McGwire obviously needs to kill some dogs to get his reputation good enough to participate in professional sports.

Given that everyone in the ESPN glue factory's weighing in on this oh-so-scintillating topic, when the hell is Paul Shirley gonna step up to the mic?

I think the piling on here is excessive, especially when all of these critics knew or should have known what was going on and turned a blind eye towards it. McGwire will end up being a sympathetic figure at this rate.

Unlike many here, I agree that steroids are a huge black mark on the game, but I think it was so wide-spread that it's not as much of an unbalanced playing field as it's made out to be.

While I don't believe the performance-enhancing qualities of greenies compares to steroids or HGH, it seems that Fisk's argument of unusual production at a late age as being a clear indication of some type of PED usage is a self-indictment given his career high 37 home runs at age 37. (11 more than his 3-time high of 26.)

If there's one time to admire TLR's TLRness, this is it. Hang in there Tony.

Given that everyone in the ESPN glue factory's weighing in on this oh-so-scintillating topic, when the hell is Paul Shirley gonna step up to the mic?

It's the F###ing Haitians' fault?

I honestly don't even understand these people's objections to Mark McGwire as the Cardinals' hitting coach. It's not that I understand them and disagree, I just can't follow them at all.

There are the three Hall of Famers—Carlton Fisk, Ferguson Jenkins and the affable Ernie Banks—who have criticized McGwire and his 1998 aide-de-camp, Sammy Sosa, urging him to “come clean.”

Here's what Banks said in regards to Sosa:

"I would say just what Mark McGwire did," Banks said. "Come clean with it. Explain it to them. ... Just say: 'This is what happened.' It is hard to do, to admit this. Just admit it and live with it and understand it. I am sure a lot of people will forgive him."
The ever-optimistic Banks says he would like to see Sosa embraced by the new Cubs ownership and the fans who once saluted him.

"I would like to see Sammy come back," Banks said. "Throw out the first pitch, sing 'Take Me Out To The Ballgame,' you know, meet some of the players and all of that. I was dreaming about it. I always thought that the way he left here and went to his demise here was quick. The lesson from that is that fame is fleeting. It can go in a minute."

Yeah, it sounds like Banks must have a huge problem with McGwire coming back.

This is not, in the popular phrase of players seeking the enemy, a “media creation.” The most important noise has come from the players themselves.

And what should be the most important noise comes from the fans, who gave him a standing ovation.

But as of today, the McGwire backlash underscores just how much La Russa and Selig seem to have misread the tea leaves

How does this match with the standing ovation he received? I'm fine with people who are vehemently opposed to steroid users being part of the game, I disagree with them but whatever, but please report the story with some degree of accuracy. We've seen huge ovations for virtually every significant PED user buster; Pettitte, Giambi, Bonds, Ramirez, Ortiz, they've all gotten cheered. At some point the idea that fans are universally outraged has to go away.

And he conveniently ignores what Robin Yount, Bill Lee, and Bob Gibson have said on the subject

Wow, so much for the Shirley joeks:

STATEMENT REGARDING PAUL SHIRLEY

He was a part-time freelance contributor. The views he expressed on another site of course do not at all reflect our company's views on the Haiti relief efforts. He will no longer contribute to ESPN.

I demand that the Rockies fire their first base coach and outed HGH user Glenallen Hill.

Given that everyone in the ESPN glue factory's weighing in on this oh-so-scintillating topic, when the hell is Paul Shirley gonna step up to the mic?

He is too busy with Haiti at the moment. (Link originally courtesy of Der Komminskar)


EDIT: Wow! That server got slashed. Google cache of it is still up, but slow

Banta says, "McGwire obviously needs to kill some dogs to get his reputation good enough to participate in professional sports."

Oooo! He drops back behind the three-sport line. He shoots. He SCORES!!!

How does this match with the standing ovation he received? I'm fine with people who are vehemently opposed to steroid users being part of the game, I disagree with them but whatever, but please report the story with some degree of accuracy. We've seen huge ovations for virtually every significant PED user buster; Pettitte, Giambi, Bonds, Ramirez, Ortiz, they've all gotten cheered. At some point the idea that fans are universally outraged has to go away.
Page 1 of 1 pages

Here's a crappy analogy....people are usually in favor of term limits, but not when it's directed at thier own representatives. It's OK when it's our guys that cheat. It's just not right when it's their guys.

I'm guessing Yankees fans were more forgiving of Pettitte than Ramirez or Ortiz. (Of course, there's also Stanton, Knoblauch, Leyritz, Clemens, etc.)

What did Gibson say? I've heard plenty of players, including Mays, who were honest enought to say that they certainly would have considered steroids if they played in this era.

The press treatment of this whole illegal PED story is bizarre.

The writers didn't tell the steroids story at the time becuase they missed or it was better to write books and articles on the joys of post-strike baseball. After all, everyone had to cash in on the home run race!

The writers told us the story ad nauseum a few years ago and people really didn't change their views or generally agree with their point of view.

Now they're mad as hell that people were turned off by the moralizing and trying to run with the same story that people rejected.

Perhaps we should listen to these writers, pretend we agree and then we can truly move on?

McGwire terribly misread the public mood by denying that steroids helped him as a hitter and could have compromised with that mood by at least saying he understood it. The press and high-caliber ex-players -- and many fans outside St. Louis -- are sick of the incessant denial of steroid users, and of the broader contrivances of the steroid era. That perspective is understandable and justifiable.

That doesn't come close to meaning McGwire should be railroaded out of his job as Cardinal hitting coach. Mediocre journalists are now piling on for reasons they probably don't even understand, and without the experience or talent to make the kind of judgments they're making.

Here's a crappy analogy....people are usually in favor of term limits, but not when it's directed at thier own representatives. It's OK when it's our guys that cheat. It's just not right when it's their guys.

I'm guessing Yankees fans were more forgiving of Pettitte than Ramirez or Ortiz. (Of course, there's also Stanton, Knoblauch, Leyritz, Clemens, etc.)

One could argue--and I do--that how you react when it happens to one of your own illuminates how you really feel about the issue. How a Yankee fan reacts to a Red Sox scandal (and vice-versa) is one of the least instructive things I can think of. I think most fans care about this issue only to the extent that it can be used as a cudgel against players and teams they never liked in the first place.

What did Gibson say? I've heard plenty of players, including Mays, who were honest enought to say that they certainly would have considered steroids if they played in this era.

He essentially said the same thing.

#15 "Guys Have Always Been Cheating, Period." and "I don't know that I really criticize the guys. Whoever the first guy is that started it, that's the guy I criticize. The rest of the guys just followed suit. I don't think its OK. I'm not sanctioning it, but I understand why it happens."

When asked if players known to take performance-enhancing drugs should be in the Hall of Fame, Gibson responded, "Oh yeah, I think so."

Here we go again...

McGwire terribly misread the public mood by denying that steroids helped him as a hitter

Whether steroids helped McGwire as a hitter is not a matter of "public mood" but of fact (or, at least, McGwire's or a professional's informed opinion). To date, there is absolutely no solid, scientific evidence that steroid usage helps someone as a hitter; there is only the speculation that since it helps build muscle mass it somehow has to help.

The press and high-caliber ex-players -- and many fans outside St. Louis -- are sick of the incessant denial of steroid users, and of the broader contrivances of the steroid era.

As noted, as many "high-caliber ex-players" have expressed opinions different than this; some have admitted that they, too, would have been at least tempted. As for the "many fans" outside St. Louis, would that include the "many fans" who filled Pac Bell, Dodger Stadium, Yankee Stadium, and many other ballparks when admitted or busted steroid users played?

McGwire terribly misread the public mood by denying that steroids helped him as a hitter and could have compromised with that mood by at least saying he understood it.

I am not sure this is true. I skimmed the comments section on the Rosenthal article at FOX; most seemed to be saying "leave it alone." That is not any kind of proof, obviously, but my guess is a lot of the public is thinking, "Give it a rest." Like I said in the other thread, if I am McGwire's PR guy I advise him to stop talking about it. If MLB admin, the Cardinals' management people, and the Cardinals' fan base are OK with McGwire, and they seem to be, what Howard Bryant, Steve Trachsel, and Ken Rosenthal think about him and what he "needs to say" is not really important.

McGwire is not arrogant and abrasive like Bonds or Clemens, and McGwire admitted he did it, he said he was sorry, and he said he was wrong. I think that is enough for most people, and I don't think anything he says will be enough for some people.

#15 "Guys Have Always Been Cheating, Period." and "I don't know that I really criticize the guys. Whoever the first guy is that started it, that's the guy I criticize. The rest of the guys just followed suit. I don't think its OK. I'm not sanctioning it, but I understand why it happens."

Wow, that's exactly how I feel about it.

He is too busy with Haiti at the moment. (Link originally courtesy of Der Komminskar)

It's almost too bad Shirley didn't play baseball. The "Paul Shirley Haiti Thread" would have been something until shut down.

McGwire terribly misread the public mood by denying that steroids helped him as a hitter and could have compromised with that mood by at least saying he understood it.

IMO, he misread the ability of sportswriters to be vindictive, petty, and hypocritical.

At the risk of overgeneralizing, I'd imagine that the average fan with their average lives doesn't have the energy to get that worked up about the steroid issue anymore. I mean, really, we've been talking about this for a damn decade now. I'm fatigued and I don't even participate in the steroids threads. Columnists are about the only ones with the time and desire to keep this alive. And a handful of people here.

It's almost too bad Shirley didn't play baseball. The "Paul Shirley Haiti Thread" would have been something until shut down.

Can't Repoz still get a link in under the "he wrote about indie music" exception?
EDIT: Also, it looks like on p.175 of "Can I keep my Jersey" he talks about how baseball was his favorite sport, how he read biographies about Ruth, Cobb and DiMaggio, and is disillusioned b/c his pro hoops teammates haven't been like the '49 Yankees.

Whether steroids helped McGwire as a hitter is not a matter of "public mood" but of fact (or, at least, McGwire's or a professional's informed opinion). To date, there is absolutely no solid, scientific evidence that steroid usage helps someone as a hitter; there is only the speculation that since it helps build muscle mass it somehow has to help.


That's the same bloodless, soulless, self-centered philosophy that has driven McGwire to the verge of losing his job. No man is an island, no man is his own judge, no man can expect that other people will have nothing to say regarding the propriety of his acts and public comportment.(**)

You can see now why the issue is so appealing to the Randians among us and why they spend so much time on it.

(**) And whether steroids help hitters generally isn't relevant to the matter at hand, though people always make this sophistic claim -- as if they've exerted even an iota of effort to find the science. What is relevant is whether steroids helped McGwire. People have reasonably concluded that they did.

It's almost too bad Shirley didn't play baseball. The "Paul Shirley Haiti Thread" would have been something until shut down.

Indeed. My over/under would have been 4500 posts. I'm astonished he put that out for publication... pretty much career suicide.

That's the same bloodless, soulless, self-centered philosophy that has driven McGwire to the verge of losing his job.

Is there any evidence at all that the Cards are considering firing McGwire?

From a June 1969 Sports Illustrated story on "performance improving" drugs in sports. The excerpt isn't about Gibson taking *PEDs* but I find it interesting nonetheless as it relates to this issue:

To begin, consider some examples of the role drugs have come to play in sport:

"A few pills—I take all kinds—and the pain's gone," says Dennis McLain of the Detroit Tigers. McLain also takes shots, or at least took a shot of cortisone and Xylocaine (anti-inflammant and painkiller) in his throwing shoulder prior to the sixth game of the 1968 World Series—the only game he won in three tries. In the same Series, which at times seemed to be a matchup between Detroit and St. Louis druggists, Cardinal Bob Gibson was gobbling muscle-relaxing pills, trying chemically to keep his arm loose. The Tigers' Series hero, Mickey Lolich, was on antibiotics.

Guys have always been trying to gain an edge with drugs. The line between "restorative" and "enhancing" can sometimes seem quite blurred.

Would Gibson not have tried those pills if they were labeled "steroids" (or labeled the chemical name for whatever type of steroid)? He almost seems to admit that he would have.

By the way, the title of the story:

Problems In A Turned-on World
The pill, capsule, vial and needle have become fixtures of the locker room as athletes increasingly turn to drugs in the hope of improving performances. This trend—one that poses a major threat to U.S. sport even though the Establishment either ignores or hushes up the issue—is explored here in Part I of a series
Bil Gilbert

I think SBB out did himself in #28
Not one sentence logical follows a preceding one
well done

And with only the workingman’s credentials, former players Jack Clark and Steve Trachsel joined the chorus, too.

Must be an impostor. The real Steve Trachsel isn't fast enough to have a comment on the record yet. Give him another couple of weeks...

The Shirley thing surprises me, but maybe it shouldn't. After all, the Lietenant Governor of South Carolina said just last week:

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better." -CBS News

And he was talking about the poor in America, not Haiti. So maybe this is really what the national discourse has come to...

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman,

And would have been on the streets herself if she hadn't been born white into a backwardass feudal society.(**)

(**) I love how the guy is so certain the part that follows shows "common sense" and "real learnin'," self-evidently making up for Gramma's church mouse level of "book learnin'."

After all, the Lietenant Governor of South Carolina said just last week:

"Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don't attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits,"

And people thought we were tough on steroid users. At least he doesn't advocate taking their kids away.

So maybe this is really what the national discourse has come to...

It's more like with the amount of coverage now we can see virtually every stupid thought that anyone in the public eye thinks.

On a somewhat related note, I'm pretty sure that Harry Reid was behind the earthquake too.

The most important noise has come from the players themselves.

Actually, the players themselves seem to be looking forward to McGwire coming back to be their hitting coach.

It is some former players who have decided to make noise, including one former druggie.

On a somewhat related note, I'm pretty sure that Harry Reid was behind the earthquake too.

Yeah, he probably paid the Angel Moroni to whack the island with one of those golden plates.

It is some former players who have decided to make noise, including one former druggie.

The "druggie" part is gratuitous, since Jenkins is speaking about McGwire's offenses against baseball ethics, traditions, and history and snorting a few lines 35 years ago has exactly nothing to do with today. Former players are perfectly entitled to raise their voices on behalf of the game and its traditions.

These kind of slurs are par for the course, though, for the people who can't bear to see any aspersions cast against their beloved heroes. Brian McNamee was, some will recall, little more than a "rapist."

"Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don't attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits,"

A worthwhile goal. Which is why it's a shame that implementing that goal was left in the hands of a guy who apparently thinks of his state's unemployed workers (12.6% - a record high) as a pack of lazy, flea-bitten moggies who are too stupid to deserve control over their own genitals.

Former players are perfectly entitled to raise their voices on behalf of the game and its traditions.

Including, apparently, the use of one particular illegal substance, as opposed to another.

I think SBB out did himself in #28
Not one sentence logical follows a preceding one
well done

I'm almost sorry I'm missing out on it.

Almost.

Including, apparently, the use of one particular illegal substance, as opposed to another.

snorting a few lines 35 years ago has exactly nothing to do with today

#42 and others, it is perhaps too nuanced for these discussions but it is surely worth noting that Jenkins was acquitted. True, his defense has often been tried and is rarely successful (the drugs were slipped into his bag without his knowledge) and is now held not to matter (which is why they ask you if you packed your bags)

dejarouehg asked, "What did Gibson say? I've heard plenty of players, including Mays, who were honest enought to say that they certainly would have considered steroids if they played in this era."

Gibson spoke out on this issue a long time ago, back when the very first accusations began to appear and no one else was admitting anything. Give him credit for courage there. I don't remember the exact quote from the STL daily paper, but it's close to, "If someone had told me that steroids would help my pitching, I don't know that I would have refused to take them. I was really really competitive."

Three things struck me about the quote:

1) Gibson is outspoken about all kinds of things, and is generally correct and/or insightful. There's a quote from him in Curt Flood's autobiography The Way It Is (not the newer one) that completely shaped up my opinions of race relations. He said, essentially, "Don't try to love everyone; that would be weird. Learn to respect their cultures. That doesn't mean that you have to let them steal from you because they claim that's their culture, but respect their legitimate culture. My (Gibson's) sister worked for a man who was completely colorblind about race. What happened was that this allowed him to MISINTERPRET her in any way he wanted."

2) Give what Jim Bouton had written in Ball Four, Gibson all but confessed to using greenies. That was a very dangerous thing to say at the time. Say whatever you want, Gibson has guts.

3) The phrase "If someone had told me...." got to me. I think it's the essence of the issue. Ballplayers don't know whether steroids help or not. They know what their trainers / charismatic friends / teammates SAY they do. I find nothing incredible at all about Barry Bonds saying that his trainer told him it was flaxseed oil so he assumed it was. Bonds might have known more, but he might not, either. He's a ballplayer, not a biochemist.

- Brock Hanke

#42 and others, it is perhaps too nuanced for these discussions but it is surely worth noting that Jenkins was acquitted. True, his defense has often been tried and is rarely successful (the drugs were slipped into his bag without his knowledge) and is now held not to matter (which is why they ask you if you packed your bags)

Since we're splitting hairs on Fergie's legal history, it's also worth noting that he wasn't just caught with coke, but with hash and pot as well. And that he wasn't "acquitted": He was convicted of possession of the drugs, then given an absolute discharge during sentencing (which is more analogous to having the conviction expunged).

Procedural law enforcement dramas have been on TV for a long time. People should know by now that cops, be they actual or self-appointed figurative ones, don't actually mean it when they beg offenders to admit what they did and all will be forgiven.

snorting a few lines 35 years ago has exactly nothing to do with today

It does if the ex-player in question lacks the moral authority to speak credibly on the issue. Which, given Jenkins's past, he does (IMO).

Well, I find ESPN to be too toxic to cover baseball. Somebody misread some tea leaves. They should not be allowed into a MLB stadium until they apologize for providing such unabashedly positive coverage of McG and Sosa back in '98. And I mean grovel in the dirt, cry, beat yourself about the head. And then...oh, did I say that THEN they'd be allowed back...no, I meant THEN I'll think about it. Well, but, no, I won't think about it even then.

WHO DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE!?

Whether steroids helped McGwire as a hitter is not a matter of "public mood" but of fact (or, at least, McGwire's or a professional's informed opinion). To date, there is absolutely no solid, scientific evidence that steroid usage helps someone as a hitter; there is only the speculation that since it helps build muscle mass it somehow has to help.

That's the same bloodless, soulless, self-centered philosophy that has driven McGwire to the verge of losing his job. No man is an island, no man is his own judge, no man can expect that other people will have nothing to say regarding the propriety of his acts and public comportment.(**)

You can see now why the issue is so appealing to the Randians among us and why they spend so much time on it.

(**) And whether steroids help hitters generally isn't relevant to the matter at hand, though people always make this sophistic claim -- as if they've exerted even an iota of effort to find the science. What is relevant is whether steroids helped McGwire. People have reasonably concluded that they did.

Wow. Just....wow.

Let's see:
1. As stated above, there is zero evidence that McGwire is on "the verge of losing his job"; in fact the opposite is true: He has no job until Spring Training starts, then he's going to have one with the full blessing of those you think are "on the verge" of taking it away.

2. You seem to be advocating him admitting to something that (a) he doesn't himself believe, and (b) has no scientific foundation simply because the "public mood" demands it. This would be akin to Galileo saying "You're right - the world really is the center of the universe" even though he didn't believe it himself and there was no scientific proof to back it. And, that if he didn't, he was "bloodless, soulless, (and) self-centered".

3. "Whether steroids help hitters generally" is, in fact, the "matter at hand" because it is inseparable from "whether steroids helped McGwire". If they don't help hitters, how can you argue then that they are some super-hitting pill that transformed McGwire into a HR bashing zombie? If you can't argue that they help hitters, how can you possibly hold the opinion that they help a particular hitter?

In case anyone's curious:

In some cases, the court has the option to impose a conditional or absolute discharge. The court will consider whether it would be in the best interests of the offender and not contrary to the public interest. Offenders excluded from consideration for a conditional or absolute discharge are those convicted of an offence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment, a term of imprisonment of 14 years or life imprisonment.
[...]
If the court imposes an absolute discharge, the offender will be regarded as not having been convicted of the offence. The offender cannot be subsequently charged with the offence. However, a record is kept of the absolute discharge and can be used against the offender if the offender commits another offence. -The John Howard Society

So there you have it.

Brian McNamee was, some will recall, little more than a "rapist."

Once again, I repeat: people were arguing that McNamee was inherently more credible than Clemens, and/or that Clemens was defaming him by proclaiming his own innocence. In those cases, McNameee's character is relevant.

It does if the ex-player in question lacks the moral authority to speak credibly on the issue. Which, given Jenkins's past, he does.

I actually am pretty ignorant about Jenkins, then or now, so I probably shouldnt even have posted anything. But getting high 30 years ago does not affect a man's 'moral authority' in my opinion.

But getting high 30 years ago does not affect a man's 'moral authority' in my opinion.

I don't see getting high as a big deal in the broad scheme of things. But it's tough for a guy who used legally prohibited substances to criticize another guy for using different legally prohibited substances without seeming like a giant flaming hypocrite.

I won't rest until I know how every member of KISS feels about Haiti.

It does if the ex-player in question lacks the moral authority to speak credibly on the issue. Which, given Jenkins's past, he does (IMO).

It's not a moral issue and Jenkins isn't making a moral judgment, so moral authority is inapposite.(**) It's a situational baseball ethics issue and he's making situational baseball ethical judgments. Cocaine use 35 years ago couldn't be more irrelevant.

(**) Not that cocaine use 35 years ago speaks about someone's moral capacities. Cocaine use, then and now, is among the most paradigmatic malum prohibitum acts.

But it's tough for a guy who used legally prohibited substances to criticize another guy for using different legally prohibited substances without seeming like a giant flaming hypocrite.

I disagree completely

2. You seem to be advocating him admitting to something that (a) he doesn't himself believe, and (b) has no scientific foundation simply because the "public mood" demands it. This would be akin to Galileo saying "You're right - the world really is the center of the universe" even though he didn't believe it himself and there was no scientific proof to back it. And, that if he didn't, he was "bloodless, soulless, (and) self-centered".


McGwire wasn't making an unbiased scientific judgment about himself, or judging a matter separate from himself, as Galileo was.

3. "Whether steroids help hitters generally" is, in fact, the "matter at hand" because it is inseparable from "whether steroids helped McGwire". If they don't help hitters, how can you argue then that they are some super-hitting pill that transformed McGwire into a HR bashing zombie? If you can't argue that they help hitters, how can you possibly hold the opinion that they help a particular hitter?

Because they and the muscle they help build may help some hitters, and not help (or even harm) other hitters. It's bizarre that someone so apparently dedicated to science and the scientific method wouldn't consider this possibility. Different drugs have different impacts on different human beings everywhere in medicine.

Once again, I repeat: people were arguing that McNamee was inherently more credible than Clemens, and/or that Clemens was defaming him by proclaiming his own innocence. In those cases, McNameee's character is relevant.

Duly noted as it was noted without comment yesterday. Accept without review that those were the only contexts in which the word was used.

There's a judgmentalism and bias inherent in the very use of the word, I'd submit. It's an inflammatory word that doesn't bespeak objectivity on the underlying issue.

#15 "Guys Have Always Been Cheating, Period." and "I don't know that I really criticize the guys. Whoever the first guy is that started it, that's the guy I criticize. The rest of the guys just followed suit. I don't think its OK. I'm not sanctioning it, but I understand why it happens."

I <3 Bob Gibson (in a manly kind of way).

It's almost too bad Shirley didn't play baseball. The "Paul Shirley Haiti Thread" would have been something until shut down.

Is it possible that that thread wouldn't be very interesting because everyone would simply agree that Shirley is a d******bag, or am I being completely naive?

It does if the ex-player in question lacks the moral authority to speak credibly on the issue. Which, given Jenkins's past, he does (IMO).

It's not a moral issue and Jenkins isn't making a moral judgment, so moral authority is inapposite.(**) It's a situational baseball ethics issue and he's making situational baseball ethical judgments. Cocaine use 35 years ago couldn't be more irrelevant.

(**) Not that cocaine use 35 years ago speaks about someone's moral capacities. Cocaine use, then and now, is among the most paradigmatic of malum prohibitum acts of them all.

so ethics =/= morals?

eth?ics
??/????ks/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [eth-iks] Show IPA
Use ethics in a Sentence
See images of ethics
Search ethics on the Web
–plural noun
1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

so cocaine use is malum prohibitum and steroid use is malum in se

I was going to say, oh come on, you're just jerking people around now for fun, but

Duly noted as it was noted without comment yesterday. Accept without review that those were the only contexts in which the word was used.

There's a judgmentalism and bias inherent in the very use of the word, I'd submit. It's an inflammatory word that doesn't bespeak objectivity on the underlying issue.

actually is reasonable and makes sense

Is it possible that that thread wouldn't be very interesting because everyone would simply agree that Shirley is a d******bag, or am I being completely naive

I think the "F*ck Shirley--he's a douchenozzle!" posts would have stopped after about the first 50. After that, it would have gone into morality, geopolitics, national and international debt, banking and finance; race, celebrity phoniness, Obama and the SoU address, back to morality, philosophy, religion, geo-economics, the socio-economic nature of various contries in the Third World, what if anything the American government should do about international poverty, and so on. RETARDO would have shown up and called somebody a crypto-fascist, Andy and Nieporent would have had a multiple-page pissing contest, and The Good Face would have called me dumb at some point.

Then it would have been shut down and people would have talked about that for a few days.

As Ray sometimes likes to say, rollicking good times.

Snorting a few lines 35 years ago has exactly nothing to do with today.

You shut up about what my mom said on my 35th birthday!

so ethics =/= morals?

I see them as different. My quibble with steroid use has never been a moral one, or had anything to do with legality of use. My quibble is based on situational baseball ethics -- my words, freshly minted, perhaps clumsy.

so cocaine use is malum prohibitum and steroid use is malum in se

No. Both malum prohibitum, if prohibited.

Snorting a few lines 35 years ago has exactly nothing to do with today.

afterall we're not here to talk about the past

You shut up about what my mom said on my 35th birthday!

Well-done.

Re: McNamee/reputation/"rapist":
There's a judgmentalism and bias inherent in the very use of the word, I'd submit. It's an inflammatory word that doesn't bespeak objectivity on the underlying issue.

If McNamee had a better cinematic eye, he could've been promoted to "rapist/Oscar-winning-director."

At least Clemens, McGwire, et al have been characterized with more judiciously precise terminology.

snorting a few lines 35 years ago has exactly nothing to do with today


It does if the ex-player in question lacks the moral authority to speak credibly on the issue. Which, given Jenkins's past, he does (IMO).

By this logic, our last two presidents, (current and Bush 2)can't comment on drug abuse. Clinton can as he didn't inhale.

If you eliminated people who have taken drugs from preaching about its evils, then there are an awful lot of parents who have no right to speak to their kids about it.

The good thing is that there'd be no more community service for the Arenas' of the world.

If you eliminated people who have taken drugs from preaching about its evils, then there are an awful lot of parents who have no right to speak to their kids about it.

The good thing is that there'd be no more community service for the Arenas' of the world.

Drug use isn't evil. Said parents could/can still lecture about all the logical reasons one shouldn't use drugs; they just can't moralize about it.

Never mind, I can never get videos to work here.

I hate to be the guy who quotes a post and just adds "quoted for truth", but . . .

The press treatment of this whole illegal PED story is bizarre.

The writers didn't tell the steroids story at the time becuase they missed or it was better to write books and articles on the joys of post-strike baseball. After all, everyone had to cash in on the home run race!

The writers told us the story ad nauseum a few years ago and people really didn't change their views or generally agree with their point of view.

Now they're mad as hell that people were turned off by the moralizing and trying to run with the same story that people rejected.

Perhaps we should listen to these writers, pretend we agree and then we can truly move on?

I mostly agree with this. We didn't get juiced ball stories in '93/94, we had sporadic tsking of drug use during the home run barrage (notably Reilly's offer to Sosa), but we didn't get as much investigative reporting on it as there had been on the HR race in the first place, just a lot of moralizing. As a baseball fan, it's not so much steroids that bothers me, it's the inflation of numbers -- McGwire didn't just beat Maris' record, he flew past it, as did Sosa, after years of no one getting all that close. That's indicative of a severely different context. I doubt steroids/modern training can account for that, or even more than a little of that. How much of that is the ball? Smaller park? Steve freakin' Trachsel? I realize that the offensive climate can't be a constant, and I certainly wouldn't want a return to the deadball era, or to starting middle infielders slugging .320, but it's nice to be (back?) in a world where 60 home runs doesn't feel commonplace.

Avoiding the point, because you can't address it:

2. You seem to be advocating him admitting to something that (a) he doesn't himself believe, and (b) has no scientific foundation simply because the "public mood" demands it. This would be akin to Galileo saying "You're right - the world really is the center of the universe" even though he didn't believe it himself and there was no scientific proof to back it. And, that if he didn't, he was "bloodless, soulless, (and) self-centered".

McGwire wasn't making an unbiased scientific judgment about himself, or judging a matter separate from himself, as Galileo was.

Which doesn't answer either point I raised. He believes that steroids didn't make him a better hitter, and there is no scientific basis to refute him (just the "public mood"); yet, you want him to say something that he believes is not true. How is that honest of either him or you?

3. "Whether steroids help hitters generally" is, in fact, the "matter at hand" because it is inseparable from "whether steroids helped McGwire". If they don't help hitters, how can you argue then that they are some super-hitting pill that transformed McGwire into a HR bashing zombie? If you can't argue that they help hitters, how can you possibly hold the opinion that they help a particular hitter?

Because they and the muscle they help build may help some hitters, and not help (or even harm) other hitters. It's bizarre that someone so apparently dedicated to science and the scientific method wouldn't consider this possibility. Different drugs have different impacts on different human beings everywhere in medicine.

Which, again, does not address the point I raised. You said "whether steroids help hitters generally isn't relevant to the matter at hand" - that is a direct quote cut from your post. It's absolutely relevant, though, because as I said - if steroid use doesn't help hitters generally, how can it help one particular hitter? If aspirin doesn't cure headaches generally, how can it cure my headache except by placebo effect? There is no scientific proof that they "help some hitters and not help...other hitters". None. There is speculation, they (as you say) may help, but there is absolutely no proof that they do. Sure, it's a possibility; without any proof, though, that's all it is yet you continue to state it as a fact.

Finally, this. Anyone who shows any surprise that professional athletes cheat to win is either a liar or an idiot. Every one of them has been doing everything possible to win for as long as there's been competition.* The illusion that professional sports is "clean" or "pure" is pure mythology (and has been since the first marathon runner strapped on a pair of sandals), and I truly feel sorry for any adult who is shocked by this. Steroids are exactly the same as amphetamines in that they're illegally used to gain a competitive advantage; today, they're the same as spitballs and corked bats as means to gain competitive advantage contrary to the rules of the game. My problem through the whole affair was the former - we should be pissed that athletes (whom some parents foolishly allow their children to idolize) were doing something illegal, not that they were "staining the integrity of the game" because "the game" never had any integrity to stain.

Sport is no different than anything else. For athletes, it's a job (a job most of them love and get paid handsomely for, but a job nonetheless); for us, it's entertainment. Do we care if Robin Williams is hopped up on coke?** No, as long as he's funny. Baseball revenues prove that the general public doesn't care if the players were using steroids or not - fans still went (and go) to the games.

Obsess about something important. The economy is a wreck, we're slowly killing the planet, someone you know could really use a hug right now. Baseball is just a diversion - for some of us, a great diversion to endlessly discuss, but just a diversion.

* Except, of course, for those that throw games. They're in it for the money.
** I have absolutely no idea if Robin Williams uses drugs or not (or if he ever did); the steroid nazis would probably assume he did, because he often acts in a way associated with people who use drugs. My point is it doesn't matter; he's still really funny.***
*** I read somewhere that adding asterisks to your post makes it seem really, really intellectual. Did it work?

As Ray sometimes likes to say, rollicking good times.

So's your mom.

I hadn't read that Shirley thing. Having read it, I think it demands to be a thread. In order to get it started I'll post this little tidbit.

Dear Haitians –

First of all, kudos on developing the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure, and birth control should be applauded.

As we prepare to assist you in this difficult time, a polite request: If it’s possible, could you not re-build your island home in the image of its predecessor? Could you not resort to the creation of flimsy shanty- and shack-towns? And could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?

Sincerely,

The Rest of the World

In the tight competition for the crassest remark in history this might be an early favourite. It's a good read. Even better are the commentators. I highly recommend it.

As Ray sometimes likes to say, rollicking good times.

There's that photographic memory of yours again, Robinred.

I do indeed like to say that, and if I'm not mistaken I believe I got that from (let me dazzle you with my photographic memory for a moment) Baseball Prospectus's comment on Sammy Sosa in the 1999 annual, the season after he and McGwire captivated Mike Lupica with their record-breaking pursuit of Maris. (Not that BP invented the saying but that's when I adopted it.)

So the comment is particularly appropriate here.

Wow, just got up to speed on this Paul Shirley. Had no clue who he was, but just read what he wrote. That was all kinds of stupid. And it didn't take ESPN long to see it.

Ray, Paul Shirley was a former fringe NBA player who also wrote a blog which people liked. He was in the ABA as of last season, but it seemed like he was going to write for a living until the Haiti comments.

I'm astonished he put that out for publication... pretty much career suicide.

Really? I expect to see him on Fox by next week.

Thanks, Tripon. Looks like he's in the hunt for a new career, I guess.

By the way, for those interested, I was in the audience for John Stossel's town hall type show tonight. Unfortunately I didn't get called on, so I couldn't offer my pearls of wisdom on the State of the Union address. But you can see me in the below video link. If you wait about 8 seconds in, you can see me on the right of the screen, over the girl's shoulder.

Link.

How does this match with the standing ovation he received? I'm fine with people who are vehemently opposed to steroid users being part of the game, I disagree with them but whatever, but please report the story with some degree of accuracy. We've seen huge ovations for virtually every significant PED user buster; Pettitte, Giambi, Bonds, Ramirez, Ortiz, they've all gotten cheered. At some point the idea that fans are universally outraged has to go away.

One case where a steroid user was not welcomed home with open arms.

If you wait about 8 seconds in, you can see me on the right of the screen, over the girl's shoulder

.

Looking dapper, Ray. Unfortunately, prior to your appearance, the link at the time I hit it had a brief National Car Rental Co ad (not a problem) done by Joe Buck (problem). I quickly turned down the volume on the ad.

It's an inflammatory word that doesn't bespeak objectivity on the underlying issue.

SugarBear, because a single person on a message board writes a term you find inappropriate, please don't paint every person who thinks McNamee doesn't have credibility as using that term. That wasn't a "side" at all.

so cocaine use is malum prohibitum and steroid use is malum in se

Neither; I'd rather have a client that was innocent.

Neither; I'd rather have a client that was innocent.

Wait. Is that a 'Legally Blonde' reference?

No way.

Wait. Is that a 'Legally Blonde' reference?

My boyfriend's name is Chuck.

My boyfriend's name is Chuck.

I can honestly say, I have never seen a 'Legally Blonde' reference on any other baseball related thread, anywhere, ever. Well done.

Thank you. But really, the setup was perfect - almost as if it was written by someone with Legally Blonde in mind.

How does this match with the standing ovation he received? I'm fine with people who are vehemently opposed to steroid users being part of the game, I disagree with them but whatever, but please report the story with some degree of accuracy. We've seen huge ovations for virtually every significant PED user buster; Pettitte, Giambi, Bonds, Ramirez, Ortiz, they've all gotten cheered. At some point the idea that fans are universally outraged has to go away.


One case where a steroid user was not welcomed home with open arms.

Looks like an Orioles fan. Wonder if they felt similarly about Jay Gibbons, Brady Anderson or Brian Roberts?

One case where a steroid user was not welcomed home with open arms.

Looks like an Orioles fan. Wonder if they felt similarly about Jay Gibbons, Brady Anderson or Brian Roberts?

Show me one example of when a known juicer has ever been cheered by opposing fans.

Show me one example of when a known juicer who came up with big hits for his team was ever booed by his home town fans.

After Palmeiro came back from his 10 day suspension, he failed to get even one hit in his subsequent five home games---0 for 18 in all. He never played another home game after that. Obviously that slump didn't help his reception, especially because it fueled suspicions that his previous numbers had been phony all along.

Show me one example of when a known juicer has ever been cheered by opposing fans.

Bonds in San Diego.

Show me one example of when a known juicer has ever been cheered by opposing fans.

Bonds in San Diego.

NEWS FLASH: RAY ADMITS THAT BONDS IS A KNOWN JUICER

(But yeah, you're right, although it was a mixed reception and it's entirely possible that there were plenty of Giants fans in that crowd. Hard to prove one way or the other.

NEWS FLASH: RAY ADMITS THAT BONDS IS A KNOWN JUICER

Cute, but I was just following your lead in discussing the public reaction of players who the public believes are users.

Anyway, the reaction was overwhelmingly in favor of Bonds; to paint it merely as "mixed" is a bit misleading. Yes, there were some boos, but he was overwhelmingly cheered, in an opposing ballpark, which would seem to satisfy the criteria of your question, but now I see you're asking whether they were "Giants fans."

And this wasn't merely the case of a player being cheered in an opposing ballpark, but a player being cheered as he was breaking The Record that He Cheated to get.

Ray, I watched that game and turned it off a few minutes after the home run was hit. Needless to say, it wasn't among my personal highlights of 2007 (actually for me there were no highlights in that ##%$^&! season), but since I wasn't all that tuned in, I'll be more than happy to accept what you're saying. But it is rather an anomaly among road receptions for juicers (Bonds sure didn't get that kind of a reception in Philly or New York), and anyway the entire West Coast is nothing but a cesspool of drugs to begin with. Not that there's anything wrong with that. (smile)

But it is rather an anomaly among road receptions for juicers

It is an anomaly for non juicers also. Opposing stars are usually booed in opposing stadiums, no matter how many children they have saved from burning buildings.

Yes, there were some boos, but he was overwhelmingly cheered, in an opposing ballpark, which would seem to satisfy the criteria of your question, but now I see you're asking whether they were "Giants fans."

I would think a lawyer would know better than not to fall for one of Andy's primary rhetorical devices.

When engaging his opponent in debate, Andy will issue a "challenge" to his opponent for an example that proves Andy's statement wrong. However, the challenge will have unwritten, evolving rules, which requires unobtainable evidence and standards so high that Andy's personal argument would never match.

See the "which stats were caused by amphetamines" argument. There's no possible scenario in which Andy would accept any season as caused by amphetamines, so the challenge is lost from the start. Lou Brock could admit to using amphetamines, give detailed diaries of when he used amphetamines, show detailed videotapes of him popping greenies before every game in which he had a stolen base and Andy would simply respond "Well, we don't have Brock's specific bloodwork from when he was actually standing on first base before a stolen base attempt, so it proves nothing."

Prince, you sure know a hell of a lot about me for someone who's made fewer than 200 comments. You also might look at how I responded to Ray when he corrected my memory. You probably think I've cited Bonds's cap size as evidence for his juicing and can't quite figure out why I've criticized the media firestorm about McGwire's confessional statement.

And WRT the effects of amphetamines, you also seem to be quite an expert in constructing loony hypothetical scenarios, and then answering them for me. But then that's par for the course around here, and I've pretty much learned not to take this sort of thing personally. Let me know when you want a job as my ghostwriter.

But it is rather an anomaly among road receptions for juicers

It is an anomaly for non juicers also. Opposing stars are usually booed in opposing stadiums, no matter how many children they have saved from burning buildings.

You mean like Ripken, Gwynn, Dimaggio, Banks, Murphy, Pujols, Griffey..... Most opposing stars aren't usually booed unless (a) they have a high profile which includes a certain amount of controversy, and / or (b) they play for a hated rival.

But yeah, you're right, although it was a mixed reception and it's entirely possible that there were plenty of Giants fans in that crowd. Hard to prove one way or the other.

Not really. Harold was there. He's a Padre fan. He went with the intention of booing/not celebrating - but he did. As did his Padre friends. He was there and it was electric, and while a "mixed reception", the mix wasn't near 50:50.