It's very sad for baseball that the 2002 World Series has now been tainted by the shadow of steroids.

According to a source in Florida close to the ongoing investigation of Signature, Schoeneweis’ name appears on packages that were sent to Comiskey Park while the White Sox were battling to win the AL Central title in 2003. Two more shipments arrived at the stadium in 2004, months before Schoeneweis underwent arthroscopic surgery on his left elbow.

Sure sounds like it was surreptitious. Clearly, players all thought it was cheating and went to great lengths to hide it from other players.

Now, my faith in my baseball heroes is completely shattered.

Congratulations to the authors for getting the illegality right - it's not the drugs, it's not the users, it's the physician's "prescriptions of dangerous drugs or controlled substances over the Internet without a good faith examination of the patients"

phil nevin says hi?

Where is the indignation? Why are we not profoundly shaken to the core now that the Mets' second-place finish is irrevocably tainted? Braves fans should be up in arms demanding that an asterisk is placed next to the Mets' 88 wins consigning them to the third-place finish they rightly deserve.

Say it ain't Show!

The way things are going, I am expecting David Wright to announce that he's giving up baseball to become an actor or something.

Sure sounds like it was surreptitious. Clearly, players all thought it was cheating and went to great lengths to hide it from other players.

No, you see, Schoeneweis was super tricky. Knowing that steroids were completely against the culture of baseball players, he knew that the stadium would be the last place they'd look for cheating drugs! And if someone saw the return address, they'd just assume that it was actually his shipment of purely restorative orange-flavored Tang-phetamine, just like the Mountain Berry Kool-Aid With Extra Sugar that Mays and Stargell distributed to players before games.

But he was coerced into it!

And he had almost sealed his induction as the Hall of Fame's first LOOGY, too. This is a heartbreaking development.

Couldn't tell from his performance with the Sox. He sucked

Schoeneweis should be branded with an asterisk.

I can't imagine there'd be much opposition to shooting the 2007 Mets into space.

I don't think it would be fair to shoot all the Mets into space.

NY Times: (RR)

Major League Baseball will investigate Mets reliever Scott Schoeneweis after a published report linked him to shipments of steroids, the baseball spokesman Rich Levin said yesterday.
...
Schoeneweis will most likely be summoned to the league’s office in New York in the next month to answer questions about the shipments.

The report said Schoeneweis received testosterone and stanozolol, both of which are banned by Major League Baseball.

Baseball began anonymous testing for steroids in 2003. In 2004, when players tested positive for drugs for the first time, they were not publicly identified and were referred to counseling. This raises the possibility that Schoeneweis might have already tested positive, and might have already been disciplined.

It's mind boggling to me that these imbeciles, with millions of dollars on the line, don't take the five seconds or so required to set up an alias.

another pitcher.

It's mind boggling to me that these imbeciles, with millions of dollars on the line, don't take the five seconds or so required to set up an alias.

Maybe "Scott Schoeneweis" was the alias.

Maybe "Scott Schoeneweis" was the alias.

I'm blaming Esteban Loiza.

another pitcher.

That's a pretty generous description of Schoeneweis.

Steroids really don't work.

...oh, and by the way, happy birthday, Scott!

Whoever leaked this has a nice sense of timing.

I just like to point out that these threads inpsire a lot less passion than Barry Bonds threads when the crime is exactly the same. Which one of you will step up an become a Schoeneweis apologist and/or fanboy and/or fellater?

"Where is the indignation? Why are we not profoundly shaken to the core now that the Mets' second-place finish is irrevocably tainted? Braves fans should be up in arms demanding that an asterisk is placed next to the Mets' 88 wins consigning them to the third-place finish they rightly deserve."

Because without Schoenweis, the Mets would have finished in first place with about 92 wins. Where's my indignation?

Maybe he was trying to grow a new nut.

Nuts are not grown, nuts are EARNED

According to a source in Florida close to the ongoing investigation of Signature, Schoeneweis’ name appears on packages that were sent to Comiskey Park while the White Sox were battling to win the AL Central title in 2003. Two more shipments arrived at the stadium in 2004, months before Schoeneweis underwent arthroscopic surgery on his left elbow.
Sure sounds like it was surreptitious. Clearly, players all thought it was cheating and went to great lengths to hide it from other players.

Oh, how clever, DMN! Wow, you've outed a player receiving mail at his place of business. That's so strange, that's so "out in the open". I mean, who receives mail at their place of business? And, of course, it was directed to Schoenweis!!! That seals the deal: his mail was openly directed to him. Everyone obviously knew what he had in his packages, b/c boxes are presumably placed right out in the open, probably on a bench in the middle of the locker room, where all players then proceed to stare at it. And, I assume as well, just like in the cartoons, the box read "To Scott Schoenweis. STEROIDS. HANDLE WITH CARE. STEROIDS!!!"

Hey JC, I think I'm going to visit DC next January, because I have a really good friend who goes to American University.

I mean, who receives mail at their place of business?

Well, that depends whether by "mail" one means "letter from a customer" or "package of illicit substances that you don't want anybody else to know you're receiving because they'll think you're cheating -- and endangering -- them if they know you're receiving it."

Because, you know, lots of people do the former. Not so many, the latter.

Most people wouid be a little more discreet in the latter case. Like getting the secret package sent to their house.

I just like to point out that these threads inpsire a lot less passion than Barry Bonds threads when the crime is exactly the same. Which one of you will step up an become a Schoeneweis apologist and/or fanboy and/or fellater?

I'd think a more proper question would be: when will the witch hunters dial down the "Barry Bonds floats" rhetoric?

So taking steroids means you can't get righties out. Got it.

How is this a bad thing for the Mets? This is the only sign that they could possibly get out of the next two years of that three-year deal. Of course, lefty specialists being what they are, some other team will probably sign him.

I don't get it. The Mets sign a ton of Japanese players, but none of them work out. Ditto steroids users.

What a shande!

The way things are going, I am expecting David Wright to announce that he's giving up baseball to become an actor or something.

Worse. He'll be traded in the offseason for Andy Marte and Aaron Fultz.

I'd think a more proper question would be: when will the witch hunters dial down the "Barry Bonds floats" rhetoric?

Well, yeah. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with steroids until the Barry Bonds lynch mob disburses.

I mean, who receives mail at their place of business?

Someone who wants the team trainer to help him with applying the needle/cream/clear/whatever?

Well, that depends whether by "mail" one means "letter from a customer" or "package of illicit substances that you don't want anybody else to know you're receiving because they'll think you're cheating -- and endangering -- them if they know you're receiving it."

Nieporent has been watching too many Superman movies.

I think the Mets should spend the offseason working on a PSA illustrating the effects of steroid use.

Hi, I'm Guillermo Mota. And, I'm Scott Schoeneweis. Don't do steroids, kids, or you could turn into an underachieving relief pitcher, like either of us.

I'd think a more proper question would be: when will the witch hunters dial down the "Barry Bonds floats" rhetoric?

First of all, it isn't a witch hunt, OK? A witch is a mythical or fictitious figure. There is nothing fictitious about steroids. So let's stick the wooden stake in the heart of that strawman right now.

Second, why should we "dial down" on Bonds? If you want to "dial up" on the other guys, fine. But let's not lose sight of the fact that Bonds is front and center in all of this.

Perhaps it came wrapped in anonymous looking brown package and his teammates just assumed Schoeneweis was ordering some espcially filthy and possibility illegal pornography

Perhaps it came wrapped in anonymous looking brown package and his teammates just assumed Schoeneweis was ordering some espcially filthy and possibility illegal pornography

Is Schoeneweis a Neil Diamond fan?

Or, perhaps players routinely receive packages at their work and if asked, Schoenweis explained it was prescription stuff? DMN's explanation requires the belief that the package was marked "ILLICIT PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS -- DO NOT TOUCH OR ADMINISTER WITHOUT A DOCTOR'S, OR MIGUEL TEJADA'S, ASSISTANCE. BEWARE THE EVIL FDA AND OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT REGULATORS. LONG LIVE ROBERT NOZICK!"

All caps Primey

Hi, I'm Guillermo Mota. And, I'm Scott Schoeneweis. Don't do steroids, kids, or you could turn into an underachieving relief pitcher, like either of us.

I imagine there's kids who want to grow up to be Barry Bonds. I don't know if many have Mota or Schoeneweis posters in their bedrooms.

I had a Matt Lawton poster in my bedroom as a young lad. I had an unhappy childhood.

First of all, it isn't a witch hunt, OK? A witch is a mythical or fictitious figure.

From American Heritage Dictionary on Bloomie:

Witch-hunt. Also witch hunt. n. An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

Of course that won't mean anything to a guy who thinks "a" "an" and "the" are adjectives.

First of all, it isn't a witch hunt, OK? A witch is a mythical or fictitious figure. There is nothing fictitious about steroids. So let's stick the wooden stake in the heart of that strawman right now.

So Tailgunner Joe's off the hook then, right?

Or, perhaps players routinely receive packages at their work and if asked, Schoenweis explained it was prescription stuff?

So why have it delivered to Comiskey instead of his home or a PO box? Somehow I don't see Schoenweis playing Secret Agent LOOGY and skulking in the shadows of the clubhouse 'roiding himself up to fit Occam's Razor as much as he had them sent there so he could get assistance from the trainer and/or other players.

Speaking of which, I seem to recall Someone Who Hits A Lot Of Home Runs And Has A Lot Of Muscle being on that same White Sox team. Maybe Schoenweis was just a front for someone else, eh?

Speaking of which, I seem to recall Someone Who Hits A Lot Of Home Runs And Has A Lot Of Muscle being on that same White Sox team. Maybe Schoenweis was just a front for someone else, eh?

I can see Woody Allen playing the part, too. "I cheated on my middle relief final. I used the platoon splits of the boy sitting next to me."

Speaking of which, I seem to recall Someone Who Hits A Lot Of Home Runs And Has A Lot Of Muscle being on that same White Sox team. Maybe Schoenweis was just a front for someone else, eh?

D'Angelo Jimenez?

Exactly, D'Angelo Jimenez must have received a prescription for HGH to recover from his car accident injuries, and he got a supply for the whole team.

I saw Goody Konerko dancing with the devil!

Witch-hunt. Also witch hunt. n. An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

Well, there you go. What "differing views" are you referring to exactly? How that commie Bonds feels about the latest treatment for acne?

Or, perhaps players routinely receive packages at their work and if asked, Schoenweis explained it was prescription stuff? DMN's explanation requires the belief that the package was marked "ILLICIT PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS -- DO NOT TOUCH OR ADMINISTER WITHOUT A DOCTOR'S, OR MIGUEL TEJADA'S, ASSISTANCE. BEWARE THE EVIL FDA AND OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT REGULATORS. LONG LIVE ROBERT NOZICK!"

Of course, when you saw the headline, I'm willing to bet that when you saw "internet pharmacy" you were thinking "PEDs" not "hydrocodone."

I have to admit once using an internet pharmacy (a few friends of mine had already been the guinea pigs). I get strep throat every couple of years and last time in 2004, my dumbass doctor was on vacation. After the first few times, he always would give me antibiotics if I told him I had strep throat - I have a tremendously sensitive gag reflex and have never had a throat culture without vomiting, and I certainly wasn't going to deal with that with a new doctor. I verified dosage with Dial and got my erythromycin (sp?) when the mailman came the next day. I was quite happy with the results, though i haven't needed to try it again.

"First of all, it isn't a witch hunt, OK? A witch is a mythical or fictitious figure. There is nothing fictitious about steroids. So let's stick the wooden stake in the heart of that strawman right now."

Holy mixed metaphor, Batman!

at the start of the season, I would have ranked Schoenweis and Capuano as the second- and third-best Duke Blue Devils in MLB history. Now they may have slipped behind Quinton McCracken. What a sorry bunch.

Have you ever seen a Duke baseball team play? Those three were Babe Ruth's on those squads. Yikes.

Why does it matter if his teammates basically knew he was using steroids? I bet a lot of players have a damn good idea who on their team is using steroids.

The goal of restricting steroid use, and instituting real testing is to change the culture of the acceptance and incentivizing of steroid use. (You'll note, for instance, that Schoeneweis received steroids in 2003 and 2004. MLB instituted its first round of testing under the new policy in 2005. That seems like a nice piece of anecdotal evidence.)

Steroid use is bad because it is really bad for you, and the structures of organized baseball create an unnecessary incentive for players to use a drug that's really bad for them. In this culture of incentivization, in which players and coaches and owners and GMs all turned a blind eye to rampant steroid use, players knew who was using. Baseball is now moving, through its testing programs, to counteract the incentivization of steroid use - as organized baseball has done throughout its history with different forms of cheating that endangered either the integrity of the game or the health of hte players. There's nothing weird about this.

I stay out of the Bonds threads because, other than the mere facts of the case, I'm not that invested in the individual users. What I want is for structures to be put in place that make it so that a guy like Scott Schoeneweis, right on that edge of putting together a career that makes him for life financially, doesn't quite naturally turn to dangerous drugs to get a boost over the top. I empathize with Schoeneweis, but I think that a system that punishes future Schoeneweises remains the best way for baseball to cut steroid use and change the culture of acceptance and incentivizations.

I'd think a more proper question would be: when will the witch hunters dial down the "Barry Bonds floats" rhetoric?

Perhaps we should try to build a bridge out of him?

MCofA, that's pretty much how I feel about this. There's the added complication that, now that the genie is out of the bottle, PED's are always going to be around in one form or another and we'll either learn to live with this as fans, or we'll find something else to occupy our time. The "innocent" game of our youth is dead. I think this is at the heart at why Bonds inspires so much ire since he has become the posterboy for PEDs in baseball. If only we can drive a stake into his witch's straw heart, then all be well again...

Why does it matter if his teammates basically knew he was using steroids? I bet a lot of players have a damn good idea who on their team is using steroids

.

It is related to the "cheating" and "culture of the game/ubiquity/acceptability" band of the steroids argument spectrum, which has been the subject of relatively intense debate at times.

I have at times put in my .02 on that issue, but I am not really that concerned about who is or was "cheating." The health/workplace issue is the reason I am on board with testing, as seems to be the case with you as well.

Why does it matter if his teammates basically knew he was using steroids? I bet a lot of players have a damn good idea who on their team is using steroids.

It's because of the history of these threads.

Some posters have posited that, if they accepted for the sake of argument, that the WADA was right and amphetamines were a performance-enhancing drug, they would still not be considered cheating because players were opening using amphetamines while steroids would still be cheating because players were secretly using steroids. DMN's arguing in these threads that if individual players using steroids was not-so-secret, then that argument fails to pass muster.

I know exactly how poor Scott Schoeneweis feels. Every time I get testicular cancer, I always take the wise preventative health care measure of ordering stanozolol over the internet from guys named Ramon Scruggs.

Some posters have posited that, if they accepted for the sake of argument, that the WADA was right and amphetamines were a performance-enhancing drug, they would still not be considered cheating because players were opening using amphetamines while steroids would still be cheating because players were secretly using steroids. DMN's arguing in these threads that if individual players using steroids was not-so-secret, then that argument fails to pass muster.

Gotcha. I've argued before against the categorical divide between amphetamines and steroids. I think that the massive failure of organized baseball from many decades ago to act against amphetamines should not prevent them from acting against amphetamines and steroids now.

I guess I'm anti-union on this debate. Didn't even know it existed, but look how incredibly even-handed I am now! I am the last reasonable man!

I have at times put in my .02 on that issue, but I am not really that concerned about who is or was "cheating." The health/workplace issue is the reason I am on board with testing, as seems to be the case with you as well.

I am on board with testing and happy about it as well. But part of the reason me and some others get their ire up so badly is that there are certain individuals who claimed along that this is all they cared about as well, but now they turn around and do things like applaud putting asterisks on baseball's historical artifacts and say how great it is to "get" Barry.

I am the last reasonable man!

Ha! That's usually what someone says 5 minutes before they get dragged into a flame war!

Or, perhaps players routinely receive packages at their work and if asked, Schoenweis explained it was prescription stuff?

Perhaps. (Indeed, it apparently was prescription stuff.) Which would make perfect sense... if nobody really cared what it was. But if the use of PEDs was generally considered unacceptable -- as some have claimed -- it seems pretty stupid to flaunt the fact that one is receiving shipments from a well-known internet distributor of HGH and then be forced to explain to people who asked that the shipment is legitimate... instead of just avoiding the questions (*) entirely by not shipping it to the place where everyone can see it.

I mean, as RB said in post 40, you can get porn shipped in plain brown wrapping paper -- or so I hear -- but if one is trying to hide what one is doing from a group of people, one doesn't get said porn shipped to the very place where all those people congregate. The plain package is a safety net in case someone does see the package; it isn't an excuse to leave the porn laying in plain sight on your desk at work.


(*) Because, even if you do answer those questions by saying, "It's legitimate prescription stuff," don't you think you're going to arouse some curiosity in at least some nosy people wondering what you're getting?


MCoA:

Why does it matter if his teammates basically knew he was using steroids? I bet a lot of players have a damn good idea who on their team is using steroids.

It matters to some people -- or would, if the facts mattered in their jihad against steroids, so Kevin's out -- because they've claimed that one of the things that makes steroid users so much worse, morally, than amphetamine users, is that the latter were widely accepted in baseball culture and the former were not.

What I want is for structures to be put in place that make it so that a guy like Scott Schoeneweis, right on that edge of putting together a career that makes him for life financially, doesn't quite naturally turn to dangerous drugs to get a boost over the top. I empathize with Schoeneweis, but I think that a system that punishes future Schoeneweises remains the best way for baseball to cut steroid use and change the culture of acceptance and incentivizations.

That sounds like you're well-intentioned, but it doesn't make any sense as a practical matter. As long as there are a finite number of spots, there will, by definition, be someone on the margins. And as long as baseball is very lucrative, there will always be a big difference between being on one side of the margin and the other. Those people will always have an incentive to use performance enhancing substances. There's just no way to avoid it. If you're caught right away, you're no worse off than you were before you started. If you're not caught, you make big bucks. If you're caught down the road, you've already made big bucks, so you're still better off than before you started.

You can disincentivize the Giambis or Cansecos with sufficient penalties, but MLB can't disincentivize the "future Schoenweises," if they believe that performance enhancing substances work as the jihadists claim that they do. They don't have anything to lose from punishment. (Including reputation, since as we've seen, nobody cares about the Schoenweises -- only the record-breakers.)

Those people will always have an incentive to use performance enhancing substances. There's just no way to avoid it. If you're caught right away, you're no worse off than you were before you started. If you're not caught, you make big bucks. If you're caught down the road, you've already made big bucks, so you're still better off than before you started.

But they also have a disincentive - steroids are really, really bad for you. Your description above suggests that everyone should (rationally) use steroids, but many don't - precisely because steroids are so bad for you. I'm still relatively confident that baseball players would rather not endanger their health to a great enough degree that instituting penalties will have a significant effect on use.

Neither of us has any data to turn to in this analysis. You can argue by analogy to the war on drugs, I'd suggest that steroids in baseball are categorically different. We could wait and see what comes out of the Mitchell commission and MLB suspensions, but we don't have that information now, and either of us could discount the evidence for good reasons if it disagreed with our assumptions going in. We'd need a real sociological study, getting qualitative data in a relatively unbiased way, but I know of no such project envisioned or ongoing.

It matters to some people -- or would, if the facts mattered in their jihad against steroids, so Kevin's out -- because they've claimed that one of the things that makes steroid users so much worse, morally, than amphetamine users, is that the latter were widely accepted in baseball culture and the former were not.

I've basically tired of these discussions, but I'll interject one more time just to clear the record. What some of us said was that if you grant the "ubiquity" of greenies that some of you allege (and which to my mind still remains largely anecdotal), there would be a difference in the respective cultures as there is no evidence that there was ubiquitous use of steroids. And as I said some years ago, I don't even care if there was only 1 player who didn't use them, use would still entail "cheating" as in part against us fans who have a claim to clean sports, and against former players who have a similar claim. I understand some, and maybe even many of you don't accept that argument. But that was the argument.

Re this package: I just don't know what you guys think this means. He got the package sent to his place of work, where he has trainers and others to assist him. I get packages delivered all the time, and my colleagues and I sort each others mail. AFAIK, no one scrutinizes what I receive, and I don't their stuff. You make it sound like his package comes in the way I described, with all kinds of signs of its illicitness.

Full disclosure: whenever he'd come into a game I was watching, I'd sing (to the tune of "Edelweiss"):

"Scho-ene-weis, Scho-ene-weis,
Evr'y game you are suck-ing
Small and white
Not too bright..."

Finally, my wife told me to cut it out.

But they also have a disincentive - steroids are really, really bad for you. Your description above suggests that everyone should (rationally) use steroids, but many don't - precisely because steroids are so bad for you. I'm still relatively confident that baseball players would rather not endanger their health to a great enough degree that instituting penalties will have a significant effect on use

Steroids aren't "really really bad for you," but in any case, that's a non sequitur. That quality is inherent in steroids and as such is irrelevant to anything MLB does or doesn't do. The perception that steroids are bad for you is indeed a disincentive for some -- but MLB doesn't need to ban steroids or test for them to create that disincentive. MLB can only try to create a new, additional incentive -- and that's what I'm suggesting it can't succeed at doing for marginal players.


JC:

What some of us said was that if you grant the "ubiquity" of greenies that some of you allege (and which to my mind still remains largely anecdotal), there would be a difference in the respective cultures as there is no evidence that there was ubiquitous use of steroids.

And I'm saying that there is a significant amount of evidence for ubiquitous acceptance of -- if not use of -- steroids. As much as there is for most of the steroid accusations floating around. One can say that it doesn't matter whether it was accepted in baseball culture, but one can't argue that the difference in cultures is significant, and then when it turns out that the cultures weren't different, decide that it culture doesn't matter.

And as I said some years ago, I don't even care if there was only 1 player who didn't use them, use would still entail "cheating" as in part against us fans who have a claim to clean sports, and against former players who have a similar claim. I understand some, and maybe even many of you don't accept that argument. But that was the argument.

Right; I don't accept that argument. You don't have that claim any more than you have a claim to players who don't commit adultery. (Of course, if MLB actually promised, "We forbid steroid use/adultery, so buy our tickets," then you would have a claim. So arguably you do have such a claim since 2004.)

Re this package: I just don't know what you guys think this means. He got the package sent to his place of work, where he has trainers and others to assist him. I get packages delivered all the time, and my colleagues and I sort each others mail. AFAIK, no one scrutinizes what I receive, and I don't their stuff. You make it sound like his package comes in the way I described, with all kinds of signs of its illicitness.

Well, I generally direct the personal packages to my house, not to my office. But on occasion, I have, for one reason or another, ordered something personal to my office address -- but I would never have something sent there that I didn't want to risk anybody else finding out about. Why would you ever take such a chance?

(As for "signs of its illicitness" for Schoenweis, it seems like the return address would have been one such sign.)

at the start of the season, I would have ranked Schoenweis and Capuano as the second- and third-best Duke Blue Devils in MLB history. Now they may have slipped behind Quinton McCracken. What a sorry bunch.

Have you ever seen a Duke baseball team play? Those three were Babe Ruth's on those squads. Yikes.

As the most damning evidence I can offer concerning the level of Duke baseball, I once led their freshman team in hitting. I probably could have hit Schoenweis as long as he was in chemo....

Well, I generally direct the personal packages to my house, not to my office. But on occasion, I have, for one reason or another, ordered something personal to my office address -- but I would never have something sent there that I didn't want to risk anybody else finding out about. Why would you ever take such a chance?

Right. Unless you were hiding it from your wife or girlfriend, which is why I have all my porn sent to Andy's bookstore, who then forwards it to me disguised as historical material.

We can disagree over the significance of this, and I think many positions would be reasonable. But I think it is pretty obvious that if Schoeneweis were at all concerned with what his teammates thought of it, he wouldn't have had it sent to the ballpark.