Rings right to me. I remember when I read it not thinking too much about it all. My sense of it all was that the creatine thing caused a minor stink for a short period of time but was quickly forgotten. Then, as Bonds was hitting 73, I recall a few (Costas, most notably, in a fall 2001 MSNBC piece talking about how baseball was "off of its historical moorings" and making some oblique references to steroids). While there were some isolated columns before then (Boswell? I don't have time to research) I don't think people (and by this I mean a lot of people) started to say much until summer 2002, when Jose announced that he was going to write a book, which was followed up with Ken Camaniti's comments, both of which, by the way, were initially criticized as lunkheads by many of the same people who foam at the mouth about the issue today. In any event, itt then grew steadilly until the BALCO raid, at which point it was and continues to be wide open.

So, James' comments make sense for NBJHBA then, but obviously any update that doesn't touch on it going forward would be irresponsible, I think.

James did mention the increase in homers during that time, but he was looking at other factors that, overall, make more sense than everyone just starting to use steroids in '93 at the same time. Of course, we have enough evidence now that some still used PEDs despite changes in the baseball environment.

Jim Brosnan made the Shrine of the Eternals this year, too? I enjoyed The Long Season more than Ball Four actually. One of these days I'll get around to Pennant Race.

It seems to me that folks began talking about the issue in earnest at least around the time McGwire was caught with andro in his locker in '98, and probably before then.

What do you mean by "them," Kevin? James isn't saying he doesn't know what PEDs are; he's saying that he doesn't recall whether the media was making a big deal about PED use 10-15 years ago.

IOW, what James may be guilty of isn't ignorance, but a faulty memory.

It seems to me that folks began talking about the issue in earnest at least around the time McGwire was caught with andro in his locker in '98, and probably before then.

Nah. Before '98, there was very little in earnest about it. All I'd remember is once in a while someone like Mark Grace would make a comment about how there's probably all sorts of guys doing 'roids in the game, but no one really looked into it.

Frankly, I'm not even sure the McGwire andro thing in '98 counted as in earnest. Seemed to me like the media was more trying to dance around it, explaining it away so it didn't interfere with the real story line, Mark and Sammy Save Baseball. They were SI's sportsmen of the year, won some stupid ESPN Awards (Sosa for his humanitarian work, McGwire for his play). And there was virtually no effort whatsoever to look at it beyond McGwire. It wasn't "does baseball have a problem with PEDs," it was "what's in McGwire's locker and why you shouldn't worry about it."

It began in earnest with Caminiti & espeically Canseco.

IOW, what James may be guilty of isn't ignorance, but a faulty memory.

He's also "guilty" of knowing the limitations of his own knowledge, which is an affliction I would hope historians - and would like sportswriters, and sports fans, and primates - suffer from.

EDIT: typo on "own"

Quoth Bill: Even if they were [talking about PEDs], I really don’t know much of anything about them, and I’m reluctant to write about things that I don’t know much about

That sounds a bit like ignorance.

I had some STATS book from 1998 and it included a section where the STATS guys (James, David Pinto, and some others) emailed each other about various topics and roids never came up, IIRC. It was like a proto-Primer and they even discussed movies and stuff. "Voices From The Net" was the title, if memory serves.

For jiminey sake - there is an entire frigging interview their did you have to highlight the steriods ####? I think 95% of us and by us I mean primates have about as much steriod talk as we can take.

James' steroids take is interesting, though. The NBA traveling enforcement comparison seems faulty because during the period in question, steroids weren't actually against the rules of baseball, but rather against the laws of the land. So while lax enforcement in the baseball world is certainly a fault of the league as well as the players union, in some sense, retroactive investigation and enforcement here is more justified due to its legal nature rather than a simple rule change.

I would hope that any industry, when evidence of past illegal activity within its ranks comes to the public light, would thoroughly address those past issues in addition to cleaning things up going forward. Now, whether Selig & Mitchell are genuine in their investigation is another matter entirely, but the concept of it isn't bad.

Seemed to me like the media was more trying to dance around it

Gee, I remember it as McGwire getting absolutely <u>hammered</u> on it, over and over and over. Maybe that's just me.

Rings right to me. I remember when I read it not thinking too much about it all. My sense of it all was that the creatine thing caused a minor stink for a short period of time but was quickly forgotten. Then, as Bonds was hitting 73, I recall a few (Costas, most notably, in a fall 2001 MSNBC piece talking about how baseball was "off of its historical moorings" and making some oblique references to steroids). While there were some isolated columns before then (Boswell? I don't have time to research) I don't think people (and by this I mean a lot of people) started to say much until summer 2002, when Jose announced that he was going to write a book, which was followed up with Ken Camaniti's comments, both of which, by the way, were initially criticized as lunkheads by many of the same people who foam at the mouth about the issue today. In any event, itt then grew steadilly until the BALCO raid, at which point it was and continues to be wide open.

So, James' comments make sense for NBJHBA then, but obviously any update that doesn't touch on it going forward would be irresponsible, I think.

A couple of my friends and I, and my dad, routinely joked about McGwire throughout 1998, calling him "steroids king." I remember it pissed off a few people. We also talked about it openly WRT Caminiti in 1996. That doesn't mean we were 100% sure they were using, just that we thought it was a distinct possibility.

He's clearly saying here he doesn't know much about PEDs and so declined to discuss them.

That's how I read it.

That's kind of like calling yourself a pitching coach not being able to teach a change-up.

Bad analogy. Instead of making bold pronouncements about steroids, James implies that he doesn't know which players took steroids, what percentage of players took steroids, how to quantify the effects of steroids in his statistics, etc. If he can get enough information, perhaps he will write about it. Until then, he is smart not to be a pompous blowhard.

Of course, he also says: "It's really impractical to start punishing people after the fact for rules violations that were ignored at the time."

Gee, I remember it as McGwire getting absolutely hammered on it, over and over and over. Maybe that's just me.

He got questioned. But hammered? SI's sportsman of the year, ESPN award for whatever of the year, being told he'd "saved baseball" with Sosa by dozens of writers. . . . That's different from the current environment.

And again, there's a difference between people perceiving baseball having a PED problem, and thinking McGwire had one.

It seems to me that what James might be saying is that there are many things to know about PEDs that would affect how much he can say about them, none of which are as yet very well clarified. For instance:
-we don't know what degree (or range) of effect they have on individuals
-we don't have a strong grasp on how they effect different types of players (pitchers, hitters, fielders, speedsters, power hitters, etc...)
-we don't have a strong sense of how widespread their use was.

So without these sorts of information, it's hard to make a very precise statement because you can't design good studies. And he's reluctant to write about them without being able to study the matter more closely.

Additionally, the stories about them are fueled by speculation and antipathy, and they are often not seeking the kinds of answers that James is interested in. He tends to be interested in the underlying assumptions of things as it relates to the bigger picture (i.e. that batting average is the best measuring stick for the larger purpose of assessing a baseball player's value or contribution). There are big-picture questions out there about steroids, but what underlying assumptions are there, right now, that have gelled into testable conventional wisdom? We may well be too early in the discovery process for an historian/analyst like James to feel he has a basis to work from.

when did people start obsessing with steroids in MLB?

and by "people", I mean, the brilliant types who might post on a website like, oh, I don't know, like Baseball Primer (let's just say)

well, BP doesn't go back far enough, so I decided to use rsb as a surrogate

# of rsb threads with the word "steroid"

1997--0
1998--1
1999--8
2000--8
2001--3
2002--358
2003--135
2004--510
2005--934
2006--387


(this was done using the google groups seach engine, which has some flaws, of course)

Jim Brosnan made the Shrine of the Eternals this year, too? I enjoyed The Long Season more than Ball Four actually.

Certainly one point in The Long Season's favor is that Brosnan, unlike Bouton, didn't have a ghostwriter. Bill Bradley's Life on the Run is the only other jock memoir I can think of that falls into the no-ghost category, though there may have been one or two others.

I'm not cheering for Bonds, but then, I didn't much like (Henry) Aaron, either.

No-one's picked up on this? As far as I can remember, James has always been respectful towards Aaron. When talking about not putting either Gehrig or Aaron in his all-time top ten players, he notes, "I wouldn't want to justify my rankings by badmouthing Aaron or Gehrig, because...well there is nothing bad to say about either one of them, as a man or as a ballplayer."

So, why didn't he like Aaron at the time?

In one of James' annuals from the 80s, he banged Aaron for conceit, quoting an interview where Aaron supposedly answered a standard question about who he admired in baseball with, basically, the answer "me".

I have no clue as to the veracity of the incident.

vortex:

Agreed on your summary. His old "Baseball Book" which contained some great short biographies had a great essay on Aaron's career. I had not heard or read Bill James make that type of comment before with respect to Hank.

But who knows? One of the recurring themes of James career is his prickly nature.

Just read the interview, and this...

I won't name any players, but there are a whole bunch of superstars who are now or are going to be involved in the PED accusations.

...and hope that someone will remember this quote, and take note down the road whether James was prescient or just blowing it out of his butt. I remember last Spring (2006) there were all these Chicken Little predictions about players dropping like flies and missing games come August and September because of the greenie ban. And when nothing of the sort happened, everyone just acted as if those predictions were never made, and nobody who made such a prediction was ever called on it. But then William Kristol probably still thinks that we're going to find those WoMD in Iraq someday.

All of which makes me wonder whether given James's ho-hum take on steroids in general, he isn't just throwing this vague accusation out in order to give cover to those we actually know were juicing. He wouldn't be the first one who's done so.

It was like a proto-Primer and they even discussed movies and stuff. "Voices From The Net" was the title, if memory serves.

I think that was The Diamond Chronicles. Its arrival (and STATS' Baseball Scoreboard) was the highlight of every spring.

So, why didn't he like Aaron at the time?

But who knows? One of the recurring themes of James career is his prickly nature.

The way I read that he said that as a fan, back when Aaron was breaking Ruth's record he wasn't rooting for him- and many [people were not and many of those lie about it now and say that they had rooted fro him...)

I rooted against Brett to get 3000 hits, I rooted against Cal Ripken breaking Lou Gehrig's record, big deal. I really know of nothing to justify such "dislike" aside from fanboyish speculation

he isn't just throwing this vague accusation out in order to give cover to those we actually know were juicing.

THe interview ends with this: It's really impractical to start punishing people after the fact for rules violations that were ignored at the time.

I don't think McGwire got hammered. There was a brief controversy over the andro, quickly papered over as people continued to be engrossed by the HR race. People were as annoyed with the reporter as with McGwire. By September, andro was a brief footnote at most.

And when nothing of the sort happened, everyone just acted as if those predictions were never made, and nobody who made such a prediction was ever called on it. But then William Kristol probably still thinks that we're going to find those WoMD in Iraq someday.

Or like how certain prominent Union members simply claim that someone is still using whenever that player's offense is unaffected by steroids testing, I suppose.

All of which makes me wonder whether given James's ho-hum take on steroids in general, he isn't just throwing this vague accusation out in order to give cover to those we actually know were juicing. He wouldn't be the first one who's done so.

For varying values of "actually know," I presume.

He's clearly saying here he doesn't know much about PEDs and so declined to discuss them.

Agreed. He's saying he didn't know who was using, when, how much, or what the magnitude of the effects of this unknown use was, and so he didn't think it made sense to write about them. If only other people were that restrained.

And when nothing of the sort happened, everyone just acted as if those predictions were never made, and nobody who made such a prediction was ever called on it. But then William Kristol probably still thinks that we're going to find those WoMD in Iraq someday.

Or like how certain prominent Union members simply claim that someone is still using whenever that player's offense is unaffected by steroids testing, I suppose.

I hope you aren't trying to imply that I've ever said anything of the sort, because I haven't. But then I know we all look alike.

All of which makes me wonder whether given James's ho-hum take on steroids in general, he isn't just throwing this vague accusation out in order to give cover to those we actually know were juicing. He wouldn't be the first one who's done so.

For varying values of "actually know," I presume.

As my favorite BTF lawyer slips into his Cochran suit and flies off into the night.

What? Let me paste the quote again so there's no confusion:

Yeah, I glossed over (b) and was focusing on (a) and (c).

I could only venture to guess what he meant by (b), but based on the tenor of the conversation, that venture would be that he doesn't know enough about them to conclusively determine what effects they've had on the game and could only speculate.

As my favorite BTF lawyer slips into his Cochran suit and flies off into the night.

If the suit fits, he must split?

If the suit fits, he must split?

Put it in the past tense and you've got a winner:

If the suit fit, he musta split.

my favorite BTF lawyer

Srul and Backlasher are my favorite BTF lawyers, tied for first--Srul because he works in Hawaiian shirts unless he has to go to court, and Backlasher because he once talked about Jessica Alba's ass. David is tied for first with ChadBradfordWannaBe as my favorite BTF Libertarian.

On previous threads, I've posted a variety of 1980s baseball/steroid jokes from sources like MAD Magazine and David Letterman. They're significant, I think, because there wasn't a lot of heavy lifting in the jokes' set-ups. To get the laugh, the audience needs to have already absorbed the underlying premise. Thus we may logically assume that the concept of athletes artificially enhancing themselves with steroids was not an unfamiliar concept to readers and viewers at that time.

The knowledge is old news. It's the indignance and the 180-degree media turnaround that's changed.

my favorite BTF lawyer

Srul and Backlasher are my favorite BTF lawyers, tied for first

Yeah, but Srul and Backlasher cheat, since they don't reduce everything to fit onto either a legal or a libertarian template. In that respect, David is much more elegant, a Menuhin who on principle refuses the help of a backup orchestra, even when it's a concerto and not a sonata. It's tough not to admire that, even when his arguments often seem to be missing a big chunk of the real world.

For what it's worth....

"[Canseco is] the most conspicuous example of a a player who has made himself great with steroids." — writer Thomas Boswell, in 1988

I saw the 1988 (1989?) Series on ESPN Classic a while back and the broadcast featured a segment on Boswell's accusation, as well as a sound bite from Jose denying steroid use.

That was almost 20 years ago and the idea that one of the game's biggest names was on 'roids was prominently featured on a network telecast of the game's biggest showcase.

Agreed on your summary. His old "Baseball Book" which contained some great short biographies had a great essay on Aaron's career. I had not heard or read Bill James make that type of comment before with respect to Hank.

My memory could be failing here and I won't know for sure until I can look it up tonight but I remember James writing something like, "when my coffee gets cold and I heat it up in the microwave I put it on for 44 seconds as a tribute to Aaron."

I have to imagine if you write (or talk) as much as James does there are bound to be some inconsistencies but this one seems rather odd.

My memory could be failing here and I won't know for sure until I can look it up tonight but I remember James writing something like, "when my coffee gets cold and I heat it up in the microwave I put it on for 44 seconds as a tribute to Aaron."

I have to imagine if you write (or talk) as much as James does there are bound to be some inconsistencies but this one seems rather odd.

I recall that line. I'm also thankful enough that noo one hear dislikes me enough to go through all of my inconsistencies. I've waffled on all sorts of topics over the years.

It always baffles me, this kind of insistence that the "steroid era" began sometime in the late 90's. I played DIII ball in the late 80's and several of us actively discussed whether to use steroids and how we might obtain them. Why did we do this? Because we knew other people were and that adding 10-15 lbs might make a scout look twice instead of once. Anyone really think we were the first baseball players to come up with this idea (spring 88)?

Every year there would be stories out of spring training about players coming in the best shape of their lives, it was all a wink and nod agreement between the players, management, and the press. Remember Brian Downing? Lenny Dykstra, with the Phils, man, you couldn't find anyone on the street who didn't think he was juicing and friends of mine who worked in stadium operations said it was even more open and acknowledged than I even thought.

Creatine and other stuff was so widespread and accepted, anyone who thinks supplementation stopped there is just delusional. Mid 90's minor leagues, my friends in those leagues (NY-Penn!) put the usage at approx 60-75% with well over 50% of pitchers. What they were using, how much, how long, that varied as expected.

But the tone of coverage that suggests Barry Bonds is corrupting baseball is just pathetic.

rant over, back to lurking

David is much more elegant, a Menuhin

Big deal. I'm an honorary Menehune.

Re: James and Aaron: It is possible to respect a player and his great accomplishments, and neither like him as a person nor be a fan of his.

I acknowledge the excellence of John Smoltz and Chipper Jones. I can see and argue a fair HOF case for either one. I have never rooted for either, and will not shed a tear when they no longer afflict teams I root for.

I think examining the steroid history in hindsight like this is just simplistic. I don't know when steroids really got put on the table but 98 and the subsequent Caminiti and Canseco controversies were watershed moments.

If you go back to the 1980s, you still have the lingering orthodoxy that lifting weights makes for bad ballplayers. Downing and the occasional Lance Parrish were still considered the exception. Steroids were something that football players did. Now Canseco was definitely a candidate, but he was controversial and a real villain in the Reggie Jackson mold; you couldn't take all the talk seriously because he was just a guy people hated.

The A's were definitely the biggest team anyone had seen, but the marquee names in the 1989 World Series, despite MVPs Mitchell and Canseco, were Will Clark and Rickey Henderson.

Flash forward a couple years. The Blue Jays were dominating baseball with athletes like Alomar and Devon White, classic baseball, 30s-style slashers like Olerud and Molitor.

Now if there was another steroid team after Oakland, it was the 93 Phillies. Yes, people whispered about Dykstra. But John Kruk was the mascot for the team and he certainly wasn't juiced. You got the impression these guys weren't using anything harder than Pabst Blue Ribbon. The best players in baseball were Ken Griffey and Barry Bonds, who were more Splendid Splinter than Big Hurt and they were hitting 45+ homers a year.

Speaking of Big Hurt, Frank Thomas was a star in the game by now, and he was a monster. But he was just a big guy who happened to play football and had a perfect swing and fantastic eye. No one thought he did steroids...and with the debuts of people like Frank Thomas and Ben McDonald and Randy Johnson...people just got used to seeing bigger baseball players.

and Backlasher because he once talked about Jessica Alba's ass.

Is there a heterosexual male alive who hasn't?

Put it in the past tense and you've got a winner:

If the suit fit, he musta split.

Much better. I'll give you 75% of the royalty for it. :-)

Excellent post, baudib.

Is there a heterosexual male alive who hasn't?

I was gonna say "me".

But then by responding to the query, in a sense have I become guilty as charged? :)

grumpyyankee Posted: July 16, 2007 at 04:07 PM (#2442774)

It always baffles me, this kind of insistence that the "steroid era" began sometime in the late 90's. I played DIII ball in the late 80's and several of us actively discussed whether to use steroids and how we might obtain them. Why did we do this? Because we knew other people were and that adding 10-15 lbs might make a scout look twice instead of once. Anyone really think we were the first baseball players to come up with this idea (spring 88)?

Every year there would be stories out of spring training about players coming in the best shape of their lives, it was all a wink and nod agreement between the players, management, and the press. Remember Brian Downing? Lenny Dykstra, with the Phils, man, you couldn't find anyone on the street who didn't think he was juicing and friends of mine who worked in stadium operations said it was even more open and acknowledged than I even thought.

Creatine and other stuff was so widespread and accepted, anyone who thinks supplementation stopped there is just delusional. Mid 90's minor leagues, my friends in those leagues (NY-Penn!) put the usage at approx 60-75% with well over 50% of pitchers. What they were using, how much, how long, that varied as expected.

But the tone of coverage that suggests Barry Bonds is corrupting baseball is just pathetic.

rant over, back to lurking

I hope to read some more rants in the future grumpyyankee. Lurking is O.K. but jumping into the pool is where the real fun is. :-)

Just to add to his thought: Steroids were fairly common when I was in high school (1979-83) and I was encouraged by a coach to try it to add bulk so as to try out for the football team. I could bench 300 lb. (about three reps) but weighed just 150 lb. and he thought I'd be an ideal candidate due to my natural strength. They were pretty easy to get back then; you could score 'roids as easily as you could weed.

And that's in Canada.

Best Regards

John

I hope you aren't trying to imply that I've ever said anything of the sort, because I haven't. But then I know we all look alike.

I was just trying to paint with as broad a brush as you, just for kicks.

"steroid era" began sometime in the late 90's

A friend of mine played football at Temple (early 90's?) and he told me that just about every player was using steroids (with the blessing of the coaches)...and that it was rampant thru-out the sports dept...including the baseball team.

He's a tooth n' jaw grinding coker now...so who knows.

Is there a heterosexual male alive who hasn't?

I was gonna say "me".

But then by responding to the query, in a sense have I become guilty as charged? :)

:-D

Is there a heterosexual male alive who hasn't?

No. I was commenting on his restraint.

It always baffles me, this kind of insistence that the "steroid era" began sometime in the late 90's... Anyone really think we were the first baseball players to come up with this idea (spring 88)?

Every year there would be stories out of spring training about players coming in the best shape of their lives, it was all a wink and nod agreement between the players, management, and the press. Remember Brian Downing? Lenny Dykstra, with the Phils, man, you couldn't find anyone on the street who didn't think he was juicing and friends of mine who worked in stadium operations said it was even more open and acknowledged than I even thought.

No, no, no... it was the Froot Loops that done it!

On a related note regarding imaginary timelines, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer newsletter has been blanket-covering the Chris Benoit murder case. In the latest issue, he mentions that Dick the Bruiser was using steroids in the early 1960s.