This will be my 20th year in the major leagues, and I don’t even know what a steroid looks like

well that pretty much makes his story null and void, and therefore this article meaningless doesn't it?

I don't believe Monahan ever saw anyone take steroids either. But we have a pattern emerging here:

Ex-players - steroids and greenies were widely used
Current players, non-implicated - we see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing, nothing to see here, please move along
Current players, implicated - I used them once or twice but I don't know anyone else who uses them

I knew plenty of guys that used PEDs. I guess my very limited experience in amateur baseball could be extremely unique. I can honestly say, though, that I never actually saw someone inject steroids or that anyone walked up and gave me a brochure with prices. Big deal.

I can't really put my finger on it, but something about the way they both say "a steroid" strikes me as funny.

Ex-players, current players implicated and non-implicated - you forgot another group - The Media

His mother, Diane, reached at her home outside Atlanta, said her son had some reservations about the way the ESPN.com story was presented. "It makes it look like he threw everyone under the bus," she said. "That was never his intention in doing this."

It doesn't make much of a story to merely report that Monahan used drugs. It gets attention when you can interview Ken Griffey and some of the other high profile players about it.

Not only did Monahan admit he took steroids, Ibanez said, but "it clearly didn't work." He added, "These days, the training methods are so much better, so much more sophisticated, that you don't need to take drugs.

That couldn't be the reason, could it?

Armstrong said of Monahan's comments. "... There is now testing for amphetamines, and access to the clubhouse has been tightened a great deal since those days."

Hrm, put that way it sounds like Armstrong isn't necessarily denying the 'friends of friends in the clubhouse dealing' aspect of the story.

“If he’s throwing people under the bus, that’s his choice, but it disappoints me.”

It disappoints you because baseball players have for so long enforced a conspiracy of silence... and, after giving up on denial, tried to blame others for their own mistakes. The fact remains, the players as individuals and as a group are to blame for this mess. No one else. The players have the most to gain by getting rid of unhealthy PEDs. They have the most to lose if they continue. Instead of focusing his wrath on someone who shed light on what he saw going on, Moyer would do well to turn his attention to the MLBPA, asking the union to fully cooperate for the first time in the effort to rid the sport of unhealthy drugs.

The players have the most to gain by getting rid of unhealthy PEDs. hey have the most to lose if they continue.

Why do outsiders keep trying to tell players what's good for them? Even if there really were a health risk, the issue involves a tradeoff between health and privacy. If players value the latter more than the former, why the hell is it anybody else's business?

If players value the latter more than the former, why the hell is it anybody else's business?

Yes, Caesar. Because if you gave them the choice to compete without having to resort to taking dangerous chemicals, they'd much rather roll the dice. And why should we care? They're just expendable gladiators.

Yes, Caesar. Because if you gave them the choice to compete without having to resort to taking dangerous chemicals, they'd much rather roll the dice. And why should we care? They're just expendable gladiators.

As far as I recall, gladiators were generally slaves.

As far as I recall, gladiators were generally slaves.

Those were the days, huh?

Because if you gave them the choice to compete without having to resort to taking dangerous chemicals, they'd much rather roll the dice. And why should we care?

They already have a choice.

And why do you care?

And why do you care?

Because human beings who would be capable of competing and excelling without the use of drugs are coerced into taking those risks in order to pursue the vocation that will best allow them to provide for their families?

Yes, Caesar. Because if you gave them the choice to compete without having to resort to taking dangerous chemicals, they'd much rather roll the dice. And why should we care? They're just expendable gladiators.

Do athletes in tested sports not use dangerous chemicals?

Are you aware that some some of the more dangerous steroids also happen to be the more difficult to detect in tests, while the safer ones tend to be easier to detect?

Are you aware that some some of the more dangerous steroids also happen to be the more difficult to detect in tests, while the safer ones tend to be easier to detect?

Yes. I have a biologist friend who told me all about sheep antibodies.

#14

Maybe you should actually talk to a steroid using friend instead; or use some yourself.

Because human beings who would be capable of competing and excelling without the use of drugs are coerced into taking those risks in order to pursue the vocation that will best allow them to provide for their families?

Yet, athletes in tested sports still use various dangerous performance enhancing substances.

Coercion.

Because human beings who would be capable of competing and excelling without the use of drugs are coerced into taking those risks in order to pursue the vocation that will best allow them to provide for their families?

Again, they have a choice.

And like rfloh said "athletes in tested sports still use various dangerous performance enhancing substances."

Because human beings who would be capable of competing and excelling without the use of drugs are coerced into taking those risks in order to pursue the vocation that will best allow them to provide for their families?

They're not coerced into anything. They choose to do it.

"I'll give you lots of money if you do X" is not "coercion."

If the choice is endangering your health or relative poverty, then it's coercion. When you're that close to living the dream, having it taken away because the next guy got better artificially must be tough to take.

If the choice is endangering your health or relative poverty, then it's coercion.

It doesn't matter what the choice is. As long as it's freely made, it isn't coercion.

And hundreds of millions of Americans manage to not play professional baseball and not end up in poverty.

As long as it's freely made, it isn't coercion.


Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.

Economic pressure. Pressure that comes about from not being able to engage in the activity you wish unless you take undue risks.

Economic pressure. Pressure that comes about from not being able to engage in the activity you wish unless you take undue risks.

Offering to give someone lots of money is not "pressure."

Hey, by your logic, if I say, "I'll give you fifty thousand dollars if you kiss my ass," I've "coerced" you more than if I say "I'll give you ten thousand dollars if you kiss my ass."

Ten thousand would be the least I would accept.

edit...take up a collection, if you would. I have impending lawyer's fees to pay.

Why would I pay someone to do that when so many do it for free?

Why would I pay someone to do that when so many do it for free?

There ought to be an ass kisser's union.

Actually, that's the main focus of the hierarchy of many modern unions.

Not only did Monahan admit he took steroids, Ibanez said, but "it clearly didn't work."

Sure they did. Monahan was a AA player without them. He made the ML with them. He achieved one of his goals.

"In 10 years, I've never seen a person take a steroid," he (Ibanez)said.

I (Moyer) can tell you that I was there for 10 years and I never saw anyone take steroids.

What lame excuses. Did they really think that players would inject themselves with illegal drugs in a ML clubhouse? A place where the media is allowed?

Typical coverup of users by non users. Disgusting.

They're not coerced into anything.

This isn't coercion?

He recalls a conversation during his rookie year with Lou Piniella, during which Monahan says the then-Mariners manager stressed the need to pick up his game. By that point, Monahan had tried everything but steroids.

"It was like, 'You don't hit for enough power. We want you to hit for power. And for you to be able to stay on this team, you're going to have to hit for power,'" Monahan recalls Piniella saying. "I hit 12 to 13 home runs every year in the minor leagues, and now all of sudden my major league manager is telling me we want more power out of you.

Because human beings who would be capable of competing and excelling without the use of drugs are coerced into taking those risks in order to pursue the vocation that will best allow them to provide for their families?

That's the actual argument, but there's no evidence that actually happened. While quite a few all-star players have been implicated, quite a few have not been.

I don't know whether Alex Rodriguez took steroids, but no one has said he has and there's no report that he has. Coercion means you have no or little choice if you hope to compete. It appears large swaths of the Major Leagues competed just fine without them.

I can buy the argument that they should be illegal (though I disagree). I don't buy the argument that steroids force players to take them who would otherwise be clean. The evidence is overwhelming that this simply did not happen then and is certainly not happening now.

But ronh, he didn't need to take steroids. The world needs ditch diggers, too.

That's the actual argument, but there's no evidence that actually happened.

I don't have to look far to rebut that. #'s 27 and 28.

Actually, that's the main focus of the hierarchy of many modern unions.

There isn't anything wrong with union hierarchy kissing the rank and files' asses. We pay their salaries.

edit...I know you meant the reverse. Don't bother.

But ronh, he didn't need to take steroids. The world needs ditch diggers, too.

I bet the top ditch digger takes steroids.

If the perception of a player is "take harmful steroids or lose the major league or minor league job that goes to provide for my family" then something is wrong. I don't know if that's technically coercion, but that's not a state that should be encouraged by major league baseball.

If a baseball player wants to take loads of steroids and then charge people to watch him take batting practice, hey, fine with me. It's your body.

But if a number of players within organized baseball choose to take steroids and put undue pressure on the guys who would otherwise not want to take steroids to, in fact, take steroids, then that I'm not comfortable with.

I bet the top ditch digger takes steroids.

I got a giggle out of that .. you know it is probably true too.


what about the children?

You're never too young to learn how to dig ditches. DMN will agree, I trust. ;-)

VOROS: "I don't know whether Alex Rodriguez took steroids, but no one has said he has..."

Jose Canseco has implied Rodriguez took steroids. I have no idea what evidence Canseco has. However, I don't know of a ballplayer who has more credibility than Canseco when pointing the finger:

More than 80 players were named in one capacity or another in the Mitchell Report, but Jose Canseco was certain there would be at least one more name in the document: Alex Rodriguez.

Canseco, who was one of the players named by Sen. George Mitchell in the report, told the Fox Business Channel he was surprised not to see A-Rod's name in the report.

"All I can say is the Mitchell Report is incomplete," Canseco said. "I could not believe that (Rodriguez's) name was not in the report."

Shane Monahan took them because he wasn't a major league caliber ballplayer if everyone was clean. Monahan wasn't coerced, he was looking to take advantage. Coerced is when you're forced to take them when if everyone was clean you wouldn't have to.

By the same argument any high school kid in the country could say he was coerced into taking steroids when in reality he was looking for a shortcut to something he could not achieve otherwise.

IOW, if the majority of the league is clean, there's no coercion.

I think we have seen in all sports that players are not good at making off the field decisions. Whether it is related to labor negotiations or personal affairs players in most sports leave those decisions to others.

In this case it means that the union leadership counts more than the members, from a practical perspective, in making the privacy vs health decision. Fehr and Orza appear to be heavily in the privacy camp and I have yet to see a player stand up to them.

I think the larger question, for all sports, is how do you get players to really focus on and make decisions on off field issues. The NHL had to have an internal revolt of sorts to get the union on their side, I think the NHL had an all-player meeting or two with their leadership issues, maybe MLB should try that as well. Even as I suggest that I know the rookies and the fringe players will be generally reluctant to say anything and the veteran players will provide the leadership, hopefully they would participate and be thoughtful in their decision making.

If not the players opinion will be Fehr and Orza's opinion.

IOW, if the majority of the league is clean, there's no coercion.

We'll have to stay tuned to find out.

They're not coerced into anything.

This isn't coercion?

1) No, it isn't.

2) If it were, he would be being "coerced," not by other players using, but by his own sucktitude. (Look at his AAA numbers. He didn't, by the way, hit 12-13 home runs every year in the minors.)

Which is part of the point I've been making all along. Whether most players use or not, there will always be some players who are just below the quality cutoff for what it takes to play in the majors. Those players will always have an incentive to use, because if they don't do something, they won't get to play in the majors. That's true whether or not any other player uses. (And certainly the Shane Monahans of the world aren't competing for jobs with the Jason Giambis.)

All of this rehashing of this debate has missed the point I was making when I resparked it with my post #7: if steroids were really harmful, and if players were really feeling coerced, then those might represent reasons why the union should care. But if they don't, why do outsiders think it's any of their business? Posts like #6 make Rich sound outraged that players don't care.

I knew plenty of guys that used PEDs...I can honestly say, though, that I never actually saw someone inject steroids or that anyone walked up and gave me a brochure with prices

Charlie,

Honest question -- how do you know they were on PEDs? Did they discuss it openly in the clubhouse or while traveling to road games? Did users try to restrict talk to themselves but you overheard in the tight quarters of the clubhouse? Did you notice the drugs in their lockers?

In short, would any player generally be able to reliably point out which teammates were users and which were not if he strove for honesty?

But if they don't, why do outsiders think it's any of their business?

MLB isn't a private company. If players want to make millions to work in a public business then what they do to their bodies is our business.

We are paying for this entertainment and we don't want to watch drugged up players and all of the MLB wannabees screw themeselves up for the rest of their lives.

Do you think Jason Giambi's body isn't screwed up from his abuse? Why did he say this? "I was wrong for doing that stuff."

Just because the union wants to cover up illegal activity by it's members doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't care.

Do you think the family of players that go on steroids are happy about their husbands or sons or other relations are breaking laws and subjecting their bodies to this abuse?

I get it now. The MLBPA is run by lawyers. DN is a lawyer.

It's one lawyer sticking up for other lawyers. What a joke.

MLB isn't a private company.

Actually it is. You're pretty confused if you don't even know that.

We are paying for this entertainment and we don't want to watch drugged up players and all of the MLB wannabees screw themeselves up for the rest of their lives.

So don't. Even based on the silly, expansive definitions of "coerced" being thrown around, I'm pretty sure nobody is coercing you to watch.

Your remedy when a business isn't selling a product you like is to stop patronizing that business. Of course, you're free to try to convince the business to change its practices, via economic pressure, bad publicity, etc. But it's not legitimate to expropriate the business and force it to sell a different product.

Do you think Jason Giambi's body isn't screwed up from his abuse?

Yes. Do you think it is?

Why did he say this? "I was wrong for doing that stuff."

Because he got caught? Why did Obama say that he was wrong for smoking marijuana? Why do people issue statements to the public that pander to public hysteria? Gee, I can't guess.

Just because the union wants to cover up illegal activity by it's members doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't care.

I agree. The rest of us shouldn't care, regardless of what the union wants, because it's none of our business. The rest of us should spend our time caring about more important things, like the fact that politicians think they have the right to make this activity illegal.

Do you think the family of players that go on steroids are happy about their husbands or sons or other relations are breaking laws and subjecting their bodies to this abuse?

I think that's between the families of the players and the players. Do you think the families of players are happy that they're regularly on the road for eight or nine months a year, or perhaps longer for those who play winter ball? Do you think that's your business too?