Jon Heyman says it ain't so.

Straight from Scott Boras' mouth, so you know it's true.

Giveaway clues that a player is juicing:
- He breaks down
- He displays remarkable durability
- His performance spikes
- He displays remarkable consistency
- He peaks late
- He peaks early
- He has brown eyes
- He has blue eyes

Newest rumor: Max Scherzer juices.

Newest rumor: Max Scherzer juices.

Huh. I had no idea Scherzer had heterochromia.

Serious question: What is the general suspicion of PED usage among big leaguers now vs. pre-testing? I'd guess it's down substantially, which would indicate that there has been a deterring effect. But do others believe the usage rates are the same as (or even greater than) before?

Mostly serious answer: Since "nobody knew" and "nobody could have known" and "the cheaters fooled us all," we have no baseline from which to draw a comparison... right?

Fully serious answer: My best ignorant guess is that previous drug use has dropped, but that there's been a concurrent jump in drugs that weren't added to MLB's list and/or don't yet show up on current tests. Why would baseball be different from every other known sport?

Mostly serious answer: Since "nobody knew" and "nobody could have known" and "the cheaters fooled us all," we have no baseline from which to draw a comparison... right?

Of course not, which is why I asked about suspicions, not facts.

Why would baseball be different from every other known sport?

We really don't know have firm data on usage rates of any other known sport, do we?

But I'd say a lot depends on how performance-aiding the drugs are viewed by the participants. In cycling, it seems, the competitors determined there was no way of competing without it. If baseball players viewed the use as less necessary to success (not an unreasonable conclusion, as it's more of a skill-based activity than cycling) than we should expect to see more of a dropoff once testing procedures were put in place (though other factors would also play a role, such as how effective the testing program was viewed by the participants).

Obviously, there are always going to be a certain percentage of guys who look to get an edge. But that number isn't fixed. I don't really see any reason to think that usage hasn't fallen somewhat since the policy was enacted.

I think Esoteric's comically wrong on a myriad of issues - Genesis, primarily - but he's mostly quite agreeable to disagreement.

Actually his view of Genesis is pretty much 100% right (although I do like Wind & Wuthering more than he does...)

So many user name possibilities from this post:

XXZ is inclined to be skeptical
XXZ is YYX for fair reason
XXZ doesn’t name his source
XXZ is explosive
XXZ deserves tender care
XXZ is going on a witch hunt
XXZ throws names out there
XXZ has no rationale
XXZ correctly prognosticated

I knew a guy that believed that Selling England by the Pound was the greatest album of all time. Every couple years I try to give it another shot, but I can never get through it. The sound is just horrible to me. For reference, progressive rock in general is one of my few despised music forms, along with the Broadway musical and torch singers. Yeah, those are the three worst.

I have no idea if this rumor is true or not, but the convoluted thinking around these kind of accusations is on full display in the article. He writes "[A-Rod's] body broke down and his play substantially declined right around the time MLB starting stricter testing," as though it's evidence that A-Rod used to be using and then stopped when they implemented testing. If that's the case, then how is it possible that A-Rod just failed a test?

Clearly because he felt so disadvantaged that he resumed using in a desperate attempt to ressurrect a collapsed career.

I knew a guy that believed that Selling England by the Pound was the greatest album of all time.

It's my second favorite album, behind only Revolver. And "The Cinema Show" contains the most gorgeous melody I've ever heard.

Serious question: What is the general suspicion of PED usage among big leaguers now vs. pre-testing? I'd guess it's down substantially, which would indicate that there has been a deterring effect. But do others believe the usage rates are the same as (or even greater than) before?

I would guess the rate is down a lot - penalties have a deterrent effect over no penalties (what isn't true is that unfathomably enormous penalties have a deterrant effect beyond that of merely ginormous penalties). In 1998, an MLBer would've had to be pretty dumb to not use steroids. Now - the risk is higher, and the difficulty in obtaining suitable ones is higher (no more using Stanozolol), so the rate should go down. But whether it's 80% -> 20%, or 50% -> 1%, I have no idea.

It wouldn't shock me to see a batch from one team get caught, if not now then someday, as I could easily see a guy finding something that is 'undetectable' and getting away with it for a few years then getting teammates to do it as well (in an effort to win) and suddenly all of them are caught due to tests getting more sensitive. Each of us just has to hope it isn't our favorite team that gets whacked by it someday.

And "The Cinema Show" contains the most gorgeous melody I've ever heard.

My favorite Genesis song, which frankly isn't saying much, as I'm not much of a fan. But a very nice song.

It's my second favorite album, behind only Revolver. And "The Cinema Show" contains the most gorgeous melody I've ever heard.

It's MY second favorite album as well, behind only Quadrophenia. Certainly it's the greatest prog-rock album ever created. And you already know I agree 100% with you about "Cinema Show," of course.

If you think the Who produced any music in any top 10 of anything, it would follow that Genesis ranks up there as well.

(And yes, I'm mostly baiting you for fun, but I still find the Who in the bottom of classic/70s britrock. I'd consider Genesis far, far, far superior.)

And yes, I'm mostly baiting you for fun, but I still find the Who in the bottom of classic/70s britrock

Um, what about the 1960s?

The Who crashed mightily after Quadrophenia (1973), but up until that point they were, alongside the Stones, perhaps THE most impressive "triple threat" band in rock: classic singles group, classic album group, and arguably the greatest live rock group of all time. Certainly I've never heard a live album that's more gripping, amusing, entertaining, and endlessly relistenable than Live At Leeds. It isn't just great music, it's fun.

The funny thing is, I tend to think Who's Next is overrated. "Baba O'Riley" and "Won't Get Fooled Again" are unimpeachable, and "Bargain" and "Going Mobile" are also great fun, but I could take or leave the rest.

Also: anyone who hasn't heard The Who Sell Out is poorer in life for it.

EDIT: Finally, I'm obviously biased but I don't understand how someone could dislike the film The Kids Are Alright.

Um, what about the 1960s?

That is indicated by the word "classic" in my description, grandpa.

That is indicated by the word "classic" in my description, grandpa.

Well, horses for courses then. Me, I'll take that The Who Sell Out, Tommy, Live At Leeds, Who's Next, Quadrophenia, and all the great singles from 1964-1972 over the work of near any other group from that era.

The interesting thing about Live At Leeds is that, although the non-Tommy parts of that show are absolutely superb (which is why the single-CD 14 track version is really all you need), the 1969 performances of the Tommy material are wildly superior. (A number of these shows were professionally recorded by the group and large segments have snuck out as bootlegs...DIME is your friend.) I think they just got tired of playing it all the time by February of 1970.

my roommate in college had a fancy reel-to-reel tape recorder/player (state of the art audio at that time) and one of his tapes had a Who album that he had recorded and a bootleg of the Grateful Dead --the tape was titled:

"Live at Leeds
Dead at Princeton"

he SWEARS he didn't do that on purpose

The funny thing is, I tend to think Who's Next is overrated.

Whaaa??? They were easily my favorite Band. The Kinks were second. And Who's Next is an awesome album. Not a clunker on either side.

Funny thing. I never play old albums around the house so I don't know where this came from but when my son was in high school, we were talking about music and I asked him what his favorite band was and he said without hesitation "The Who.". One of those Kodak moments, I guess. That started a great conversation.

Whaaa??? They were easily my favorite Band. The Kinks were second.

The Kinks behind the Who? BURN THE WITCH SO THE APOSTASY MAY CEASE WITH SCREAMS

The Kinks behind the Who?

Yeah, this is an easy call for me too. In their prime The Kinks were great, but that "prime" only extended from 1966-1970 (move the start date back to 1965 and The Kink Kontroversy if you're feeling generous). Also, I'll confess that I've always thought Arthur to be a wildly overrated album: two all-time classics in "Victoria" and "Shangri-La," another extremely good track in "Arthur," and then a bunch of stuff that doesn't compare to the material on Face To Face, Something Else or Village Green.

Good band. Terribly recorded though, which hurts.

"Live at Leeds
Dead at Princeton"

Heh. FWIW I'm also an obsessive -- and I do mean OBSESSIVE -- Deadhead and therefore I actually know which show your friend put on Side B without having to check. It had to have been their April 1971 show in the Dillon Gym at Princeton University, right before the Fillmore East run of shows which gave us the bulk of the 1971 2-LP Grateful Dead live set. Not a great show, IMO, but then I always felt that period was a major dip in between the peak years of 1970 and 1972.

It's scary how many creases of my brain have been given over to the storage of useless information like "Grateful Dead concerts 1966-1974" and "Beach Boys recording session outtakes 1965-1967." I'm fully capable of stunning displays of pointless erudition at a moment's notice when it comes to music from that era...and I wasn't even born until late 1980.

Heh. FWIW I'm also an obsessive -- and I do mean OBSESSIVE -- Deadhead and therefore I actually know which show your friend put on Side B without having to check. It had to have been their April 1971 show in the Dillon Gym at Princeton University

bang on correct--I'm not much of a fan of the Dead (sorry), but The New Riders were their opening act and I enjoyed them very much

I'll never understand Deadheads. I tried to like the Grateful Dead. Really tried. But I finally had to admit to myself the emperor had no clothes. Their music just wasn't that good. The vocals are weak, the lyrics possess neither profundity nor memorability, and their musicality is just so-so, IMO.

Yeah, this is an easy call for me too. In their prime The Kinks were great, but that "prime" only extended from 1966-1970 (move the start date back to 1965 and The Kink Kontroversy if you're feeling generous). Also, I'll confess that I've always thought Arthur to be a wildly overrated album: two all-time classics in "Victoria" and "Shangri-La," another extremely good track in "Arthur," and then a bunch of stuff that doesn't compare to the material on Face To Face, Something Else or Village Green.

Random "Kinks" memory
there used to be free concerts on Friday afternoons in the plaza between the Twin Towers (old WTC)- the last act I saw in concert there (a week before 9/11) was Dave Davies

What I recall was that vocally he sounded a bit like his brother, and that he pretty much just played Kinks' songs

I'll never understand Deadheads. I tried to like the Grateful Dead. Really tried. But I finally had to admit to myself the emperor had no clothes. Their music just wasn't that good. The vocals are weak, the lyrics possess neither profundity nor memorability, and their musicality is just so-so, IMO.

what does a Deadhead say when you take away his marijuana?

"Damn this music sucks"

Everything you need to know about the Grateful Dead

I'll never understand Deadheads. I tried to like the Grateful Dead. Really tried. But I finally had to admit to myself the emperor had no clothes. Their music just wasn't that good. The vocals are weak, the lyrics possess neither profundity nor memorability, and their musicality is just so-so, IMO.

Well their studio albums are, for the most part, crap. The appeal of the Dead lies in their live performances, and also the fact that these are so well documented (because from the very start they had an obsessive-compulsive soundman named Owsley Stanley who taught them the value of taping and cataloguing all of their shows so they could learn and grow as musicians). It's said often enough that it's a cliche, but it actually is more or less true: the Grateful Dead never performed a show the same way twice. Their setlists changed nightly, they were always trying new ideas and concepts, stringing songs together, working from feeling and instinct, and while sometimes they fell flat (I've probably heard 80% of the available concerts they played between 1966 and 1974, and if you're thinking that's a lotta hours to blow on the Dead YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR), they often managed to create incredible magic.

For example, the 2/13/70 version of "Dark Star" (commercially released on Dick's Picks, Vol. 4 -- skip to 19:30, about a quarter of the way through of this file, to get to its beginning...unfortunately it's not on YouTube) is probably one of the two or three greatest pieces of improvisational rock music ever performed at any time or any place, period. Truly supernatural-level stuff where six people are simply responding to one another musically, and the result is absolutely haunting and triumphantly melodic.

Stuff like that is why I'll always be a Deadhead. Well that and the fact that they changed so rapidly that literally every single year of their live career from 1966 to 1977 or so offers a completely fresh look at their music.

what does a Deadhead say when you take away his marijuana?

"Damn this music sucks"

So how does that explain the fact that a button-down, conservative 'straight' like me loves their music?

Nah, it's not about the drugs. They really were authentically brilliant performers.

So how does that explain the fact that a button-down, conservative 'straight' like me loves their music?

You have bad taste in music?

You have bad taste in music?

And yet I don't.

They really were authentically brilliant performers

Yeah, nothing electrifies an audience like watching a bunch of 58 year olds cough and wheeze their way thru a slow tempo, 50 minute version of Not Fade Away.

Sorry man. Not my cop of tea. Rock on Babe!

Yeah, nothing electrifies an audience like watching a bunch of 58 year olds cough and wheeze their way thru a slow tempo, 50 minute version of Not Fade Away.

Oh don't get me wrong: my interest in them ceases completely by mid-1977, and really long before that, by 1974 (the point at which they "retired" from touring for a year). You couldn't pay me to listen to anything of theirs from after 1978 or so. Utter crap!

But in their prime (1968-1973, let's say) they were well and truly one of the most impressive live rock groups on the face of the earth. Nobody was doing what they did -- they were a category of one in the rock world, with the closest analogue in terms of setlist organization and mutation/improvisation of song form being live jazz groups of the era. (Not surprisingly, they shared several bills during that era with Miles Davis and his band, and the Dead were one of only two rock acts that Davis ever voiced any respect for on a musical level, the other being Hendrix.) The only other live act whose shows are remotely as OCD-fascinating for me are King Crimson ca. 1972-1974.

I think #225 is an understandable overbid. I've never felt the urge to own any of their music, but the stuff that I hear (more or less randomly) isn't terrible. And that's not what the Deadheads are following in any case. (amusing in context typo that I spotted: I had Deaheads.), their strength (or so I'm told. Wouldn't know) is performing live.

They really were authentically brilliant performers.

Now I know you're on drugs.

avis and his band, and the Dead were one of only two rock acts that Davis ever voiced any respect for on a musical level, the other being Hendrix.) The only other live act whose shows are remotely as OCD-fascinating for me are King Crimson ca. 1972-1974.

I once was subjected to 25 minutes of guitar feedback from Robert Fripp at Jones Beach... it was fascinating in a slow mo car wreck kind of way... (don't get me wrong it was not nearly as bad as Lou Reed's metal machine music, something resembling a melody kind of floated in and out of the amps)

Incidentally, the Dead weren't just all about live improvisation. They were also pretty great singers and songwriters when they tried, especially when mining a folk-country vein. I have yet to meet a person who gave "Jack Straw" an honest listen and disliked it, unless they simply loathe any music with roots/country inflections. Great lyrics, fantastic harmonies, beautiful playing (especially Keith Godchaux's piano), the whole package.

EDIT: Or "Cumberland Blues" for that matter. I mean, if you like bluegrass in any way, you'll love that.

You have bad taste in music?

And yet I don't.

Stage 1: Denial.

Stage 1: Denial.

I hereby invoke my peerless knowledge of Pavement as an all-purpose Primer music-taste trump card. Anyone want some '92-'97-era bootleg shows?

I'll never understand Deadheads. I tried to like the Grateful Dead. Really tried. But I finally had to admit to myself the emperor had no clothes. Their music just wasn't that good. The vocals are weak, the lyrics possess neither profundity nor memorability, and their musicality is just so-so, IMO.

I don't like the Who or the Kinks. I guess one of us must be wrong (or possibly nude, if I understand your post).

I guess one of us must be wrong (or possibly nude, if I understand your post).

Agreed. You're wrong (don't know and don't care if you're nude).

Agreed. You're wrong (don't know and don't care if you're nude).

Of course he's wrong, he's a Phillies Phan. (I think, crosses fingers)

Also: anyone who hasn't heard The Who Sell Out is poorer in life for it.

Oddly, I've only heard Petra Haden's cover. (and I'm not into acapella)

There are Kinks people and there are Dead people and ne'er the twain shall meet. Me, I'm a dedicated follower of Davies.

Oddly, I've only heard Petra Haden's cover.

Ha! That's actually really, really lovely. It's even better for people who are familiar with the original album, because part of the fun is understanding her arranging decisions in the context of the original recordings. But yeah, one of the rare 'novelty' records that works on its own terms.

There are Kinks people and there are Dead people and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Well this just isn't true given that (as mentioned above) I'm both.

I don't like the Who or the Kinks. I guess one of us must be wrong (or possibly nude, if I understand your post).

Hopefully you're closer to "I Can See for Miles" than you are to "5.15."

Speaking of music, I'm looking for things for my mom to see while traveling in Poland at the end of the month. This was from the Krakow-Info website for March 27th:

Krakow's soprano Ewa Diczuk-Koziol, flutist Filip Slowiak, and pianist Maria Guzik perform Polish Lent music and Anna Ramza-Koziol reads poetry in DK Podgorze culture center, 13 Sokolska street, at 6 p.m.

California’s rock band Testament performs trash metal in Studio club, 4 Budryka street, at 8 p.m. (admission 110 PLN).

I was a major Who-head when I was a teenager, wanted to grow up to be Keith Moon (obviously, I didn't understand how exponentially contradictory that desire was), listened to them every day. But now... well, I still like the music. Townshend as a lyricist just tries too damn hard all the time (and when he sings, I keep picturing Rick Danko). Daltrey as a singer, same thing: trying too hard, all the time. I like ambition, it just feels a lot more miss than hit. I still enjoy listening to the records occasionally, especially live bootlegs precisely because they're so sloppy.

Anyway, two other things:
Here's Barry Manilow, following through on The Who Sell Out better than the Who ever did. No kidding.
And my SF law office used to be a gay bar, where the Dead played a few Sunday matinee shows in the late 60's. (I like their expansive jams, but hate their R&B covers)

If this ends up being true, the lineup would be something like this.

RF Ichiro
SS Jeter
3B Youk
1B Tex
DH Hafner
LF Rivera
2B Nunez
CF Gardner
C Stewart

Nope! Teixeira out 8-10 weeks with a forearm strain.

Ichiro, Jeter, Youk, Hafner, Rolen, Rivera, Nunez, Gardner, Stewart. Although at some point you move Gardner up in the lineup, don't you?

I was a major Who-head when I was a teenager, wanted to grow up to be Keith Moon (obviously, I didn't understand how exponentially contradictory that desire was), listened to them every day. But now... well, I still like the music. Townshend as a lyricist just tries too damn hard all the time (and when he sings, I keep picturing Rick Danko). Daltrey as a singer, same thing: trying too hard, all the time. I like ambition, it just feels a lot more miss than hit. I still enjoy listening to the records occasionally, especially live bootlegs precisely because they're so sloppy

I wonder what people would have said of the Beatles if they'd stuck around as a group to now. I'm too young to remember either group as more than recordings and old men, but my understanding is that the Who were changing the image of a rock and roll band in the zeitgeist, while the Beatles were more significant musically (surely even those that hate the Beatles can't argue they didn't have a significant impact). I imagine that the Beatles would have held up better, but still taken a hit.

My point is, the Who find themselves in a weird place. The Beatles had Harrison, a top 10-15 guitar player of all time. The Who had Townsend, who for all his skill was still at best a rhythm guitar player. Harrison was the better musician while Townsend was a better performer. This is really true across the board, Entwistle and McArtney, Ringo and Moon, Lennon and Daltrey. Seeing the performers age probably takes a lot more shine off than seeing the musicians.