PDA

View Full Version : According to ESPN...


getonbckthr
07-30-2009, 11:31 AM
Joining Arod, Sosa and Bonds on the 2003 list are Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz.

DeadMoney
07-30-2009, 11:36 AM
Shocker.

Here's (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4366335) the link... but, for now... :popcorn:

GoGoCrede
07-30-2009, 11:38 AM
Water is wet.

Really sucks for Boston fans.

Edit - And here comes the first of many ESPN texts about it.

hawkjt
07-30-2009, 11:45 AM
does taint those World Series Titles in 03 and 07 doesn't it?
Continue to pray that Sox have no one on that list.

mzh
07-30-2009, 11:50 AM
does taint those World Series Titles in 03 and 07 doesn't it?
Continue to pray that Sox have no one on that list.

I believe that Scott Shoeneweis was one of the accused in the Mitchell Report. As for the 100 for '03, I hope not either.

oeo
07-30-2009, 11:51 AM
does taint those World Series Titles in 03 and 07 doesn't it?
Continue to pray that Sox have no one on that list.

You could probably say that about every World Series of the past 15 years.

VenturaFan23
07-30-2009, 11:53 AM
http://brandimpact.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/chrisberman.jpg

"....and the Red Sox chances that no one is on that list is over!"

thomas35forever
07-30-2009, 11:54 AM
What say you now, Red Sox fans?

http://www.backpacker.com/iB_html/non-cgi/avatars/uploaded_cartman.jpg
"Yes...yes!"

Hitmen77
07-30-2009, 12:00 PM
http://brandimpact.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/chrisberman.jpg

"....and the Red Sox chances that no one is on that list is over!"

I can hear fatso's voice now.....
"OHHHH NOOOO!!!!!!!!!! :whiner: This is the worst travesty to hit baseball since Graffanino botched that routine play against Chicago (AL)!"

UChicagoHP
07-30-2009, 12:12 PM
Let the subtle, but obvious, "sweeping under the rug" by ESPN, MLBPA, the owners, the agents, etc... begin.

Olympic-style drug testing is the ONLY solution to this mess, but we all know the greed of the involved parties will never allow the most effective testing program on the planet to be used(of course, it isn't going to catch everyone, as the millionaires involved in baseball can pay to stay a few steps ahead of the testing, but it's certainly better than the joke of a piss test we currently have). Like Ben Johnson(Canadian Sprinter, "former" Olympic Champion), the records of these "greats" should be removed from the books once the proven cheat hangs up his/her cleats...at the very least, the Sammy Sosa/David Ortiz's of the world should be listed with an asterick next to their name in the official record books.

I understand most think this is way too harsh, but I do believe the Olympic program is ideal. In a perfect world, a first offense would result in a two-year ban from baseball, a second offense? Find a new job/league...


It's too bad one of the best hitters in the history of the game(Big Hurt) has to be lumped in with these players. Sox fans know how special he was, Sox fans know he was lobbying the player's union before most were even aware that PED's were an issue. Respect to the Big Hurt...sorry for the rant!

ShoelessJoeS
07-30-2009, 12:12 PM
Can't say I'm surprised. Just look at Ortiz's numbers before '03 and after testing became mandatory.

What a clown.

Pear-Zin-Ski
07-30-2009, 12:15 PM
l
o
l

kruzer31
07-30-2009, 12:21 PM
As long as the Big Hurt doesnt appear on the list, I am happy

Boondock Saint
07-30-2009, 12:36 PM
This isn't news.

palehozenychicty
07-30-2009, 12:38 PM
Does a bear **** in the woods? :tongue:

The fact he improved so much after Minnesota was simple grounds for suspicion.

TDog
07-30-2009, 12:38 PM
Let the subtle, but obvious, "sweeping under the rug" by ESPN, MLBPA, the owners, the agents, etc... begin.

Olympic-style drug testing is the ONLY solution to this mess, but we all know the greed of the involved parties will never allow such a solution. Like Ben Johnson(Canadian Sprinter, "former" Olympic Champion), the records of these "greats" should be removed from the record books once the proven cheat hangs up his/her cleats...at the very least, the Sammy Sosa's of the world should be remembered with an asterick next to their name in the official record books.

I know most think this is way too harsh, but I do believe the Olympic program is ideal, and keeps the true essence of sport at its heart. In a perfect world, a first offense would result in a two-year ban, a second offense? Find a new job/league...

It's too bad one of the best hitters in the history of the game(Big Hurt) has to be lumped in with this chemically enhanced era of players. Sox fans know how special he was, Sox fans know he was lobbying the player's union before most were even aware that PED's were an issue. Respect to the Big Hurt...sorry for the rant!

Actually, a columnist for the Contra Costa Times has alleged Frank Thomas used steroids. It isn't just a matter of people assuming all power hitters were juiced.

fox23
07-30-2009, 12:38 PM
Wow, big deal. Is anyone surprised anymore? And more importantly, does anyone care?

Anyone who thinks that "x" team or "x" player is clean without a doubt is just delusional.

RockyMtnSoxFan
07-30-2009, 12:39 PM
No suprise here. Ortiz always seemed one of the most likely candidates.

I wonder if he's going to voluntarily take a year off (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2009/news/story?id=3911153)?

soltrain21
07-30-2009, 12:45 PM
ESPN in total damage control.

goon
07-30-2009, 12:47 PM
Wow, big deal. Is anyone surprised anymore? And more importantly, does anyone care?


I might be one of the few, but I do care.

Boondock Saint
07-30-2009, 12:51 PM
Wow, big deal. Is anyone surprised anymore? And more importantly, does anyone care?

I certainly care. It's infuriating that so many players have been cheating (via steroids) for the better part of two decades, if not longer. It's even more infuriating that MLB is just now starting to take pseudo-action on it, despite knowing full well:

A) How long it's been going on,

B) How incredibly prevalent it was/is, and

C) Exactly who has been doing it!

But the point is, it isn't surprising anymore. You could tell me that Tim Wakefield is on roids, and I wouldn't flinch.

doublem23
07-30-2009, 12:58 PM
Actually, a columnist for the Contra Costa Times has alleged Frank Thomas used steroids. It isn't just a matter of people assuming all power hitters were juiced.

Perhaps that would have made a ripple if it were someone at a real newspaper.

ShoelessJoeS
07-30-2009, 01:04 PM
No suprise here. Ortiz always seemed one of the most likely candidates.

I wonder if he's going to voluntarily take a year off (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2009/news/story?id=3911153)?What a hypocrite! :o:

khan
07-30-2009, 01:11 PM
Actually, a columnist for the Contra Costa Times has alleged Frank Thomas used steroids. It isn't just a matter of people assuming all power hitters were juiced.

Do you have a link for this? I haven't heard of such a thing. And yes, I searched for said column, with no results.

RockyMtnSoxFan
07-30-2009, 01:22 PM
Wow, big deal. Is anyone surprised anymore? And more importantly, does anyone care?

I also care. I am not surprised, but I am upset. What's the point of following a sport like baseball if it's all fake?

I desperately hope that Frank was clean, but at this point I am no longer certain of anything. It's really sad that a culture of cheating has reversed the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It is easier to prove guilt than innocence, so now everyone is under suspicion.

InKennyWeTrust
07-30-2009, 01:33 PM
l
o
l
I must be falling behind on emoticon expressions these days.

GoGoCrede
07-30-2009, 01:37 PM
They're showing his interviews from earlier this year condemning steroid users. He talks about how he'd never want to get caught and disrespect his family and fans or something. It's not quite as funny as A-Rod's interview lying through his teeth.

InKennyWeTrust
07-30-2009, 01:42 PM
Obviously, ESPN2 is doing a lot of breaking news coverage (and off topic, but I just noticed that when showing the categories on the bottom line, MLB and The Lead are slightly highlighted Red, indicitating Breaking News, a nice new touch), but the MLB Network is just showing the Red Sox game live.

The analysts must be getting out of bed and driving to the studio.

Big D
07-30-2009, 01:42 PM
You could probably say that about every World Series of the past 15 years.

Probably at least the last 20 years, going back to the 89 A's. There probably was at least one (and more likely several) of the 05 Sox on PEDs, and there probably were PED users on all the other 29 teams that year. It's silly to worry about one particular team being tainted - the whole goddamn game has been tainted the last 20 years.

Pear-Zin-Ski
07-30-2009, 01:46 PM
I must be falling behind on emoticon expressions these days.

just the standard "laugh out loud" thingy...I jsut arranged it differently for more emphasis. Felt it fit the situation quite well....

InKennyWeTrust
07-30-2009, 01:49 PM
Ah. If it was in capitals, I would have got it. :D:

BleacherBandit
07-30-2009, 02:03 PM
Some people believe that the HOF will be illegitimate if they don't let in the steroid players. I don't give a ****. None of these players deserve to be in the Hall, who knows how good they would have been without the steroids. In my mind, Sosa, Bonds, McGwire, Rodriguez, Ramirez, and now Ortiz are forever stained and I will never compare them in the same light as Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Mantle, Murray, Thomas, Thome, and all the home run hitters that did it the right way. What a shame on baseball. It's time. It's time to let the public know the other disgraces on that list.

InKennyWeTrust
07-30-2009, 02:05 PM
The only thing I don't like about this is that it's clear the sources have grudges. With so many sources out there, you'd think they could confirm more than one or two at a time.

illinibk
07-30-2009, 02:34 PM
...With so many sources out there, you'd think they could confirm more than one or two at a time.

Come on, the NY Times has to sell papers don't they? A slow trickle of names will certainly help them sell their papers rather than all 104 names at once.

chisoxfanatic
07-30-2009, 02:36 PM
I believe that Scott Shoeneweis was one of the accused in the Mitchell Report. As for the 100 for '03, I hope not either.
I think Carl Everett was on that list as well. But, neither he nor Shoeneweis were any more than fringe players on any of our teams.

None of the guys on the list that's been leaked deserve to be anywhere near Cooperstown.

It's making me even prouder for guys like Frank, who was big and hitting for power his entire career.

InKennyWeTrust
07-30-2009, 02:37 PM
Then what they should do is make it a weekly series. Every Thursday, a new name.

fox23
07-30-2009, 02:38 PM
Some people believe that the HOF will be illegitimate if they don't let in the steroid players. I don't give a ****. None of these players deserve to be in the Hall, who knows how good they would have been without the steroids. In my mind, Sosa, Bonds, McGwire, Rodriguez, Ramirez, and now Ortiz are forever stained and I will never compare them in the same light as Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Mantle, Murray, Thomas, Thome, and all the home run hitters that did it the right way. What a shame on baseball. It's time. It's time to let the public know the other disgraces on that list.

Steroids were first documented as being used in sports with the San Diego Chargers in 1963. Who knows how many Hall of Famers from the 60s, 70s, 80s used them? Who is to say any of those other guys you listed (okay, probably not Ruth, that's a little early) didn't use steroids, or more likely, amphetamines in their time?

chisoxfanatic
07-30-2009, 02:39 PM
Then what they should do is make it a weekly series. Every Thursday, a new name.
That would take two years! I don't understand why they were "protecting the guilty" for so long.

It would be awesome if Papi were suspended the mandatory 50 games...That would be almost the rest of the season!

Big D
07-30-2009, 02:42 PM
Then what they should do is make it a weekly series. Every Thursday, a new name.

It would get pretty boring after a few months, though. You'd have maybe 5-10 star players, 15-20 decent players that people have heard of, but then the rest of the list would be guys like Scott Shoeneweis.

getonbckthr
07-30-2009, 02:46 PM
Some people believe that the HOF will be illegitimate if they don't let in the steroid players. I don't give a ****. None of these players deserve to be in the Hall, who knows how good they would have been without the steroids. In my mind, Sosa, Bonds, McGwire, Rodriguez, Ramirez, and now Ortiz are forever stained and I will never compare them in the same light as Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Mantle, Murray, Thomas, Thome, and all the home run hitters that did it the right way. What a shame on baseball. It's time. It's time to let the public know the other disgraces on that list.
I hate to say this but unfortunately can you prove this to be true?

BleacherBandit
07-30-2009, 02:49 PM
I hate to say this but unfortunately can you prove this to be true?


If the only way we will know will be that list, then release it to the public. I wouldn't be surprised if both of them were on it, but then again, I would either if they weren't.

Fenway
07-30-2009, 02:49 PM
Joining Arod, Sosa and Bonds on the 2003 list are Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz.

MODS please do not credit ESPN as it was the NY TIMES that broke store who happen to own 17 percent of the Red Sox.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/sports/baseball/31doping.html?emc=eta1

I am not shocked but very sad. I always had a bad feeling about Papi.

Didn't take long for this website to appear

http://www.bostonroidsox.com/

Zisk77
07-30-2009, 03:02 PM
I believe that Scott Shoeneweis was one of the accused in the Mitchell Report. As for the 100 for '03, I hope not either.


Schoenweiss admitted to doing steroids while recovering from surgery when he was not with the sox (i believe it might have been the jays). Also, Scott was not on the 05 sox. I suspect one memeber of that bullpen was on PED's however.

Zisk77
07-30-2009, 03:04 PM
Also not surprised about Big Papi. Up until his last year we routinely blew high fb's by him and his slider speed bat could not catch up. Then his last year with the twinks he was turning on everything.

getonbckthr
07-30-2009, 03:11 PM
MODS please do not credit ESPN as it was the NY TIMES that broke store who happen to own 17 percent of the Red Sox.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/sports/baseball/31doping.html?emc=eta1

I am not shocked but very sad. I always had a bad feeling about Papi.

Didn't take long for this website to appear

http://www.bostonroidsox.com/
Hey Fens when I made the thread I was watching ESPN and they reported it.

chisoxfanatic
07-30-2009, 03:14 PM
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q85/ruddbuilder/Roid-Sox-logo.jpg

Eddo144
07-30-2009, 03:47 PM
My serious questions for those beating the no-PED-users-in-the-Hall-of-Fame-drum:

1. What do you do when a player already elected has been proven to have used PEDs?

2. What do you do with players like McGwire, Sheffield, Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez, and Bagwell, who have not have anything proven against them, only speculation?

I'm not saying PED use should be forgiven, or even let into the Hall of Fame, but the not-in-the-Hall-no-way stance is too simplistic to be a viable option.

khan
07-30-2009, 03:52 PM
Steroids were first documented as being used in sports with the San Diego Chargers in 1963. Who knows how many Hall of Famers from the 60s, 70s, 80s used them?
OK. Show us the guys in the 60s and 70s whose hat size grew as Bonds' did. In the 80s, the Oakland team was full of cheats.

Who is to say any of those other guys you listed (okay, probably not Ruth, that's a little early) didn't use steroids, or more likely, amphetamines in their time?
Now I'm going to post something that might be construed as an attack on you. But, I assure you that it is not. It is an attack on this statement.

Here it goes:

Linking steroids use to amphetamine use is so stupid that it insults the criminally stupid. While as you note that amphetamines have been in use in MLB for a long time, there is scant evidence that steroids have been in use for AS-long a period of time.

Amphetamines can keep you awake when you've been on a long road trip. But they can't take a skinny kid named Sammy and turn him into a 60+ HR hitter. Only substances that have anabolic attributes can do so.

So again, while I am NOT attacking you, I am attacking the utterly moronic notion that amphetamines and steroids are anywhere in the same universe in terms of their effect on the game. Put another way, linking amphetamines and steroids is akin to linking petty left and ethnic cleansing in terms of their effect on the world.

chisoxfanatic
07-30-2009, 03:52 PM
I don't watch very many non-Sox baseball games; but, I certainly will tune in to the MLB Network next Thursday night. The Red Sox travel to Yankee Stadium for the first time since this story broke, and I want to hear the Yankee Stadium reaction to this.

Eddo144
07-30-2009, 03:57 PM
OK. Show us the guys in the 60s and 70s whose hat size grew as Bonds' did. In the 80s, the Oakland team was full of cheats.
Bonds is not a good example, as he's the extreme case. Many proven and suspected users haven't grown, such as Ozuna, Sheffield, Grimsley, Schoenweis, even A-Rod.


Now I'm going to post something that might be construed as an attack on you. But, I assure you that it is not. It is an attack on this statement.

Here it goes:

Linking steroids use to amphetamine use is so stupid that it insults the criminally stupid. While as you note that amphetamines have been in use in MLB for a long time, there is scant evidence that steroids have been in use for AS-long a period of time.

Amphetamines can keep you awake when you've been on a long road trip. But they can't take a skinny kid named Sammy and turn him into a 60+ HR hitter. Only substances that have anabolic attributes can do so.

So again, while I am NOT attacking you, I am attacking the utterly moronic notion that amphetamines and steroids are anywhere in the same universe in terms of their effect on the game. Put another way, linking amphetamines and steroids is akin to linking petty left and ethnic cleansing in terms of their effect on the world.
The proven effects of amphetamines aren't all that different from the proven effects of HGH, when it comes down to it. Amphetamines allow players to play at a high level even when they're tired or hung over. HGH allows players to play at a high level more quickly after injury.

True, steroids actually make one stronger, but don't act like amphetamines are just a run-of-the-mill thing; they definitely had an effect on players' output.

khan
07-30-2009, 03:58 PM
My serious questions for those beating the no-PED-users-in-the-Hall-of-Fame-drum:

1. What do you do when a player already elected has been proven to have used PEDs?

2. What do you do with players like McGwire, Sheffield, Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez, and Bagwell, who have not have anything proven against them, only speculation?
Sheffield is already in the Mitchell Report. I'd guess that the others will be listed in the 103, or will be found out through some other means. McGwire will never be elected, based on his testimony to Congress.

I'm not saying PED use should be forgiven, or even let into the Hall of Fame, but the not-in-the-Hall-no-way stance is too simplistic to be a viable option.
I advocate induction of EVERY known steroid cheat, so that their names and reputations as cheats and borderline criminals will be enshrined for all perpetuity. I'd just put them into another building.

Eddo144
07-30-2009, 04:04 PM
Sheffield is already in the Mitchell Report. I'd guess that the others will be listed in the 103, or will be found out through some other means. McGwire will never be elected, based on his testimony to Congress.
True, though I'd consider the Mitchell Report as speculation rather than proof of anything, just like your guessing that the others will be revealed as part of the 2003 list.

As an aside, I doubt very much that more than five more "stars" are found out to be on the 2003 list. No one really disputes that marginal players were also using PEDs at the time, so I wouldn't be surprised to find the list breakdown into overall league percentages (that is, a small number of stars and no-names, and mostly average-ish players).

khan
07-30-2009, 04:07 PM
Bonds is almost the exception to the rule with steroids. Most proven and suspected users haven't grown.

See Ozuna, Sheffield, Grimsley, Schoenweis, even A-Rod.
Really? McGwire, Canseco, Tejada, Gagne, Clemens, Giambi, and Sosa would beg to differ.

Ozuna, Grimsley, and Scoenweis likely didn't do them for long enough or did not work out enough to build bulk. A-Rod and Sheffield have been big for so long and started in MLB so young that there aren't as many before/after photos to compare.



The proven effects of amphetamines aren't all that different from the proven effects of HGH, when it comes down to it. Amphetamines allow players to play at a high level even when they're tired or hung over. HGH allows players to play at a high level more quickly after injury.
HGH also enables steroid cheats to strengthen their connective tissues as their muscles grow. This was the missing piece to Ken Caminiti's PED program. He didn't use HGH, and his career was shortened by injuries. HGH is also known to improve vision, something that is somewhat important to hitting, pitching, catching, and throwing.

So no, the effect of HGH is not anywhere akin to that of amphetamines.

True, steroids actually make one stronger, but don't act like amphetamines are just a run-of-the-mill thing; they definitely had an effect on players' output.
Again: Amphetamines can't take skinny kids named Mark and Sammy and Jason and make them into 60+ HR hitters. But steroids definitely can do so, and have done so.

Fenway
07-30-2009, 04:08 PM
Hey Fens when I made the thread I was watching ESPN and they reported it.

Weird thing was ESPN said the Times broke the story BEFORE the Times posted it on the web

They have to release the other 100 names now just for the players who tested negative.

I wanted so badly for that 2004 team to be clean......

soxnut1018
07-30-2009, 04:14 PM
does taint those World Series Titles in 03 and 07 doesn't it?
Continue to pray that Sox have no one on that list.

Well Pablo Ozuna testing positive ruined the 05 world series for me.

Eddo144
07-30-2009, 04:15 PM
Really? McGwire, Canseco, Tejada, Gagne, Clemens, Giambi, and Sosa would beg to differ.

Ozuna, Grimsley, and Scoenweis likely didn't do them for long enough or did not work out enough to build bulk. A-Rod and Sheffield have been big for so long and started in MLB so young that there aren't as many before/after photos to compare.
Players can also grow due to legal workout plans and natural aging. Look at Willie Mays in 1971 compared to 1951, he's bigger.

And are we going to give some players a "didn't use them long enough" pass? Or a "we didn't see you before you used" pass? Or are you just correctly pointing out that we should judge each player on a case-by-case basis? If so, that's kind of my point; there shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule regarding PEDs and the Hall of Fame.

HGH also enables steroid cheats to strengthen their connective tissues as their muscles grow. This was the missing piece to Ken Caminiti's PED program. He didn't use HGH, and his career was shortened by injuries. HGH is also known to improve vision, something that is somewhat important to hitting, pitching, catching, and throwing.

So no, the effect of HGH is not anywhere akin to that of amphetamines.

Again: Amphetamines can't take skinny kids named Mark and Sammy and Jason and make them into 60+ HR hitters. But steroids definitely can do so, and have done so.
No, amphetamines didn't do that. But maybe they enabled guys named Willie and Mickey and Frank to swing the bat a little faster and hit .310 instead of .270. Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows just what the effect of any of these drugs was on any player's net performance.

khan
07-30-2009, 04:16 PM
True, though I'd consider the Mitchell Report as speculation rather than proof of anything, just like your guessing that the others will be revealed as part of the 2003 list.
Since none of the players on the list have come forward and successfully sued for libel and/or slander and/or defamation, I'd tend to take the report at face value. Since the names were given as part of the plea deals to Radomski and McNamee, I think this is much more than speculation. Since Senator Mitchell is a pretty respected attorney, and few of the players in the report denyed it, I tend to believe it's verocity.

My speculation about the 2003 list is nowhere in the same universe as the piles of evidence compiled against those listed in the report. From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Report_(baseball) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Report_(baseball)

..."Over 700 people were interviewed during the investigation. Of 500 former players contacted, 68 agreed to be interviewed, and three others had interviews arranged by law enforcement. Interviews with current or former club officials, managers, coaches, team physicians, athletic trainers, or resident security agents accounted for another 550 interviews. The teams and the Commissioner's Office supplied Mitchell with more than 115,000 pages of documents and 2,000 electronic documents.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Report_(baseball)#cite_note-report_pg_SR6-5)"

The evidence is insurmountable. It is hardly "speculation."

As an aside, I doubt very much that more than five more "stars" are found out to be on the 2003 list. No one really disputes that marginal players were also using PEDs at the time, so I wouldn't be surprised to find the list breakdown into overall league percentages (that is, a small number of stars and no-names, and mostly average-ish players).
You might be correct here. We will see.

areilly
07-30-2009, 04:16 PM
I wanted so badly for that 2004 team to be clean......

As said before, you'd probably have to go back pretty far to find a 100% clean World Series winner. Without comparing the list of known or fairly certain users, I'd say we're looking around the '90 Reds, '88 Dodgers or '87 Twins. Maybe even earlier.

fox23
07-30-2009, 04:21 PM
Now I'm going to post something that might be construed as an attack on you. But, I assure you that it is not. It is an attack on this statement.

Here it goes:

Linking steroids use to amphetamine use is so stupid that it insults the criminally stupid. While as you note that amphetamines have been in use in MLB for a long time, there is scant evidence that steroids have been in use for AS-long a period of time.

Amphetamines can keep you awake when you've been on a long road trip. But they can't take a skinny kid named Sammy and turn him into a 60+ HR hitter. Only substances that have anabolic attributes can do so.

So again, while I am NOT attacking you, I am attacking the utterly moronic notion that amphetamines and steroids are anywhere in the same universe in terms of their effect on the game. Put another way, linking amphetamines and steroids is akin to linking petty left and ethnic cleansing in terms of their effect on the world.

Ha ha, no worries on taking it personally, people can have differing opinions on a subject without attacking a person personally. :smile:

I have to completely disagree with your assessment on amphetamines. Yes, they don't help a hitter grow to hit a ball farther, but the home run isn't the only thing that gets you in the Hall. As I've seen in multiple articles, amphetamines help reduce fatigue and increase reaction time. Sounds like a few things that would help when trying to hit a 90 mile an hour fastball. How many guys in the Hall with 3,000 hits were on them, and would they have ever made it that far without this help? Maybe this fatigue fighter helps Cal Ripken Jr. play for over 2,000 games straight. Maybe this increased reaction time allows Mike Schmidt and Ozzie Smith to get to those balls that no one else could in the field. (no, nobody knows if they did or didn't use them, just using their names as examples).

So, no, I don't think saying that amphetamines has had as big of an impact on the game as steroids is criminally stupid.

khan
07-30-2009, 04:25 PM
Players can also grow due to legal workout plans and natural aging. Look at Willie Mays in 1971 compared to 1951, he's bigger.
Correction: Willie Mays got FATTER, not "bigger." Fat can't enable a player to move a bat through the strike zone.

And are we going to give some players a "didn't use them long enough" pass?
Every medication, from Tylenol to Winstrol to Deca-Durobolin to HGH require a period of useage for said medication to come into a therapeutic level. Hence, it may be that Pablo Ozuna didn't get as much of a boost from his useage as A-Rod did.

Or a "we didn't see you before you used" pass?
You were the one that claimed that "Most proven and suspected users haven't grown." However, there are more cases of chronic users that DID get bigger.

Or are you just correctly pointing out that we should judge each player on a case-by-case basis?
As I posted earlier [I'll cut and paste it for you]: "I advocate induction of EVERY known steroid cheat, so that their names and reputations as cheats and borderline criminals will be enshrined for all perpetuity. I'd just put them into another building. "

If so, that's kind of my point; there shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule regarding PEDs and the Hall of Fame.
Actually, most of your "points" have been disproven. You have an opinion about a "hard-and-fast rule" that hasn't really been supported by anything you've posted here. [And again, I'm not attacking you, just your statements hereto fore.]

No, amphetamines didn't do that. But maybe they enabled guys named Willie and Mickey and Frank to swing the bat a little faster and hit .310 instead of .270. Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows just what the effect of any of these drugs was on any player's net performance.
Willie and Mickey and Frank were already born with HOF abilities. Neither Sammy nor Mark nor Jason nor Eric [Gagne] would sniff an All Star Game without 'roids.

khan
07-30-2009, 04:32 PM
Ha ha, no worries on taking it personally, people can have differing opinions on a subject without attacking a person personally. :smile:
Thank you.
So, no, I don't think saying that amphetamines has had as big of an impact on the game as steroids is criminally stupid.
I disagree, and I think guys named Sammy and Mark and Jason and Eric and Barry and Gary and Roger and Ken would disagree with you, too.

Fenway
07-30-2009, 04:39 PM
I don't watch very many non-Sox baseball games; but, I certainly will tune in to the MLB Network next Thursday night. The Red Sox travel to Yankee Stadium for the first time since this story broke, and I want to hear the Yankee Stadium reaction to this.

I am bringing earplugs :tongue:

So many teams are suspect now

The late 80's Oakland
The Kirk Gibson Dodgers
Toronto of 92-93
NYY 96-00
Indians of Manny
Boston

It is sad

Eddo144
07-30-2009, 04:40 PM
Correction: Willie Mays got FATTER, not "bigger." Fat can't enable a player to move a bat through the strike zone.
Fair point, and Mays was a bad example, but players generally get a bit more muscular as the go from young twenties to early thirties, which is why a players' power numbers generally peak between ages 27-32 or so, and don't stay constant throughout their career.

You were the one that claimed that "Most proven and suspected users haven't grown." However, there are more cases of chronic users that DID get bigger.
I changed that "most" to "many". And again, nobody really knows if there are "more cases" of any shape or form. Do you have a list of "chronic" users?

As I posted earlier [I'll cut and paste it for you]: "I advocate induction of EVERY known steroid cheat, so that their names and reputations as cheats and borderline criminals will be enshrined for all perpetuity. I'd just put them into another building. "
But that's not a case-by-case basis, it's the opposite (note the use of the word "every").

I must say, if the museum portion of the Hall of Fame included a list of every proven steroid user, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I believe there are exhibits on the Black Sox scandal and Pete Rose's banishment.

Actually, most of your "points" have been disproven. You have an opinion about a "hard-and-fast rule" that hasn't really been supported by anything you've posted here. [And again, I'm not attacking you, just your statements hereto fore.]
I don't understand how my "treat each player on a case-by-case basis" has been refuted. If anything, your pointing out that there are players who grew a lot and also ones who didn't see any body change, who took PEDs chronically and took them only a few times, shows that a hard-and-fast rule isn't going to work. It would be like saying that anyone who is arrested for using illegal drugs should spend five years in jail; like it or not, PEDs present a very ambiguous issue.

Willie and Mickey and Frank were already born with HOF abilities. Neither Sammy nor Mark nor Jason nor Eric [Gagne] would sniff an All Star Game without 'roids.
That's quite a presumption. Sosa was considered a very good prospect and a five-tool player, and already had a 30/30 season before he had a power explosion. McGwire had a ridiculous rookie year before he was huge, which you've implied means he was clean. And, though you didn't name him, Bonds was most definitely a Hall-of-Fame-level player before he started hitting tons of home runs; should he be lumped in with Mays, Mantle, and Robinson, instead of McGwire and Sosa?


Here's a question for you. What it comes out that Frank Thomas used PEDs for half a season in Toronto, or that Griffey used only during this current season? Would you banish them? Or if Willie Mays came out of retirement today, took a crapload of HGH, and played out the rest of the season with the Giants? :redneck

fox23
07-30-2009, 04:42 PM
Willie and Mickey and Frank were already born with HOF abilities. Neither Sammy nor Mark nor Jason nor Eric [Gagne] would sniff an All Star Game without 'roids.

Is there a special doctor that slaps a newborn on the butt and gives them that label? That's quite a presumptuous comment.

khan
07-30-2009, 04:43 PM
They have to release the other 100 names now just for the players who tested negative.
If you were against the release of the names before, but for it now, just because your team was proven to be cheaters, I'd be disappointed. As far as the players that tested negative, who gives a rip? By their silence to the Mitchell Report, they aided and abetted the cheaters. By not speaking out [except for Frank Thomas], they should have to suffer a little as well.

At the same time, as others in this thread have posted, I think we'd have to go back to the mid 80s to find a 100% clean WS champ.

I wanted so badly for that 2004 team to be clean......
Don't worry, the Eastern Seaboard Programming Network has all of their spin doctors on the case. Also, what with the red sawks being over-represented among the baseball writers, the print media will rush to their defense as well.

fox23
07-30-2009, 04:48 PM
I disagree, and I think guys named Sammy and Mark and Jason and Eric and Barry and Gary and Roger and Ken would disagree with you, too.

Do you know that for sure? Bonds and Giambi have both been nailed for using amphetamines too. Have either of them said which one helped them more?

In any case, no matter which one (steroids or amphetamines) had a bigger impact, they both affected the game.

khan
07-30-2009, 04:58 PM
I must say, if the museum portion of the Hall of Fame included a list of every proven steroid user, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I believe there are exhibits on the Black Sox scandal and Pete Rose's banishment.
On this we can agree.

I don't understand how my "treat each player on a case-by-case basis" has been refuted.
Because none of your other supporting statements carried any weight. I mean, you called the Mitchell Report "speculation." No offense, but you really undercut your own credibility in this discussion.

If anything, your pointing out that there are players who grew a lot and also ones who didn't see any body change, who took PEDs chronically and took them only a few times, shows that a hard-and-fast rule isn't going to work.
Yet you stated that you wouldn't be bothered if there was a separate building for known steroid cheats.... :scratch:

That's quite a presumption. Sosa was considered a very good prospect and a five-tool player, and already had a 30/30 season before he had a power explosion.
Actually, since Sosa didn't make an All Star game until 1995, it is not a presumption, so much as it is fact.

McGwire had a ridiculous rookie year before he was huge, which you've implied means he was clean.
While this is a possibility, another is that McGwire may have been using a steroid not noted for its bulk building attributes. After all, Canseco did report that McGwire had been using since the '80s.

And, though you didn't name him, Bonds was most definitely a Hall-of-Fame-level player before he started hitting tons of home runs; should he be lumped in with Mays, Mantle, and Robinson, instead of McGwire and Sosa?
Yes. All talent levels of player, from the Scott Schoenweises to the HOF-level players cheated. And since I didn't name him, why are you bothering to mention him? :scratch:


Here's a question for you. What it comes out that Frank Thomas used PEDs for half a season in Toronto, or that Griffey used only during this current season? Would you banish them? Or if Willie Mays came out of retirement today, took a crapload of HGH, and played out the rest of the season with the Giants? :redneck
Let's try this again: [Cut and paste from a previous post of mine] "I advocate induction of EVERY known steroid cheat, so that their names and reputations as cheats and borderline criminals will be enshrined for all perpetuity. I'd just put them into another building."

So using the hypothetical you bring up, IF that were to have ocurred, they'd be in the Hall of Fame. Just not in the same building as Ruth and Cy Young and all the other greats. They'd be in the hall of cheats at the Hall of Fame.

Eddo144
07-30-2009, 05:05 PM
Because none of your other supporting statements carried any weight. I mean, you called the Mitchell Report "speculation." No offense, but you really undercut your own credibility in this discussion.
The Mitchell Report is not proof of anything.

Yet you stated that you wouldn't be bothered if there was a separate building for known steroid cheats.... :scratch:
I said I wouldn't mind a list of proven users included in the museum portion of the Hall of Fame. It's an already-existing building (actually, part of the same building). I definitely would not like if a whole new institution was created just so we could point fingers at steroid users.

Actually, since Sosa didn't make an All Star game until 1995, it is not a presumption, so much as it is fact.

While this is a possibility, another is that McGwire may have been using a steroid not noted for its bulk building attributes. After all, Canseco did report that McGwire had been using since the '80s.
OK, I misread that as HOF-level players, not All-Star-level. And if you're going to start speculating that McGwire was already using as a rookie, you can't talk about growth as an indicator of PED use. And even if you want to split steroids into various groups, that's exactly my point; when there are already different kinds of PEDs, how can you possibly treat "every" user (your word, not mine) in the same manner?

Yes. All talent levels of player, from the Scott Schoenweises to the HOF-level players cheated. And since I didn't name him, why are you bothering to mention him? :scratch:
You're right, I didn't name Bonds. Do you think he should be allowed into the Hall of Fame (and I don't mean some new, steroids-only Hall of Fame).

Let's try this again: [Cut and paste from a previous post of mine] "I advocate induction of EVERY known steroid cheat, so that their names and reputations as cheats and borderline criminals will be enshrined for all perpetuity. I'd just put them into another building."

So using the hypothetical you bring up, IF that were to have ocurred, they'd be in the Hall of Fame. Just not in the same building as Ruth and Cy Young and all the other greats. They'd be in the hall of cheats at the Hall of Fame.
No. No no no. When talking about allowing players into the Hall of Fame, we mean the room with the plaques for individual players. Pete Rose is "in the Hall of Fame," if you mean another section of it.

Why waste money and time building a whole new wing or building just to vindictively enshrine some people there?

khan
07-30-2009, 05:06 PM
Is there a special doctor that slaps a newborn on the butt and gives them that label? That's quite a presumptuous comment.
That's an interesting question: Do physicians give human beings their talent, or is it in their genes? I'm going with the genes. I see no presumption on my part.

Do you know that for sure? Bonds and Giambi have both been nailed for using amphetamines too. Have either of them said which one helped them more?
Prior to the steroid era, there were only 2 60 HR seasons by a player: Ruth in 1927, and Maris in 1961. So, roughly 1 every 30 years or so.

JUST since 1998, there have been 6 such seasons: Sosa in 1998, 1999, and 2001; McGwire in 1998 and 1999; Bonds in 2001.

Amphetamines have been in use in baseball both PRIOR TO, and during the Steroid Era. I think that it is clear that steroids have had a much more dramatic effect on baseball.

In any case, no matter which one (steroids or amphetamines) had a bigger impact, they both affected the game.
Agreed.

Big D
07-30-2009, 05:07 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4366335

Ortiz is shocked, shocked that he tested positive, and has no idea what he could have taken.:rolleyes:

Eddo144
07-30-2009, 05:11 PM
That's an interesting question: Do physicians give human beings their talent, or is it in their genes? I'm going with the genes. I see no presumption on my part.
The presumption is that you make claims about players' innate abilities. How in the world could you possibly know which players are destined for what?

Prior to the steroid era, there were only 2 60 HR seasons by a player: Ruth in 1927, and Maris in 1961. So, roughly 1 every 30 years or so.

JUST since 1998, there have been 6 such seasons: Sosa in 1998, 1999, and 2001; McGwire in 1998 and 1999; Bonds in 2001.

Amphetamines have been in use in baseball both PRIOR TO, and during the Steroid Era. I think that it is clear that steroids have had a much more dramatic effect on baseball.
So taking banned substances is only OK if it doesn't help you hit home runs? Amphetamines could have helped in many ways, which both Fox and I have pointed out. You haven't actually refuted any of those points.

khan
07-30-2009, 05:13 PM
The Mitchell Report is not proof of anything.
Its a heck of a lot closer to proof than speculation. If it were the latter, then let's see someone on that list successfully sue.

I said I wouldn't mind a list of proven users included in the museum portion of the Hall of Fame. It's an already-existing building (actually, part of the same building). I definitely would not like if a whole new institution was created just so we could point fingers at steroid users.
Ah ok. For my part, I'd rather have them in a separate building on the same campus as the HOF, just so that they can be enshrined as criminals.

OK, I misread that as HOF-level players, not All-Star-level. And if you're going to start speculating that McGwire was already using as a rookie, you can't talk about growth as an indicator of PED use.
And again, that was YOUR speculation, not mine.

And even if you want to split steroids into various groups, that's exactly my point; when there are already different kinds of PEDs, how can you possibly treat "every" user (your word, not mine) in the same manner?
The steroids are and were all illegally gotten [under the laws of the US and Canada]. They were all illegally used. They were all therefore against the rules of MLB, just not specifically named until recently.

You're right, I didn't name Bonds. Do you think he should be allowed into the Hall of Fame (and I don't mean some new, steroids-only Hall of Fame).
Why are you going off-topic? I didn't mention Bonds.

Why waste money and time building a whole new wing or building just to vindictively enshrine some people there?
Why the hell not?

khan
07-30-2009, 05:16 PM
The presumption is that you make claims about players' innate abilities. How in the world could you possibly know which players are destined for what?
OK, do you believe that Willie Mays [or other great players of his era] used steroids? Do you believe that Mickey Mantle used steroids? Do you believe the Frank Thomas used steroids?

I don't. And this is why I suggested that they had innately great abilities. Do you disagree, and believe that Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Frank Thomas were only great due to steroid usage?

So taking banned substances is only OK if it doesn't help you hit home runs? Amphetamines could have helped in many ways, which both Fox and I have pointed out. You haven't actually refuted any of those points.
Show us where I posted this.

I have posted that it is silly to compare the effect of Amphetamines to that of steroids.

Eddo144
07-30-2009, 05:19 PM
Its a heck of a lot closer to proof than speculation. If it were the latter, then let's see someone on that list successfully sue.
My understanding is that it's extremely difficult to successfully sue for libel or slander; you need to prove malice.

Ah ok. Me, I'd rather have them in a separate building on the same campus as the HOF, just so that they can be enshrined as criminals.
I don't mean for this to come off meanly, but have you ever been to the Hall of Fame? There's not really much room to build a new building, unless the surrounding community has drastically changed.

And again, that was YOUR speculation, not mine.
Here was the sequence of events:
1. You state that McGwire used steroids, that you can tell because he grew so much, and that he never would have been an All Star without them.
2. I pointed out he was smaller during his rookie year, during which he was an All Star.

I fail to see where I speculated anything.

The steroids are and were all illegally gotten [under the laws of the US and Canada]. They were all illegally used. They were all therefore against the rules of MLB, just not specifically named until recently.
That's true, and it's why I don't buy the "it wasn't against MLB's rules at the time" defense that some people use. However, amphetamines were also against the law, so I don't see how the illegality is a steroid-specific thing.

Why are you going off-topic? I didn't mention Bonds.
I can't bring up any players unless you mention them first? My question still stands; what are your thoughts on Bonds?

Why the hell not?
See my point above. It would be a massive undertaking to construct a new building near the Hall of Fame.

Also, it seems petty. The Hall of Fame is intended to be a celebration of baseball. Why add a whole new building just to badmouth certain players?

Eddo144
07-30-2009, 05:24 PM
OK, do you believe that Willie Mays [or other great players of his era] used steroids? Do you believe that Mickey Mantle used steroids? Do you believe the Frank Thomas used steroids?

I don't. And this is why I suggested that they had innately great abilities. Do you disagree, and believe that Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Frank Thomas were only great due to steroid usage?
I don't get this logic. Are you saying that taking steroids prove that a player did not have innately great abilities.

And no, I don't believe that any of the cited players took steroids. But I most definitely believe that some players who did take steroids - Bonds, A-Rod, and Manny come to mind - had comparable abilities similar to Mays, Mantle, and Thomas. The steroids just enhanced those abilities.

This is why I asked the question about Mays coming back and taking steroids now. If he already is known to have Hall-of-Fame-level abilities, in your eyes, would taking steroids in order to play today change that?

Show us where I posted this.

I have posted that it is silly to compare the effect of Amphetamines to that of steroids.
I inferred that. Your general tone seems to suggest amphetamine users are perfectly OK being in the Hall of Fame. If this is not the case, I apologize.

RockyMtnSoxFan
07-30-2009, 06:03 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4366335

Ortiz is shocked, shocked that he tested positive, and has no idea what he could have taken.:rolleyes:

Rob Neyer had an interesting comment. He pointed out how Ortiz had previously said he got protein shakes in the Dominican Republic, and he didn't know what was in them. Also, he said that only people who are caught now should be punished, but people who cheated in 2003 or earlier should be let off the hook.

I'll bet we'll soon learn that Ortiz is "shocked" to discover that someone in D.R. or in the clubhouse gave him something which he took without questioning, and that was the source of the positive test result.

UChicagoHP
07-30-2009, 07:02 PM
"I want to talk about this situation and I will as soon as I have more answers. In the meantime I want to let you know how I am approaching this situation. One, I have already contacted the Players Association to confirm if this report is true. I have just been told that the report is true. Based on the way I have lived my life, I am surprised to learn I tested positive. Two, I will find out what I tested positive for. And, three, based on whatever I learn, I will share this information with my club and the public. You know me - I will not hide and I will not make excuses."

Explanations like this are what put me on edge...give us a break Papi, please. Be a man. I understand his agent, team of lawyers, PR team, and the MLBPA probably wrote this for him, but it just irritates the crap out of me. Time to simmer down with a beer, or twelve. Sometimes I wish they would just scrap everyone involved with the game, keep the franchises, and start over.

Tragg
07-30-2009, 07:13 PM
Let's see - the Patiots are proved cheaters; Now the RedSox;
I guess the only honest Boston team is the Celtics...check that, McHale basically gave them Garnett.
All hail the Bruins!

gobears1987
07-31-2009, 01:01 AM
I believe that Scott Shoeneweis was one of the accused in the Mitchell Report. As for the 100 for '03, I hope not either.
I'd put money down that Maggs is on that list. I actually hope he is because that makes Kenny look like an even greater genius while Bora$$ and the Tigers are bigger clowns.

gobears1987
07-31-2009, 01:03 AM
You could probably say that about every World Series of the past 15 years.
I'd say more likely than not that none of the 2005 Sox were on PEDs. I would say the 2003-2004 Sox definitely had players using, but not the 2005 Sox. In 2003-2004 I'd put Maggs down and I would put Schoenweiss down for 2004. I wouldn't be surprised if Billy Koch were using.

The only player on the 2005 White Sox I would have any suspicion towards is Freddy Garcia. It is just suspicion though and nothing that can be proven. I guess we'll just have to wait for the entire list to be revealed, but we're talking about 103 of 750 MLB players. That means we'll see a lot of names since that's a good percentage of players.

Big D
07-31-2009, 03:27 AM
I'd say more likely than not that none of the 2005 Sox were on PEDs. I would say the 2003-2004 Sox definitely had players using, but not the 2005 Sox. In 2003-2004 I'd put Maggs down and I would put Schoenweiss down for 2004. I wouldn't be surprised if Billy Koch were using.

The only player on the 2005 White Sox I would have any suspicion towards is Freddy Garcia. It is just suspicion though and nothing that can be proven. I guess we'll just have to wait for the entire list to be revealed, but we're talking about 103 of 750 MLB players. That means we'll see a lot of names since that's a good percentage of players.

Pablo Ozuna just tested positive for PED's earlier this year. I guess he got a defective batch.

CWSpalehoseCWS
07-31-2009, 03:45 AM
Pablo Ozuna just tested positive for PED's earlier this year. I guess he got a defective batch.

I wouldn't be surprised if he started using after he busted up his leg(?) when on the Sox to get a quicker recovery.

I guess we'll neeed an asteric next to those 3 career HR's.

gobears1987
07-31-2009, 08:21 AM
Pablo Ozuna just tested positive for PED's earlier this year. I guess he got a defective batch.
I know, but as mentioned, he probably started to use them to come back from that nasty injury in 2007.

hawkjt
07-31-2009, 08:43 AM
I like how Mike & Mike,Buster Olney,Gammons, and everyone associated with the ESPN/Red Sox cabal now say that all the World Series titles since the mid-90's are similarly tainted as the Red Sox 04 and 07 teams that were led by positive testing Poppy and Manny.
Today they say that. Two days ago, they were not saying that...but hey, now that Poppy and Manny are dirty, automatically the White Sox title holders must have been using.

This is maddening. Everything's hunky dorry til the Red Sox are tainted, then, everyone is tainted.

Screw you,ESPN.

chisoxfanatic
07-31-2009, 09:16 AM
I know, but as mentioned, he probably started to use them to come back from that nasty injury in 2007.
Even if he used them before that, Manny and Papi were the two main "faces" of the Red Sox. You can't get more tainted than the most important players on a team testing positive. That would be like Paulie and Buehrle testing positive for them on the 2005 White Sox.

Did Ozuna do anything other than steal 2nd and score the winning run in the 9th inning of ALCS Game 2 that entire playoff? Yea, that would be comparable to Manny and Papi if he were on that list.

RockyMtnSoxFan
07-31-2009, 09:51 AM
Even if he used them before that, Manny and Papi were the two main "faces" of the Red Sox. You can't get more tainted than the most important players on a team testing positive. That would be like Paulie and Buehrle testing positive for them on the 2005 White Sox.

Did Ozuna do anything other than steal 2nd and score the winning run in the 9th inning of ALCS Game 2 that entire playoff? Yea, that would be comparable to Manny and Papi if he were on that list.

Especially when the biggest reason for them winning was the two big (enhanced) bats of their sluggers. With the Sox in '05, we won on pitching and overall team play. We had a lot of guys step up with clutch hits and great defense, and we threw the right pitch at the right time. It was never a blowout fueled by roiding sluggers.

InKennyWeTrust
07-31-2009, 11:48 AM
I like how Mike & Mike,Buster Olney,Gammons, and everyone associated with the ESPN/Red Sox cabal now say that all the World Series titles since the mid-90's are similarly tainted as the Red Sox 04 and 07 teams that were led by positive testing Poppy and Manny.
Today they say that. Two days ago, they were not saying that...but hey, now that Poppy and Manny are dirty, automatically the White Sox title holders must have been using.

This is maddening. Everything's hunky dorry til the Red Sox are tainted, then, everyone is tainted.

Screw you,ESPN.
Um, that idea has also been inferred by some of us in this thread. And this wasn't talked about two days ago because "the list" wasn't in our mindsets two days ago (something called the Trade Deadline was front and center), and it wouldn't have been today if this news story didn't occur.

hawkjt
07-31-2009, 12:06 PM
My point is that until the list included Poppy and Manny, there was no discussion of all WS Titles being tainted. Now,post this news on Poppy,and Manny ,suddenly ,they are saying the White Sox title is tainted. Bullcrap.

How many times did we endure Hawk waxing eloquent on how Poppy and Manny were the two best 3/4 combo in baseball and maybe the best of all time during this period around 2004?

They were the main drivers of the Red Sox titles.
On the White Sox in 05 it was Pods,Gooch,JD,PK,AJ,Crede and Rowand and a good pitching staff.

Citing Ozuna is laughable..bit player.

Thatguyoverthere
07-31-2009, 09:37 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Rowand had been juicing, but he's the only one on that team I have suspicions toward.

Eddo144
07-31-2009, 10:38 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Rowand had been juicing, but he's the only one on that team I have suspicions toward.
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if a handful of guys on the 2005 team used PEDs.

If it comes out they did, would it make me cherish 2005 any less? Of course not. Just like I won't call the Red Sox' titles "tainted" either.

GoGoCrede
07-31-2009, 10:39 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Rowand had been juicing, but he's the only one on that team I have suspicions toward.

I'm curious, why? And why don't you suspect the others?