? They were just here a moment ago...
So, does this mean the report would have only been acceptable if David Ortiz had been named?
ezD,
Here you go...
From 2007 roster: Eric Gagné and Brendan Donnelly
From previous years: Roger Clemens, Mo Vaughn, Steve Woodard, Jose Canseco, Manny Alexander, Paxton Crawford, Jeremy Giambi, Josias Manzanillo, Chris Donnels, Mike Lansing, Kent Mercker, and Mike Stanton.
The rundown for the Yankees is similar: two from 2007, more than a dozen from other years.
Admittedly, the case against Clemens and Pettitte seems stronger than the ones against Donnelly and Gagné. And obviously the Yankee heroes are going to get more press than the two doofuses who essentially did nothing to help the 2007 Sox.
@steve duncan: In the case of Clemens, its more a matter of his durability, rather than his mass, that makes me dubious of his strident claims of innocence. The ability of a pitcher to pitch at the speeds achieved by the Rocket, at his advanced age, is not remarkable due to the necessary strength, but more due to the unavoidable wear-and-tear that such effort requires, which no amount of time in the weight room can offset.
I don't know why SCMT would be in the Bonds camp just because Clemens did roids. To me Bonds and Clemens are in the same camp of scumbags.
The two are being treated very differently. As people have suggested above, there was ample reason to suspect Clemens for a long time.
Actually, Bonds is being treated differently from anyone else, and I think that's a function of both his personality and his post-steroid excellence. It's more than a little grotesque to me.
I don't care that much; I don't like baseball.
His post-40 career renaissance and massive increase in muscle mass just screamed out "here's a clean guy." Shocking stuff.
Not to single out Matt here, but it seems like it's only been in the last 24 hours that Clemens' use of steroids was *obvious* to all, all along. In that respect, I note a stark contrast with Barry Bonds, and the condemnation we've heard about him for the last few years now.
But I guess bulk and a big head are only really visible on those black guys...
McKingford,
I follow baseball very closely, and the rumors about Clemens have been widespread, numerous, and fairly audible for years. Bonds got more attention in the MSM in the last 5 years because he was called to testify in a federal case that involved PEDs and because he apparently committed perjury in his testimony. That's kind of a big deal. He also happened to break two of the game's most hallowed records in the last 5 years, all the while remaining an incredibly unpleasant human being. With Bonds there were both rumors and evidence; with Clemens it was just rumors. Until now. I think you will find that Clemens will, from now on, endure the same scrutiny and outrage.
I follow baseball very closely, and the rumors about Clemens have been widespread, numerous, and fairly audible for years.
This is exactly right.
McKingford,
Bulk and a big head are more noticeable on a guy going for the home run record.
He also happened to break two of the game's most hallowed records in the last 5 years, all the while remaining an incredibly unpleasant human being. With Bonds there were both rumors and evidence; with Clemens it was just rumors.
While Bonds has broken 2 great records, Clemens is barely a step behind him - crossing the magical 300 win threshold and moving into 2nd place overall on the K list - all the while pitching with otherworldly success. So while Bonds might have cause to garner slightly more attention than Clemens, it should be close.
As for being incredibly unpleasant, if there's someone who can give Bonds a run for his money (although I actually like Barry), it's Clemens. So likability can't really explain it either.
Until now. I think you will find that Clemens will, from now on, endure the same scrutiny and outrage.
Maybe so. My point is that for all the talk all these years about how Bonds has so obviously been on steroids, there has barely been a peep about Roger; and yet the clues that set people off about Bonds apply with equal force (if not more, since Clemens has performed at extraordinary levels at an older age than Barry). I follow baseball pretty closely too, and I can't say I've heard any speculation about Clemens at all, except within the last couple weeks. I can't understand why, because the only thing different about them is the colour of their skin.
I'm going to take exception to the "incredibly unpleasant human being" characterization of Barry Bonds, as well. The only evidence I ever hear in support of this is from self-important sportwriters who've been snubbed by Bonds. Bonds has always been held in fairly high regard by those most in a position to know home, such as his teammates and managers.
Apart from the genuinely unpleasant Jeff Kent, have any of Bonds' teammates ever made a disparaging comments about him?
Bonds got more attention in the MSM in the last 5 years because he was called to testify in a federal case that involved PEDs and because he apparently committed perjury in his testimony.
Bonds was indicted last week, so his supposed perjury cannot explain why talk of his steroid use have generated discussion at 10+ times the level of Clemens for the last 5 years. Where was the *evidence* (as opposed to rumour) against Bonds? I'm not saying Bonds didn't do steroids, or that there isn't evidence that he did (although the guy who could have provided it, and would know best, refused to testify against Bonds). It's just that the media didn't have evidence (except for his anomalous performance), but continued nonetheless to pillory Bonds.
Don't forget, Clemens was *named* by Jose Canseco in his book, and didn't even bother to deny it - and still his steroid use got nary a peep in the media. Canseco, as an on-the-record source, is at least some *evidence* against Clemens.
Bulk and a big head are more noticeable on a guy going for the home run record.
As opposed to a guy going for the strikeout record?
Or a guy - who already had HOF credentials - who then puts up his best season *by far* at age 42...one of the greatest pitching seasons of all time?
Seriously - age 42?
And then follows it up with another season for the ages, at age 43?
Bonds and Clemens were treated differently because Bonds had his grand jury testimony leaked. You remember the flax seed oil excuse? The clear and the cream? There was only speculation about Clemens and McGwire and Sosa. Now we have evidence on them, too. I think tinisoli at 4:45 got it exactly right.
My question is what are the legal options for MLB. Could they decide to ban these players for life like they did to Shoeless Joe and the Black Sox or will the players union sue? You could make the argument that illegal drugs means drug dealers which means mob which means gambling which means fixing games.
I follow baseball pretty closely too, and I can't say I've heard any speculation about Clemens at all, except within the last couple weeks.
I'm just surprised at this. I follow the sport pretty closely, and it seems like every time I hear the word steroids, it is followed shortly after with the discussion of 'Rocket Feul: yes or no?' The guys on the so-suspicious-we-presume list have been Clemens, Tejada, and Pudge, in roughly that order. (Not including the Congressional testifiers or admitted users).
As opposed to a guy going for the strikeout record?
He's not going for the strikeout record any more than Sammy Sosa is going for the HR record. He is a very distant second. And K's aren't HR's.
Or a guy - who already had HOF credentials - who then puts up his best season *by far* at age 42...one of the greatest pitching seasons of all time?
Not really. His season in 90 was damn close, and 91-92 aren't far behind, nor was his best season with the Blue Jays at 34. At 42, he did what he used to do, long after he should have, which stands out a little less than Bonds, who started exceeding what he ever did by leaps and bounds.
Right or wrong (and it's fine by me), the leaked grand jury testimony by Bonds has been seen as an admission, in a way that other rumors aren't. Add that to the HR record, and I think there is a reason that he has been talked about more than anyone else, though I think you are mistaken in thinking that others, Clemens particularly, have gotten off the hook.
What will really be interesting to me is to see how Clemens is received if he admits use, now that he isn't playing. Personally, I respect the guys that own up to it a bit more.
If I'm reading the report correctly, 2001 was the last time Clemens is alleged to have used steroids. This would have been both before he hit age 40, and before his 2004 Cy Young season.
Either you're alleging he's never taken steroids, or that he's still taking them 'till this day. Considering how out-of-whack his hormone levels would be after missing a few cycles, you'd have seen a significant drop in power/speed, as well as increased injury rate, from a three-year hiatus. If Sosa's performance managed to fall off a cliff after increased scrutiny forced him off the Juice, just think what would happen to a pitcher -- Baseball Prospectus would have to realign its columns to accommodate the rapidly-burgeoning ERA.
...make that PECOTA -- BP would never accept such a crude metric as ERA. Shame!
Pathetic!!!
Now that they got their white boy, Mr. Sharpton can't use his disssscrimination assault. I feel for the poor guy just trying to make the team and playing by the rules. I guess King Barry and Roger don't have to follow the rules because fame and money justifies the means. If you keep Pete out you got to keep these two criminals out!!!
Pathetic that everyone pretends not to notice when the big money is at stake. Guess it was just another wonderful product of the Clinton legacy. Too bad, we might get those two hypocrites back for another eight years of pathetic values.
J. Spear
Clemens has already issued a denial through his lawyer, so I don't expect him to fess up, ever. He's too much of an egomaniac to put his legacy at risk by admitting anything, and right now plenty of people are coming to his aid, claiming that McNamee is just some guy who's making claims... 'It's hearsay'... blah blah blah. It's amazing how that so many people consider these guys innocent unless a positive drug test is revealed. Nothing else suffices, nothing else counts as evidence. Unreal.
Greg Maddux meantime built an equivalent career to Clements based on finesse, intelligence, hard work, and honor. And never close to the admiration/fan worship/deification of the rocket.
Lots of reasons for this - Clemens post-season performances, Boston/New York attention - but let's face it. The press likes to focus on loud personalities more than quiet ones.
His season in 90 was damn close, and 91-92 aren't far behind, nor was his best season with the Blue Jays at 34. At 42, he did what he used to do, long after he should have, which stands out a little less than Bonds, who started exceeding what he ever did by leaps and bounds.
Era+:
1990 (27) - 213
1991 (28) - 164
1992 (29) - 175
1997 (34) - 221
2005 (42) - 226
Career Era+ = 143
I may have been overstating it to say by *far*, but his 42 year old season was still his best - and certainly far better than his career numbers. Bonds best seasons, while certainly anomalous, were at 36 (when he hit 73) and 37.
You could make the argument that illegal drugs means drug dealers which means mob which means gambling which means fixing games.
Yes, I suppose you could make this argument...if you didn't mind being ridiculed.
You might as well say that my friend with her knock-off Louis Vuitton purse should be in Guantanamo, since we all know that counterfeit goods finance terrorism...
Could they decide to ban these players for life like they did to Shoeless Joe and the Black Sox or will the players union sue?
MLB didn't even get around to testing for, let alone banning these substances, until a couple years ago - and you want them to ban players who took them before MLB even outlawed them? Yeah, I think the players might have a basis to resist this...
MLB didn't even get around to testing for, let alone banning these substances, until a couple years ago
You could make this argument if you didn't mind being ridiculed. Google the Faye Vincent steroid memo if you need to educate yourself on when steroids were banned (hint: 1991)
If we need to make reference to politics I think Peter Gammons is the Judy Miller of baseball. He deserves to be thrown out of the HOF for shilling for the owners during this mess.
It seems to me that the real advantage gained by using steroids, whether it's a pitcher or position player, is for recovery. The baseball season stretches from April to September with games nearly every day. As a result, the biggest enemy of ballplayers is fatigue. Steroids help one's muscles recover/regenerate faster than they normally would, so their usefulness in counteracting the fatigue issue is obvious. It's common knowledge that players use stimulants as well, and that's the purpose of dealing with fatigue as well. In the end, players want to be consistent performers, and drugs help them do that.
tinisoli, I just went through the names again, no major Red Sox player. If I missed it let me know.
The only thing you've missed is that Boston now owns the sports world. Owns it. The Secret Boston Sports Commission now controls the NBA, the NFL and MLB. We have every league official from the major three sports on our payroll. Senator Mitchell is just the beginning. Senator Kennedy will soon be replacing David Stern. Resistance is futile. The Celtics are going 76-6 en route to the first of a five banner in a row run (that will bring us our 21st championship, after which we'll take a few years off to dampen suspicions and keep the ad dollars flowing). Same thing for the Red Sox. We blackmailed Boras into having his client re-up with the Yanks because ARod, too, is on our payroll and will work tirelessly to make sure New York's club house is a den of seething hatred and jealousies.
As for the the Patritos, well, what more can I say?
Give up hope of championships all ye suckers of other North American sports markets. It's over.
Answer: Yankees fans
Question: Name the entity chosen by the Secret Boston Sports Commission to replace Red Sox fans in the "total loser black helicopter tinfoil hat misery-loving superstitious paranoid fucktard" catergory.
Google the Faye Vincent steroid memo if you need to educate yourself on when steroids were banned (hint: 1991)
The Fay Vincent memo is a joke.
First of all, it simply refers to "illegal drugs and controlled substances". Even today there are still performance enhancing drugs that do not fall under either category; and of course, who's to say players didn't get prescriptions for their steroid use?
Perhaps more fundamentally, this edict carried no force. To the extent Vincent was trying to ban performance enhancing drugs, he would be altering the working conditions of the players - which are subject to collective bargaining.
There's a reason people talk about 2002 as the year baseball adopted a steroid policy. It's because that's the year it actually became the subject of collective bargaining. And, coincidentally enough, that's also the year they started testing.
If Vincent thought he could actually implement a ban on steroids with his 1991 memo, why didn't he also incorporate testing for steroids? His memo explicitly limits testing to marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, and PCP.
I notice you didn't address my point about testing. And I point out that MLB didn't even test *minor* leaguers before 2001, even though the players' association doesn't represent them.
SBSC,
Well, I'd like to thank you for bringing so much glory to Beantown.
What are you going to do about the Bruins?
McKingford,
Must baseball incorporate all U.S. federal laws into its own rulebook in order to get credit for having told its players that they cannot do X, Y, and Z? How much hand-holding do these adults require, exactly?
Players knew, and have always known, that the substances they were acquiring via trainers and gym rats were illegal in the U.S., if not explicitly banned by baseball. (BTW, I don't think Vincent's memo is a joke. It reminded clubs that steroids were illegal. Why is that a joke?) The inability of MLB to get testing in place until 2002 did not excuse players from breaking the law prior to that year. Is a drunk driver not really drunk unless he fails a breathalyzer test?
As far as prescriptions, there is obviously evidence that players have sought and received prescriptions for HGH; with anabolic steroids, this is not so easy to do, and there's very little evidence that players sought steroids from physicians. (Not that a prescription is always on the up-and-up.) Instead, they got them from trainers like Radomski and McNamee and Anderson.
I'm not surprised the media witchhunt ignored The Rocket. Clemons is neither black nor Latin.
"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids."
I agree completely that it was a joke because there was no testing, but the fact remains that steroids were explicitly cited as being against the rules of baseball in 1991. Players who did steroids past 1991 were officially cheating. Baseball can choose to punish them in any manner they want, including retroactively. There is no legal standard of proof or drug test required, either. They can purge any who are even suspected of low character. I think if they did it slowly enough, they might avoid a players strike. I'd like to see Congress have another hearing on the matter, in fact. These owners need to be held accountable for fraud and publicly shamed into adopting a no tolerance policy.
Rob in Hawaii,
Clemens was scarcely flying under the radar in terms of steroid rumors. Grimsley fingered both he and Pettitte in 2006, and the media ran with that story until they could go no further. And ever since Clemens' physique changed and his dominance returned to Cy Young form, people have wondered aloud if he was getting help from steroids. Bonds and the Latinos are hardly the only ones who have had to endure suspicion in this era. I don't know where this meme comes from, other than Bonds insane martyr complex.
I wonder if you could correlate a player's performance to the periods when they were cycling. (Some say that it is the mental aspect of confidence that enables these superhuman feats) Knowing which players were cycling and which were off their cycle would be helpful information to a gambler. Is Pettitte juiced tonight?
Tinisoli,
You're probably better informed than I am on Clemens and his alleged use of steroids. (I've never heard a single word on the topic.) And you most likely don't have my hero worship of Bonds (I'm formerly from SF, so pardon the prejudice). But I follow MLB pretty closely and I can't remember ESPN doing anything but slobber over Roger for years while at the same time casting Bonds as someone only slightly better than Hitler.
(Oops, did I just trigger Godwin's law?)
toady, this Daily Show clip is one of my favorites. Bonds doesn't come across as a warm and fuzzy guy.
What are you going to do about the Bruins?
Let them wallow in mediocrity. We don't want any more conspiracy-mongering than is already observable, especially in our second largest market, NY Tri-State. Plus, if you think Sox fans are obnoxious, drunken louts, you've never been to a Bruins game. Neither has the letter "R" for that matter.
Era+:
1990 (27) - 213
1991 (28) - 164
1992 (29) - 175
1997 (34) - 221
2005 (42) - 226
Career Era+ = 143
I may have been overstating it to say by *far*, but his 42 year old season was still his best - and certainly far better than his career numbers.
Anyone's best seasons are always going to be better than their career numbers. Was his "best" season that much better than his second best? (1997) or his third? (1990). Not to mention that career ERA+ is among the top 10 of all time.
Bonds best seasons, while certainly anomalous, were at 36 (when he hit 73) and 37.
Ages when most players are quite a ways into the decline stage of their careers if they are still in the league at all. And "anomalous" dosen't begin to describe his output between 2001 and 2004. At an age when most players are on the cusp of retirement, Bonds begins posting up numbers that aren't just the best of his career by an overwhelming margin, they are arguably the greatest or among the greatest of any position player since Babe Ruth stormed Baseball. I'm not knocking Bonds, he's the greatest player of all time steroids or not. But to single out Clemens as being a late career anomaly compared to Bonds is laughable.
Rob-in-Hawaii: First, what tinisoli said about Clemens. I was not surprised at all to hear he was on the list. Pettite and LoDuca I hadn't heard before, but I had heard rumors about Clemens, Tejada, Sheffield, and Gagne, just to name a few.
Also, remember a guy named Mark McGwire? Remember how he was the most popular guy in baseball in the late 90s, and then his body wore down, and the only time he showed up in public since he retired was to plead the fifth in front of Congress, and then when his name came up on the Hall of Fame Ballot, he was closer to being dropped off the ballot than to being voted in to the Hall? Not black. Not Latin.
But to single out Clemens as being a late career anomaly compared to Bonds is laughable.
Well, I don't think this is what I've done at all. They are both late career anomalies, but Clemens flourished at an even *more* advanced age than Bonds.
My point is this:
The unusual career trajectories of both Bonds and Clemens is probably the single biggest piece of circumstantial evidence that each of them was using steroids. Indeed, if we are talking solely about career trajectory, you can argue that Bonds' peak was more otherworldly than Clemens (and thus makes Bonds more unusual), just as you can argue that Clemens' peak at age 42 vs. Bonds at age 36/37 makes Clemens more suspicious. Sure there's an argument either way, but it's pretty damn close.
All this is to say that in light of the equally compelling arguments for either player, it is therefore difficult to reconcile the media's portrayal of each. Over the last 5 years, nary is Bonds' name mentioned without also mentioning the cloud of suspicion over steroid use. This is in stark contrast to Clemens; I'll accept that his name was mentioned in connection with steroid use very occasionally, but, unlike with Bonds, it was never a significant narrative.
So, I ask again, why would that be?
McKingford: Even though the perjury indictment is recent, the BALCO investigation has been going on for four years now, and Bonds's grand jury testimony was leaked to the media three years ago. That obviously is going to create a media buzz around Bonds. Maybe there should have been a government investigation of McNamee as well, but the fault for that would lie with the feds, not the media.
It is true that the mention of Clemens by Grimsley should have created a greater buzz around Clemens, but that was only about a year ago, after the Bonds narrative had established its dominance in the media (and while Bonds was closing in on the home run record, which overshadowed everything). Before that, the mention of Clemens by Canseco was vague - he said Clemens had expressed interest in steroids, but never claimed to have known for a fact that Clemens was a user. He did claim to know McGwire was a user, and that (coupled with McGwire's "I don't want to talk about the past" testimony) made the (undoubtedly white) McGwire into a national laughingstock.
But I follow MLB pretty closely and I can't remember ESPN doing anything but slobber over Roger for years...
For those of the people that have said they never heard talk about Roger from anyone, I wonder if they are equating "anyone" with "ESPN." Talk has been rampant for a while now, but I don't know how the Sports Leader has been treating it.
My point is this:
The unusual career trajectories of both Bonds and Clemens is probably the single biggest piece of circumstantial evidence that each of them was using steroids.
Actually, I'd say the leaked Grand Jury testimony was a bit bigger piece of circumstantial evidence. Seriously, I think you are glossing over a pretty huge part of "the narrative" here. I recall quite a bit of denialism on behalf of Bonds before that happened, just as there has been with Roger for a time now. Was Bonds treated worse than Roger would have been if the roles were reversed? It's certainly possible, and my instinct says "yes, a little." But not tons.
In the end, I think McGwire got the worse end of the deal out of the all-but-accepted Mark/Sammy rumors, because he flew a little higher and was less generally likeable.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving dickhead than Clemens. Hopefully now Greg Maddux will get the acclaim he deserves -- 347 wins (and counting), 3.11 career ERA, and 4 Cy Youngs, and while looks can be deceiving, Maddux's Mr. Average body certainly has never appeared to be HGH or steroid enhanced.
Uh, Maddux is already (wrongly) considered a better pitcher than Clemens. Either way, it's not like Maddux is underrated by sports media or anything.
"wrongly"? In the sense that we consider both pitchers career achievements regardless of whether one was juiced for a long chunk of time? If that's your perspective, fine, but I have little doubt that on an even playing field Maddux was clearly superior.
Three, possibly four of Clemens Cy Youngs can be attributed to the boost he got from steroids and HGH. Heck, even with the artificial extension and prolonged elevation of his career, Clemens has a slightly worse career WHIP than Maddux and only a slightly better ERA+ (Maddux's regular ERA is a mere .01 better).
And, if there's a baseball god, next season Maddux will pick up the 8 wins he needs to surpass the roided rocket to move up to 8th all-time.
Uh, Maddux is already (wrongly) considered a better pitcher than Clemens.
An interesting take.
I've always thought they were considered peers ion accomplishment. Indeed, Maddux at his best put up numbers Roger never touched (I'm not a huge fan of ERA+, but since it was used once already, Roger never came close to Maddux's high of 271. He won four straight Cy Youngs, which is pretty damn amazing, and speaks to an era of dominance.
Even with steroids, it's kind of a "Magic vs. Larry" argument -- the shape of their careers has been different, and the long term totals for everything but strikeouts are quite similar.
Clemens/Bonds? It's really very simple.
No athlete has generated as much hatred -- yes, hatred -- among the press corps as Barry Bonds. No one.
Roger Clemens was instrumental in bringing championships to the Boston/NY axis that runs the country and cherishes winning above everything.
Steroids didn't kill baseball. Legions of $5 million/year shortstops hitting .205 killed baseball a long time ago.
Anyone distraught enough about this report who seeks the final release that suicide brings might try holding his breath until Costas comes out with a breathless interview with Kurt Schilling about how Clemens has soiled baseball forever.
Clemens brought no championships to Boston and is hated by most Red Sox fans.
Folks, Clemens "retired" each of the last 2 years, then "unretired" the middle of the next season. Why? Because he bulks up during the offseason and spring and they do a drug test in spring training, which he avoids by being "retired" at that point.
Clemens' steroid use is obvious and was before this report came out.
Clemens brought no championships to Boston and is hated by most Red Sox fans.
Exactly. Why would we accuse Schilling? Fuck that.
By the way, has it occurred to nobody that one reason the BoSox have emerged relatively unscathed is that it has much better ownership/management than, say, New York? The Yankees' money has simply made them lazy. Inefficient. Poor judges of talent. It's just easier to write checks. But it's obviously the case that money has blunted their effectiveness at putting together winning teams. And now that laziness has tarnished the brand. If you were a Yankees fan, would you want Roger entering the Hall in pinstripes? Yes, Virginia, it really is possible to have too much money, at least when you use it as an excuse not to do your homework.
Anyway, Theo Epstein and crew probably saw the steroids storm coming, and have probably made personnel decisions accordingly. That and the fact that Mitchell is on our payroll. Bwa hah hah hah.
Comments closed December 27, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Gawd, I hate the Rocket. The lack of attention paid to him on the steroids matter is why I find myself firmly in the Bonds' camp.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 13, 2007 3:33 PM