Reason/Voice/Poz.
Within seconds of the interview ending, I began to hear analysts tearing up McGwire. Then I read some columnists’ thoughts—they mostly ripped into the man, too. And the more I read, the more I heard, the more I realized that most people did not see this thing the way I saw it. Apparently, McGwire was not contrite enough. He was not believable enough. He was not specific enough. He would not admit that steroids made him the great home run hitter he became. He did not tell the whole truth. He did not sound sincere enough. And on. And on. And on.
Wow. I have spent the last few hours trying to replay this in my head. Why didn’t I see what so many other people apparently did see? The big thing seems to be McGwire’s refusal to accept that steroids made him a better hitter. This apparently trampled many people’s sensibilities. But, the thing is, I didn’t need him to admit that, and, to be honest, I didn’t want for him to admit it.* We all have our opinions about steroids and what they do. That is his opinion. I didn’t need him saying something he did not believe… isn’t that the very definition of “insincere?”
...When Mark McGwire finished with his day of apologies, I forgave him. It doesn’t mean I look at his 70 home run season the way I did in 1998. It doesn’t mean that I respect the choices he made. It doesn’t even mean that I agree with his self-scouting report. No. I just mean that if there was any anger or resentment toward him for cheating, it is gone now. He admitted and he apologized. Now, he wants to coach baseball. He wants to speak out against steroids. He wants people to remember that he was a damned good hitter who worked hard at the game. I wish him well and hope all those things for him.
As for so many others—many of them friends of mine—who do not feel like he met the forgiveness bar and felt like this whole apology thing was a sham, well, as I’ve said, I have been wrong plenty before. One friend emailed me with this line: “Why SHOULD I forgive him?” It’s just my opinion: But I think the answer is in the question.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Not exactly. I wouldn't be thrilled with a futuristic pill a guy could pop with two outs, bases loaded, down a run in the bottom of the ninth in Game 7 that makes him impervious to nerves, either. Anything that fundamentally alters the agon between humans and human limits is what I don't like and, IMHO, what cuts so deeply about steroids.
That isn't a moral judgment; I concur with DMN's earlier observation that "robot baseball" (**) isn't immoral, though I'd add the word "inherently" before finally signing off. It is, however, a profound and relevant difference between taking a file or a wad of Vaseline to the ball, and steroids.
(**) Or, if you will, Saturday Night Live's "All Drug Olympics."
[Edited to note Verducci since I initially credited the story to Gammons.]
Quoting now:
Allow me to present evidence that Jeff Bagwell used PEDs. Yes, it's just andro, but usage of andro was enough to indict McGwire:
Has Bill Conlin recently made a big stink about andro?
You hit it right there, SBB. It really is that simple. Whatever "moralizing" there is in this statement is implicit in the description, and needs no redundant piling on. You can see McGwire as a villain, or you can see him as a man who just lost his sense of proportion and became (within a sporting context) a tragic figure, but either way, the problem he and his fellow juicers created couldn't possibly have remained unaddressed if baseball wanted to be taken seriously as a sport. Once the bubble had been burst and the illusions had been stripped away, there was no going back.
---------------------------------
Yeah, if only McGwire had been legit, he might well have gotten that 100% vote. And if worms ate birds, we'd be ruled by insects.
Interesting set of articles, Ray. Kind of reminds you of all the accolades for John Edwards and his marriage back when he was the Golden Boy of the early 2004 primaries. Live and learn.
That's gotta be a goddamned joke.
A futuristic pill? Something to help someone concentrate under extreme pressures? If only... then perhaps we could give something to pilots during wars...
That's gotta be a goddamned joke.
Yeah, but if McCovey had had one of those babies in 1962, he might have hit that motherfucker three feet higher.
"You don't know that you'll ever have to talk about the skeleton in your closet on a national level," he said.
This is precisely my objection to steroids and I have said precisely this many times. Now it wasn't inchoate but rather explicit and I'll let others judge whether it was/is coherent.
Robot baseball is not immoral in the cosmic sense. However to all those human beings who are not (yet) robots and who assign meaning to human competition it is immoral because it violates the fundamental rules of human agonism. Now it is of course true that it is difficult/impossible to define precisely the line between natural and unnatural. The answer to this conundrum is that there is no line. Once you grant that there is an empirical/objective line you have granted the fundamental premise of the technological paradigm (that creates steroids) and hence you have undermined the ground by which steroids might be condemned. However under those circumstances the apparant cognitive dissonance or contradiction is not the result of any argument on the side of the anti-PED side but exists solely in the minds of those whose standards of what counts and does not count as a good reason only admits to a certain kind of evidence. Thus the claim of contradiction is tautological.
Note, above, that McGwire says he has been taking creatine for about four years. The article was written in August of 1998. That timeline matches up fairly well with his statement from a few days ago that began taking steroids in earnest after the 1993 season:
The creatine snippet seems to give credence to his statement that he picked up steroids for real starting in 1993/1994. It seems that everything starts happening at once -- the weightlifting, the creatine, the steroids.
Also, note above: he didn't have to admit to creatine. He doesn't seem shy about admitting what's legal (and not admitting what's not). The andro bit was particularly silly because AFAICT it was sold in every health store at the time.
Can you guess the year of this piece?
1969.
And it's not just non-baseball sports:
Weightlifters and amphetamines:
That's just about the most made up name I've ever seen. I almost expect the next quote to be from Heywood Jablome.
How exactly does that logically work? Why would avian-consuming worms equate to rule by insects?
And I don't think that's clear. Not discussing something is not the same as thinking it's cheating, when there are good reasons not to discuss something, the potential illegality (in the U.S., after 1990, depending on the substance) being one of them.
How can you claim they were worried about the illegality, but at the same time that they didn't think it was cheating? If they were worried about the illegality, then they knew it was something they weren't permitted to do.
Furthermore, these guys didn't just "not discuss" it; they actively denied it, lied about it, and concealed it--not just from the public but as McGwire said, from his teammates, coaches, friends and family. When McGwire was asked about his Andro use in 1998, he claimed
The part about everyone else doing it is ambiguous, but "everything I've done is natural" is a pretty clear statement.
You're applying a 2010 mindset to the 1990s culture. By and large, nobody cared about the issue in the 1990s. Not the media. Not the players. Not the owners. Not the fans. It wasn't a Big Scandal when McGwire was doing it. This is retroactive outrage.
...
People are outraged NOW, but back then when these players were doing it it was virtually a non-issue.
It was a non-issue in part because most people didn't know about it. Perhaps we all should have watched baseball with a more critical eye in the 90s, but many of us didn't. And we had no evidence to the contrary, other than body type and record-setting performance (both of which we've been repeatedly told aren't evidence of anything). It's funny that some of the same people who told us not to accuse McGwire without hard proof (a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with) are telling us we're inconsistent for holding it against him now that he's admitted it.
I suspect in the Mark McGwire in 1994 would be completely and utterly shocked if you went back in time and told him that 15 years later he was going to be strung up as a cheater and find himself on national tv trying to justify his actions to an outraged subset of the population.
I'm confident that he would be; just as I'm confident Mike Scott would be shocked if people suddenly became outraged about his scuffing the ball and tried to take away his Cy Young Award. That doesn't mean Mike Scott didn't know he was cheating.
I'll also bet McGwire didn't expect Jose Canseco to rat him out, someone like Barry Bonds to break his record, or Ken Caminiti to admit to juicing. If you had told him all that would happen, he might have had different expectations.
"You don't know that you'll ever have to talk about the skeleton in your closet on a national level," he said.
Not that it matters, but that statement reads to me like someone who didn't expect to get caught, not someone who didn't think he was doing anything wrong.
I find his statement that he initially felt like he was cheating, but that feeling went away as he saw more and more guys doing it, to be interesting. I suspect this is how a lot of roiders (not to mention other criminals) feel--guilty at first, but eventually you get used to it/justify it.
Eleanor: You unnatural animal.
Richard: Unnatural, mummy? You tell me, what's nature's way? If poison mushrooms grow and babies come with crooked backs, if goiters thrive and dogs go mad... and wives kill husbands, what's unnatural? Come, here stands your lamb. Come cover him in kisses. He's all yours.
And speaking of the SI Vault, here's a completely unrelated 1955 article by Robert Creamer that's stuck with me ever since I first read it. It's a take on Willie Mays that seems totally out of whack with his "Say-Hey" image:
It Was Only An Incident, But It Should Be A Warning To Willie Mays: He Can Make Or Break Himself As A Big Star
Allan Sherman's Pills (to the tune of "smiles"):
There are pills that make you happy.
There are pills that make you blue.
There are pills to kill your streptococci.
There are pills to cure your cockeye too.
There are folks whose pills have made them healthy.
There are folks whose pills have cured their chills.
But the folks whose pills have made them wealthy
Are the folks who make all those pills.
(There are) Dexedrine and Miltown, to pick you up and let you down.
(happy) Or if you're sufferin', swallow a Bufferin.
(pills) Vitamin C's a pill for folks who shiver.
(sad) And there's a pill for Carter's little liver.
(pills) And if you're sleeping in the hospital, because you're ill,
(pills) Betcha the nurse will wake you up to take a sleeping pill.
There are pills for young folks and for old folks,
Each disease has got its remedy.
But no pill can cure the common cold, folks,
So if you sneeze, please don't sneeze on me.
Achoo!
Gesundheit.
I don't see those two as being connected. They "weren't permitted" to use steroids by law (well, depending on the circumstances), not by baseball. They're just separate issues.
Why don't you see them as connected? The players appear to have. McGwire said he would take "anything that's legal" rather than saying "anything that isn't prohibited by MLB". Vaughn said that "anything illegal is definitely wrong."
As I said earlier, a lot of yours and David's arguments are intellectually interesting, but not particularly relevant, since the players who were actually caught aren't making them in their defense.
How exactly does that logically work? Why would avian-consuming worms equate to rule by insects?
Well, I suppose that if we had enough chocolate to cover them, we could eat all those insects ourselves.
But on a more straightforward note, here's merely the first mention of the great Chinese sparrow massacre of the late 50's that I could find:
how are you differentiating them from amphetamine usage?
I had the great pleasure of spending some time with Robert Creamer at the NINE conference year before last. A very smart and interesting fellow to talk with.
Mmm-hmm. Don't recall the 1988 ALCS, do we?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I think they were both cheating, although to the extent that teams themselves were supplying players with either one I think that complicates matters.
Mmm-hmm. Don't recall the 1988 ALCS, do we?
I was 9 years old, and not a fan of either team involved, so no I don't remember much from them besides Dave Stewart's stare. Why?
The fans at Fenway Park were chanting "STEROIDS, STEROIDS" at Jose Canseco when he came to bat. Canseco had to do an on-air interview as part of NBC's playoff coverage-- I don't know whether it was during the ALCS or the WS-- in which he denied that he'd ever used steroids.
Years later, we were repeatedly told by the press that no one could possibly have suspected what was happening. The first suspicions came around 2000 or so.
Years later, we were repeatedly told by the press that no one could possibly have suspected what was happening. The first suspicions came around 2000 or so.
I honestly don't remember being told by the press that no one could possibly have suspected what was happening at the time. I'm certainly not making that claim. But we didn't know to the extent we know now. And there were a number of guys around here (I know, I was one of them) saying you shouldn't accuse McGwire or Bonds because there was no real proof.
The tipping point was, ironically, probably when Bonds was chasing McGwire's record. Not sure why--people didn't like Bonds, Bonds was putting up numbers that were silly in a way that even McGwire's hadn't been, his body had changed more than McGwire's, and/or a combination of the above.
Thanks for putting all that in some sort of chronological order, CFiJ. And that's pretty much what I was thinking of when I wrote that it was a "combination" of events that caused this sea change in baseball's attitude towards steroids. It didn't just happen overnight or on account of any one thing.
I don't understand or am misreading this statement. Rose told the Playboy reporter he used greenies. The SI reporter cited Bench saying trainers didn't "think twice" about "passing out" greenies.
Great stuff, Ray.
Now whether people "should have" cared is another story, but it's just that---another story.
Pete Rose publicly admitted greenie use at a time when a criminal investigation by his hometown DA into baseball greenie use involving Rose himself was either (i) underway; or (ii) pending. We can't tell for sure, since the Playboy interview was probably done in the summer of 1979 and the Philly DA investigation not reported in SI until July 1980.
Also, I forgot the initial involvement of Congress. Obviously spurred by the Sports Illustrated article (published June 2, 2002), Senators Dorgan and McCain summon Messrs Selig and Fehr to a meeting of the Senate Commerce Committee (WTF?) on June 18, and tell them if they don't institute a program, Congress will legislate one.
Huh? We don't fact-check here.
Well, that explains the political threads...
I don't read the Rose greenie interview in Playboy that way. He says he "might" have taken a greenie the week before, and admits greenie use without qualification as to frequency or current use.
Well ... kind of. McGwire in 413 and 417 says that creatine "helps strength."
Where's the "ignorance"? Rose says greenies "might help your game."
That's what they say is their belief. There is plenty of incentive for them to publicly minimize everything about their usage. How often, how much, how many kinds, how many years, what they believed were the effects. Most every player so far (with a very few notable exceptions) has admitted to pretty much the minimum they could get away with, and no more.
"Cheating" isn't the construct by which I judge these things. There are gradations of "cheating" and the purpose of intellect is to distinguish that which is distinguishable, which is why the English language has different words to describe a bird and an airplane. Greenie use was cheating writ (very) small.
Do you think they were PEDs before 2001?
Yes. Mid-80s in football, at least as early as 1988 as to baseball (Canseco). Once weight training became accepted (and as late as 1984, Sparky Anderson frowed upon it), drugs to enhance the efficacy of weight training became tempting and as time passed, their use became very widespread.
Do you think they are the equivalent of "a few cups of coffee" like a prominent poster has claimed many, many times?
Physiologically, probably not. Intellectually, in this context, the difference isn't material.
PS: your pickles suck.
The question is about amphetamines.
This is what I mean by ignorance. "Probably not"? That's absurd. Amphetamines are a controlled drug substance. They are serious, and have been demonstrated through large scale clinical trials to enhance the aspects they are indicated for (focus, rejuvenation). The military uses them for this purpose. *Probably* is the problem here.
If you already knew the answer, why'd you ask the question?
The question is about amphetamines.
It was? How so?
Here's what Dial said:
Do you think using greenies by Mantle (et al) was cheating? Do you think they were PEDs before 2001?
Right, I know. How is the question "Do you think they (sic) were PEDs before 2001" "about" amphetamines? If the antecedent for "they" is "greenies," what does 2001 have to do with anything?
I assumed 2001 was a reference to the chronology CFiJ laid out earlier in this thread, in describing how the worm turned on attitudes toward PED use after the turn of the millenium, but Chris can explain if he meant something different.
It was also quite obvious that Chris' question #2 in this post was about greenies, given that question #1 (regarding Mantle) and question #3 ("Do you think they are the equivalent of "a few cups of coffee" like a prominent poster has claimed many, many times?") were.
"He's not a baseball player, he's a body builder. It wasn't my idea. I thought he was big enough before." -- Russ Nixon on Ron Gant (1990 Spring Training)
Even assuming steroids significantly impact baseball performance, this quote basically shows that it was far from a given that that would be the case. People look at the issue now as "Oh, McGwire knew steroids would increase his performance." But that was not the conventional wisdom as late as 1990, which was that getting bigger would lead to more injuries. In that sense, the players of the late '80s and early '90s who were using them were going against the mindset.
But isn't that likely to reflect the fact that the direct causes of concussions (head butting) make for much better (and easier to understand) highlight reels than the slow effects of steroid abuse?
There's been some fairly high-profile attention (*) to chronic health problems of retired NFL players over the last few years. One problem I sense with respect to linking these sorts of things directly to steroids is that there seems to be a perception among fans that chronic injuries and shortened lifespans are somewhat inevitable given the high-contact nature of the sport. So, there's little or no sense that steroids may be one of the reasons for this. (**)
(*) I live in Chicago, where this issue has gotten quite a bit of attention. But one of the main spokespeople for retired NFL players on this issue is Mike Ditka, who is still a demi-god here in Chicago, so I don't know if the attention here is greater than nationally because of that.
(**) I don't know enough about steroids to know the extent to which they may be a cause of the sorts of long-term health issues that former NFL players face. My sense is that most people assume, in this case, however, that they're NOT a major contributing factor.
Quoting from the intro.
But after the glory is gone, little is reported about the physical toll the game takes. the fifth estate investigates why professional football players have a life expectancy that is at least 20 years less than that of the general population. (Worth noting that the presenter is a former player and in interviews promoting the piece discusses his own history with concussions)
Head Games
I don't think they're "upset about health risks faced by football players" as they are that nobody is taking care of the former players. (And by "nobody" I mostly mean that the union is blamed first and I suppose the league second.)
Basically, the media thinks (I'm not saying they're wrong) that the former players paved the way for the current players to get the money and medical benefits, etc., and yet the former players are left out in the cold and dealing with huge health issues. I think that's a fairly accurate point of view, but the problem is that there is no "solution" to the problem other than having the current players/league contribute money out of the goodness of their hearts. Which sometimes doesn't adequately address a problem, though it's not anybody's fault.
Incidentally, from most of the stories I've seen on this, despite all the hoopla over the health risks of steroids -- and despite our knowledge that many football players in the '70s were popping steroids like they were going out of style -- the health issues of the former players largely seem to be head injuries and bone/joint injuries. As opposed to medical conditions typically associated with steroids.
Other than Ph.D Lyle Alzado, of course :P
A big part of it is the numbers, too. No one cared about steroids in baseball until important records started falling.
There's much less opportunity for people to break significant records in football, but if someone rushed for 3,000 yards or caught nine TD passes in a game, football fans might start getting upset about steroids.
The Canseco 1988 ALCS stuff seems to illustrate that to the extent the Fenway fans cared about the issue, they were mostly just having fun with the guy. He was assumed to be on steroids and yet nobody was treating him as the scourge of the earth. No tearful press conferences were demanded of him. Rick Reilly wasn't standing at his locker demanding that he take a urine test.
Areas of consistency with Mark McGwire's story:
* MM used both steroids and hgh.
* MM began using in 1994. This doesn't square with MM's admission of using briefly in 1989, but it does if Jay didn't know about that.
* MM used "in low dosages."
* He used steroids to help with joint recovery and "survival."
Ah, the good old days, when prosecutors targeted dealers and not users, and players were given immunity.
Tee hee on that denial. Let's fast forward four months to September 16, 1985:
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main