I’ve never taken steroids, I’ve never taken HGH

That's what Rafael Palmeiro said! He's a witch! BURN HIM!

What's wrong with protein shakes?

Here we go, a weekend of righteous indignation from all the Red Sox players. Great.

I’ve never gotten an injection from a team doctor or otherwise that I didn’t ask and wasn’t told exactly what it was.

No. You asked what it was. They told you something, and you just assumed it to be true. You have no way of knowing if that substance which you were injected with was actually what they said.

He's absolutely right, of course. Manny's "explanation" can't pass the "old straight face test".

I'm a fan of Jason Bay from his Pittsburgh days, but if it turns out he's been juicing, I'm gonna laaaaaaaaaaugh.

I like that he took the extra effort to put an accent in "crème."

No. You asked what it was. They told you something, and you just assumed it to be true. You have no way of knowing if that substance which you were injected with was actually what they said.

Why on earth would they lie? Do they enjoy being sued?

Yet somehow we’re hearing these same people talk about being struck momentarily stupid when West African bullfrog semen is found in their blood. “What? How’d that get there????”

All right, all right! The West African bullfrog took me out to dinner, there were candles, we drank too much wine... Next thing I know I wake up on a lilypad in Dakar and the frog is lying next to me smoking a cigarette. I'm not proud of myself.

(checks another name on the list) I'm still a bit disappointed in Haw-Haw's response.

I like that he took the extra effort to put an accent in "crème."

Was it BALCO that was selling the crème and the clair?

Why on earth would they lie? Do they enjoy being sued?

I'm not saying they would. However, in this case, Schilling only knows what was told to him, not what was actually given to him. Asking doesn't mean #### - after all, Sheffield's entire defense for his steroid exposure was that he asked and was told it was flaxseed oil.

In several cases too, there have been issues where a trainer or doctor's had the team's interests ahead of the players - didn't one of the owners of the Red Sox (also a doctor) get sued for not telling a player the full extent of his injuries and surgery?

Manny's fertility drug helps him make that infamous Bullfrog Semen, which he then doesn't use, but sells to make some extra cash. His career shouldn't be tainted.

Yet again, I am reminded why I love love love the fact that Schilling is a blogger. He actually takes intelligent (albeit opinionated and, hey, defensive too) positions on these issues:

Because if you honestly think that in the last 10 years one team for even one season had NO PLAYERS using Steroids or HGH you’re kidding yourself. As horrifying and pathetic as it sounds, players cheated their way to a level playing field of a different sort. Please save the, “Oh but this guy only did it for one year,” and, “No one knows how long he was doing it.” Save that.

This is a point I've seen discussed a couple of times by certain Primates, but it's downright stunning to see a ballplayer, much less one of Schilling's visibility and caliber, throwing it out there. I would actually argue against it on several grounds (mostly the fact that the "level playing field" was, if it existed, on a strictly collective team level rather than the individual one that matters financially to players, esp. marginal ones), but it's bracing to see someone inside the game acknowledge it.

What's wrong with protein shakes?

Basically, they're really gross. That's all I got.

The real question is has Schilling cheated in MMORPG

What's wrong with protein shakes?

Concerns over contamination? I have no idea.

Schilling is simply a great American.

I'm more surprised that Schilling limited it to "the last 10 years". I figured the trend had begun in earnest in the mid-90s. People like Ken Caminiti might have been outliers at that time?

This is a point I've seen discussed a couple of times by certain Primates, but it's downright stunning to see a ballplayer, much less one of Schilling's visibility and caliber, throwing it out there.

As I mentioned in another thread, one way I'd like to test this is a new investigation on the personnel offices of MLB. We already now that one office was scouting based on steroid use. We know another had a farm system called the "labratory" I'd like to know if and how much steroid intel was being used by teams for team construction.

I’ve never taken steroids, I’ve never taken HGH, and I am not saying that to clear my name or make a statement, I’m saying that because even though I did not, I’ve never drank a protein shake from my strength coach, I’ve never taken medication from a doctor or the team, I’ve never gotten an injection from a team doctor or otherwise that I didn’t ask and wasn’t told exactly what it was.

He seems to have the opposite problem of Bill Plaschke.

As I mentioned in another thread, one way I'd like to test this is a new investigation on the personnel offices of MLB. We already now that one office was scouting based on steroid use. We know another had a farm system called the "labratory" I'd like to know if and how much steroid intel was being used by teams for team construction.

Indeed. Subpoenas should be given to anyone who worked in the Dodgers front office in 2004 or 2005, or the Blue Jays from 2002 to the present, in addition to the two you mention.

What's wrong with protein shakes?

Isn't this a reference to JC Romero's defense? that he tested positive from something he bought over the counter at GNC?

What's wrong with protein shakes?

As I think #21 is getting at, I think Schilling's sentence should be read as follows:

"I’ve never drank a protein shake from my strength coach ... that I didn’t ask and wasn’t told exactly what it was."

it's downright stunning to see a ballplayer, much less one of Schilling's visibility and caliber, throwing it out there.

FWIW, Schilling was one of the few players calling for increased testing before 2003. He even argued with the MLBPA about it, IIRC.

By the way, I would strongly recommend that people RTFA on this one, instead of going merely on the excerpt. There's a lot of great stuff, including this cri-de-coeur:

For the past 19 years or so I’ve had suspicions, some stronger than others, but to sit here today and say I played on even one team that was totally clean would be denying reality I think. I’ve never personally seen a player inject, ingest, swallow HGH, or steroids but like every other player I played with that had his eyes open I saw the huge weight gains in one winter, I saw the hat size increase, I saw the acne in places a camel would be embarrassed to have it. I watched the player hit 20 more homers in one year than they ever had, then revert back, I saw the pitcher throwing 87-90 come to spring training throwing 95-97, I saw all of that. None of those are ‘no brainers’ — none — but they were hints, and when you get enough hints you can see the answer clearly if you are looking.

I played pretty much my entire career in the Steroid Era.

There, I said it. Not rocket science, not an earth shattering revelation, just an enormously disappointing recognition of the label that will accompany the era in which I was allowed to play this game.

I did so never taking Steroids, HGH, cow urine, horse feces, or West African bullfrog semen, and for that yeah, I am proud. Proud of something that really doesn’t deserve praise, does it? Not committing a crime is something to get lauded and applauded for? Are we really that bad off as a society that we’re looking for the ‘few, the proud,’ the non-felons?

Was it BALCO that was selling the crème and the clair?

Well, just in the Canadian market.

I’ve never personally seen a player inject, ingest, swallow HGH, or steroids but like every other player I played with that had his eyes open I saw the huge weight gains in one winter, I saw the hat size increase, I saw the acne in places a camel would be embarrassed to have it.

Isn't this statement pretty much in direct opposition to what he was saying, leading up to the Congressional hearings? At that point, as far as I can remember, he was repeatedly spouting off about steroids, and how he knew all sorts of guys who were taking, how it was all over the clubhouse, and so on and so on. Back then, he wasn't talking in terms of this indirect observation, but in terms of straight fact. It was only once he got to Congress that he suddenly dialed it back to this "well, I never saw anyone, but you heard rumors" crap.

Well, just in the Canadian market.

one looney per milliliter plus P.S.T. and G.S.T. ?

FWIW, Schilling was one of the few players calling for increased testing before 2003. He even argued with the MLBPA about it, IIRC.

When John Smoltz basically called out the entire 1993 Phillies team for using on Dan Patrick's radio show (this was around 2002 or so) Schilling called it spoiled grapes.

Isn't this statement pretty much in direct opposition to what he was saying, leading up to the Congressional hearings? At that point, as far as I can remember, he was repeatedly spouting off about steroids, and how he knew all sorts of guys who were taking, how it was all over the clubhouse, and so on and so on. Back then, he wasn't talking in terms of this indirect observation, but in terms of straight fact. It was only once he got to Congress that he suddenly dialed it back this "well, I never saw anyone, but you heard rumors" crap.

That's a pretty ridiculous hair to split, Ryan, and I think you know it. It's quite clear (at least ultra-plausible) that Schilling was, like the loudmouth he is, generalizing from exactly the sorts of things he's talking about in his blogpost to "yeah, these guys are juicing." Why? Because, as we've all pointed out thousands of times here on BBTF, Schilling is a guy who sometimes lets his words get carelessly away from him. I can identify because I've done the exact same thing countless times (overstepped with my words or claims when engaged emotionally in a subject, then had to walk them back slightly when called on it). You have to, going on the evidence of your posts. Almost any intelligent person who engages in debate has as well. Every political blogger in the world, for example. It's a nigh universal trait.

You can use this scenario to try to impugn his integrity as much as you want, but you know and I know that what almost certainly was going on is exactly as I described, and it's a cheap rhetorical tactic to try to undermine his credibility when the human emotional mechanism he fell victim to is so clearly apparent. The only reason to harp on it would seem to me to be a desire to win an argument on style points, rather than substantive merit.

Because if you honestly think that in the last 10 years one team for even one season had NO PLAYERS using Steroids or HGH you’re kidding yourself. As horrifying and pathetic as it sounds, players cheated their way to a level playing field of a different sort. Please save the, “Oh but this guy only did it for one year,” and, “No one knows how long he was doing it.” Save that

So Schilling has gone from "I've never seen it or heard about it" to you are kidding yourself if you think people didn't take it?

Someone should get him in front of congress


I see I am late on this statement.

Click through to his blog post and then click again to the radio interview with WEEI linked at the bottom of the post. He goes even further and says more interesting stuff in the interview.

Eso, this wasn't a one-time thing - Schilling, leading up to the Congressional hearings, was telling anyone who would listen about the depths to which steroids had infiltrated sports, and how he knew (and had seen) all sorts of things first hand. If it was boasting (and I will admit that Schilling is definitely prone to an excess of bluster) then it was a sustained boast, and not just a one-off slip of the tongue.

For the record, I believe that he did see this as well. From what we've heard from the limited number of players who have admitted to their intentional use of PEDs (as opposed to the "I took a contaminated supplement" or the "I only used it once - okay twice - three times at the most" crowds), it was a very open secret. I can also understand why, even if he did have first hand knowledge of the PED habits of other players, he would still choose to back it down to the "Well, I never saw anything first hand" route he's now taking. After all, getting a reputation as a clubhouse rat is not the best way to ensure a long post-playing career in baseball.

If he wants the glory for being one of the earliest outspoken critics (and I do give him credit for that), he also has to take the criticism for either overstepping his bounds in his statements (if he didn't actually see things), or choosing not to back up his words with details (if he really did see things).

I saw the huge weight gains in one winter, I saw the hat size increase, I saw the acne in places a camel would be embarrassed to have it. I watched the player hit 20 more homers in one year than they ever had, then revert back, I saw the pitcher throwing 87-90 come to spring training throwing 95-97, I saw all of that. None of those are ‘no brainers’ — none — but they were hints, and when you get enough hints you can see the answer clearly if you are looking.

Curt Schilling on his encounter with Roger Clemens in the winter of 1991:

"I was kind of wandering around the weight room, just passing time, and our hitting coach said Roger wanted to have a few minutes of my time," Schilling remembered. "On the way home from the (ball park) that day, I looked at the game tremendously different."

And what did Clemens say?

"Not a lot of it is printable," Schilling said, drawing laughter.

Later, with a smaller crowd surrounding him, he gave a detailed explanation.

"He just talked about having a respect for the game and how everything flows from that," Schilling said. "How if you disrespect the game, you're disrespecting your family.

"How there's a physical side to the game, how you need to work away from the park. I was at an age when I didn't think about that.

"He hit every nail on the head as far as I'm concerned."

31 is quite the elaborate apology for Schilling.

Schilling seems like a good guy in many ways. He cares about the game, and the fans. He does some good stuff for charity. He is articulate. He was a hell of a pitcher and desrves all the credit he got for the 2004 Red Sox title. I think he should be in the HoF. As I have said before, I wish he'd post here--he'd fit right in with the rest of us opinionated keyboard-diarrhea types.

But he is also in many ways an arrogant, self-righteous, endlessly publicity-seeking jackass, who supposedly, like Mark Grace allegedly did, sucked up to the the media by trashing teammates off the record. His endless chest-pounding about how he didn't take PEDs and the endless trashing of Manny Ramirez are pure self-aggrandizement as much as anything else, regardless of his motivations. His act on PEDs is another example of both sides of the guy.

31 is quite the elaborate apology for Schilling.

Well, I am quite the elaborate Schilling apologist.

Well, I am quite the elaborate Schilling apologist

.


Indeed. When he runs for John McCain's US Senate seat when McCain retires in a few years, I think you should move to Phoenix, put up your law shingle, and be Schill's campaign manager. You'll get used to the heat, and the Diamondbacks are better than the Nats.

No. You asked what it was. They told you something, and you just assumed it to be true. You have no way of knowing if that substance which you were injected with was actually what they said.

Am I really my parents' child? Do I remember being born? Do all my friends just pretend to like me so they can mock me behind my back? How do I know I perceive the color I call "green" the same way that others do? Maybe I see green as "red" and red as "green". Is there another guy who lives in my apartment when I'm at work? Were all my belongings stolen and replaced with exact replicas?

Eso, this wasn't a one-time thing - Schilling, leading up to the Congressional hearings, was telling anyone who would listen about the depths to which steroids had infiltrated sports, and how he knew (and had seen) all sorts of things first hand. If it was boasting (and I will admit that Schilling is definitely prone to an excess of bluster) then it was a sustained boast, and not just a one-off slip of the tongue.

Ryan, I cannot emphasize enough how much you should listen to the radio interview linked in Schilling's blogpost. He explains exactly what you're talking about. (It's near 17:30 mark or so.) He says "look, I never saw these guys injecting themselves, but you know as much about athletes as I do to know that there are always stupid braggart idiots among them, like that one guy who will say "DUDE, LOOK AT HOW GREAT I AM ON THE [STEROID] CYCLE." The radio host then instantly mentions Lenny Dykstra and you know it's not an accident, given what a braggardly hollow man Dykstra is.

I agree with your point that, in a substantive way, he backed down before Congress because he didn't want to look like a clubhouse snitch. But his point about how, on a legal evidentiary standard, he never saw these people putting steroids into their bodies, remains likely true. He merely heard some bragging about it, heard "open secret" whispers about others, and drew sensible conclusions. Was it a failure of moral courage for him not to come forth with all of this circumstantial evidence (much of it hearsay) at the hearings? Yeah, it probably was. But he was in a pretty impossible situation at that point. One of his own outspoken making, perhaps, but not a major moral failing given that he really did make an effort in his own way to speak out on the steroid issue before he knew he might be called to testify in front of Congress and destroy his career by naming names. After all, we all know what people thought about Elia Kazan (and even Reagan) on the left when THEY named names in an arguably much more worthy cause.

Eso, I'll listen to the interview later. I'm not in a place where I can do so right now. If the reasoning Schilling uses is as you say, then I can probably cut him some slack, although I still strongly disagree with the tone he repeatedly struck leading up to the hearings - even if it wasn't Congress, he should have been well aware of the likelihood that someone was going to call him on his fairly direct claims.

Also, I agree with you that he was in a basically impossible situation, once he found himself in front of Congress (even though, as you note, it was a situation at least partially of his own making).

I agree with this Schilling guy that many of these world class athletes are body obsessed to the point they know every gram of material that enters their bodies. These excuses never many people except the NFL sports media apparently.

Was it BALCO that was selling the crème and the clair?

No, that was BALCOUX

Just what the world needs, Schilling's reasons why he is better then everyone.

So what's the public stance on soldiers using steroids?

So what's the public stance on soldiers using steroids?

No idea, but the public doesn't seem too bothered about combat pilots being loaded up on amps.

No idea, but the public doesn't seem too bothered about combat pilots being loaded up on amps.

Which reminds me, in a roundabout way, of this timeless classic. (possibly NSFW)

Dude, if you're going to link to SomethingAwful, it's probably for the best to slap a NSFW on it.

Yeah, I know it's not like they're a site of true terror, but there's a fair amount of material over there which could easily get someone into a big heap of trouble at the office.

Meh. If I were linking to something that had sex, violence, or cursing; or even to a page rather than directly to an image ... and who in this day and age clicks on a link without mousing over it to see where it leads?

Nonetheless, edited in the interests of charity.

who in this day and age clicks on a link without mousing over it to see where it leads?

Have we learned nothing from Madeleine Albright?

Have we learned nothing from Madeleine Albright?

I've learned that she causes retinal scarring, but I doubt that's what you meant.

Meh. If I were linking to something that had sex, violence, or cursing; or even to a page rather than directly to an image ... and who in this day and age clicks on a link without mousing over it to see where it leads?

Hey, I agree with you, but SomethingAwful is one of those sites which a hell of a lot of companies have on their "Don't" list. To a lot of people, that you didn't go to the bad part of the site doesn't matter, since you still went to a site which has a bad part.

And I say that as someone who has been going to SA for years.

Curt Schilling on his encounter with Roger Clemens in the winter of 1991:

Do you remember what Clemens looked like in 1996? The only thing he was on then was calories.

Schilling: "I’ve never drank a protein shake from my strength coach... that I didn’t ask and wasn’t told exactly what it was. ...a step to setup the acceleration of your recovery or magnification of gains from your hours of work and you just go dumb?"

Ortiz: "You've got to be careful. I used to buy a protein shake in my country... I'm off buying things at the GNC back in the Dominican. But it can happen anytime, it can happen. I don't know. I don't know if I drank something in my youth, not knowing it."

It's an excellent column by Schilling, up to and including the quote cited in #14. But Schilling would be a little more excellent and a lot more bold if, once in a while, he kicked a target who wasn't already out the door, down the road, and out of sight.

I agree with your point that

Also, I agree with you

Ah, nice to read a reasonable argument - thanks Ryan and Eso. Seriously, the sniping and refusal to reason with others gets a little old.

Hey, I agree with you, but SomethingAwful is one of those sites which a hell of a lot of companies have on their "Don't" list. To a lot of people, that you didn't go to the bad part of the site doesn't matter, since you still went to a site which has a bad part.

It's a weird day when working behind two checkpoints with armed guards and two cypher-locked doors apparently does not qualify me as the guy with the most paranoid workplace. :)

I'm a fan of Jason Bay from his Pittsburgh days, but if it turns out he's been juicing, I'm gonna laaaaaaaaaaugh.

Here's what I don't get: why name names? How can Schilling be absolutely sure that Mike Vrabel never ever used PEDs? That section runs counter to the whole tone of the piece, which is rather nicely articulated balancing of doubt and suspicion (Schilling the practical epistemologist!). The whole idea of "relishing" the assumed virtue of professional athletes you'll never know in any way cuts against the grain of his final and antepenultimate paragraphs, as well. I can see why you might admire Mike Lowell, Curt, but I haven't much of a clue about the guy beyond his performance as a ball player.

Here's what I don't get: why name names? How can Schilling be absolutely sure that Mike Vrabel never ever used PEDs? That section runs counter to the whole tone of the piece, which is rather nicely articulated balancing of doubt and suspicion (Schilling the practical epistemologist!)

If you RTFA (and listen to the interview linked within), Schilling goes out of his way to say just that, and you can tell from the tone of his voice that it obviously depresses the hell out of him. In the interview, the host asks "would you be surprised if Greg Maddux was found to be juicing?" and Schilling just insists that nothing should surprise anyone now. He supports this by pointing out something often discussed here on BBTF: the idea that contrary to the stereotype we have of a bulked up muscle-bound 'roiding slugger, juicers come in all body shapes and sizes, including doughy pitchers like himself. And he says that he understands the terrible ethical choice faced by marginal guys, AAAA-players, whereby the decision to use PEDs could mean the difference between major-league bucks and a lifetime in the minors.

As I said, he may be a blowhard and he may be susceptible to all the same human idiocies as the rest of us, but he actually has a pretty well thought out take on the whole thing.

I did read the article - that's how I came across the last three paragraphs. I agree, it's both a thoughtful and articulate expression of Schilling's (still, it seems, somewhat inchoate) thoughts on the Steroids Era. I just found that business of "relishing" the rectitude of certain players who've surely never done PEDs to be dissonant with the rest of the piece, especially the spot-on last paragraph.

But he is also in many ways an arrogant, self-righteous, endlessly publicity-seeking jackass, who supposedly, like Mark Grace allegedly did, sucked up to the the media by trashing teammates off the record.

RR, I generally agree with your assessment of Schilling, but this part puzzles me. How would we know that it was Schilling or anyone else trash-talking teammates off the record. We know he has a history of doing it on the record (most famously, Kim and Williamson), but that's hardly evidence he's done it off the record. But unless you have evidence I'm unaware of, this charge seems like BTFers or other fans simply attributing bad acts to guys they don't like.

All right, all right! The West African bullfrog took me out to dinner, there were candles, we drank too much wine... Next thing I know I wake up on a lilypad in Dakar and the frog is lying next to me smoking a cigarette. I'm not proud of myself.

Come on, we've all done things.

This is a point I've seen discussed a couple of times by certain Primates, but it's downright stunning to see a ballplayer, much less one of Schilling's visibility and caliber, throwing it out there. I would actually argue against it on several grounds (mostly the fact that the "level playing field" was, if it existed, on a strictly collective team level rather than the individual one that matters financially to players, esp. marginal ones), but it's bracing to see someone inside the game acknowledge it.

Ryan Braun said something similar:

Braun said it was "disappointing" to hear about Ramirez, but he said it shows how level the playing field actually probably was a decade ago, with not only hitters doing it, but pitchers, also. For that reason, he said, the numbers BarryBonds, who never tested positive but is heavily suspected of steroid use, put up still hold weight because they came at a time when no one can say for sure that any player had a distinct advantage over another.

"So if you want to take away numbers from a guy, do you take away 10%, 20%?" Braun said. "You don't know because the hitters were competing against pitchers who were doing it, too."

Braun said it was "disappointing" to hear about Ramirez, but he said it shows how level the playing field actually probably was a decade ago, with not only hitters doing it, but pitchers, also. For that reason, he said, the numbers BarryBonds, who never tested positive but is heavily suspected of steroid use, put up still hold weight because they came at a time when no one can say for sure that any player had a distinct advantage over another.

I'm not one for taking a rubber to the record books, but that is some pretty dumb logic. For starters is assumes that hitters and pitchers juicing will have the exact same effect, so that a juiced hitter vs a juiced pitcher would have the same result as those two players facing each other unjuiced - that almost certainly isn't the case, juicing will be more effective for one of the groups.

More importantly, unless absolutely everyone was juicing, what does it matter? Gaining an advantage over 90% of other players is wrong, but if it's only 50%, well then it's ok? It just sounds like the kind of defence somebody would give, who is trying to rationalize his own guilt...

Schilling went on to thank India, providence, disillusionment, nothingness, and clarity. Schilling did not thank silence.

I'll add my two cents and parrot the line of the people who think Schilling is articulate but excitable. He's obviously trying to be mindful of the secrets of the clubhouse. That having been said, would anybody really be shocked if we someday hear Senator Schilling (a man with no need for MLB) blurting out names?* Perhaps can't-get-a-job-as-a-pitching-coach Schilling doing the same?

*How would Sen. Schilling compare to Sen. Bunning? I'd expect Schilling to log less floor time, but be far more productive during that time. He may even have an unusually low rate of bills which die in committee.