Curt on Roger.
Printable View
I'd have to agree with Curt on this one. This should happen to all of the award winners that were in the Michell Report that can't clear their name. They should be stripped of all their awards when they took performance-enhancing drugs. Not all of that persons awards, just the one's that that person won while cheating.
I usually enjoy and agree with what Curt writes, but this time, I don't.
Since when is the burden of proof on the accused? They shouldn't have to prove their innocent. It works the other way around. They have to be proven guilty.
And, I still don't think awards should be stripped or anything, even with proof of guilt. The entire game was dirty, and everybody in it - the guilty players, the writers that voted on the awards, the "clean" second place finishers, the front office, the Commissioner's office, etc. - was part of the problem.
I assume, if you strip the award, it'll go to the second-place finisher. My question is - why don't they have to prove their innocence? Just because they weren't accused? Just because they maybe went to more secretive dealers? Sorry, but I don't think anybody is above suspicion - even Schilling himself. While I have my opinions on who did and didn't use, steroid use was rampant enough in the MLB that anybody could have used, even players that are now parading themselves as crusaders against steroid use. Where were they when steroid use was at an all-time high? Why didn't they speak up and say there was a problem? It is completely unfair to force the accused to "prove their innocence", yet let everybody that hasn't been fingered by somebody else go free.
And, seriously, where does it end? Why is using steroids an offense worthy of removing awards, but popping amphetamine pills like candy isn't? You know, those things that were handed out for free in clubhouses for years and years? Those things that probably more people used than those that used steroids? Those things now banned by baseball? If the awards are removed from Clemens, Bonds, etc., the only fair and rational thing is to go back and have every award winner prove that they did not use any sort of now-illegal substance. Why do other druggies get a pass?
Like HGM, I agree with Schilling on many occassions, but not this time.
Schilling likes to talk about other people, its about time he shuts is darn mouth. It really surprised me that he wasn't on mitchells list. He's a true blowhard, he should keep his nose out of other peoples business.
As a sox fan, Schilling is a loudmouth...sometimes (rarely) its nice to have someone outspoken and communicative in print on his website/blog. But he is quite holier-than-thou about politics, religion, etc etc when he gets going, and I don't really need that.
There are enough columnists on Clemens case, pushing him about not responding and asking him to say something, NOW, to give us something to go on. It does seem like popular opinion has been decided, despite the lack of real proof, and despite the fact that this easily might have been 70% of players, not 1-2% that happened to be fingered by these 2 dudes.
Conversely - although I keep an open mind and want to hear his side of things, many others on that list have come out and apologized, admitted use, etc. - even ones that seemed like longshots for steroids, or whom the evidence was quite flimsy for, like Brian Roberts. So I can see people starting to feel a little more certain that the findings in the report have factual basis - but I don't think it was time for an attack like this. Giving up the trophies is tough, too, considering HGMs post above.
I think Schilling is just frustrated because Clemens was an idol of his, and instead of meeting with authorities or quickly disputing these findings, OR admitting the use as a msitake, he was silent and then denied everything. Schilling obviously thinks he is guilty and not man enough to admit it...but that may be entirely false, so you can't just call the person out like this.
I have no respect left for Schilling. He's run his mouth before and it got him in hot water, obviously he has no brains and has no control over his big mouth. Rogers problems are his own not anybody elses esp Schilling. And every reporter knows that given a chance Schilling will say something stupid about someone else and he usually has no facts or proof of what he's spouting.
I have always thought that schilling used steriods. The thing is that when Schilling thou played for the phillies in the 90's, he was the best pitcher besides Kevin Brown and Greg Maddux in the NL. His W/L record doesn't show that, but that happens when you play for the losingness team in the history of all sports. I have no proof that Schilling uses, but was very surprised that he wasn't named. Also what I am very surprised is that less than 100 names named. And Brett Boone wasn't named. Have you seen pictures of Boone when he was a rookie in 93' with the M's. Then fastforward to 2001. Take a look. Before his breakout season in 01', he hit something like .250 with 20 homers for the Braves... I think boone started using in 99' or 98'. Also Cansaco named Boone in his infamous book.
That's because the only two people that Mitchell could get to talk were two people facing federal prosecution. Just think though. Obviously, there was more than two steroid dealers in the MLB. Two people got 80 players named....Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
On the award topic, Shysterball has a nice post. The last paragraph is something that I didn't even think about:
And that's just the thing. Baseball statistics, and thus, the awards, are affected by multiple players. Since steroid use was widespread, ALL the statistics were affected by it in one way or another. As Shyster says, a bunch of players on Mulder's team, scooping up groundballs for him and providing the offense to win games, used steroids. I think that is enough to disqualify Mulder. And then, the same thing goes for likely every other pitcher...so, viola, we have no award winners!Quote:
As for the records, Schilling strikes me as a man who reads history on occasion. He has to understand that you simply can't undo event A and expect events B, C, and D to have remained the same. Who were the "rightful winners" Curt? In 2001 the AL Cy Young runner-up was Mark Mulder. He wasn't in the Mitchell report, but half of his offensive and defensive support was. Is he legit? And while we're having this conversation, are you planning on returning your 1993 NL Championship ring because it was obtained with the help of Lenny Dykstra? Of course you're not, because playing the alternative history game is silly and ultimately leads us nowhere.
Exactly. Thank you! End of story, close the book.
:)
Yep, and just as important to remember is that those two people only worked for one team each. While they had some contact with players from other teams, it's completely to be expected that most of what they might know would involve players where they themselves were employed. That skewed the report, and in my opinion is why no names should have been dropped in that document. The other information on history, recommendations, etc., would still have been valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
But because someone didn't get named means little more than it does that someone did get named.
Another interesting fact: I just read in a media-related magazine that both of those two people are shopping book proposals to publishers. Now, if you wanted to write a book about this topic, wouldn't it sell best if some really big names were in it?
You know, I don't read Curt Schillings blogs on his site, I could care less for them. However, I do love Curt Schillings pitching ability. He may not be the dominate pitcher he used to be, but 2004 playoffs made me a Curt Schilling fan for sure.
But about stripping people of their awards, etc. I believe Curt really didn't think about all that, and of course, now getting critizied heavily for it. But why do people even care about what Curt thinks? His opinion really isn't going to change the face of anything.
I like Schilling. I like guys LIKE Schilling. Most athletes are absolutely boring automatons. Interviews with them are utterly pointless, as they simple spew out the usual cliches like some sort of brainwashed droid. So when someone comes along that actually SAYS something, I tend to pay attention. And so does the media, who are ALSO sick and tired of the usual 'Troops from Dullsville', so of course they're going to focus on anybody who breaks from the mundane party line.
Ironic how Schilling and John Kruk have been recently vocal about their outrage. The '93 Phillies had a lot of players that suddenly became beefed up, the most obvious Lenny Dykstra. Look at his late 80's baseball cards and you see a 140 lb slap-hitter. In 1993 he was a beast. Even back then I was screaming at the TV that he was juiced up. Or how about the entire early 90s Astros suddenly looking like comic book characters (Caminiti, Finley, Gonzalez all putting up modest numbers like 12-15 HRs and then going to 30 to 40 overnight). How about the excuses from the non-power hitters that they wouldn't have any reason for steriods, like Ben Johnson or Marion Jones were weightlifters or something.
Yeah really. Where was Schillings outrage when roided-up Dykstra helped him win a World Series? If Schilling wants Clemens to give up his Cy Young, he should give up his 1993 World Series ring.
I don't follow any sports besides baseball, so I don't know enough about the Jones incident to give my perspective. All I know really is that she tested positive, had a teary-eyed admission and apology at some press conference, and was asked to give up her medals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mogul2000
I don't even know really what specific events Jones did, just that she ran track and field. Her teammates that were asked to give up their medals, was it in like a relay or something? Either way, I don't think teammates should have to give up their awards because they happened to be on a team with a roid user.
I don't like how people point to the Olympics and say, "See! Marion Jones and Ben Johnson had to give up their awards and records because they used steroids!" and then use that to justify removing awards, records, stats, and Hall of Fame consideration from alleged steroid users in baseball. Ignore the fundamental difference that Jones and Johnson were actually caught "red-handed", while most baseball players just have differing amounts of circumstantial evidence against them. There is a huge difference between the Olympics and a team sport like baseball. Baseball's statistics, awards, trophies, etc. are all intertwined with each other. In most track and field events, it's just up to each individual athlete. That's why removing medals can be justified - they're cheating only affected them. Removing statistics from a baseball player will change the statistics of every other baseball player he ever played against, wreaking havoc upon the statistical record of the game. Removing awards and giving it to runner-ups still leaves an award being given to a player who was affected by steroids, indirectly or otherwise.
The fact that baseball is a team sport is why removing records, stats and awards from steroid users can't be justified by pointing to individual sports like the Olympics.
Actually, Joe Carter's walk-off Ring winner off of Mitch Williams kept the Phillies from winning the series in '93, but you're right. The sentiment is still the same. There's a lot of absent-minded hypocricy (spelling??) going around from players supposedly clean. How long ago was it when Ken Caminiti died. Roids were a big issue then, but where was the wave of player outrage?
Don't I look stupid. I was thinking NL championship ring, yet it came out World Series ring...hehQuote:
Originally Posted by sardins
Yep, that is another reason that I don't believe that players from this era should be barred from the Hall of Fame on the basis of steroid use. We know some names, and we don't know others, and just because there's no public accusations against a player does not mean he didn't take steroids. And even if he didn't, all the players in the game shoulder some responsibility for not speaking out against this. If the clean players really cared, they could have forced the Player's Union to act, or just at least made their objections public. Everybody in baseball during this period is partially to blame for the steroid problems, and that is why I think that singling accused players out and barring them into the Hall while allowing other players from this era in, who still may have done some sort of PED, is hypocritical, unfair, and just plain irrational.Quote:
There's a lot of absent-minded hypocricy (spelling??) going around from players supposedly clean. How long ago was it when Ken Caminiti died. Roids were a big issue then, but where was the wave of player outrage?
Ah, well, thanks for the correction. Even so, they at least have actual proof - a confession.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mogul2000
Give up this years ring because of Gagne
The situation with Marion Jones is very different. First, I'm pretty sure that she admitted to using steroids before being stripped of her medal. If she had continued to deny using steroids it would have been interesting to see if the IOC would strip her and her team of the medal without definite proof (ie. a positive drug test). This is essentially what Lance Armstrong has done - denied that he used steroids and there is no legally definitive proof of steroid use so he does not lose his Tour de France wins. If he admitted it he would lose the titles.
Second, in the Olympics if any person is found to have used a banned substance than any team they participated on is ruled to be disqualified - ie. a single hockey player that played in one round robin game is found to have used steroids then the whole team is disqualified - regardless of what happened in all the other games.
The difference in baseball is that there aren't clear rules - and there doesn't appear to be any interest in creating rules that punish the team instead of the player. This would be a giant step into fixing the problem - make a GM decide if he wants to give a suspected steroid user a contract knowing that there would be a significant team punishment for having a player caught using steroids. I don't think matching the Olympics is possible or a good idea - I'm not sure what disqualifying a team in MLB would even mean but a team punishment such as the loss of draft picks would make a GM think twice about signing someone like Jason Giambi.
following Schillings logic he should give up his series rings because of the PED users on his team ...
ah, didn't see this before i posted my comment.Quote:
Give up this years ring because of Gagne
Agreed, it's amusing to note that people complain about the cliche' answers that 95% of athletes give when questioned, yet, when someone like Schilling comes along and speaks their mind, they're a blowhard, an a**hole, a loudmouth, etc. I wish that more people were as straightforward as Schilling is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
As for where were the clean guys, a lot of them did complain, but were drowned out or ignored during the awe fest surrounding the homerun glut. A lot of them went along with the union line, whether they liked it or not.
That is a good point. I do remember a few of the more intrepid sports reporters asking questions about where all these home runs were coming from, and how all these guys suddenly started slugging out of their minds. They were quickly hushed by the rest of the hacks and many players as being paranoid and somewhat out of their minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
The same guys that drowned them out are the ones now calling for removal of records, banning from the Hall, etc. It's pure hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
If they're not in the hall yet, it's not a big deal to keep them out. No one's going in and yanking anyone already enshrined out (though I wouldn't mind if they did, if someone was using steroids). They gambled, they lost. Too freakin' bad, boo hoo. I'm sure the mega millions they screwed everyone out of will be some consolation to them in their declining years.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Well, just looking at Kruk during his career, you gotta admit that he may be the least likely player of the last 20 years to have been using steroids. If he was abusing anything, it was french fries.Quote:
Originally Posted by sardins
Interesting.
thought provoking
Informative.
Man, I loved John Kruk. He looked like the least likely human being to ever be a pro athlete. I remember that '93 World Series. A lot of fans up here were actually quietly rooting for the Phillies to win. Heck, they looked like a professional version of a beer league softball team! Kruk's gut, Dykstra's chew stains, Daulton's surgically-barely-held-together knees, Incaviglia's home run or nothing swing...they were hard to hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
Is it not hypocritical to be hailing Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire as saviors of baseball, etc. and then turning around and saying "I'm not voting him into the Hall because he may have used steroids...oh but I'll vote in other players from this same era who may have used steroids but who just have not been fingered by someone else."?Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
And why do you only care about steroids? What about the tons of current Hall of Famers who cheated, or used non-steroid performance-enhancing drugs?
I don't think it's realistic to go back 40, 50 or 60 years and start looking into who did greenies. I do think it's realistic to handle the present, in the present, and not wait to find out 20 years down the line that we've been duped by a guy who didn't get caught.
It isn't hypocritical to hail McGwire and Sosa as saviors of the game if a person didn't know they were using steroids, and then change your opinion of them once the truth comes out.
Why would it be wrong to vote in someone who hasn't been accused? If they've not been accused, then there's no stain on their name. Not sure you're making your idea come across clearly on this one.
To make a counter point, When Landis threw out nearly a whole baseball team almost ninety years ago, Landis set one he!! of a precedent, I think a similarly strong stand needs to be taken with steroids now. If it continues on as it is, I'm not sure that the game would survive as anything more than a WWE type of event in time. The focus of the game already has changed because of juice. There's so much focus placed on longballs that the rest of the game is almost an extended bathroom break for the casual fan while they wait for some gorilla like Giambi to hit a rainbow over the Grand Concourse.
As long as nobody tries to "fix" the statistical record, I honestly don't care about anything else. The Baseball Hall of Fame is a sham already, to me, so I personally don't care who they do or do not vote in any longer. While Cooperstown is certainly not hurting for attendance, I get the feeling that I'm not the only one who feel the way I do about the Hall of Fame, either.
At least their trying to do something about it now by allowing more people into the BBWAA. That organization is struggling though (mostly because newspapers themselves are really starting to struggle), and I don't think that they should be the organization to control induction anyway. The Hall of Fame needs to choose their own voting membership, which should be independent of any actual media group and have the singular task of inducting members.
Regardless, the media, the owners and official league and team personnel, every single player in the majors over the last several decades, and the fans; we all share blame for the problems with drug use in baseball. Even Curt Shilling is to blame for part of this. If it's true that Clemens was a steroid user, then Curt, as a teammate of his, is to blame for not speaking out earlier. It's easy enough to be outraged after the fact, but where was he when it was going on right in front of him? I view just about anyone who does this sort of thing as a coward, pure and simple. It's really too bad I can't see him in person too, because I'd say the same thing straight to his face. Curt Schilling: "Coward".
Good. Let's handle the present and deal with the players currently taking steroids.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Also, what would you say if the Hall elects someone...say, Craig Biggio (note: I AM NOT SAYING THAT I BELIEVE BIGGIO TOOK STEROIDS.), and then, 10 years after he's elected, its' found out that he took steroids. What do you do to him then? And then, what do you tell the players like McGwire who were kept out because they took steroids?
Uh, no. Andro was found in the guy's locker. Yes, it was legal. But, nobody cared then, and now all of a sudden, they do. They care that he used andro. But they didn't then.Quote:
It isn't hypocritical to hail McGwire and Sosa as saviors of the game if a person didn't know they were using steroids, and then change your opinion of them once the truth comes out.
Because this entire era was rampant with steroid use, and just because someone has been fingered by someone doesn't mean they didn't use, and just because somebody has been fingered by someone doesn't mean they did use. So, basically, the Hall is just going to arbitrarily decide who from this era did steroids, while letting in other potential steroid users. THE ENTIRE ERA WAS RAMPANT WITH STEROID USE. The best players of the era belong in the Hall.Quote:
Why would it be wrong to vote in someone who hasn't been accused? If they've not been accused, then there's no stain on their name. Not sure you're making your idea come across clearly on this one.
Throw out a whole heck of a lot of players, far more than just a part of a team?Quote:
To make a counter point, When Landis threw out nearly a whole baseball team almost ninety years ago, Landis set one he!! of a precedent, I think a similarly strong stand needs to be taken with steroids now.
The testing is working. I've posted numbers in the Mitchell report thread of the minor league testing. The number of positive tests have been on a rapid decline. Sorry, but, this isn't 1998 still. Steroids are still being used, and will always be used, just as players have always found ways to cheat, and just as players have always taken drugs, legal and illegal, in an attempt to improve their performance. No matter how much you wish, it's never going to go away, and the game has never been free of it. And this isn't to say that I don't think baseball should crack down on steroid use. It should. Steroid use is dangerous and illegal, and baseball has already begun to crackdown on it, and should continue. But we can't just erase the players that took steroids when nobody in baseball cared - the players, the owners, the Commissioner's office, the fans, and if they were the best players of this era, they deserve to be honored as such.Quote:
If it continues on as it is, I'm not sure that the game would survive as anything more than a WWE type of event in time.
I'd also argue that the focus of the game has changed because there has been more studying of the game, and it's quite obvious that a home run is an automatic run, and thus, valuable. And please, teams don't "wait" around for a homer. They play the game. The game changes.Quote:
The focus of the game already has changed because of juice. There's so much focus placed on longballs that the rest of the game is almost an extended bathroom break for the casual fan while they wait for some gorilla like Giambi to hit a rainbow over the Grand Concourse.
And that is exactly what this all about. People are afraid of change, and the game has changed - because of steroids, and other reasons. Just like the game changed with the introduction of amphetamines. Just like the game changed when the mound was moved. Just like the game changed when the balls were changed. THE GAME CHANGES.
And also, apparantly, the casual fans don't really care, and if they do, they don't care enough to stop going to the games, considering MLB is breaking and re-breaking attendence and revenue records every year.
True. If you read Bill James' book on the Hall, it's been a sham since its inception.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Definately. Especially considering the BBWAA refuses to see that its "purpose" has changed from merely allowing reporters access to ballparks. Whether they like it or not, their primary purpose to the fans is choosing award winners and the Hall of Fame, and if they can't realize this and expand their membership to allow qualified voters in, then the Hall should change the way it elects members.Quote:
At least their trying to do something about it now by allowing more people into the BBWAA. That organization is struggling though (mostly because newspapers themselves are really starting to struggle), and I don't think that they should be the organization to control induction anyway. The Hall of Fame needs to choose their own voting membership, which should be independent of any actual media group and have the singular task of inducting members.
Exactly.Quote:
Regardless, the media, the owners and official league and team personnel, every single player in the majors over the last several decades, and the fans; we all share blame for the problems with drug use in baseball.
If the Mitchell Report taught us anything, it's that people knew about steroids when it was happening. The media knew. A good portion of fans knew. Front offices knew. The players obviously knew. That is why it is hypocritical to now go back and punish players for doing something that everybody let them do. If you did steroids after punishments were instituted , it's a different story and you should be subject to the punishments as they were when you took steroids (Note: 3 positive tests = lifetime ban).
My reference to Kruk was not that he was taking steroids, but rather a great deal of players on his team in '93 (Dykstra, Incaviglia, etc). Its hard to imagine that MLB locker rooms in the 80s and 90s weren't much like Oliver Stone's Any Given Sunday (Lawrence Taylor's character). This whole story seems to be one big game of six degrees of separation from Jose Canseco.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
My reference to Kruk was a joke, so lighten up.Quote:
Originally Posted by sardins
About how the game changes and there were other reasons for the offensive increase than just steroids...Joe Posnanski had a nice paragraph on it on his blog:
Quote:
In the 1990s, ballparks got smaller, bats got harder, players started working out intensely (even without steroids), the leagues expanded, the strike zone shrunk, general managers became more determined to find power hitters and were willing, perhaps, to give up other qualities such as defense and batting average. It is very clear that game changed in important ways that had nothing to do with steroids … though that’s not what anyone seems ready to hear now.
I lollered at this