That's a bad beat.

Who saves blood stained syringes for that long? What did he do put them up on a wall?

Looks like somebody learned a lesson from Monica Lewinsky. If you ever think you might have dirt on a famous or powerful person, keep some evidence.

"as well as blood-stained syringes and gauze pads that may contain the Rocket’s DNA."

I'm not a neat freak, but isn't it a little weird to still have blood stain syringes and gauze pads two years after the final injection?

See this is why I'll never be a very good federal witness: when I'm done with my work and looking at a pile of medical waste I tend to throw it away. Brian McNamee, on the other hand, had the foresight to keep it all. I wonder what else the guy has stashed in his storage locker.

Looks like somebody learned a lesson from Monica Lewinsky. If you ever think you might have dirt on a famous or powerful person, keep some evidence.

Beat me to it. I was going to ask if he kept the dress...

So this means that McNamee never told the Mitchell Report about the proof?

Lets see, anti-steroid hysteria is building in congress and the media. You are providing illegal steroids to a rich, famous ballplayer. You know that you run the risk of being caught. You don't want to do so, but there's a possibility that if you're caught, you might have to spill the beans on said ballplayer, or be forced to do hard time for helping him break the law. You know that if you ever have to rat on him, it becomes your word against his, and he obviously can hire more expensive lawyers.

If I were in McNamee's position, damn right I'd want an insurance policy. And no way I'd ever agree to Greg Anderson's fate while the ballplayer goes on with life, enjoying his millions and denying he ever did anything at all.

"McNamee kept syringes, gauze pads and vials from the 2000 and 2001 seasons because he feared Clemens would deny illicit drug use if the matter was ever investigated, the source added."

It is interesting that he never told Mitchell this. I don't know what to make of that ommision.

Maybe he was cleaning out his garage. . . .

If I were in McNamee's position, damn right I'd want an insurance policy. And no way I'd ever agree to Greg Anderson's fate while the ballplayer goes on with life, enjoying his millions and denying he ever did anything at all.

Greg Anderson is the figure in this whole steroids mess that intrigues me the most.

If I were in McNamee's position, damn right I'd want an insurance policy. And no way I'd ever agree to Greg Anderson's fate while the ballplayer goes on with life, enjoying his millions and denying he ever did anything at all.

Very good point. I sure hope it was a trainer's equivalevence of keeping autographs. Ewwww

oops! I didn't see Repoz's post. Sorry for the repetition.

I'm skeptical of this story. I just checked the Vegas odds and this is what the sportsbooks are saying:

It's 10:1 that Roger Clemens never used illegal PEDs.

It's 100:1 that Brian McNamee has "blood-stained syringes and gauze pads that may definitively contain the Rocket’s DNA."

It's 10,000:1 that, if those "blood-stained syringes and gauze pads ... contain the Rocket’s DNA," that they therefore prove the Rocket used illegal PEDs.

Keep in mind, Clemens claims (rather incredibly in my opinion) that McNamee injected him with Lidocaine and Vitamin B-12. So if McNamee has Clemens's DNA on "blood-stained syringes and gauze pads," then Roger's explanation is that it comes from those shots, not steroids or HGH.

I really don't care why McNamee did or didn't say anything about this before, or what he said to the "unbiased" Red Sox investigator. Or why he kept medical waste for years.

I've never been anti-Clemens, but if this turns out to be true, and the test confirm that steroids/HGH went into his blood while he's been so adamant about denying the whole thing, he deserves whatever he gets. I have a lot more respect for someone who takes the fifth like McGwire than someone who's guilty, and goes around blatantly lying about it.

Well if Vegas says so it must be untrue.

the test confirm that steroids/HGH went into his blood

How would any test confirm that?

Rich, is your point that since there's nothing approaching chain of custody and proper handling procedures you can't rule out these being ginned up by McNamee? (To say nothing of potential contamination issues)

The problem is that since he's just revealing this now--after Clemens has sued him for libel--there is a lot of incentive for him to sabatoge those needles. We know that he quite possibly has needles with Clemens' blood on them (Clemens has never denied he was injected with something by McNamee), but what would stop him--someone who seems to know his way around the steroid/HGH supply underground---from tainting those needles with blood, especially if is he is as unscrupulous as Clemens's suit alleges?

Crazy theory, I know. This is what happens when you're fighting a 103 degree fever.

How would any test confirm that?

I don't think you could prove that. I mean, I suppose you could prove that the needles with Clemens' blood on it have traces of HGH or other PEDs, but that could be done after.

Now, obviously, if McNamee has a bunch of needles with Clemens' blood on it and traces of PEDs in the tube, that's it for Roger (unless he has some super-duper trump card to that as well, which wouldn't surprise me at this point given how wacky things are getting) in the court of public opinion at the very least.

I suppose you could test the tip for Clemens blood/HGH combinations, but this sounds like something they'd make up for a good episode of CSI:

the real problem is showing that clemens knew what was in those syringes. unless you get a document saying "i am glad you are injecting steroids into my buttocks. signed, roger clemens." you'll have a hard time proving it.

"Rich, is your point that since there's nothing approaching chain of custody and proper handling procedures you can't rule out these being ginned up by McNamee?"

No. My point is that both McNamee and Clemens have stated for the record that McNamee injected Clemens. That is not at issue. The blood evidence, if true, simply proves what both men have already said. What is at issue, and not proved by the blood, is what was in the injections: Clemens says Lidocaine and B-12; McNamee says steroids.

The story also says, "McNamee gave the Justice Department’s BALCO investigators vials with traces of steroids and growth hormone." That proves another thing which is not at issue: it's already been established that McNamee had possession of steroids and growth hormone. I have no doubt McNamee has such vials.

I do have some doubt that he really has samples of Clemens's blood, regardless of their probative value. The reason I doubt it is because it seems damn weird. However, as I said above, even if he has this evidence, it doesn't prove or disprove a matter in contention.

I do have some doubt that he really has samples of Clemens's blood, regardless of their probative value. The reason I doubt it is because it seems damn weird.

if it's like balco, he might have drawn blood to test it for steroids himself, so that they could know if the masking agents were working.

"i am glad you are injecting steroids into my buttocks. signed, roger clemens."

I really shouldn't be here while on a conference call with my boss.......

Lets see, anti-steroid hysteria is building in congress and the media. You are providing illegal steroids to a rich, famous ballplayer. You know that you run the risk of being caught. You don't want to do so, but there's a possibility that if you're caught, you might have to spill the beans on said ballplayer, or be forced to do hard time for helping him break the law. You know that if you ever have to rat on him, it becomes your word against his, and he obviously can hire more expensive lawyers.

If I were in McNamee's position, damn right I'd want an insurance policy.

Everything you say is logical, except that the last time, as per the Mitchell report, that McNamee injected him with anything was 2001. There was no "anti-steroid hysteria" in 2001, in congress or the media.

The Caminiti admission -- which did not spark a round of anti-steroid hysteria -- was in 2002.

I agree with R Rifkin that this whole thing is weird. McNamee is weird and Clemens is most definitely a weirdo. As such, I don't know if that makes McNamee's claim more believable or less. McNamee is fast running up on Greg Anderson for the steroids guy I'd most like to write a story about.

Now, obviously, if McNamee has a bunch of needles with Clemens' blood on it and traces of PEDs in the tube, that's it for Roger

In the court of public opinion, sure, but I don't see how it's impossible for the PEDs to be put into the tube *after* it was used for non-PED purposes.

Do the lawyers among us foresee Clemens actually having to submit his DNA to prosecutors?

It's a little odd McNamee's been sitting on this evidence all this time. (Not literally, that would hurt.) You think the Radomski investigators would have been interested in this.

Everything you say is logical, except that the last time, as per the Mitchell report, that McNamee injected him with anything was 2001. There was no "anti-steroid hysteria" in 2001, in congress or the media.

But wasn't steriod usage generally looked down upon in 2001 even if there wasn't a fever pitched hunt back then? If so, it wouldn't take tremendous foresight to anticipate trouble in the future.

No. My point is that both McNamee and Clemens have stated for the record that McNamee injected Clemens. That is not at issue. The blood evidence, if true, simply proves what both men have already said. What is at issue, and not proved by the blood, is what was in the injections: Clemens says Lidocaine and B-12; McNamee says steroids.

The story also says, "McNamee gave the Justice Department’s BALCO investigators vials with traces of steroids and growth hormone." That proves another thing which is not at issue: it's already been established that McNamee had possession of steroids and growth hormone. I have no doubt McNamee has such vials.

I think the issue at stake is whether the syringes "contain traces of drugs and blood." If so, either Clemens took PEDs (knowingly or unknowningly) or the syringes were "doctored" as suggested by post 19.

Another question: Does McNamee have similar evidence with regard to Pettitte and Knoblauch?

But wasn't steriod usage generally looked down upon in 2001 even if there wasn't fever pitched hunt back then? If so, it wouldn't take tremendous foresight to anticipate trouble in the future.

It's not that there wasn't a "fever pitched hunt." Steroid usage wasn't even on the radar in 2001. It would have taken clairvoyance to anticipate trouble. Again, in 2002 Caminiti came out and said he used steroids to win his MVP. There was barely a peep. Nobody suggested stripping him of his award or anything like that. Schilling announced that steroid use was rampant; nobody paid attention. No hysteria.

In 2003, the raid on BALCO happened, and that's when the hysteria began.

Guapo: good question. It would be a lot less suspicious if he did. As opposed to suddenly discovering this evidence now against the one person suing him.

In the court of public opinion, sure, but I don't see how it's impossible for the PEDs to be put into the tube *after* it was used for non-PED purposes.

Its certainly possible. What I wonder is if a lab would be able to state whether his blood and the PED interacted while the blood was fresh. Maybe thats impossible to tell, I'm no scientist, just guessing.

There was no "anti-steroid hysteria" in 2001, in congress or the media.

Good point. Congress didn't get involved until 2005, when did it become a big story for the media? I don't think Bonds broke the season HR record unnoticed. Do you remember when the first shots of the steroids war on BTF were fired?

It would have taken clairvoyance to anticipate trouble.

McGwire took a bit of grief over his alleged Ando usage during his historic HR chase with Sosa. In fact, it's been speculated that he put Ando out on his locker shelf as a foil to deflect attention from actual steriod usage. If Ando caught people's attention in the late 1990s, steriods can't be far behind.

I just love conspiracy theories.

Hey, if there is someone who is a decent candidate for seedy underhanded dealings, it's an admitted drug peddler once implicated in a rape case.

There's a Sports Illustrated 2003 swimsuit issue photo of Roger and Debbie Clemens taken in Central Park with Roger in uniform. A little Photoshop and the analogy with Clinton would be complete.

In 2003, the raid on BALCO happened, and that's when the hysteria began.

I have trouble remembering the timeline in my old age, but 'round these parts, the hysteria was in full swing well before BALCO. Not sure what the mainstream media wrote, but I live in my own little world, of which BTF is a part.

I thought the hysteria began the magical summer when sports writers turned their suspicious lens on over-sized cartoon-faced Sammy Sosa and acne-necked Mark McGwire. Remember all the cries of cheating when McGwire passed Maris? And how upset Lupica and everyone in the fourth estate was when Sosa and Mark bear-hugged each other that awful, awful summer eve?

Oh, that's right. There was nothing suspicious going on then.

but 'round these parts, the hysteria was in full swing well before BALCO.

There was a lot of talk here about it during Bonds' 2001 season. But that did not reflect what was happening elsewhere.

Also, this is not a "conspiracy" theory matter. It does not involve a lot of people working together to do anything. McNamee has access to steroids and HGH, to syringes and gauze. If he has any access at all to Clemens' blood, he could create doctored evidence. The fact that it has not come out until now, with all the other stuff that is going on, is somewhat suspicious.

Could it be shown whether the sampled aged together, or were only recently mixed? I don't know. How long would steroids and HgH last, to be tested? What are the markers for the aging and degradation of blood samples?

Of course, it could all be real. In which case, Clemens is even more psychotic than I figured him for, and McNamee is just plain weird.

On Cubs message boards the world around there wasn't any talk of steroids and Sammy until 2005 or so. I remember getting into debates with white sox fans where they would try to bash Sosa on anything and nobody would bring up steroids.

Steroids were not an issue for a huge chunk of the baseball world until Bonds came along and made a mockery of the stats. I would say 2003 was the big year for steroids before that it was a trickle. People were talking about the stadiums, the strikezone, the ball, the bat. Very few it was the juice.

There was steroid talk in 1998. Mainly about Mcgwire.

There were, perhaps, whispers, but that baseball season was, by and large, viewed in the mainstream press as baseball's return to our good graces after the strike.

McGwire took a bit of grief over his alleged Ando usage during his historic HR chase with Sosa.

The opposite. The reporter who wrote the story got far more grief than McGwire did. And it's not "alleged." (And it's Andro, not Ando.)

In fact, it's been speculated that he put Ando out on his locker shelf as a foil to deflect attention from actual steriod usage.

Not by any actual sane person.

There was nothing to "deflect attention" from. That would be like Barack Obama tossing a dead body onto his front lawn tomorrow to "deflect attention" from the children tied up in his basement. You don't create possible negative attention on yourself to deflect attention away from something about which there's no attention.

Plus, it's an absurd theory, because McGwire had no reason to think anybody would see the Andro.

Really, Zuvella!. Whoe else is roger going to get to shoot his ass up? The rotting corpse of Mother Teresa?

According to Hitchens, Mother Teresa was even more reprehensible than McNamee! But I don't see how you're point is in disagreement with mine.

"According to Hitchens, Mother Teresa was even more reprehensible than McNamee! But I don't see how you're point is in disagreement with mine."

For such a bad person McNamee is, it's amazing how Clemens kept the steroid dealer/alleged rapist as his trainer for almost a decade. Heck, back in 06 he defended mcnamee when he was named on the grimsley report, and claimed to "still train with him".

For such a bad person McNamee is, it's amazing how Clemens kept the steroid dealer/alleged rapist as his trainer for almost a decade. Heck, back in 06 he defended mcnamee when he was named on the grimsley report, and claimed to "still train with him".

Let he who has not sinned cast the first...Oh, that's a good point. Look, both these guys are weirdos in my view. I have strong suspicions about Clemens' guilt. That said, I hate how the presumption of guilt has led the discourse on this subject. It'd be nice if it wasn't just McNamee's word leading us to these conclusions.

I thought the hysteria began the magical summer when sports writers turned their suspicious lens on over-sized cartoon-faced Sammy Sosa and acne-necked Mark McGwire. Remember all the cries of cheating when McGwire passed Maris? And how upset Lupica and everyone in the fourth estate was when Sosa and Mark bear-hugged each other that awful, awful summer eve?

Assuming this is not sarcastic, Lupica actually wrote a book on the summer of '98, entitled Summer of '98: When Homers Flew, Records Fell, and Baseball Reclaimed America. I haven't read the book myself (unlike Kevin, I don't pretend to read books I haven't read), but judging from the title and from the editorial reviews on the Amazon page, it seems that steroids were not discussed at all.

Assuming this is not sarcastic, Lupica actually wrote a book on the summer of '98, entitled Summer of '98: When Homers Flew, Records Fell, and Baseball Reclaimed America. I haven't read the book myself (unlike Kevin, I don't pretend to read books I haven't read), but judging from the title and from the editorial reviews on the Amazon page, it seems that steroids were not discussed at all.

it was sarcasm.

Apparently the whole word is in a coma because McGwire didn't have to deflect attention away from steroids. For crying out loud isn't that why reporters have been saying the whole "we should have known and said something", because they said next to nothing about McGwire or steroids until well after Mark had retired.

Kevin or anyone else could probably get away with not reading that book. It sounds pretty one dimensional. A book review with fewer words than the title should do nicely.

In my opinion, McNamee is not acting like someone who was forced to make up lies about Roger Clemens. He could still be lying, but he's going to great enough lengths that I at least believe he's acting for himself. Someone who was pressured into making things up for the Mitchell Report would probably have stopped a few press releases ago.

The reporter who wrote the story got far more grief than McGwire did. And it's not "alleged." (And it's Andro, not Ando.)

I don't think it's outrageous to claim that steriods was a stigmatized drug in the late 1990s even w/o a fever pitched hunt as there is today. I don't think it was widely discussed isssue then, especially in comparison today. Out of curiosity, I did a quick LexisNexis search on mark mcgwire steriods. It popped up a three stories and a cartoon citing the androstenedione controversy. None of them seem to portray steriods in a positive light although there is a story with Bobby Estalella claiming he takes andro and "It's not a big deal. If you don't abuse it, and if you take the right dose at the right time, there's nothing wrong with it." Of course, I didn't use any combinations of different search terms, but I don't see anything that suggests roid use was harmless in the media's mind (although Estalella clearly think andro usage is cool).

Not by any actual sane person.

A baseball player taking action to protect himself from potential steroid accusations isn't really crazy. Even in the late 1990s.

But wasn't steriod usage generally looked down upon in 2001 even if there wasn't a fever pitched hunt back then? If so, it wouldn't take tremendous foresight to anticipate trouble in the future.

On the subject of when steroid use became a big issue, I find this poll fascinating (this was taken a few weeks after Sosa was caught with a corked bat; I don't recall how this relates to when the BALCO story broke):

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 9-10, 2003. N=1,029 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample).

.
Asked of baseball fans (N=534, MoE ± 5):
"Just your best guess, for each of the following, please say whether you think they did or did not cheat in any way when they set their home run records. How about [see below]?"

There was nothing to "deflect attention" from. That would be like Barack Obama tossing a dead body onto his front lawn tomorrow to "deflect attention" from the children tied up in his basement. You don't create possible negative attention on yourself to deflect attention away from something about which there's no attention.

So if McGwire was caught with steroids, you don't think it would have caused a stir?

Of course it would cause a stir, but Mark McGwire was never ever caught with steroids. Revealing Andro would simply put blood in the water. There was no Boswell saying LaRussa told me Mark does steroids like there was with Jose. There was nothing on Mark that came close to making Mark McGwire have to worry about his secret being revealed.

Secondly there is nothing in Mark's public persona that would lend any credence to the thought that he gave a rat's arse what a reporter thought of him or that he needed to come up with a false front for the media.

I went on Proquest and looked at old Sports Illustrateds.

Rick Reilly wrote a column in August 2000 called "The 'Roid to Ruin," the theme of which is hey, everyone's doing steroids in baseball and nobody's doing anything about it.

Then in June of 2002 SI published a lengthy special report on the rampant use of steroids in baseball (mostly authored by Verducci), which I think included Ken Caminiti's revelations. This appears to have had a significant effect in forcing the subject into the mainstream. A later SI quotes some of the reactions to the article:

"According to a big expose in this week's SPORTS ILLUSTRATED, more than half of all major league baseball players take steroids to boost their performance. Wouldn't it be ironic if the cleanest guy in baseball turns out to be Darryl Strawberry? --Jay Leno on The Tonight Show, June 5, 2002

"Baseball's owners want to test for steroids, but the union says it is waiting for a consensus to develop among the players. Why delay? These drugs have no place in the game or, more important, in the lives of the players." --The New York Times editorial, June 1, 2002

"This isn't about Ken Caminiti. This isn't about Jose Canseco. This isn't about what a couple of bust-out cases say. It is about what we are seeing with our own eyes. It is turning on the television and looking at one of those classic games...and seeing what ballplayers looked like 20 years ago. And what we see...is big league ballplayers, and famous ones, who look like high school kids compared to what we see on the field now." --Mike Lupica in New York's Daily News, June 2, 2002

"When I read Kenny Rogers' comment that somebody's going to get killed on the mound, well, that's a horrifying thought. So I've told our people we just can't sit idly by anymore." --Baseball commissioner Bud Selig, quoted in the June 10, 2002 The Sporting News

"It is also an honor and privilege to play Major League Baseball, and if there are those who feel their privacy would be invaded by testing, they can certainly move on to other occupations because there are many more who yearn for the honor and privilege--and would welcome the responsibilities that go with it." --Los Angeles Times editorial, June 2, 2002

"Sport should be a triumph of character, not the triumph of pharmacology. Otherwise, someday kids will ask athletes, 'May I please get the autograph of your pharmacist?'" --George Will on ABC's This Week, June 9, 2002

So to believe that McNamee has this evidence would require believing that either he didn't tell Mitchell or the feds about it, or he told Mitchell and yet Mitchell kept it out of his report.

That would suggest that either Mitchell found the evidence to be not credible (*), or that Mitchell was in effect holding the information out of his report in order to set a trap for Clemens once Clemens denied the allegations.

(*) But if Mitchell found the evidence not to be credible, then he had to believe that either McNamee manufactured it, or that the evidence was legit but problematic. But if Mitchell believed that McNamee manufactured it, then presumably Mitchell wouldn't have hitched his wagon to McNamee's.

I note that Mitchell did not mention this evidence in his Congressional testimony, which one would think he'd have done when testifying about McNamee's credibility.

I posted this in a previous thread..

My wife gets lidocaine shots for her wrist DIRECTLY IN THE WRIST. Not in her ass. My ex-mother-in-law got monthly B-12 shots IN HER ARM. Not in her ass. I saw both of these events with my own eyes on more than one occasion. As a matter of fact, my wife is due for another shot this tuesday. You might say that you could understand a major league pitcher not wanting to inject in his arm, but why not the left one? It has no effect on his pitching. Injecting in the butt could cause those muscles to tighten up, and we all know that pitchers get their power from the lower torso. So the ass would be much more problematic than the left arm.

You could also get a joint specialtist to testify in front of Congress under oath.....something like this:

Congress: Tell us, Doctor, which joint or joints would be affected by injecting lidocaine in one's ass?

Doctor: None

Congress: None? Then why would someone inject lidocaine in their ass?

Doctor: Duh?? I dunno.

I posted this in a previous thread..

My wife gets lidocaine shots for her wrist DIRECTLY IN THE WRIST. Not in her ass. My ex-mother-in-law got monthly B-12 shots IN HER ARM. Not in her ass.

Did people ask you in the previous thread why you're assuming Clemens was injected in the ass?

I seem to remember that Steroids was on everyones mind even before Mark McGwire broke the homerun record, it wasn't to this level of course, because the reporters were more interested in maintaining friendships in the clubhouse than actually investigating anything. I'm pretty sure that there were already whispers about Brady Andersons 1996 as early as 1997. I'm positive Frank Thomas had already made comments about PED's before the homerun chase year, and it was already starting to become somewhat obvious that it was going to eventually pick up steam in the public consciousness. As to it eventually becoming a full blown controversy? that may not have been as obvious, if MLB would have started enforcing/testing before being told to, instead of caving in every time it was mentioned during negotiations for the CBA, this entire controversy could have probably been stopped. Instead failure from the MLBPA, MLB, and BBWAA forced this controversy out into the open, I mean when you look bad on testing when compared to the USOC and the NFL, then you really screwed up.

That would be how the insane might interpret it. The sane would just assume that Mitchell didn't find it incumbent upon himself to include every shred of evidence in exhaustive detail about every player mentioned in order to keep the report under 10,000 pages.

considering that nearly half the report was a rehash of known facts/innuendo, wouldn't a sane person assume that if he had to cut the report down, that removing the information that is already public knowledge would be the first to get the axe?

I mean this is a fact finding mission, and if there is evidence to back up a 'founded fact' wouldn't that piece of evidence be important enough to mention in the research?

I went on Proquest and looked at old Sports Illustrateds.

Rick Reilly wrote a column in August 2000 called "The 'Roid to Ruin," the theme of which is hey, everyone's doing steroids in baseball and nobody's doing anything about it.

I tried to find the cartoon of McGwire on steriods in 1998 from my Lexis-Nexis search but no luck. I really wanted to see that one.

I also did a LexisNexis search on "baseball steroids" which turned up another few stories. One NY Times article uses quotes from a doctor to cite the harmful effects of steriods and andro (a "C-19" steroid) in light of the McGwire and andro controversy. From what I can gather, the McGwire & andro controversy gathered some attention from the media in 1998 but not a lot. And from those articles, it's clear that roid usage was not looked upon favorably.

This would make me doubt McNamee's credibility even more. If McNamee had physical evidence and was keeping it in order to support his "story," but he don't tell George Mitchell about it, then it makes me suspicious as to whether McNamee is stupid enough to falsify evidence. Also, the notion that McNamee secretly preserved evidence in 1999 and 2001 in order to protect himself from denials by Clemens at some later date really doesn't make sense....unless he had some future blackmailing in mind. We would have to believe that McNamee could foresee that he would be arrested in the future for drug trafficking and that he would be asked to "give up" Clemens in a plea bargain, and that he would need physical evidence to make good on his plea bargain. From his perspective in that time period, keeping physical evidence that he injected illegal substances would increase the chance that he is caught and prosecuted. McNamee, by keeping evidence that he performed an illegal act, would seem to be putting himself at a greater risk, rather than protecting himself. This doesn't add up right now.

That would be how the insane might interpret it. The sane would just assume that Mitchell didn't find it incumbent upon himself to include every shred of evidence in exhaustive detail about every player mentioned in order to keep the report under 10,000 pages.

Really? This detail would have added about half a page to the report. And wouldn't the inclusion of evidence have strengthened the case against Clemens? It's a lot more powerful stuff than a reported conversation between two players. No?

I'm willing to bet that the last thing Mcnamee wanted was to reveal physical evidence that clemens in fact cheated. I don't think he, mitchell, or heck anyone expected clemens to go this far with his denials.

Why wouldn't Clemens go this far in his denials? It is a pretty serious thing, no?

We would have to believe that McNamee could foresee that he would be arrested in the future for drug trafficking and that he would be asked to "give up" Clemens in a plea bargain, and that he would need physical evidence to make good on his plea bargain.

You would just have to believe McNamee knew what he was doing was illegal (distributing steroids) and that one of his clients may deny his accusations if he came under legal trouble. The specifics (who, when, under what context) could go numerous ways.

"From his perspective in that time period, keeping physical evidence that he injected illegal substances would increase the chance that he is caught and prosecuted."

Reward outweighs risk?

Hey Mr. Mitchell I've got these bloody PED syringes that I used on Clemens, you want them?

Nah, what would be the point of that? Kinko's will charge me an extra 10 cents if I put that in. Keep that to yourself.

Nah, what would be the point of that? Kinko's will charge me an extra 10 cents if I put that it. Keep that to yourself.

Ha!

Seriously, based on what was in the report (eg. the conversation between Bigbie and Roberts, which turned out true I'll note)), it seems Mitchell was anxious to include anything that could be construed as evidence...including real-life evidence.

Various posters:
McGwire took a bit of grief over his alleged Ando usage during his historic HR chase with Sosa....If Ando caught people's attention in the late 1990s, steriods can't be far behind.

I have trouble remembering the timeline in my old age, but 'round these parts, the hysteria was in full swing well before BALCO. Not sure what the mainstream media wrote

There was steroid talk in 1998. Mainly about Mcgwire.

For the observationally comatose, there was nothing to deflect attention from.
For anybody with measureable brainwaves, it was pretty obvious somehting was amiss.

even with andro being over-the-counter, it caused quite a stir.

I seem to remember that Steroids was on everyones mind even before Mark McGwire broke the homerun record, it wasn't to this level of course, because the reporters were more interested in maintaining friendships in the clubhouse than actually investigating anything. I'm pretty sure that there were already whispers about Brady Andersons 1996 as early as 1997. I'm positive Frank Thomas had already made comments about PED's before the homerun chase year, and it was already starting to become somewhat obvious that it was going to eventually pick up steam in the public consciousness.



For those who think t'was ever thus, I offer an extra-lengthy representative sampling of steroid quotes, articles, and media coverage. The first dozen or so cover the "we didn't know... how COULD we have known?™" bullsh!t alibi. Then we move on to the first wave of hard-hitting investigative journalism. And finally, two Bud Selig quotes about his taking early and decisive action against steroids, four years before he himself knew there was a problem. The man is a visionary, no question:

In 1985, on his anniversary special, David Letterman replayed a clip which was, in its entirety, Arnold Schwarzenegger overenthusiastically plugging a movie, and Letterman retorting, "The steroids, by the way, don't affect your ego, do they?"

In 1986, Frank Miller did a run on "Daredevil" titled "Born Again," in which a character is made super-strong on an illicit regimen of steroids.

10/4/88 David Letterman Show: "Top Nine (*) Good Things About Steroids" (*they were doing a "Top Ten cutbacks" routine at the time)

In 1991, MAD Magazine ran an article, "Why Sports Life is Harder than Real Life," which included a punchline about how at least in real life, they don't pump you up with steroids.

1994 Kevin Hallinan quote (MLB's chief of security): "We've heard it too, but what can we do?"

1995 Randy Smith quote: "We all know there's steroid use, and it is definitely becoming more prevalent. The ballplayers all know the dangers of it. We preach it every year."

1995 Tony Gwynn quote: "It's like the big secret we're not supposed to talk about, but believe me, we wonder just like the rest of the people. I'm standing out there in the outfield when a guy comes up, and I'm thinking, `Hey, I wonder if this guy is on steroids.'”

1995 Frank Thomas quote: "I'd love to see testing myself... I went in to see my doctor this winter, and he even asked me, `Hey. are you on steroids?'"

1995 Kevin Malone quote: "If individuals are going around and getting an unfair advantage because of steroid use, we should do something about it. You hear the rumors of usage is way up, and it would be nice to know if those are accurate."

1995 Bud Selig quote: "If baseball has a problem, I must say candidly that we were not aware of it. It certainly hasn't been talked about much."

1996 MLB official spokesman Pat Courtney: “I don’t think the concern is there that it’s being used.”

1997 Denver Post: “Some players are clearly willing to cross the line to gain a competitive edge.”

1997 Herk Robinson quote: "I hate to say this, but it didn't do a whole lot of good to know the policy. You weren't going [to] solve anything... If a player is helping your club immensely, you know how it is -- maybe it's better you don't know."

1998 Mark McGwire quote: "Everybody I know in the game of baseball uses the same stuff I use [discussing androstenedione]."

1998 St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer Bernie Miklasz quote: "To be able to decipher the label on this andro bottle, you have to intentionally look, and look hard. And that's out of bounds."

1998, ESPN: attention paid to the andro story "said more about us" than it did about McGwire's drug use.

September, 1998-- the Memphis Flyer
Headline: Androstenedione is distracting us from McGwire’s heroics.
"Seriously, folks, the recent controversy involving St. Louis Cardinal slugger Mark McGwire and the “performance-enhancing” drug androstenedione has become a sad sidebar to what may be the best American sports story of the decade. As McGwire – with Sammy Sosa not far behind – obliterates Roger Maris’ 37-year-old record of 61 home runs in a single season, sports fans would do well to enjoy the glorious ride and ignore media-driven distractions like andro, as the drug in question is casually known....
Aside from the legality issue, the most troubling aspect of this controversy is the apparent means by which the story was first broken (by a New York reporter during a Cardinals’ series with the Mets). Just how open McGwire’s locker and its contents are to a reporter’s naked eye is debatable. What we do know is that, in the wake of McGwire’s andro-related headlines, a Denver reporter was caught searching through Colorado Rockies outfielder Dante Bichette’s locker, where he (eureka!) discovered a bottle of andro. The reporter’s credentials were summarily yanked for what was considered a blatant violation of the player’s privacy."

December 1998-- Time Magazine:
"We needed Mark McGwire in 1998, needed him desperately. He couldn't banish the stain of sleaze that leached through our public life this year, nor could he restore civility to our discourse or turn the media's attention to rotten schools or Serbian brutality. He is, after all, only a baseball player. But what a baseball player he is, and what a year it was, and what balm he brought to a nation that seemed to spend the year flaying its flesh....
The girth of Mark McGwire's forearm is greater than that of a large man's neck; his biceps look as if they've been inflated with a bicycle pump. Your hand could conceivably disappear in his; if he chose, it could certainly be crushed. Yet something other than his pure physicality strikes you about McGwire. Revealed in his deep green eyes is a self-knowledge as imposing as his size and strength: I am who I am, what you see is what you get, and if I'm going to hit 70 home runs, well, that's what I was meant to do....
When a reporter spotted androstenedione, a legal but controversial steroid, in McGwire's locker, the slugger explained that he used it to protect himself from the muscle tears that so often plague finely conditioned athletes, especially those few so well muscled as he, and he left it at that. Though he was criticized, McGwire marched ahead, not even pausing to rip off the head of the reporter who'd gone peeking into his locker. What kind of a modern athlete would fail to do that? As for "andro," whatever else it does, it can't help a player's timing, his hand-eye coordination, his ability to discern a slider from a splitter. But even if andro improved his power by an unlikely, oh, 5%, then instead of 70 home runs, McGwire this year would have hit... maybe 67. Take 5% off a 450-ft. missile, and you've got a 427.5-ft. missile--long enough to clear any fence save center field in Detroit's Tiger Stadium.But don't you think the McGwire we watched during his moments across the national stage last summer would never surreptitiously tape conversations with a friend? Would never defend his behavior by retreating into the technical meaning of innocuous verbs? Couldn't possibly pursue his own fanatic agenda by rooting about in the private peccadilloes of another? Don't you think it's more likely that Mark McGwire would sit in front of his locker, stare intently ahead, think about what he needed to do, knowing that no one could help him, that the task was his alone?
Yes. And then he would slowly rise, pick up his bat and go to it."

August 1999-- Joe Posnanski, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
"But there was a better reason to stand and applaud.
Mark McGwire gave up andro.
He did not make a big deal out of it. That would not have been his style. Everyone, and we're talking everybody, knows McGwire had been using androstenedione -- a dietary substance that's still legal in baseball, but not in the NFL or the Olympics -- to enhance his workouts and, especially, to help fight off injury. He was not endorsing the stuff. He was just using it quietly, privately, that is, until a reporter noticed it in his locker....
our months ago, he stopped. He did not tell everybody then. No, he could not say anything then. See, every time he hit a warning-track fly ball, someone would ask whether andro might have made a difference. Every time he sat out a game because of a nick or bruise, someone would ask whether giving up andro had made him more brittle. And what if he stopped hitting home runs? What then? The andro thing would become a circus....
The roar will follow him always.
Oh, Thursday was nice. Thursday was a great day to applaud Mark McGwire. I've never believed that andro helped McGwire hit even a single home run. Still, it was good to see him hit his 500th home run, andro-free. "

Sandy Alderson, 2000: "[Major league steroid use] hasn't really been a problem and it's not clear that it's a problem today. I think there's a total absence of that."

November 2001, the Associated Press covering McGwire's retirement (paragraph 13 of a 16-paragraph story):
"McGwire's record chase was briefly tainted by his involvement with androstenedione, a testosterone raising supplement. Sales of andro soared for a time, but he quietly announced in '99 that he had stopped using it."

November 2001, same McGwire retirement story, CNN:
"When the media frenzy on the home run race focused on McGwire's use of the legal supplement androstenedione, which has since been banned, his public support did not falter. (VIDEO OF MCGWIRE: 'I don't worry about it because it's legal stuff, sold over the counter, anybody can go in there and buy it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.')"

Various direct quotes from the news coverage of McGwire's retirement, various sources:
"Like a Paul Bunyan who swung a bat instead of an ax," "one of the great all-time sluggers," "a giant of a man with a heart to match," "national icon," "belongs on the short list of greats," "shining star has rounded the bases for the last time," "helped to restore baseball to its accustomed place in our collective soul," "enormous debt of gratitude," and "captured the nation's imagination."

Bud Selig, 2005: "''I never even heard about it. I ran a team and nobody was closer to their players and I never heard any comment from them. It wasn't until 1998 or '99 that I heard the discussion."

Bud Selig to Congress, 2006: "In 1994, before anybody was really talking about steroids in baseball, we proposed a program of testing for such substances to the MLBPA. As early as 1998, I began formulating a strategic plan to eliminate the use of performance enhancing substances from the game."

Maybe he wasn't saving these syringes as "evidence", but intended to sell them on e-bay someday, like the gum Luis Gonzalez was chewing in the 2001 World Series.

why is it obviously true?

I mean this isn't like politics where obvious things like "Our current president is the worse president in the history of this country" are true, this is more or less a he said she said thing.

The early something was said in the investigation (after Canseco though) the more likely I am to belief it, but as the investigation started rolling, it becomes harder to trust people at their word, especially when you consider that Schilling wasn't indicted in something like this. I mean sure the guy doing the investigation is a Red Sox, but c'mon who is anyone kidding, Schilling is as obvious as Clemens in this situation.

You know what cracks me up? The lengths through people like McCoy and Nieporent and a few others will go through trying to debunk what is obviously true. It really is a scream

You know what cracks me up? your craziness. I don't care if Clemens took PEDs. Hell here I'll shout it for you

I THINK SAMMY SOSA, MARK MCGWIRE, BARRY BONDS, ROGER CLEMENS, TIGER WOODS, AND HUNDREDS OF OTHERS TOOK PEDS.

AND I DON'T CARE.

You on the other hand love to twist the truth and logic. You don't care if somebody is lying just as long as it supports your worldview. It doesn't matter that McNamee's handling of this evidence is odd just as long as it supports your worldview.

why is it obviously true?

Regarding McGwire? I think it's his massive muscle growth, beyond what you would expect from normal workouts, between his early years and late 1990s. It's not hard to imagine that a reporter would notice this and poke around. With Clemens, it's how he extended his career and performed at high level during an age period when players typically not only decline but retire.

And just to add, this isn't conclusive evidence. But it's type of stuff that raises questions.

Skeptics! Apologists! Relativist fanboys!
If the chain of custody for this double-secret evidence is good enough to satisfy the New York Daily News sports department, by God, it's good enough for any freedom-loving citizen. Because nobody has been fairer and more respectful of due process than the Daily News-- the eyes, the ears, the honest voice of New York.

McCoy, all the guys who have been caught lying and cheating have been the guys you have been supporting all these years.

Well, I'm relatively new to this site, so I don't know the specifics of that statement. But, kevin, are you telling me that you haven't rooted for a cheater unknowingly?

Nevermind. I misread what you wrote. My bad.

McCoy, all the guys who have been caught lying and cheating have been the guys you have been supporting all these years.

BS there Kevin, you are talking out of your ass. I haven't supported any player in the manner you think I am.

Well, I'm relatively new to this site, so I don't know the specifics of that statement. But, kevin, are you telling me that you haven't rooted for a cheater unknowingly?

I'm pretty sure he is a Red Sox fan, and since the guy doing the investigation was a part owner of the team, coincendently none of the obvious current Red Sox players were implicated.

Of course I'm sure he has probably rooted for Nomar, Schilling, Kapler, Youklis, Lowe, Foulke among others, who are clear users, but unless someone actually names them, has actual evidence(something he doesn't expect for other players named) and a signed confession, he wouldn't believe it.

All this talk of 'buttocks' and '####' is getting out of hand. I'm not going to be able to read this at work much longer.

RE: Post 86. Ok, so if you're a reporter, it's bad to search through a player's locker because it's an invasion of privacy and people didn't make a distinction between andro and steroids in 1998. I just said he took a "bit of grief" over andro usage in 1998 and I found a few articles that illustrated this view point (e.g. the NY Times article I found). And I still think if he was caught taking steroids in 1998, it would have a big deal. Thus to deflect anticipated questions about his tremendous growth, I remember some people speculated (was it Robothal?) that Mac puts out andro in plain view as a diversion. Do I buy it? I'm not sure, but if steroids was stigmatized in the late 1990s and if McGwire could anticipate questions surrounding about his massive muscle growth, andro seems like a reasonable diversion.

My two cents:

1) Obviously steroids & baseball weren't together as much in public conversation in 2001 as they are now, but the majority of the public knew what they were and had a negative connotation to them. The fact that they were/are illegal, and that McNamee was breaking various laws and operating in secrecy back then should be some clue that steroids were generally perceived as bad in 2001 and earlier.

2) As for the omission of this evidence from the Mitchell report, it's still quite possible this "evidence" doesn't really exist, at least not in a usable form. And it's possible that McNamee was only recently advised to search for this stuff, and he could just be really bad at destroying evidence. Did he keep copies of the checks he received from players?

And even if this stuff was brought to Mitchell's attention earlier, I doubt he was interested in conducting his own DNA testing for his report, especially since it would have been next to useless without a DNA sample from Clemens himself, which would have necessitated bringing legal action against him, which wasn't the purpose of the Mitchell report. (Not that I believe the stated purpose of the report was any good, but you get the idea.)

998 Mark McGwire quote: "Everybody I know in the game of baseball uses the same stuff I use [discussing androstenedione]."


Is the bracketed phrase in the original? Is it clear that McGwire was talking about andro? I mean, I could read that sentence as his admitting, subtley, that he and everyone else are PEDing up in the extreme.

Regarding McGwire? I think it's his massive muscle growth, beyond what you would expect from normal workouts, between his early years and late 1990s. It's not hard to imagine that a reporter would notice this and poke around. With Clemens, it's how he extended his career and performed at high level during an age period when players typically not only decline but retire.

And just to add, this isn't conclusive evidence. But it's type of stuff that raises questions

Well, yeah, that stuff is suspicious, but like you said, not conclusive. And for something to be OBVIOUSLY true, I'd think there would need to be some conclusive evidence.

I find it incredibly funny how kevin is actually arguing that Mitchell would have willingly left out surefire evidence such as used syringes because it is going "too in-depth." Holy smokes.

I posted this in a previous thread..

My wife gets lidocaine shots for her wrist DIRECTLY IN THE WRIST. Not in her ass. My ex-mother-in-law got monthly B-12 shots IN HER ARM. Not in her ass. I saw both of these events with my own eyes on more than one occasion. As a matter of fact, my wife is due for another shot this tuesday. You might say that you could understand a major league pitcher not wanting to inject in his arm, but why not the left one? It has no effect on his pitching. Injecting in the butt could cause those muscles to tighten up, and we all know that pitchers get their power from the lower torso. So the ass would be much more problematic than the left arm.

You could also get a joint specialtist to testify in front of Congress under oath.....something like this:

Congress: Tell us, Doctor, which joint or joints would be affected by injecting lidocaine in one's ass?
Doctor: None
Congress: None? Then why would someone inject lidocaine in their ass?
Doctor: Duh?? I dunno.

And as intelligent people pointed out in previous threads, nobody including Roger Clemens ever said that Roger Clemens got a lidocaine shot in his ass.

You know what cracks me up? The lengths through people like McCoy and Nieporent and a few others will go through trying to debunk what is obviously true. It really is a scream.

You know what cracks me up? You pretend you're a scientist (as well as an soldier!), and yet you don't even understand the concept of evidence.

this is great stuff here ..

So we are to believe that Brain McNamee kept this bloody evidence for 7 years, stored away who knows where, till he needed it.

then .. when he needed it, he didn't use it. he was interviewed multiple times by the feds .. multiple times my mitchell .. didn't use it ..

He held on to it for 7 years, and when it came time for "jail", or "the truth" .. he still didn't bring it out .. sick ####### dying kid and all ...

then the day before he goes in front of congress, this stuff just mysteriously appears.

i call Bull ####!

only a lunatic, a physco, a person that would go on message boards and lie about themselves, so they look cool amongst their pretend friends, would believe this #### ...

private kevin, your douche-bagged-ness never ceases to amazes me!

private kevin, your douche-bagged-ness never ceases to amazes me!

Give the man his props. He fought for his country at La Choy and Chop Suey.

[Oops, moved to the other thread.]

[Also moved to the other thread]

Well, yeah, that stuff is suspicious, but like you said, not conclusive. And for something to be OBVIOUSLY true, I'd think there would need to be some conclusive evidence.

I see that this topic has moved to another thread but I'll just quickly say 1) there never will be conclusive evidence regarding McGwire (and probably Clemens as well) and 2) I forgot to add McGwire's testimony in front of congress. Again, it's not conclusive evidence but it looks pretty bad for McGwire.