PDA

View Full Version : Schilling - There hasn't been a clean championship team in 20 years


Fenway
07-07-2011, 08:32 AM
Ummm Curt - 2005 White Sox say hi

http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/thebuzz/2011/07/curt_schilling.html?sudsredirect=true

Marqhead
07-07-2011, 08:42 AM
Pablo Ozuna.

doublem23
07-07-2011, 08:51 AM
He's just trying to make it OK that the Sawx's only titles came when their best players were roided out of their minds.

It's still cheating, Curt. Nice role model, though. :rolleyes:

sox1970
07-07-2011, 08:56 AM
Luis Vizcaino got busted last week.

asindc
07-07-2011, 08:57 AM
Luis Vizcaino got busted last week.

Did he get busted for what he did in 2005?

sox1970
07-07-2011, 08:59 AM
Did he get busted for what he did in 2005?

No, but Ozuna didn't either.

It's pretty stupid to think nobody on the 2005 White Sox didn't juice. It's sports in the 21st century. People cheat, and they're stupid if they get caught.

asindc
07-07-2011, 09:03 AM
No, but Ozuna didn't either.

It's pretty stupid to think nobody on the 2005 White Sox didn't juice. It's sports in the 21st century. People cheat, and they're stupid if they get caught.

No, it's not.

Which players on the 2005 Sox do you suspect of juicing during that season?

sox1970
07-07-2011, 09:05 AM
No, it's not.

Which players on the 2005 Sox do you suspect of juicing during that season?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, right. Like I'm going to name names.

I have my opinions, but I'll keep them to myself.

doublem23
07-07-2011, 09:10 AM
No, but Ozuna didn't either.

It's pretty stupid to think nobody on the 2005 White Sox didn't juice. It's sports in the 21st century. People cheat, and they're stupid if they get caught.

That's BS. There's plenty of reason to believe that some people are still willing to work hard, put in their dues, and not cut corners. By your logic, everyone is fudging their income taxes, using their grandma's handicapped parking sticker, etc. Since some people do it, obviously "everybody," is, too.

Now, it'd be one thing if Schilling had any sort of credible, damning evidence against the '05 Sox or any other title team in from the past 20 years. But he doesn't, he's just trying to make it seem like his beloved Red Sox teams weren't such bad guys after all. Sure, they won two World Series that are forever tainted by the stench of steroids, but THAT'S OK, everybody was doing it, right? This is just Schilling being the general assclown that he is.

sox1970
07-07-2011, 09:18 AM
That's BS. There's plenty of reason to believe that some people are still willing to work hard, put in their dues, and not cut corners. By your logic, everyone is fudging their income taxes, using their grandma's handicapped parking sticker, etc. Since some people do it, obviously "everybody," is, too.

Now, it'd be one thing if Schilling had any sort of credible, damning evidence against the '05 Sox or any other title team in from the past 20 years. But he doesn't, he's just trying to make it seem like his beloved Red Sox teams weren't such bad guys after all. Sure, they won two World Series that are forever tainted by the stench of steroids, but THAT'S OK, everybody was doing it, right? This is just Schilling being the general assclown that he is.

I didn't say everyone cheated, so don't make it sound like I said that.

asindc
07-07-2011, 09:19 AM
:rolleyes:

Yeah, right. Like I'm going to name names.

I have my opinions, but I'll keep them to myself.

Fine. I'll name two: Cotts and Politte. Other than those two, are there any players from that team whose performance during that season profiles as being enhanced by the juice?

sox1970
07-07-2011, 09:21 AM
Fine. I'll name two: Cotts and Politte. Other than those two, are there any players from that team whose performance during that season profiles as being enhanced by the juice?

Not going there. Sorry.

spawn
07-07-2011, 09:23 AM
I didn't say everyone cheated, so don't make it sound like I said that.



It's pretty stupid to think nobody on the 2005 White Sox didn't juice.
The way this statement is worded makes it look like you're implicating everyone.

sox1970
07-07-2011, 09:33 AM
The way this statement is worded makes it look like you're implicating everyone.

To be clear...I don't think everyone on the 2005 White Sox was juiced up. I just think it's naive to think that at least one player from that team, or any other major league team, was completely PED-free. To this day, I think there are players on every team that are getting away with something, but players know what to take and when to take it, if they choose to continue to cheat. Hopefully the testing and the stigma has curbed using some.

asindc
07-07-2011, 09:36 AM
Not going there. Sorry.

Alright, if you are going to implicate the team as a whole, at least provide some reasons why other than 'guilt by association.'

sox1970
07-07-2011, 09:40 AM
Alright, if you are going to implicate the team as a whole, at least provide some reasons why other than 'guilt by association.'

Common sense.

asindc
07-07-2011, 09:46 AM
Common sense.

By that logic, you might as well say 'common sense' will tell you that at least one WSI poster has thrown an object at a player. No matter how you dress it up, it's still guilt by association without any evidence... or rationale for that matter.

sox1970
07-07-2011, 09:52 AM
By that logic, you might as well say 'common sense' will tell you that at least one WSI poster has thrown an object at a player. No matter how you dress it up, it's still guilt by association without any evidence... or rationale for that matter.

It's not a courtroom. It's a message board. I didn't slander anyone, but my opinion is my opinion.

If you want to choose to think the 2005 White Sox were as pure as the driven snow, go right ahead.

asindc
07-07-2011, 09:56 AM
It's not a courtroom. It's a message board. I didn't slander anyone, but my opinion is my opinion.

If you want to choose to think the 2005 White Sox were as pure as the driven snow, go right ahead.

I have better proof that they are than you do that they are not. Thus, my opinion on the matter, which actually mirrors the known facts. By the way, the Chicago White Sox organization itself might have an actionable case against you for slander with your comments.

doublem23
07-07-2011, 10:01 AM
To be clear...I don't think everyone on the 2005 White Sox was juiced up. I just think it's naive to think that at least one player from that team, or any other major league team, was completely PED-free. To this day, I think there are players on every team that are getting away with something, but players know what to take and when to take it, if they choose to continue to cheat. Hopefully the testing and the stigma has curbed using some.

Fair enough, I personally disagree with your opinion, but I respect that you articulated it as intelligently as you did.

That said, I have zero respect for Schilling his position as an "expert" or "insider" or whatever the hell he fancies himself as to go ahead and out every team that's won a World Series in the past 20 years with no proof other than his opinion. If he had some evidence beyond his gut feeling, I'd be willing to hear what he has to say. But all we've got right now is a slimeball trying to cover for other slimeballs.

sox1970
07-07-2011, 10:07 AM
Fair enough, I personally disagree with your opinion, but I respect that you articulated it as intelligently as you did.

That said, I have zero respect for Schilling his position as an "expert" or "insider" or whatever the hell he fancies himself as to go ahead and out every team that's won a World Series in the past 20 years with no proof other than his opinion. If he had some evidence beyond his gut feeling, I'd be willing to hear what he has to say. But all we've got right now is a slimeball trying to cover for other slimeballs.

I agree--Schilling and people in the industry should just shut it about the past. He was part of the Player's Association during that time. I didn't hear him screaming from the mountain top then, and I don't want to hear it from him now either.

SI1020
07-07-2011, 10:14 AM
Fine. I'll name two: Cotts and Politte. Other than those two, are there any players from that team whose performance during that season profiles as being enhanced by the juice? I could understand performance wise why you mentioned those two, but looking at their physical appearances compared to before and after I'd say no way. Especially Cotts.

asindc
07-07-2011, 10:30 AM
I could understand performance wise why you mentioned those two, but looking at their physical appearances compared to before and after I'd say no way. Especially Cotts.

I agree, but I was just trying to throw sox1970 a bone.

Bobby Thigpen
07-07-2011, 11:23 AM
You don't have to have the classic bodybuilder/bulk physique to have taken PEDs. A lot of pitchers took them not to get big but for their recovery properties. Instead of being tired 4 of the 5 days between starts it would cut the recovery time to two days. Now guys like Clemens that used that time to aggressively lift weights, they did get bigger because they lifted. Im certain that there were plenty of twiggy pitchers that used something.

Its pretty naive to think the Sox didn't have someone using something. That being said, I would say they are probably one of the cleaner teams of the roid era.

Bob Roarman
07-07-2011, 11:31 AM
Yeah I really don't see what the big deal is. They probably did have a player or two that used PEDs. Every team probably did. What are you going to do? It's more likely that it's the way Schilling says it is than it is the way Fenway says it is: that the one guiding light in all the PED use and cheating just happened to be the 2005 White Sox. Tough to buy.

TDog
07-07-2011, 12:30 PM
Fine. I'll name two: Cotts and Politte. Other than those two, are there any players from that team whose performance during that season profiles as being enhanced by the juice?

Why would you assume that because relief pitchers have career years that they did so with the help of drugs? What physical attributes did they possess in 2005 that they did not in previous or later years, and why weren't they juicing sooner and why did they choose to stop before the 2006 season? What attributes to their performances make you believe their achievements were enhanced by drugs.

A Northern California sports columnist about a decade ago wrote that he was certain Frank Thomas was on steroids. Strange that he didn't accuse anyone on the A's or even the Giants. Of course, he didn't need to because everyone east, north and south of the San Francisco Bay was pointing fingers at Bay Area baseball. (You can't spell BALCO ...) That was why he was pointing figers elsewhere.

Important players on your team obviously cheated. Shrug your shoulders and say it's no big deal because there hasn't been a clean champion in 10 years. Without proof, vaguely accuse people who are above defending themselves because any defense would raise questions among fans.

What a classy thing to do.

SI1020
07-07-2011, 12:40 PM
Why would you assume that because relief pitchers have career years that they did so with the help of drugs? What physical attributes did they possess in 2005 that they did not in previous or later years, and why weren't they juicing sooner and why did they choose to stop before the 2006 season? What attributes to their performances make you believe their achievements were enhanced by drugs.

A Northern California sports columnist about a decade ago wrote that he was certain Frank Thomas was on steroids. Strange that he didn't accuse anyone on the A's or even the Giants. Of course, he didn't need to because everyone east, north and south of the San Francisco Bay was pointing fingers at Bay Area baseball. (You can't spell BALCO ...) That was why he was pointing figers elsewhere.

Important players on your team obviously cheated. Shrug your shoulders and say it's no big deal because there hasn't been a clean champion in 10 years. Without proof, vaguely accuse people who are above defending themselves because any defense would raise questions among fans.

What a classy thing to do.

I could understand performance wise why you mentioned those two, but looking at their physical appearances compared to before and after I'd say no way. Especially Cotts.

I agree, but I was just trying to throw sox1970 a bone.

Now I feel a little bad because I knew that's what asindc was doing in his original post about the two Sox relievers. I merely wanted to point out that despite their "career" years I suspected nothing. I think Schilling is a different kind of drama queen than Clemens.

asindc
07-07-2011, 01:12 PM
Why would you assume that because relief pitchers have career years that they did so with the help of drugs? What physical attributes did they possess in 2005 that they did not in previous or later years, and why weren't they juicing sooner and why did they choose to stop before the 2006 season? What attributes to their performances make you believe their achievements were enhanced by drugs.

A Northern California sports columnist about a decade ago wrote that he was certain Frank Thomas was on steroids. Strange that he didn't accuse anyone on the A's or even the Giants. Of course, he didn't need to because everyone east, north and south of the San Francisco Bay was pointing fingers at Bay Area baseball. (You can't spell BALCO ...) That was why he was pointing figers elsewhere.

Important players on your team obviously cheated. Shrug your shoulders and say it's no big deal because there hasn't been a clean champion in 10 years. Without proof, vaguely accuse people who are above defending themselves because any defense would raise questions among fans.

What a classy thing to do.

TDog,

I don't know if you read through the entire thread, but the following posts represent my position on this issue.

Luis Vizcaino got busted last week.

Did he get busted for what he did in 2005?

No, but Ozuna didn't either.

It's pretty stupid to think nobody on the 2005 White Sox didn't juice. It's sports in the 21st century. People cheat, and they're stupid if they get caught.

No, it's not.

Which players on the 2005 Sox do you suspect of juicing during that season?

:rolleyes:

Yeah, right. Like I'm going to name names.

I have my opinions, but I'll keep them to myself.

Fine. I'll name two: Cotts and Politte. Other than those two, are there any players from that team whose performance during that season profiles as being enhanced by the juice?

Not going there. Sorry.

Alright, if you are going to implicate the team as a whole, at least provide some reasons why other than 'guilt by association.'

Common sense.

By that logic, you might as well say 'common sense' will tell you that at least one WSI poster has thrown an object at a player. No matter how you dress it up, it's still guilt by association without any evidence... or rationale for that matter.

It's not a courtroom. It's a message board. I didn't slander anyone, but my opinion is my opinion.

If you want to choose to think the 2005 White Sox were as pure as the driven snow, go right ahead.

I have better proof that they are than you do that they are not. Thus, my opinion on the matter, which actually mirrors the known facts. By the way, the Chicago White Sox organization itself might have an actionable case against you for slander with your comments.

To SI1020, thanks. I knew someone understood the point I made.

Jurr
07-07-2011, 01:20 PM
I was told by a bench player for the 2003 Sox that Timo Perez kept himself in the majors by juicing.

Moses_Scurry
07-07-2011, 02:13 PM
If irrefutable evidence comes out that Pablo Ozuna, Luis Vizcaino, and Timo used PEDs in 2005, I won't lose any sleep over it.

Those guys had slightly more to do with the Sox winning the championship than the September callups who hardly played.

Big difference between Ozuna/Vizcaino and Manny/Ortiz.

I feel that I can pretty confidently say that the Sox would have still won the World Series if those guys were replaced by AAA bums. Hell, one of the bums might have come up big in game 1 of the ALCS, and it would have been a clean sweep!

ComiskeyBrewer
07-07-2011, 04:43 PM
By the way, the Chicago White Sox organization itself might have an actionable case against you for slander with your comments.

Slander is spoken, not written(libel is written version of defamation).

What he said could be close to considered defamation, but they have no real case against him, because there is no identifiable victim.

asindc
07-07-2011, 04:45 PM
Slander is spoken(libel is written version of defamation).

What he said could be close to considered defamation, but they have no real case against him, because there is no identifiable victim.

You are correct in the distinction between libel and slander, but institutions have been identified as victims in the past.

Zisk77
07-07-2011, 05:05 PM
I could understand performance wise why you mentioned those two, but looking at their physical appearances compared to before and after I'd say no way. Especially Cotts.

Noy saying I agree or disagree with the speculation on Cotts or Politte, but I think you are confusing steroids as the only PED. Many pitchers used HGH to recover faster from pitching performances. That doesn't make you Barry Bonds/Sosa big freakazoids. Also, for a little guy Politte was pretty stout.

SI1020
07-07-2011, 06:08 PM
[/B]

Noy saying I agree or disagree with the speculation on Cotts or Politte, but I think you are confusing steroids as the only PED. Many pitchers used HGH to recover faster from pitching performances. That doesn't make you Barry Bonds/Sosa big freakazoids. Also, for a little guy Politte was pretty stout. I'm aware of that. There are many varieties and combinations of PED's out there. Most PED's leave some kind of physical evidence. Deca Durobolin and other similar steroids used by hitters and pitchers alike are an example of this. Politte listed at 5'11 185, but closer to 5'9 200, always threw hard. Too bad for the Sox he fell off the baseball map in 06.

A. Cavatica
07-07-2011, 08:36 PM
Schilling is a blowhard, but he's in a better position to report on who's clean and who's not than any of us.

SI1020
07-07-2011, 09:18 PM
Let him give a year by year, player by player account. He has very little credibility with me.

ComiskeyBrewer
07-08-2011, 12:43 AM
You are correct in the distinction between libel and slander, but institutions have been identified as victims in the past.


Had he said the Chicago White Sox were all steroid users, then yes, you have a case for defamation, but to say a few people on the team were users is too vague(in terms of being able to win the case). Could you have a case? Maybe, but again, the victim is a bit hard to define. A good defense lawyer would tear that argument apart.

TDog
07-08-2011, 01:04 AM
TDog,

I don't know if you read through the entire thread, but the following posts represent my position on this issue. ...

I didn't mean to misrepresent your position on the issue, and I apologize if I seemed to. When I wrote it, I didn't even believe I was disagreeing with you. I quoted your reference to the 2 Sox relievers as part of the discussion. Sure they had career years. That's what relievers sometimes do. I don't quote people because I disagree with them, but it might have been clearer that we were essentially arguing on the same side of the issue if I had quoted the post you were quoting and left you out of it.

As emotionally charged as threads can get sometimes, and, really, there would be no point if we all were in agreement, I should have been more sensitive to the appearance that I was accusing you of taking an opposing view.

I think most of us agree that Schilling is being a jerk, dismissing legimate commentary about accomplishments that loom large in his legend with vague accusation.

Nellie_Fox
07-08-2011, 01:05 AM
Hey Curt: Name names, give evidence, or shut up. Running your mouth like this about things in the past accomplishes absolutely nothing except bringing attention to Schilling.

Boondock Saint
07-08-2011, 04:08 AM
Schilling is a blowhard, but he's in a better position to report on who's clean and who's not than any of us.

Bull****. He's in a better position to report on who is and is not clean on the teams he played for, but the coward isn't doing that. He's covering the asses of the guys he played with, and instead throwing every player on every championship team in the last 20 years under the bus without a shred of evidence or credibility. Outside of the teams he played for, I'm exactly as qualified as he is to report on who is and is not clean in baseball.

TaylorStSox
07-08-2011, 07:43 AM
Call me pessimistic, but I'd bet there's still a large percentage of players (20-25%) taking PED's in every sport. It's just too easy to not get caught. Remember, millions of dollars are at stake for these guys. Over the years, I've somewhat lightened my stance against the players of the steroid era in baseball. There was a true rat race to put up ungodly numbers. The MLB's at fault as they harbored an environment of cheating. They swept it under the rug. They promoted suspected or known cheats. With the advancement's of medicine, it's a reality in the landscape of sports today. I'm a cycling fan. I'm at the point where I assume every one of those guys is cheating in some capacity. It's unfortunate, but a reality.

doublem23
07-08-2011, 08:26 AM
Bull****. He's in a better position to report on who is and is not clean on the teams he played for, but the coward isn't doing that. He's covering the asses of the guys he played with, and instead throwing every player on every championship team in the last 20 years under the bus without a shred of evidence or credibility. Outside of the teams he played for, I'm exactly as qualified as he is to report on who is and is not clean in baseball.

Yes, thanks. From 1992 on, Schilling only played with three teams, so I'm sure if in your locker room, all the best players are just drugged up, it's easy to think that's just the norm, but outside of Boston, Arizona, or Philadelphia, how much could he have known. It's not like he's some kind journeyman like Mike Morgan who played on 1/2 the teams in the league. Again, if he had some evidence, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe his crap. He's just trying to help save face for his cheater friends.

Moses_Scurry
07-08-2011, 08:34 AM
Yes, thanks. From 1992 on, Schilling only played with three teams, so I'm sure if in your locker room, all the best players are just drugged up, it's easy to think that's just the norm, but outside of Boston, Arizona, or Philadelphia, how much could he have known. It's not like he's some kind journeyman like Mike Morgan who played on 1/2 the teams in the league. Again, if he had some evidence, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe his crap. He's just trying to help save face for his cheater friends.

Probably himself as well.

Bobby Thigpen
07-08-2011, 10:43 AM
Something tells me that if someone people like more than Curt Schooling said this exact thing there wouldn't be three pages of anger directed at his comments.

doublem23
07-08-2011, 10:48 AM
Something tells me that if someone people like more than Curt Schooling said this exact thing there wouldn't be three pages of anger directed at his comments.

Perhaps. Generally speaking, if you want people to believe your baseless comments at face, it's not a good idea to act like an assbag for the better part of the past 2 decades.

SI1020
07-08-2011, 10:57 AM
How are you supposed to respect a guy who does the verbal equivalent of opening a door, lobbing a grenade inside and then closing the door while he ducks away quickly? Very manly of him.

Huisj
07-08-2011, 11:30 AM
As for the Neal Cotts accusations, his super season in 2005 shows no evidence of PEDs from what I can see. His fastball wasn't overpowering. His K rate was slightly higher than it had been other years, but it wasn't crazy. He was successful because opponents had an extremely low home run rate off him despite hitting flyballs at a pretty standard rate. His line drive rate was very low too, leading to a low BABIP. He got out of jam after jam after jam by having guys hit the ball weakly or getting some key strikeouts. He wasn't blowing 96 MPH fastballs by people.

The next year, he suddenly allowed a crazy high rate of home runs and a few more linedrives, and people hit him better. That doesn't mean he was PEDs the year before.

As for Cliff Politte, his story is fairly similar. He always had struck people out at a decent rate in both his good and lousy seasons leading up to 2005. His K rate in 2005 was actually down a bit from where it had been, but his BB rate also dropped some. He too somehow allowed a rather low HR/FB rate despite allowing a decent number of flyballs. This and a low line drive rate put his BABIP at a very low .201--it seems guys popped the ball up a ton instead of hitting line drives off him that year. He didn't do this by blowing guys away--his fastball, while still good, was a bit slower than it had been in the years before. Maybe that loss of a MPH or so gave him more movement and batters didn't adjust and hit lots of infield pop-ups. Who knows. We do know what happened the next year--his arm fell apart and he lost his fastball and with it his career. If any of that points to PEDs, I sure can't find it.

The stars aligned for those two guys that year (along with a lot of other players) to have exceptional seasons, and it was a big part of the team's success.

Bobby Thigpen
07-08-2011, 11:43 AM
How are you supposed to respect a guy who does the verbal equivalent of opening a door, lobbing a grenade inside and then closing the door while he ducks away quickly? Very manly of him.
What I'm saying is that if someone else, say Frank Thomas, said exactly the same thing not only would few here be outraged, quite a few would probably support him.

Soxfest
07-08-2011, 11:56 AM
What a jerk his team was the worst of all!

TommyJohn
07-08-2011, 07:46 PM
What I'm saying is that if someone else, say Frank Thomas, said exactly the same thing not only would few here be outraged, quite a few would probably support him.

Well, guess what? Frank Thomas didn't say it, Schilling did.

spawn
07-08-2011, 07:47 PM
Well, guess what? Frank Thomas didn't say it, Schilling did.

Exactly. Schilling hasn't met a microphone he didn't like.

PeteWard
07-09-2011, 01:20 PM
What I'm saying is that if someone else, say Frank Thomas, said exactly the same thing not only would few here be outraged, quite a few would probably support him.

What I'm saying is that Schilling is an ******* and is rationalizing and deflecting criticism of the juicing of the two highest profile players on his championship team by saying everyone did it. So it is a suspect charge.

doublem23
07-09-2011, 01:34 PM
What I'm saying is that if someone else, say Frank Thomas, said exactly the same thing not only would few here be outraged, quite a few would probably support him.

Well, Frank Thomas isn't a ******* media whore. He's a guy who quietly advocated for stronger drug testing early in the steroids era while everyone else was too busy rolling in money because of all the homers. So yeah, Frank Thomas has actually earned some respect from the baseball community on this subject. While Curt and his Sawx were out pumping drugs in each other, he was in Congress testifying about their problem in Major League Baseball.

So in other words. Frank Thomas has been a leader on this topic for years. Schilling is a dick. I wonder why more people would support him.