If the accusations also include Phil Rizzuto and Todd Frohwirth my predictions will have been right on the money.

Rizzuto is a self-confessed ass-plunging roider. Of course, he used them about 3 years ago, while ill, but still... melt down his HoF plaque for slag!

I'm impressed by the substance of the report so far.

I wish I had the ability to be so easily impressed. Movies would be better than ever!

This week, addicts huffing whitewash will be a far more pathetic problem than steroid use.

McNamee said that he acquired human growth hormone from Radomski for Knoblauch.

Shocking! But the report backs it up. Here's a photo of Chuck Knoblauch before going on the juice.

From the list in 256, the ones that surprise me most are Randy Velarde

Velarde injured his arm while in Anaheim and took about 18 months to recover. He missed all of 1997 and half of 1998 getting better. I didn't go to his blurb in the report, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that he was recovering from that injury while juicing.

It really does seem like a lot of AAAA guys and/or players recovering from serious injury...

[EDIT] - I hadn't heard about Velarde being connected with BALCO - or more likely I forgot about it.

#314:

The 2004 Orioles posted their only third place finish since they last won the division (they finished fourth every other year), and tied for their second-highest win total (78) over that same span.

Yay Roidz!

The point is that it purports to be a full accounting, but when you look at the very limited sourcing

No it doesn't. Page 2.

The illegal use of these substances was not limited to the players who are
identified in this report.

You can't be anymore upfront about the limited scope than that. Read the actual report donkey boy before your proport to know anything.


Here is an interesting part:

I requested the production of relevant documents from the Commissioner’s
Office, each of the thirty major league clubs, and the Players Association. We received and
reviewed more than 115,000 pages of documents from the Commissioner’s Office and the thirty
clubs and over 20,000 electronic documents that were retrieved from the computer systems of
the Commissioner’s Office and some of the clubs.

I'd like to know which teams refused to provide electronic information. IMHO, the Dodgers, RedSox and Rangers should be applauded for providing access to their files. As well as any other team that did the same.

The point is that it purports to be a full accounting


No, it doesn't, Fat Al. Mitchell himself said in the press conference the report is less than comprehensive because of the lack of cooperation of the players and the union.

"This report, the product of an intensive investigation, describes how and why this problem emerged.
...
From hundreds of interviews and thousands of documents we learned enough to
accurately describe that era.
...
My goal in preparing this report was to provide a thorough, accurate, and fair
accounting of what I learned in this investigation about the illegal use of performance enhancing substances by players in Major League Baseball.
...
I have not included every allegation that we received or the results of every
interview we conducted or every document we reviewed. Inevitably, much of that information was cumulative, not relevant, or of only marginal relevance. None of it would have materially altered the account that is provided.

Mitchell includes lots of disclaimers, but it is presented as a comprehensive report, is being described as we speak by the Commissioner as a comprehensive investigation, and is being portrayed in the media as such. The effect is that a partial investigation is being taken as the be-all and end-all and is, ironically, demonstrating that those who did not cooperate did the right thing to keep themselves out of this report.

If this is not the comprehensive report, when, pray tell, is the next installment due? Don't hold your breath.

My goal in preparing this report was to provide a thorough, accurate, and fair
accounting of what I learned in this investigation about the illegal use of performance enhancing substances by players in Major League Baseball.

Emphasis mine. It's comprehensive of what he learned. I don't think anyone expected it to be absolutely comprehensive of every last steroid violation in MLB history, nor do I think such a report would even be possible.

I'm sure people will portray it as being such a report if it suits their agendas, but that's hardly the fault of the report.

I'm sure people will portray it as being such a report if it suits their agendas, but that's hardly the fault of the report.

I'm sure Mitchell and the Commisioner had no idea that it would taken as such and will be awful sad when the masses see no need to delve deeper into the issue now that they have some names.

This was a waste of time and it resolved nothing.

And just for good measure, Mitchell makes sure to #### over Brian Roberts.

Cool. I mean, it sucks for him, but maybe it'll knock down his trade value.

kevin,
based on this report, what percentage of players would you say were using PEDs *other than amps* from about 1994 to about 2002?

I'm sure people will portray it as being such a report if it suits their agendas, but that's hardly the fault of the report.

I respectfully disagree. It is the fault of the report. If this is a work-in-progress it should be labeled as such, it should not have been presented as a final product with final recommendations and as something that will obviously not be revisited. This project is "completed". Now that it is completed, a man like Brian Roberts will be forever labeled as a cheater because of something Larry Bigbie told a lawyer he remembered Roberts saying 4 years ago.

Someone who was lucky enough to actually buy steroids or HGH from someone other than the two sources for the report will get a pass. It's easy to inject lots of disclaimers, it is harder to do the right thing and limit the names you include to those for whom there is real evidence. It is also hard to state directly that $60 million later you in fact were not able to come up with much, and that you think that presenting a partial and obviously incomplete picture might be more damaging than simply dumping everything anyone told you into a document and releasing it to the world unverified.

but it is presented as a comprehensive report

Again, you didn't READ. Comprehensive report of what HE LEARNED. My god.

Again, you didn't READ. Comprehensive report of what HE LEARNED. My god.

When's the final report coming? I'm waiting with bated breath.

I see also that the Commissioner understands how uncomprehensive this is and isn't relying on its conclusions. Please.

It's a shame the accomplishments of the 2000s Orioles teams will be forever tainted by this report.

Again, you didn't READ. Comprehensive report of what HE LEARNED. My god.

Al and the rest of us understand that. However, Al is arguing that releasing an incomplete report at the END of an investigation with this kind of build up (D-Day, H-Hour) absolutely makes it seem final and it is certainly being presented as final. At best, it's irresponsible. It's probably intended to be manipulative. And it does nothing to resolve or correct the issues at hand. Jesus, get a ####### brain.

kevin,
based on this report, what percentage of players would you say were using PEDs *other than amps* from about 1994 to about 2002?

I'm not Kevin, but I'd say it's speaks to widespread ussage. From what I've read, it looks like Mitchell got little help from all parties. From the teams (who didn't provide the files requested), from the union was combative at every turn and had more interest in preserving the player reputations than their health, and from the individual players who largely refused to be interviewed. Despite that he came up very thorough amounts of information on many, many players.

Color me disapointed, not in the report which again from what I've read is well done, but from the lack of cooperation, from most parties. Frank Thomas, the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Texas Rangers, and the Boston RedSox look like from what I've read a few of the parties who were more interested in the truth than preserving their reputation.

How can I do that with incomplete information, Chris?

I'm not Kevin, but I'd say it's speaks to widespread ussage.

kevin doesn't have the balls to say that, MSH.

kevin you have made many comments on many things with "incomplete information". Remember, "you're a scientist and you interpret the data to see what it means"

Look jackass, Al and the rest of us understand that. However, Al is arguing that releasing an incomplete report at the END of an investigation with this kind of build up (D-Day, H-Hour) absolutely makes it seem final and it is certainly being presented as final.

This is it. As far as I know there will no "second report" he has gotten as far as he could get based on the coperation he had. He had no hammer, no leverage, who is he to pry information from people. From what I've read he did the best he could and publiched with honest disclosure. I'm not sure what more you could have expected realitisticly.

Their is no magic potions or ponies with wings. In reality, you do the best you can and move on. It seems like, to me he did the best he could do. At some point if a lever is provided Mitchell or another investigator might be able to provide more. As is, I'm satisfied that the use of steriods was very wide spread, and was used by players from every "level" of play.

The world is made of partial information. You never have full information on anything, it isn't realistic to expect to have it here. This is a good resource, and we are better off for having it. If you can't see it, your as dumb as well.. we already knew you were.

If you can't see it, your as dumb as well.. we already knew you were.

I find this entertaining coming from some schmuck who is getting reeled in along with the sportscenter crowd. Enjoy your complacency.

MHS is correct in this instance. In so far as what he was able to realistically accomplish the report is comprehensive and provides a good cross section of the various types of steroid users. The report doesn't claim to be anything greater, and it's stupid blaming him for ESPN's hype machine.

Have fun in the nile but watch out for crocodiles, I here they can be quite tetchy.

Extrapolate based on this report?

What do you mean I don't have the balls, dumbass???? I've been screaming about it for years, more than anyone else here!!!!!

You asked for a specific percentage and how can I give you that when none of the players talked and the union provided no cooperation?

In case it wasn't clear, you don't have the balls.

A "specific percentage"? Of course not. Ballpark it - Throw out "5-10%". Throw out "70-80%" You'd have to be a moron to think I meant 67.3%. Oh, sorry.

MHS is correct in this instance.

Just because you say so, I guess I have to concede the point.

The report doesn't claim to be anything greater, and it's stupid blaming him for ESPN's hype machine.

Yes, it wass the ESPN hype machine that issued a press release about the date and time of the report's release. ESPN's hype machine was also responsible for all the leaks a couple days before talking about MVP's and All-Stars and the like being named in the report. Yes, if it weren't for that pesky ESPN, no one would have thought this was anything more then a very incomplete and poorly supported report that is based on information provided by two drug dealers and a couple of minor league narks.

My use of the site's "ignore" feature is wreaking absolute havoc on my ability to enjoy this page of the thread.

Kevin, despite your good qualities, you are such a ####### ##### sometimes.

I don't know. You tell me, Chris.

Or don't YOU have the balls?

Are you seriously this dense? I have argued with teh UNion for about four years that use was widespread and ubiquitous. Well over 50%. With this data from *three* sources, I think closer to 70% were using some form of non-amp PED.

You're up, eunuch.

I just woke up.

ERIC GAGNES YES *Fistpumps*

Edit: nothing makes me feel better knowing he's a cheater AND he sucked balls.

You were asking me for something within 5 percentage points.

you mean where I posted:
kevin,
based on this report, what percentage of players would you say were using PEDs *other than amps* from about 1994 to about 2002?

Yes, I see what you mean.

So, kevin, depending on how much you have read, how secretive would you describe the usage? Very, a little, relatively open, completely open? Feel free to offer some other version of that.

Kevin don't answer, it's A TRAP!

kevin, is there any point at which PED use could have so saturated MLB that you would consider it "the norm" and not "cheating"? If, say, 95% of players used, would that make you change your position in any way?

From your many comments on the issue, I suspect the answer is "no". Dial does have such a point -- that point is 0%, as he doesn't find PED use to be distasteful.

So you two are, as per usual on this topic, talking at cross-purposes.

#####

Thanks, BHW, but I believe the Union largely held that usage was much lower than it is now appearing to be, and that lack of widespread use and secretive use were both important factors whether or not the players considered it to be cheating.

SO, it is looking like players *didn't* consider it to be cheating, regardless of how they act now.

Over the last 15 years (1993-2007), there are approximately 440 mlb team seasons. This report appears to cover three to fifteen of those seasons. 3%. This list is a drop in the bucket.

Over the last 15 years (1993-2007), there are approximately 440 mlb team seasons. This report appears to cover three to fifteen of those seasons. 3%. This list is a drop in the bucket.

This list is covering 3 sets of teams mainly, isn't it? And "friends" of the players on that team. Lets say thats a possible pool of 5 teams plus their minor league call ups. That puts the pool of accessible players by these drug dealers at around 150-160. And they fingered about half of them. I think 50% looks like the round figure , which will be a good guess for % of players using steroids in the late 90-s, early 00s

I don't see how you can project 50-70% based on this report. If anything, it knocks the probable percentage way down. It seems like a lot of Mets and Yankees are named, but this is over a period of several years going all the way back to the '80s. How many players from the 2000 Mets, for example, are named? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get two: Matt Franco and Todd Pratt. The '99 team had the same two plus Manzanillo, who barely contributed. The most I can come up with on any one team at the same time are the 2000 Yankees, with eight. Based on the report, there is also no reason to assume that "every club" had its own Radomski. Several players from other teams also used Radomski when they were in NY. If Radomski is supposed to be this big-time supplier in the Mets clubhouse, and they can only come up with a few mostly marginal players over a period of several years, that is not evidence of an epidemic.

Chris, I agree that this is a drop in the bucket. I agree that this implies that usage was quite heavy, and a 50%+ figure does not appear an unreasonable conjecture based on the information at our disposal.

I recognize that different Union members had different motivations behind their anti-PED stances. As you see, I posed the question to kevin as to whether or not there was any threshold that would change his mind. My guess as to his response may be incorrect; I'm sure he will not hesitate to point that out, if so.

Yankees excepted, of course. Those guys were not marginal.

Based on the report, there is also no reason to assume that "every club" had its own Radomski. Several players from other teams also used Radomski when they were in NY.

While I think this is possible, it's also possible that players used local suppliers in each town, not wanting to travel with the goods.

Of course, it appears that players across the country were referred to Radomski; did they not have local connections?

There are 7 on the 2000 Dodgers.

That because the Mitchell Report could not provide a full accounting of the scale of cheating, it was a complete waste of time.

Actually, yes. It was. For precisely that reason.

Actually, it's hard to figure out what the purpose of the report was, so it's hard to assess its level of pointlessness, but any purpose it would serve would not be served without a comprehensive report.

"; however, " seems to be the first example of a person who believes this is in fact an attempt at a comprehensive report. But it isn't.

Maybe Radomski felt an actual kinship with the guys on the Mets and didn't want to get them in trouble, but he didn't feel that way about visiting players. We don't know.

Actually, yes. It was. For precisely that reason.

Actually, it's hard to figure out what the purpose of the report was, so it's hard to assess its level of pointlessness, but any purpose it would serve would not be served without a comprehensive report.

When you can't do a comprehensive report on something like this, you throw in the towel. Or at the very least, you don't name names when the names don't represent any kind of systematic effort to discover them.

It's not as though a committee report on this was somehow heaven's mandate.

This was really a disgraceful effort.

Oops, there are at least 10 on the 2000 Dodgers and another handful on the 2000 Angels (a short drive away).

seems to be the first example of a person who believes this is in fact an attempt at a comprehensive report. But it isn't.

I said that you can't extrapolate from this report how many players overall are PEDers. People are suddenly saying 50-70%. Based on what?

Maybe Radomski felt an actual kinship with the guys on the Mets and didn't want to get them in trouble, but he didn't feel that way about visiting players. We don't know.

He named a lot of Mets, from Lenny Dykstra to Mo Vaughn, but it was over a period of many years. He also gave the information under the threat of prosecution if he lied.

Oops, there are at least 10 on the 2000 Dodgers and another handful on the 2000 Angels (a short drive away).

Right -- why were they using Radomski, in New York, instead of someone in LA? That hints that maybe LA didn't have their own supplier (though that doesn't sound particularly likely, as as a major market and a two-league city, it would be a great place for an operation similar to BALCO and Radomski).

People are suddenly saying 50-70%. Based on what?

From a single supplier, 5 players on a bunch of teams. Caminiti said that. Canseco said that much. This commission got info from *one* dealer. ONE. You really think there is only one dealer for all of MLB?

Well, "everybody's doing it" is a good way to rationalize one's own behavior. Meanwhile, Roger Clemens says McNamee is big liar. I really don't think it stands to reason that you can just multiply Radomski by 30. I think he was a right place, right time guy, and that it's not all that easy to get this stuff, especially if you have a reputation to protect. I think they have to do it under some cover of legitimacy and they're not going to just deal with some guy in the parking lot at the gym. Unless you believe that there are that many athletic trainers willing to risk their careers to do it, which I don't.

Up yours, Clemens. Yes, you know the feeling.

And Mr. Family Guy Andy Pea-Tear-Griffin Pettitte.

The irony of it all...

Just because some of the players listed really use/used steroids doesn't mean the report is anything other than porous, cover-your-asterisk garbage.

I think the funniest reaction I heard today was on ESPN. They reported that Selig was mad when he got his advance copy of the report, because it assigned too much of the "steroid era" blame to the MLB brass.

And from the way the owners are being savagely reamed tonight for their role in the matter, you can truly appreciate Bud's righteous anger.

I really don't think it stands to reason that you can just multiply Radomski by 30.

I'm not doing that. How many major league cities are there? 20? How about that?

I really don't think it stands to reason that you can just multiply Radomski by 30. I think he was a right place, right time guy, and that it's not all that easy to get this stuff, especially if you have a reputation to protect. I think they have to do it under some cover of legitimacy and they're not going to just deal with some guy in the parking lot at the gym. Unless you believe that there are that many athletic trainers willing to risk their careers to do it, which I don't.

Well are you suggesting that Radmoski was the only guy doing it? Do you think that's credible?

So what would you multiply Radomski by? 2? 3? 15?

As to how hard it is to get -- maybe in the U.S., but a lot of these guys are from countries where it is damn easy to get, and nobody is watching.

He also gave the information under the threat of prosecution if he lied.

Oh, he was probably telling the truth, mostly. But he could just as easily have been embellishing. Who would know? He could accuse anyone he wanted, and nobody could say otherwise. It happens a lot -- if your ultimate sentence will depend on how much you "cooperate", then you will cooperate a whole hell of a lot, and sometimes that means saying stuff that you know they want to hear, even if it isn't exactly the truth, so long as nobody can prove otherwise.

I've read quite a bit of the report (not all of it though--maybe 2/3) and about 50% of the posts on these threads, so I may have been missing stuff. A few impressions:

1. Since it appears that most of the "meat" in the report comes from Radomski, my first question is: how many Radomski-type guys are out there, and how big of a fish is he? Among these types of guys was he a major, major player in terms of clients and influence? Presumably Mitchell et al asked Radomski these questions or something similar. If there, are, say, 25 Radomskis and each Radomski has sub-contractors and an overseer...
2. While most of Mitchell's recs were fairly banal, I think there is value in getting them out there: focus on the future, toughen up the testing, educate the players, help the players who are not taking the drugs, have the testing done by an independent, transparent agency etc. Yes, obvious stuff, but there is utility in having such stuff out there in a high-profile way.
3. The politics and the names: I was looking for Mitchell's explanation of why he named names; all I saw was that it was part of his mandate--to "report--and then he attached elementary political disclaimers: yes, people/media will focus on the names, but that is really what this should be about, etc. That did not satisfy me. I agree that there may be selection bias in that there might be a zillion guys buying stuff who happened not to buy it from Kirk Radomski--so they escape the public scrutiny, at least for now, and, other than "Ooh Look!" I don't see huge value in the names. Radomski appeared to have few Latino clients, for example. Does that mean they are using less than US-Born Americans? The counterargument, I suppose, is that names create interest which might lead to education down the line. But I doubt it. Office talk among fans on my campus today was "Pettitte used. Tejada used. Clemens used." And that was it. I was OK with the way Mitchell emphasized the players not cooperating, although more explanation of WHY they didn't might have benn good, but I think he should have gone into more detail about his dealings with execs and MLB, trainers etc., whatever they were. There was a Radomski to call out the players. I would have liked to have seen some more from the Larry Starrs.
4. Some of the names--Chris Donnels, Howie Clark--reinforce my own view (sort of the Backlasher argument--at least, that was where I heard it first) in the sense that to me the big issue is the AAAA guys--the guys in the 20-40 spots, the guys who might make 2 to 3 million in baseball or might get stuck in AAA. The rewards are so great that it is the type of area where regulation is needed. There are other reasons to have drug testing, but that is the most persuasive argument.

Overall, the report was about what I expected--but a little better and more useful than what I expected.

Did I see things or did guys write cheques?? Who in gods name writes a cheque for drugs??

Did I see things or did guys write cheques?? Who in gods name writes a cheque for drugs??

Yes, they did. From an SI article earlier today (from the reporters who do their steroids in sports coverage):

In an offshoot of the BALCO case, former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski provided names and evidence -- that included cancelled checks to Radomski, money orders and wire transfers -- as part of his plea agreement

Did I see things or did guys write cheques?? Who in gods name writes a cheque for drugs??

Radomski said that he sent human growth hormone to Brown by overnight mail
and called Brown several times to make sure he had received it. Brown finally returned
Radomski’s call and confirmed he had received it. Soon thereafter, Radomski returned home
one day to find an express delivery package from Brown on his doorstep, wet from the rain.
When he opened it, he found that it contained $8,000 in cash. Radomski called Brown and told
him not to check the signature waiver box on the overnight delivery package when he was
sending cash, because the envelope was left on Radomski’s doorstep for several hours and could
have been taken.

Not Kevin Brown.

Devil's advocate:

Well, they might not have been for drugs. They could have been for anything.

Now, if someone had written "drugs" or "steroids" or "hat stretching" in the memo section, then we'd have something.

I think he was a right place, right time guy, and that it's not all that easy to get this stuff, especially if you have a reputation to protect.

You think it isn't all that difficult to get this stuff?

Perhaps the designer stuff is harder to get, but regular stuff, including things like Winstrol and HGH? I think it is very easy to get. I mean, guys in high school have no problem getting ahold of this sort of thing.

I mean, guys in high school have no problem getting ahold of this sort of thing.

In every town in America. However, MLB players can only access these drugs through one source.

MHS is my new best friend. The idea that knowledge needs to be absolute and total in order to qualify as knowledge is absurd.

And to Dial's loaded question for Kevin I'll answer. So long as the world of baseball is a subset of a larger world (i.e. the real wolrd) in which there are people who know and acknowledge that PED's is cheating then I don't care if 100% of players took steroids, it would still be cheating.

If 100% of players took steroids it might make it necessary to use steroids in order to compete but that, in-itself, in no way justifies the practice. To borrow a phrase, the necessary is inferior to the noble. Necessity excuses. What is justified by necessity is in need of excuse.

From a single supplier, 5 players on a bunch of teams. Caminiti said that. Canseco said that much. This commission got info from *one* dealer. ONE. You really think there is only one dealer for all of MLB?

Word to that. Anyone who's seen The Wire knows that Radomski had to be getting it from somewhere, and whoever he got it from (btw, where was he getting it from?) was or is still most likely divvying up a package to others like Radomski.

And like The Wire, the Mitchell Report weaves a tangled web. Todd Hundley introduced Paul Lo Duca, who introduced Eric Gagne. Who knows where else it leads to? I agree that this is but a mere drop in the bucket.

P.S. - Excuse the comparison to The Wire. I just finished watching Season 4 and much of it is still fresh in my mind. That said, is it too much of a stretch?

In every town in America. However, MLB players can only access these drugs through one source

And there you have a myriad of sources, guys that players are much more likely to trust.

Let's say you are 24, stuck in AAA, not quite good enough to make the bigs. But back in high school, there was a you know that used roids then. There's a source that you have a relationship with. Pretty hard to track this down.

More of these players seem older, so perhaps they wouldn't have as many early contacts with roiders that they could trust in that way and therefore sought out these other sources.

So long as the world of baseball is a subset of a larger world (i.e. the real wolrd) in which there are people who know and acknowledge that PED's is cheating then I don't care if 100% of players took steroids, it would still be cheating.

If 100% of players took steroids it might make it necessary to use steroids in order to compete but that, in-itself, in no way justifies the practice. To borrow a phrase, the necessary is inferior to the noble. Necessity excuses. What is justified by necessity is in need of excuse.

That's your definitions. As long as you understand that.

The apologists want to have it every which way.

They want to say that steroids don't have an effect because only bad players use steroids.
They want to say that steroids isn't cheating because everybody was taking them.
They want to say that the report is meaningless because it names too few.
They want to say that the report is meaningless because it names too many.
They want to say that steroids isn't a problem because football players take them.
They want to say that steroids isn't a problem because Bud Selig is a douche.
They want to say that steroids isn't a problem because Congress is grandstanding.
They want to say that steroids isn't cheating because Gaylord Perry threw a spitball.
They want to say that steroids isn't cheating because Tommy John surgery is effective.
They want to say that steroids isn't cheating because glasses help you see.
They want to say that trying to stop steroid users from cheating is a waste of time because you can't catch everyone.
They want to say that testing for steroids is pointless because there is no test for HGH
They want to say that HGH doesn't work.
But if it did they wouldn't care.

This list could go on forever because the apologist position is a incoherent mishmash of amoral ad hoc justifications of the anti-competitive credo "if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying."

Sorry, Gaelen, but none of those are mine. My "loaded" question is based on previous discussions.

That's your definitions. As long as you understand that.

I do not understand that. It is the definition that is written into the order of the stars. It has always been and will always be dishonourable to seek to circumvent the rules in order to achieve victory. That society may be corrupt and make cheating necessary in no way mitigates this fact.

I regard this as a fundamental law of human existence so I'll repeat it. By definition what is necessary is not noble, that is to say it is not choiceworthy for its own sake. If it is not choiceworthy for its own sake it is not good-in-itself. Or as teh great man said. "Necessity excuses. What is necessary is in need of excuse." There has never been a society that has not recognized this truth.

Gaelan, you are a horse's posterior.

The above is just as effective as trotting out the 'apologist' tag.

Not to mention 'amoral'.

It has always been and will always be dishonourable to seek to circumvent the rules in order to achieve victory.

Well, I can see why you're off track.

Well, I can see why you're off track.

I'm sorry. Should I have said spirit of the rules?

I do not understand that. It is the definition that is written into the order of the stars. It has always been and will always be dishonourable to seek to circumvent the rules in order to achieve victory.

And then there's always some self-righteous ####### who will go around anointing himself as the Decider of what "the rules" are.

Here's the question I have, maybe it's the wrong thread:

Why is it that these baseball players NEEDED SOMEONE ELSE to inject them with steroids, even in the ass? Hell, especially the ass. I've been giving myself insulin and allergy shots by myself in the ass (one of numerous sites) for about 25 years. I can't quite understand the need for someone to GIVE you shots you could have given yourself.

Why is it that these baseball players NEEDED SOMEONE ELSE to inject them...in the ass

Ask Piazza? My reading skills are extremely selective!

I was undecided on this subject, until Gaelan mentioned that "the order of the stars" agree with him. Now I am fully persuaded.

And then there's always some self-righteous ####### who will go around anointing himself as the Decider of what "the rules" are.


I thought it was accepted that George W. Bush was The Decider.

The fault, dear Gaelan, lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.

I thought it was accepted that George W. Bush was The Decider.

You learn something new everyday

FWIW, Mitchell did extrapolate in his report. He recognized that the named names were only a small percentage of the users given the lack of cooperation from the principals. But even so, after reviewing everything available, he concludes that the users were in the minority, not the majority as Dial believes.

I would agree with that -- I think it was in the range of 25 to 40% of the major leaguers who played between 1998 and 2005, to pick a time period.

It seems to be under-reported that Radomski had his statements regarding Tejada and Piatt confirmed by Piatt. Neither Piatt nor Radomski knew anything about what the other reported, yet Radomski's statements were corroborated. Not only is this damning for Tejada, it lends credence to the rest of Radomski's allegations.

Speaking of Tejada, pg. 203 seems to me to make Palmeiro's defense in the 10-30% likely category. He was the first player blackballed and booed mercilessly because of this. They kinda got the wrong guy.

I would agree with that -- I think it was in the range of 25 to 40% of the major leaguers who played between 1998 and 2005, to pick a time period.

Sean has made a list at B-R. I selected each player and ten went to the team pages. In 2000, 10 Dodgers were using *from Radomski*. 8 Yankees were using *from Radomski*. There are a few other players (3 to 5) on several of the teams using from Radomski. And then there is Seyler's testimony.

If we can see that many out of one supplier, it only takes about 5 suppliers to get it to a pretty high percentage. Given the freely available product outside of the US, I'd think 25% is too low. Maybe it is just 50%, but that's *alot*. Certainly considering the other half were using amps.

Eddie, I don't see how that helps Palmeiro at all. If the B-12 was B-12, then obviously Palmeiro got the stuff in some other way, which doesn't exonerate him. If the B-12 was really steroids, then either Palmeiro knew he was taking steroids -- which obviously doesn't exonerate him -- or Tejada lied to Palmeiro. But why would he do that?

I must not know what I'm talking about about Palmeiro. I just thought he got a syringe full of stuff from Tejada and it seemed possible to me it could have been filled with anything by mistake. I have no idea how these guys inject as that is the only thing that would gross me out about steroids. MLB didn't buy his defense either.

I think major leaguers fall neatly into two categories

1) Those who used some sort of performance enhancing drug and have tested positive or been outed in some other fashion; and
2) Those who used some sort of performance enhancing drug and haven't been outed.

I do not understand that. It is the definition that is written into the order of the stars. It has always been and will always be dishonourable to seek to circumvent the rules in order to achieve victory. That society may be corrupt and make cheating necessary in no way mitigates this fact.

I regard this as a fundamental law of human existence so I'll repeat it. By definition what is necessary is not noble, that is to say it is not choiceworthy for its own sake. If it is not choiceworthy for its own sake it is not good-in-itself. Or as teh great man said. "Necessity excuses. What is necessary is in need of excuse." There has never been a society that has not recognized this truth.

Beautifully put.

I was undecided on this subject, until Gaelan mentioned that "the order of the stars" agree with him. Now I am fully persuaded.

But which stars? Pia Zadora? JM J. Bullock? French Stewart?

I've been giving myself insulin and allergy shots by myself in the ass (one of numerous sites) for about 25 years. I can't quite understand the need for someone to GIVE you shots you could have given yourself.

When I see this I think they were beginners. I had quite an aversion to needles before coming to grips with the need to inject insulin every day. The first day I had to do it myself I had bought this device that's supposed to make it easy, you load the needle into it, push a button, and it does the injection. Found out the brand of needle I bought didn't fit, so I took it out, summoned my will, and stuck the needle in myself. Never had a problem since.

I posted this on one of the lesser threads, but ...

I hate to say it, actually, I don't care about saying since I've long held that I don't care about this issue, but...

This is it?

The word of two guys pinched by the Feds and Larry Bigbie? Seriously?

For 20 months and Lord knows how much cash was spent flying Mitchell around and such, I expected a little more research than you know, glomming on to a pair of Federal investigations, reading Game of Shadows and going home to Google "steroids" AND "baseball" AND "HGH" AND "(insert player here)."

I've been giving myself insulin and allergy shots by myself in the ass (one of numerous sites) for about 25 years. I can't quite understand the need for someone to GIVE you shots you could have given yourself.



When I see this I think they were beginners. I had quite an aversion to needles before coming to grips with the need to inject insulin every day. The first day I had to do it myself I had bought this device that's supposed to make it easy, you load the needle into it, push a button, and it does the injection. Found out the brand of needle I bought didn't fit, so I took it out, summoned my will, and stuck the needle in myself. Never had a problem since.


I don't know what an HGH needle looks like, but the steroid needles I've seen both have larger (bore and length) needles than an insulin needle and deliver a much bigger volume. I, too, can easily inject an insulin needle in my ass* but am not confident I could do so with steroid. How do the allergy shots look? And does anyone know what a modern steroid delivery needle looks like?


* In grad school some curious colleagues asked where I injected insulin while we were at lunch. I listed off the routine locations: arm, gut, leg and then I said, "Sometimes when I'm at home I take it in the ass." Some of those colleagues still remind me of that.