I don't think Schilling has to name names, but I do think it's important to say what level of person within the organization, and to say whether he felt like this was an "official" directive/suggestion or merely someone going off the reservation.

Frank Thomas was 6'5, 275.

Obviously, that size must provide a natural advantage. I mean, look at all the 6'5, 275 guys who have become successful major league hitters.

My recollection is that when Thomas retired he was pretty annoyed at what he felt were hitters who achieved their totals through cheating. So his anti PED statements aren't a new thing. And in fact, if he is innocent than it is guys like him whose legacies are tarnished by guys like Raffy et al.

True, I do remember Thomas speaking out against steroids while he was still playing, so his comments aren't new. It's just that to do so again right now when he's going to be on the HOF ballot next year just seems a little...convenient.

Isn't this sort of silly? How could you even look into this? It was five years ago! I know people love working in baseball, but how many people are even still going to be around from then?

I would start by following up with Schilling.

I know people love working in baseball, but how many people are even still going to be around from then?

The Red Sox clubhouse staffers are a bunch of guys who have been around forever. There are guys introduced on Opening Day every year that have been around literally since the 80s (yes, literally). Of course my guess is that these guys keep these jobs forever in part because of their ability to get steroids, Popeye's chicken, hookers and God knows what else without ever disclosing that information.

How could you even look into this?

You could ask Schilling the ID of the guy who suggested it to him. That's where I'd start, were I truly interested in investigating it.

Like others, if it's true, I can't imagine it was anyone of importance. If you're a Red Sox official of any significance, do you want to suggest PEDs, after testing had been in place, to baseball's biggest loudmouth who has already paid lip service to being anti-PEDs?

Note that the vague conversation Schilling refers to took place in 2008, i.e., after testing.

Duly noted. Post-testing it remains in the interests of front offices and teams to employ roiders ... as long at they can get away with it. In Schilling's particular case, the Red Sox had no reason not to want him to roll the dice on roiding. Like every other team, they'd prefer the Bartolo Colon pitch unitl you're caught strategy to outright retirement.

In the midst of a group of people? With others present who weren't involved?

That would be odd.


Why? Nobody's going to tell. Hell, the reporters probably wouldn't tell.

If you're a Red Sox official of any significance, do you want to suggest PEDs, after testing had been in place, to baseball's biggest loudmouth who has already paid lip service to being anti-PEDs?

....and IN FRONT of a group of other players?

My money is on Pesky.

Like others, if it's true, I can't imagine it was anyone of importance. If you're a Red Sox official of any significance, do you want to suggest PEDs, after testing had been in place, to baseball's biggest loudmouth who has already paid lip service to being anti-PEDs?

I agree with you.

Now, if I were a clubhouse dealer I'd try to sell him some.

It is abundantly clear from the record that - quite contrary to the arguments that were offered up so frequently here that "these are professional athletes and they are extremely careful about what they put in their bodies" - most of these players will take something simply because someone suggested it to them. Particularly trainers, other players - even the random gym rat. Pettitte testified under oath that he took HGH without really knowing what it was because McNamee was giving it to him, and "I trust Mac; I would run through a wall if Mac told me to."

And of course the fact that these drugs are illegal now in the US makes it difficult for people to take them under proper medical supervision.

Tweet: Lucchino said Schilling accusation (that someone in organization encouraged PED use) came "out of left field" but it will be looked into.

Isn't this a direct confirmation that it was Manny? (i.e., there's always money in left field, I mean the banana stand)

I would like to hear WHICH PED, specifically, they were encouraging him to use. That wouldn't be outing anyone.

The key thing to understand the hilarity of Schilling's congressional testimony is to compare it to his comments before being subpoenaed.

The key thing to understand is that Schilling was being asked, under oath, about locker room gossip. That is a ####### joke.

Andy is right here.

Well, reach over & give him a dope slap, why don't you? Just on general principles.

The key thing to understand is that Schilling was being asked, under oath, about locker room gossip. That is a ####### joke.

True. That's its own separate joke, though. I don't blame Schilling for testifying the way he did, but I wonder if he regretted all his big talk about PEDs before being subpoenaed. The juxtaposition of his pre-subpoena bravado and his meek testimony make for a good chuckle. Nothing more than that, though. McGwire, in hindsight (and foresight for a lot of people), probably was the smartest of the lot.

So, in a nutshell, Schilling was asked to take PEDs for the good of the team, but he declined because he cared more about his personal reputation and numbers than about winning?

Schilling can't be certain which club official asked him to use PEDs, because the person was wearing a gorilla suit at the time.

It was an incredibly uncomfortable conversation.

Because they were shooting a needle into my buttock at the time.

Fern 7/MCoA 33 nail it:

If this turns out to be an example of institutional promotion of the use of AAS/PEDs, this absolutely changes the entire narrative of PED usage in baseball. This would be a post-Mitchell action by a team at the epicenter of the baseball universe. Moreover, this would absolutely obliterate the line (and one that I'll admit to having used myself) between amps and steroids, insofar as one was affirmatively promoted by teams (leaded/unleaded coffee) and the other simply a case of gross institutional negligence (let that jacked up trainer walk around with his pill kit!)

There are all sorts of really hugely problematic issues that could arise from what Schilling is saying if this came from any member of the BoSox in a high level role (and I'll include the team's S&C coach/trainer in that equation.) While I'm sure MLB will just keep quiet and hope this story blows over, I really think the best path forward at this point for MLB is to attempt to create an honest oral history of PEDs through a truth commission.

Pettitte testified under oath that he took HGH without really knowing what it was because McNamee was giving it to him, and "I trust Mac; I would run through a wall if Mac told me to."

And with the stuff he was shooting into me, I could do it too!

Fern 7/MCoA 33 nail it:

If this turns out to be an example of institutional promotion of the use of AAS/PEDs, this absolutely changes the entire narrative of PED usage in baseball. This would be a post-Mitchell action by a team at the epicenter of the baseball universe. Moreover, this would absolutely obliterate the line (and one that I'll admit to having used myself) between amps and steroids, insofar as one was affirmatively promoted by teams (leaded/unleaded coffee) and the other simply a case of gross institutional negligence (let that jacked up trainer walk around with his pill kit!)

Lou Merloni:
"I'm in spring training, and I got an 8:30-9:00 meeting in the morning. And I walk into that office, and this happened while I was with the Boston Red Sox before this last regime, I'm sitting in the meeting. There's a doctor up there and he's talking about steroids, and everyone was like, 'Here we go, we're gonna sit here and get the whole thing -- "they're bad for you."'

No. He spins it and says 'You know what, if you take steroids and sit on the couch all winter long, you can actually get stronger than someone who works out clean, if you're going to take steroids, one cycle won't hurt you, abusing steroids it will.' He sat there for one hour and told us how to properly use steroids while I'm with the Boston Red Sox, sitting there with the rest of the organization, and after this I said 'What the heck was that?' And everybody on the team was like 'What was that?' And the response we got was 'Well, we know guys are taking it, so we want to make sure they're taking it the right way.'

Where did that come from? That didn't come from the Players Association."

This isn't a "post-Mitchell" event (Merloni was with Boston through 2003). But it's also an account that not only didn't "absolutely change the entire narrative of PED usage in baseball," but one that was shoved back under the rug with incredble speed. Similar incidents have been described for other franchises.

Lou Merloni:
"I'm in spring training, and I got an 8:30-9:00 meeting in the morning. And I walk into that office, and this happened while I was with the Boston Red Sox before this last regime, I'm sitting in the meeting. There's a doctor up there and he's talking about steroids, and everyone was like, 'Here we go, we're gonna sit here and get the whole thing -- "they're bad for you."'

No. He spins it and says 'You know what, if you take steroids and sit on the couch all winter long, you can actually get stronger than someone who works out clean, if you're going to take steroids, one cycle won't hurt you, abusing steroids it will.' He sat there for one hour and told us how to properly use steroids while I'm with the Boston Red Sox, sitting there with the rest of the organization, and after this I said 'What the heck was that?' And everybody on the team was like 'What was that?' And the response we got was 'Well, we know guys are taking it, so we want to make sure they're taking it the right way.'

It was in the best interest of the Boston Red Sox that Lou Merloni take steroids. Thus, the Boston Red Sox encouraged Lou Merloni to use steroids.

This can't be a surprise.

It was also in Theo Epstein's best interest to know who was roiding and to what degree (and in his best interest that Red Sox players roided). Thus, the unsurprising passage in the Mitchell Report:

"When the Boston Red Sox were considering acquiring Gagné, a Red Sox official made specific inquiries about Gagné’s possible use of steroids. In a November 1, 2006 email to a Red Sox scout, general manager Theo Epstein asked, “Have you done any digging on Gagne? I know the Dodgers think he was a steroid guy. Maybe so. What do you hear on his medical?”

The scout, Mark Delpiano, responded,

Some digging on Gagne and steroids IS the issue. Has had a
checkered medical past throughout career including minor leagues.
Lacks the poise and commitment to stay healthy, maintain body
and re invent self. What made him a tenacious closer was the max
effort plus stuff . . . Mentality without the plus weapons and
without steroid help probably creates a large risk in bounce back
durability and ability to throw average while allowing the changeup
to play as it once did . . . Personally, durability (or lack of) will
follow Gagne . . .

This passage has been in the public domain for many years now. Somehow, some way, Eric Gagne got pilloried and Theo Epstein walked away unscathed.

Maybe David Ortiz just called him over to offer him a milkshake. Schilling just connected the dots from there.

You guys have hit the points I suppose. He could have at least narrowed it down to "senior management", "player", "low-level employee", something.

Given there were other people around, his description also reads like a classic case where one guy meant it as a joke or a wry observation or a simple statement of the reality if Schilling's situation -- something between when I offer to amputate a friend's head when they've got a cold to pointing out to a terminal cancer patient that they've got nothing to lose in trying a crazy Mexican miracle. Sort of a "well, if you're gonna use PEDs, now would be the time." But Schilling took it seriously.

If it is genuine then, given the timing, the most likely PED discussed would have been HGH ... which, per the evidence we've got, don't do nothing but certainly a lot of players have expressed a belief in its injury healing powers.

The key thing to understand is that Schilling was being asked, under oath, about locker room gossip.

Moreover, he was being asked to "guess" under oath. Not Bernie Sanders' finest moment.

Theo Epstein walked away unscathed.

Not true. We made fun of him for still being dumb enough to acquire Gagne.

This passage has been in the public domain for many years now. Somehow, some way, Eric Gagne got pilloried and Theo Epstein walked away unscathed.

I'm not seeing what there is there to scathe Epstein with. "I know the Dodgers think he was a steroids guy." And?

Moreover, he was being asked to "guess" under oath. Not Bernie Sanders' finest moment.

Sadly, it probably was.

Curt Schilling is like Jeremy Roenick with more teeth.

Moreover, he was being asked to "guess" under oath. Not Bernie Sanders' finest moment.

TBF, if congress was looking for background info on the prevalence of steroids in baseball, a renowned player who made a point of mentioning he'd played for 6 teams and "thousands" of players is reasonably "expert" enough to answer. The irony is that if Schilling hadn't been so vocal about the issue prior to the hearings he wouldn't have been called. He sure made it seem like he knew what was going on. You can't fault a bunch of dummy congressmen if they believed it.

Curt Schilling is like Jeremy Roenick with more teeth.

In that case I need to ask Patrick Roy if I can borrow his Stanley Cup rings, cause I am sick of hearing Schilling talk.

Not Bernie Sanders' finest moment.

I have difficulty remembering what his finest moment was.

Frank Thomas was 6'5, 275. It was mighty big of him to whine that other players might be using steroids to try to catch up to the massive weight advantage he had over them. Mighty big of him to try to preserve the huge competitive advantage he had over them by preventing them from using steroids to try to level the playing field. Oh, how Moral he is!

If you can take advantage of a situation in some way, it's your duty as an American to do it. Why should the race always be to the swift or the jumble to the quick-witted? Should they be allowed to win merely because of the gifts God gave them? Well, I say cheating is the gift man gives himself!

Frank Thomas was 6'5, 275. It was mighty big of him to whine that other players might be using steroids to try to catch up to the massive weight advantage he had over them. Mighty big of him to try to preserve the huge competitive advantage he had over them by preventing them from using steroids to try to level the playing field. Oh, how Moral he is!

Sadly, I think Ray is probably really small. Also, I suppose Ben Johnson was just leveling the playing field in the olympics too, right Napoleon?

I'm not seeing what there is there to scathe Epstein with. "I know the Dodgers think he was a steroids guy." And?

And what I said in 39.

I'm actually sort of taking your "side" here and noting that front office people and ownerships enabled the roiding. Remember Big Stein crossing off the roid clause in Giambi's contract?

The accounting of the Steroid Era that leaves out things like the soout-Epstein email is incomplete.

In that case I need to ask Patrick Roy if I can borrow his Stanley Cup rings, cause I am sick of hearing Schilling talk.

That quip from Roy is one of the truly great moments in trash talk.

That quip from Roy is one of the truly great moments in trash talk.

What was it?

This passage has been in the public domain for many years now. Somehow, some way, Eric Gagne got pilloried and Theo Epstein walked away unscathed.

I have no idea why Epstein shouldn't have emerged unscathed from this quote.

Remember Big Stein crossing off the roid clause in Giambi's contract?

Assuming this happened, all it shows is that Steinbrenner was concerned about it - but not concerned enough to walk away from the deal over it. I'm not seeing what the big deal is here.

What was it?

Roenick was on the Blackhawks and Roy on the Avalanche and they were playing against each other in the playoffs in '96:

After game 4, Roenick told the media,

"It should have been a penalty shot, there's no doubt about it. I like Patrick's quote that he would've stopped me. I'd just want to know where he was in Game 3, probably getting his jock out of the rafters in the United Center maybe."

Roy retorted with his now-famous line:

“I can’t really hear what Jeremy says because I’ve got my two Stanley Cup rings plugging my ears.”

The Avalanche went on to win the Cup that year.

I have no idea why Epstein shouldn't have emerged unscathed from this quote.

He shouldn't if the players didn't.

Why didn't he do anything to stop the roiding, if he knew it was going on? He was in as good a position to "do something" about it as, say, Jeff Bagwell.

Moreover, why did he enable the roiding by valuing players more if they roided?

Moreover, why did he enable the roiding by valuing players more if they roided?

Where did you get this "fact" from?

What's with all this talk of congressional hearings? Unless I'm missing something, Schilling testified before congress in 2005 and again in Jan 2008. The conversations he's describing is alleged to have occurred during the 2008 baseball season, after he'd already testified.

But until Schilling starts naming names and agrees to testify about specifics under oath, we have no ####### way to judge the truth or untruth of what he's saying. One of these days he's going to have to #### or get off the pot.

There really isn't an appropriate vehicle for Schilling (or anyone else) to testify under oath about these issues. What is he supposed to do, give an unsolicited affidavit to a bunch of publicity seeking politicians, or self-promoting journalists, looking to advance their careers? Should he send a statement to the MLB folks who seem to have broken every promise of confidentiality? Equally important, does he even have any Smoking Gun knowledge? I doubt Schilling is going to say "And then Manny handed David Ortiz a syringe, and Ortiz injected Dustin Pedroia in his butt, right in front of me". It seems more likely that Schilling (and others) would be more apt to testify that Player X told me that Player Y said that Player Z was taking PEDs. Or that X told me the strength coach knew a guy who had access to PEDs. Assuming there isn't an outbreak of self-incrimination, what is to be gained by chasing down those leads, threatening people with perjury if their version differs from someone else?

Re: #92--
People are bringing up Schilling's testimony as a cautionary previous example of his expansive claims, which ended up being scaled way, way back when the rubber hit the road.

Please. "Former employees". How convenient. And so what? If they were still employed, he'd tell who they were? I doubt it. And, "other people heard". How convenient. Who? "Oh, I won't say." Why not? Because you'll have to kill someone?

Curt, go away.

liberal is supposed to mean that he got a right to his opinions and if someone asks it is fine to say em.

I thought this was a conservative thing, what with strict construction and that whole, 1st Amendment thingy right there in black and parchment?

In any case, this is sleazy stuff. Cast aspersions on an organization, and let it twist in the wind absent details? Pretty shitty thing to do, no?

Schilling tweeted that it wasnt a baseball ops guy.

What is he supposed to do,

As many people have said, and as your post actually reinforces, he should probably just quit talking about it.

Schilling tweeted that it wasnt a baseball ops guy.

So it was a player, coach, trainer, doctor, accountant, janitor, broadcaster, owner, PR hack or the cutie who worked in payroll? We've almost got it nailed down!

Yet another prediction contest!

20 questions. Yay.