Is it wrong to make stabs without proof? Yes. But when we take into account the era, and the accomplishments, and the sudden slides, and the complete lack of courage and accountability, well, it’s understandable.

Except when a blogger does it.

Depends what's meant by "proof." At some point, someone stepped up and publicly accused the Black Sox of throwing the 1919 World Series. What "proof" did they have?

I don't know, what kind of proof did they have? My guess is it was more than Gumbel has about Bagwell's supposed steroid use.

Depends what's meant by "proof." At some point, someone stepped up and publicly accused the Black Sox of throwing the 1919 World Series. What "proof" did they have?

They wouldn't have had proof, but they would have had plenty of concrete circumstantial evidence, in the form of seismic shifts of the betting odds just prior to the first game, which would have aroused anyone's suspicion. By contrast, Gumbel doesn't have anything going for him at this point but his own vivid imagination.

And the real problem is that he named three specific players, whose reputations he smeared for no apparent reason and with no evidence at all. He didn't even take the usual coward's way and say that "everyone" was juicing. If someone had said something like this about someone Gumbel knew he'd be going ballistic over it.

Gumbel caught these guys juicing in a Burger King bathroom.

It's ugly to level accusations of steroid use based on circumstantial evidence, but this is the position that follows naturally from MLB's post-steroid public relations strategy.

If there's a steroid penalty for potential Hall of Famers and there are steroid users who were not caught. Then, it's natural for members of the media like Gumbel to try to fill the gap and name names.

What's going to sicken me is when the writers vote based on this circumstantial evidence and then write idiotic columns arguing that Bagwell and Pudge's numbers somehow don't stack up.

Let's agree with Pearlman and Gumbel.

And to be consistent, let's run every article by the pack of hyperventiliating sportswriters through a computer program to see if they've plagiarized. If there is "proof", banish them from covering baseball forever.

Here's what I don't get - these people who supposedly have an innate 'roid-ar, were they calling out Alex Rodriguez before he was outed? David Ortiz? Manny? As Jon Stewart said about Bill Kristol, why should we listen to people if they're always wrong?

Here's what I don't get - these people who supposedly have an innate 'roid-ar, were they calling out Alex Rodriguez before he was outed? David Ortiz? Manny? As Jon Stewart said about Bill Kristol, why should we listen to people if they're always wrong?

So we should listen only to Jose Canseco?

So we should listen only to Jose Canseco?

Hey, at least he's been right about some stuff, which is infinitely more than Pearlman or Gumbel have been.

And to be consistent, let's run every article by the pack of hyperventiliating sportswriters through a computer program to see if they've plagiarized. If there is "proof", banish them from covering baseball forever.

That would require us to actually make some effort at gathering evidence, rather than just make wild accusations. It's really much simpler. Sportswriters write words. So, do plagiarists. I swear I've seen Gumbel and Pearlman write words just like some plagiarists. QED.

So we should listen only to Jose Canseco?

Hey, at least he's been right about some stuff, which is infinitely more than Pearlman or Gumbel have been.

Canseco may have been lying about some of the people he named, but at least he's giving first hand testimony and can be directly rebutted. But how do you "rebut" someone who doesn't even have the guts to directly accuse you, but instead just throws your name out there with an implied "I'm just sayin'"? That's got to be one of the smarmiest sentences in the English language.

I read that Jeff Pearlman was once suspended during high school for cheating on a history test.

They wouldn't have had proof, but they would have had plenty of concrete circumstantial evidence, in the form of seismic shifts of the betting odds just prior to the first game,

That isn't "concrete evidence" of any such thing; it's concrete evidence of money moving one way. Betting lines move in sports and horse racing all the time. (**)

If we're talking probabilities, more that one source has put the number of users at over 50%. If that's true -- and there's no reason to think it's not -- you could pick a player at random and have a better than even chance of being right.

And the real problem is that he named three specific players, whose reputations he smeared for no apparent reason and with no evidence at all.

Only if you believe a player using steroids is a smear on his reputation. I see no indication that the anti-anti-steroid side believes that; indeed we often here precisely the opposite. As we discussed in the other thread, the only thing that can be said consistent with their position is that other people deem it a smear on a player's reputation, and that's troubling from their perspective. In that case, though, the real complaint isn't with a particular player being named, but with the belief that steroid use reflects on character.

And as we discussed on the other thread, Gumbel did have evidence -- paraphrasing, going from a big home run hitter to something much less in a short period of time. You may disagree -- indeed, I probably do -- that it's sufficient evidence, but it's not "no" evidence. It's every bit as strong -- and conceptually, of a similar type -- as the movement in the betting odds before Game 1 in 1919. Both are drawing inferences from movement in numbers. There's no essential difference between, "The betting odds moved, the players threw games," and "The power numbers shrunk, the player took steroids."

Other than, of course, the former being an allegation of much more serious conduct.

(**) For, among other reasons, gambler/bookie knowledge of inside information. The explanation for the movement in the odds in 1919 could have just as easily been Eddie Cicotte having a sore shoulder and Joe Jackson having a badly-sprained ankle and that information leaking to gamblers. Gamblers always look for inside info of this type, and lines often move dramatically because of it.

Is it wrong to make stabs without proof? Yes.

I agree.

DB

I read that Jeff Pearlman was once suspended during high school for cheating on a history test.

And now, so have I.

I read that Jeff Pearlman was once suspended during high school for cheating on a history test.



And now, so have I.

Ok, that's two sources...I can run it now.

True, we can't prove that Jeff Pearlman fabricates quotes, but given what Jay Canizaro and Ken Griffey Jr. said, and given that he published in the same era as Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair, it's understandable that people would make the accusation.

(Unlike plagiarism, there's actual evidence that Pearlman does make stuff up.)

Only if you believe a player using steroids is a smear on his reputation. I see no indication that the anti-anti-steroid side believes that; indeed we often here precisely the opposite. As we discussed in the other thread, the only thing that can be said consistent with their position is that other people deem it a smear on a player's reputation, and that's troubling from their perspective. In that case, though, the real complaint isn't with a particular player being named, but with the belief that steroid use reflects on character.

That's sophistry. I may not think there's anything wrong with being gay, but that doesn't mean that someone maliciously going around calling a person gay isn't trying to smear that person. As long as lots of people think there's something wrong with it, it can be a smear even if it's not objectively a bad thing.

Only if you believe a player using steroids is a smear on his reputation.

SugarBear: the person you're responding to there is Andy, who's the most adamant advocate on this site of the position that steroid users should be kept out of the Hall of Fame on the basis of their bad character. Trust me, he absolutely "believes a player using steroids is a smear on his reputation".

If it was that obvious that Nomar, Pudge and Bagwell were juicing based solely on their numbers and how they looked, why didn't all these smart and moral sportswriters ask those questions back then?

SugarBear: the person you're responding to there is Andy, who's the most adamant advocate on this site of the position that steroid users should be kept out of the Hall of Fame on the basis of their bad character. Trust me, he absolutely "believes a player using steroids is a smear on his reputation".

Agreed. I was responding to his remark, not his philosophy. As with the proper treatment by Hall of Fame voters of steroid users, we apparently disagree on how to view Gumbel's remarks.

That's sophistry. I may not think there's anything wrong with being gay, but that doesn't mean that someone maliciously going around calling a person gay isn't trying to smear that person. As long as lots of people think there's something wrong with it, it can be a smear even if it's not objectively a bad thing.

There's some sophistry. And quite a bit of truth. The predominant concern with the gay example (or Nixon and McCarthy screaming "Communist" at everybody in the 50s) is that Nixon/McCarthy believed "Communist" was a smear and encouraged others to agree with them. That's a different concern than saying "Person A is a Communist," in the sense that we decry Nixon and McCarthy whether or not they named names. For one that doesn't think steroid use reflects on character, it's akin to me writing a letter to the Mecca Times complaining that Ahmed al-Wahad was the victim of character assassination because a columnist said Ahmed believes Ali was the true successor to Muhammad. Which is to say, an intramural dispute among people with different beliefs than mine. No one takes a lot of glee in someone being held up to public obloquy, but that's a different sympathy than decrying "character assassination," the words that got me writing on l'affaire Gumbel.

Ok, that's two sources...I can run it now.

One's a rumor, two's a fact. At least, that's what I heard.

SugarBear, since lots of people think steroid users are cheaters, liars, lawbreakers, have bad character, don't deserve to be honored by the HOF, are in some way responsible for the deaths of children (yes, that was the climate of the 2005 hearings in which Don Hooton appeared)... since there are investigative reporters assigned specifically to investigating whether players used steroids, since players have been targets in federal investigations, since defamation lawsuits have been filed over this, since Congress made players testify under oath about this, since some of these players are routinely hissed at and mocked and ridiculed... then to argue that it is not a smear is kind of absurd.

Ok, that's two sources...I can run it now.

And one of your sources isn't even anonymous.

then to argue that it is not a smear is kind of absurd.

"Character assassination" was the description that I found excessive. As with many of these threads, my quibble was with the excess and zeal of some of the things written, not with the entirety of the thoughts.(**) In those situations, I don't know any better way to express the thought that there's excess and zeal afoot other than to explore the language used. If that language gets re-characterized into something else -- from "character assassination" to "smear," the re-characterization isn't really addressing what I wrote.

"Character assassination" is an overwrought and breathy way to describe Gumbel's words and thoughts. I find some irony in that sentiment co-existing with the oft-expressed thought that steroid use didn't matter and wasn't a reflection of character.

(**) The idea I disputed in its entirety was the inherent impropriety of an opinionator offering thoughts about particular players that may have used steroids. That isn't a matter of language.

And the real problem is that he named three specific players, whose reputations he smeared for no apparent reason and with no evidence at all.

Only if you believe a player using steroids is a smear on his reputation.

SugarBear: the person you're responding to there is Andy, who's the most adamant advocate on this site of the position that steroid users should be kept out of the Hall of Fame on the basis of their bad character. Trust me, he absolutely "believes a player using steroids is a smear on his reputation".

I may or may not be the "most adamant advocate" of the steroid HoF blackball on this site, but along with that has to go the idea that you don't go around casually tossing out names at random just on the basis of their statistics or their body type. What I fail to understand is this urge to get ahead of the game with these accusations, especially since with the non-evidence that accompanies Gumbel's naming of those three players, he could have just as easily named more than a few others.

"Character assassination" is an overwrought and breathy way to describe Gumbel's words and thoughts. I find some irony in that sentiment co-existing with the oft-expressed thought that steroid use didn't matter and wasn't a reflection of character.

But as David and others have rightly noted, the people who see Gumbel's words as character assassination aren't the ones who think that "steroid use didn't matter." To those who think (and wish) that these players are clean, I can't see too many worse examples of character assassination than to impute steroid use to them without a scintilla of actual evidence to back up the innuendo.

And as we discussed on the other thread, Gumbel did have evidence -- paraphrasing, going from a big home run hitter to something much less in a short period of time. You may disagree -- indeed, I probably do -- that it's sufficient evidence, but it's not "no" evidence. It's every bit as strong -- and conceptually, of a similar type -- as the movement in the betting odds before Game 1 in 1919. Both are drawing inferences from movement in numbers. There's no essential difference between, "The betting odds moved, the players threw games," and "The power numbers shrunk, the player took steroids."

That's just garbage. Hundreds of players throughout history have suffered drops in their statistics without any implication of steroid withdrawal. Without actual evidence (I didn't say proof) in the form of direct first hand testimony, seized drug sales records, seized drug paraphernalia, or positive drug testing; or inferential evidence in the form of continually ducking direct questioning, it's nothing but mudslinging to make accusations on the basis of statistical variation alone.

And if you seriously think that the degree of betting odds shifts that took place all during the 1919 World Series (it wasn't just for the first game) isn't more significant or damning by itself than a player's statistical drop from one year to the next, then I can only suggest that you read Eight Men Out and acquaint yourself a bit further on the subject. Or better yet, just read the newspapers of the time and see how many of them saw it.

There's no getting around it. Gumbel called out the names of three players about whom there's no more evidence of steroid use than there is about scores of other players in the Majors, and then smarmingly implied (without having the guts to say so outright) that they were juicers---knowing full well that this would hurt their reputation in the eyes of viewing audience. If that's not character assassination, I'd sure like to know what is.

I may or may not be the "most adamant advocate" of the steroid HoF blackball on this site, but along with that has to go the idea that you don't go around casually tossing out names at random just on the basis of their statistics or their body type. What I fail to understand is this urge to get ahead of the game with these accusations, especially since with the non-evidence that accompanies Gumbel's naming of those three players, he could have just as easily named more than a few others.

Like Mark McGwire? So if Jeff Bagwell responds that he's not going to talk about his past, then he *did* use?

I may or may not be the "most adamant advocate" of the steroid HoF blackball on this site, but along with that has to go the idea that you don't go around casually tossing out names at random just on the basis of their statistics or their body type. What I fail to understand is this urge to get ahead of the game with these accusations, especially since with the non-evidence that accompanies Gumbel's naming of those three players, he could have just as easily named more than a few others.

Like Mark McGwire? So if Jeff Bagwell responds that he's not going to talk about his past, then he *did* use?

Great hypothetical, but that's all it is, since Bagwell has consistently denied any such use.*** Of course I'm sure your next question will try to connect Bagwell with Palmeiro, to be accompanied with one of those "How do we KNOW?"s.

Or an alternative might be to just give it a rest until there's actually something to go on beyond speculation and hypotheticals. I realize that this may be asking a lot.

***

"But as far as I know [Bagwell] has never tested positive for steroid use. I've asked him about steroid use again and again. He has flatly and vehemently denied it.

I have no reason to believe he ever once used steroids."

---Richard Justice

Great hypothetical, but that's all it is, since Bagwell has consistently denied any such use.***

Really? Didn't Mark McGwire in 1998, and instead of Richard Justice, doesn't Tony LaRussa say the same thing about McGwire?

My point is that none of the denials has *ANY* meaning. You seem to pick and choose who and what you believe - through some religious process - you believe because you believe -

Or an alternative might be to just give it a rest until there's actually something to go on beyond speculation and hypotheticals. I realize that this may be asking a lot.

This is what I was asking since Day One, and most of the "pro-steroid" crowd. One might argue that Bagwell *looks* like a steroid user - which certainly happened, and that his head is bigger at age 37 than age 22. I mean hasn't Barry Bonds "flatly and vehemently denied it".

You believe because you believe - there is no consistent logic or reason behind. It's your religion. (Note, this isn't limited to *you*, Andy).

Also, a HOF that excludes Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Manny Ramirez and the future truckload just isn't much of a HOF. I have a small Hall, and when you exclude three of the top 20, and possibly top 10, well, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The ARod expose said tons IMO that it was simply "the culture of baseball". They *didn't* view it as cheating, but merely thhe next step past amphetamines.

And as we discussed on the other thread, Gumbel did have evidence -- paraphrasing, going from a big home run hitter to something much less in a short period of time.

This is Ross CW reasoning. Make an absurd proclamation, fail to respond to evidence to the contrary, assert said proclamation as fact in another thread. Here is my post in the other Gumbel thread that you never responded to:

He missed the boat on Pudge as well. HR's from 1999-2009: 35 (career high), 27, 25, 19, 16, 19, 14, 13, 11, 7, 10. That's the shallowest cliff in history.

And for that matter, Nomar's hardly a slam dunk example either. Is his cliff the year he hit 4 HR in 21 games? but then he came back and hit 28 and 24. maybe it was the year he hit 9 in 81 games. But then he came back and hit 20 in 122. I forget, did the steroids cause him to miss 181 games in 2004-05, or did they help him then play 120 in each of 2006-07? Maybe they did both.

So no, "we" did not discuss that Gumbel had evidence. You asserted it, I and others refuted it with facts, and you ran away.

Bagwell's HRs the last 4 full years of his career went 39, 31, 39, and 27 at age 36. He tore up his shoulder in that last season and was unable to play anymore, hitting just 3 in 39 games his final season. Maybe it was steroids, but there's absolutely no evidence of such beyond mere speculation.

Pudge was never a big HR guy, and it took 6 seasons before his established HR level was half of his (relatively paltry) career high.

Like Pudge, Nomar was never a big HR guy. His career HR totals from ages 23 to 32 go 30, 35, 27, 21, 4 (in 21 games), 24, 28, 9 (in 81 games), 9 (in 62 games), 20 (in 120 games. His 4 in 21 games translates to 28 in 150. Likewise his two 9's translate to 17 and 22. So, adjusting for missing playing time, his 10 year prime reads 30, 35, 27, 21, 28, 24, 28, 17, 22, 20. Where's the cliff there? When he went from 20 to 7 at age 33? Possibly, but since when is an established HR level of ~20 a "big home run hitter" in this day and age?

No, contrary to your baseless assertion, Gumbel has no evidence for his irresponsible proclamation.

Maybe Vlad Guerrero is a juicer. He used to hit 40 HR's all the time, now he's at 15.

Maybe Frank Thomas was. He went from 43 HR to just 4!!, at an age when any legit big HR hitter is in his prime.

How about Will Clark? He hit 35 HR as a 23 year old, and when he was supposed to be at his peak, he hit 16 and then 14.

These steroids observations are hilarious. They seem to do everything, like that old coffee generation commercial from the 80's "It perks you up, and clams you down..."

A player sustaining his peak HR production into his late 30's? Steroids.

A player dropping from his peak HR production in his late 30's? Steroids

A player putting on weight during the off season? Steroids

A player coming into spring training lighter than before? Steroids.

A player being healthy into his late 30's? Steroids

A player getting injured in his late 30's? Steroids

A player coming into the league as an elite HR hitter? Steroids

A player developing power after being established for a few years? Steroids

Is there anything they can't do?

A Black man being elected President? Steroids

Starting a manned space program from scratch and putting a man on the moon 8 years later? Steroids

Germany invading France because a Bosnian Serb shoots the heir to the Austrian Throne? Steroids

Great hypothetical, but that's all it is, since Bagwell has consistently denied any such use.

Really? Didn't Mark McGwire in 1998, and instead of Richard Justice, doesn't Tony LaRussa say the same thing about McGwire?

I think you have your tenses confused when it comes to LaRussa. And if you can find anything I said about McGwire prior to his refusal to answer questions before congress, I like to know about it. I was saying the same thing about McGwire up to that point that I'd say about Bagwell today.

My point is that none of the denials has *ANY* meaning. You seem to pick and choose who and what you believe - through some religious process - you believe because you believe -

Chris, it's not a question of what we "believe," it's a question of waiting for some concrete evidence before making public accusations about any specific individual. You act as if the difference between Bagwell 2010 and McGwire 2005 is a matter of random choice. Talk about denial.

Or an alternative might be to just give it a rest until there's actually something to go on beyond speculation and hypotheticals. I realize that this may be asking a lot.

This is what I was asking since Day One, and most of the "pro-steroid" crowd.

And so have I. So what's your complaint? Sorry I can't stand in for Kevin, but that seems to be a perennial point of confusion (or frustration) with you.

One might argue that Bagwell *looks* like a steroid user - which certainly happened, and that his head is bigger at age 37 than age 22.

Well, that's Gumbel's argument, which I find both stupid and slanderous. I hope that on this one you agree with me.

I mean hasn't Barry Bonds "flatly and vehemently denied it".

Of course he has. But in his case there's a bit more evidence to the contrary.

You believe because you believe - there is no consistent logic or reason behind. It's your religion. (Note, this isn't limited to *you*, Andy).

Again, it's not what you or I "believe" or don't believe about Bagwell. Anyone can believe what they want. It's a question of whether we should be making accusations, or dropping nasty innuendo, about specific individuals on the basis of "beliefs" that are unaccompanied by anything beyond hat sizes or power surges alone.

Also, a HOF that excludes Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Manny Ramirez and the future truckload just isn't much of a HOF. I have a small Hall, and when you exclude three of the top 20, and possibly top 10, well, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

That's a perfectly legitimate subjective value judgment, with which I disagree. I'd vote for all of those players for the Hall of Merit.

And if you can find anything I said about McGwire prior to his refusal to answer questions before congress, I like to know about it. I was saying the same thing about McGwire up to that point that I'd say about Bagwell today.

Sure, but then:

So if Jeff Bagwell responds that he's not going to talk about his past, then he *did* use?

Isn't that what McGwire did? Why do you choose to believe Bagwell's denials, but not McGwire's 2005 version? What made you believe Mac until the testimony before Congress? There was no more evidence, merely Mac saying he didn't want to talk about it. No additional evidence came up - you *chose* to no longer believe him on your intuition (or something). SO right now you believe Bagwell - until he says he isn't going to talk about the past...

his head is bigger at age 37 than age 22

Is it really bigger? Or have we all merely grown smaller since then?

And if you can find anything I said about McGwire prior to his refusal to answer questions before congress, I like to know about it. I was saying the same thing about McGwire up to that point that I'd say about Bagwell today.

Sure, but then:

So if Jeff Bagwell responds that he's not going to talk about his past, then he *did* use?

Again with the pointless hypotheticals. Bagwell has never clammed up on the subject, unlike McGwire.

Sure, IF Bagwell had retreated into silence, then sure, I would have assumed he was hiding something. But of course Bagwell hasn't retreated into silence, and your hypothetical remains just that---a pointless hypothetical.

So now all you have to do to get me to equate Bagwell to McGwire is to get Bagwell to retract his denials and say that upon the advice of his lawyer, he'll have nothing further to say about the subject. With a bit of luck, that task should keep you occupied for the next few years.

Isn't that what McGwire did? Why do you choose to believe Bagwell's denials, but not McGwire's 2005 version?

Ummmm, because McGwire's 2005 "version" wasn't a denial at all.

What made you believe Mac until the testimony before Congress?

Simply this: Before the congressional hearings, I wasn't paying much attention to much of anything about Mark McGwire, who'd been retired for several years and was never a player I cared much about one way or the other while he was active. I would have had no particular interest or reason to speculate about his steroid use. My starting position is to assume innocence until strong evidence indicates otherwise: testimony, drug records, or repeated silence in response to questioning. Until the hearings, none of these applied to McGwire that I was aware of, so in that sense I "believed" that he was innocent of juicing.

No additional evidence came up

Except, of course, for the strong inferential evidence that one could get from his repeated refusal to "talk about the past".

- you *chose* to no longer believe him on your intuition (or something).

I love that "(or something)", as if had been no more possible to form a conclusion from McGwire's silence in 2005 than it is from Bagwell's repeated denials. This is the world inhabited by you and Nieporent, and properly by the law, but not all that many other people happen to buy into it outside the confines of a courtroom.

SO right now you believe Bagwell - until he says he isn't going to talk about the past...

Yeah, that's right, bright boy. I will believe him until he retracts his denials and retreats into silence. I'll let Gumbel keep howling at the moon if he wants to, and as far as I'm concerned, you can do all the silly equating of apples and oranges that you want. It seems to be your lifelong specialty.

And if you can find anything I said about McGwire prior to his refusal to answer questions before congress, I like to know about it. I was saying the same thing about McGwire up to that point that I'd say about Bagwell today.

...

Chris, it's not a question of what we "believe," it's a question of waiting for some concrete evidence before making public accusations about any specific individual. You act as if the difference between Bagwell 2010 and McGwire 2005 is a matter of random choice. Talk about denial.

Hilarious. You think McGwire's 2005 testimony, in which he didn't say anything at all, was "concrete evidence."

You don't believe Bonds's statements because there was "evidence to the contrary" -- but what "evidence to the contrary" was there with McGwire at the time? You had only his statement.

No additional evidence came up

Except, of course, for the strong inferential evidence that one could get from his repeated refusal to "talk about the past".

"Strong inferential evidence" from the fact that he didn't answer the question? My god.

Well, that's Gumbel's argument, which I find both stupid and slanderous. I hope that on this one you agree with me.

That's not really his argument. There's no way to make this point other than by being picky, and quibbly, and lawyerly, but Gumbel's argument is that (i) McGwire's now confessed; (ii) McGwire's template of public apology, in Gumbel's opinion, was ineffective and unsatisfactory; (iii) I have a suggestion for a better template; (iv) others in the same boat -- of having used steroids -- would be well-served using that template; and (v) Bagwell, Nomar, and Pudge are three guys I think might be in need of it.

Those who disagree can summon forth all the "If you don't believe Gumbel was accusing Bagwell of using steroids, you're ignorant/blissfully ignorant/generic adjective of insult," but there was more to it than that.

No, contrary to your baseless assertion, Gumbel has no evidence for his irresponsible proclamation.

This breathless hyperbole is nine parts fanboy hero worship, one part something else. It betrays an undeveloped understanding about opinion journalism and a free press, and the interaction between those, public figures, and matters of public interest and controversy. Steroid use by accomplished baseball players is a newsworthy topic, hundreds of accomplished baseball players used steroids, and a journalist expressed an opinion, embedded in other commentary, about three potential users. All three are -- obviously -- potential users of steroids, completely differentiating Gumbel's commentary from the otherwise funny and creative snark about him molesting children or licking crackwhores.

Worst case scenario, Gumbel accused Bagwell of using steroids. Big deal. (**)

(**) I'd submit that Andy's motivations are twofold -- first, genuine concern about journalism becoming so gossipy and opinionating issuing forth, in the age of the Internet, from so many thousand logorrheic sources; second, the natural bias that ensues from believing steroid users deserve automatic exclusion from the Hall of Fame. If you believe that, you're naturally going to snarl at evidence that isn't something approaching airtight. A 55/45 or 60/40 is a tough case with Andy's philosophy; accordingly, he bristles when people talk in public about 55 and 60 percent probabilities.

This breathless hyperbole is nine parts fanboy hero worship, one part something else. It betrays an undeveloped understanding about opinion journalism and a free press, and the interaction between those, public figures, and matters of public interest and controversy. Steroid use by accomplished baseball players is a newsworthy topic, hundreds of accomplished baseball players used steroids, and a journalist expressed an opinion, embedded in other commentary, about three potential users. All three are potential users of steroids, completely differentiating Gumbel's commentary from the juvenile, yet funny, snark about him molesting children or licking crackwhores.

Not one word of that refutes my point that the evidence that those three used is that they "went from a big home run hitter to something much less in a short period of time."

When did Pudge go from a big home run hitter to something much less? I'd say from 1999 to 2005, when he went from 35 to 14 and never any more than that. But that's 6 years, 1/3 of his career length. That's not a short period in anyone book.

How about Nomar? Unless you're asserting that steroids caused him to be injury prone, a possibility but beyond the scope, I'd say from 1998 to 2007. But that's 10 years out of a 14 year career.

And actually, I'm being generous here, because one year of 35 HR in a career of middling (mid 20's) HR power does not make one a "big home run hitter". I maintain that Pudge and Nomar never were big home run hitters.

Bagwell did indeed drop off, but that's because a shoulder injury forced him completely out of the game. Again, it could have been steroids, but that's beyond the scope.

Saying Gumbel had evidence, and that the evidence was that went from a big home run hitter to something much less in a short period of time is nonsense.

How about Nomar? Unless you're asserting that steroids caused him to be injury prone, a possibility but beyond the scope, I'd say from 1998 to 2007. But that's 10 years out of a 14 year career.

What about him? He averaged 31 HRs a year up to age 29, was wildly lauded as one of the best players in baseball, then broke double figures one time after that. He hit 9, 9, 20, 7, 8, 3 -- an average of 9. If a person had suggested in spring training 2004 that that was how his HR totals would unfold and that he'd be a journeyman at 34 or 35, 100 out of 100 people on this board would have suggested that person be fitted for a rubber room. Garciaparra's HR numbers -- my words, not Gumbel's -- fell off a cliff.

Both Gumbel's words and his sentiments fit.

Bagwell's numbers fell off dramatically, also. Both Gumbel's words and his sentiments fit. Objectively, he missed the boat on the shoulder.

I'm a Tiger fan and close Tiger watcher. Pudge shrank from bloat to midget in one offseason. So did his numbers. So did his pop. Gumbel's word "homeruns" probably wasn't perfect. His sentiment was spot-on.

You seem to think that every time someone suggests that one of your heroes used steroids, the person is obligated to also point out every single caveat that might be found in every possible review of every extant spreadsheet. Not just that, but that the person is morally obligated to stay silent unless or until he's done those things and unless his presentation discusses every possible permuation. That position has very little to commend itself. Nothing, really.

I will believe him until he retracts his denials and retreats into silence.

I appreciate your willingness to re-write history, but Mac didn't "retract his denials". He just said he wasn't talking about it anymore.

But that's okay - for you, someone refusing to talk about it (say, if Bagwell does tomorrow), then he becomes a juicer in your mind.

I wish that could speak to you, and hopefully it is speaking to others reading your position.

What about him? He averaged 31 HRs a year up to age 29,

No he didn't. Even if you don't count his cup of coffee in 1996, and his lost season in 2001, he averaged 27. And you do understand his 2 seasons of 9 came in 81 and 65 game seasons? He hit more than 30 once in his career. That is not a big time home run hitter.

was wildly lauded as one of the best players in baseball, then broke double figures one time after that. He hit 9, 9, 20, 7, 8, 3. If a person had suggested in spring training 2004 that that was how his HR totals would unfold and that he'd be a journeyman at 34 or 35, 100 out of 100 people on this board would have suggested that person be fitted for a rubber room.

Only if those 100 people knew nothing about baseball. Nomar was chronically injury prone, and anyone following his career through age 29 would have known that.
In addition to his lost 2001, he missed 20 games in 1998, 30 in 1999, and 20 in 2000. Just like no one was surprised when injuries drove Bob Horner from the game at an early age, a suggestion that injuries would quickly reduce Nomar to journeyman status would not have been ridiculous in 2003. If you had phrased the suggestion in spring training thusly " Injuries will continue to sap Nomars value and his hitting ability, that he will continue to have lost seasons and never again play more than 122 games, and he'd be a journeyman at 34 or 35." 100 out of 100 Red Sox fans would say "I can see that."

I'm a Tiger fan and close Tiger watcher. Pudge shrank from bloat to midget in one offseason. So did his numbers.

The only differences between Pudge in 2005 and 2005 is that he hit far fewer singles and stopped drawing walks. If he went from a bloat to a midget, how did he hit more doubles, more triples, and only 4 fewer HR? His drop in slugging percentage was almost entirely batting average.

Even if you don't count his cup of coffee in 1996, and his lost season in 2001, he averaged 27.

I mistakenly used BB-ref's per 162 game figure. You're right. You're not right if you're claiming 27 to 9 isn't a precipitous drop after age 29. Gumbel's right.

Nomar was chronically injury prone, and anyone following his career through age 29 would have known that. Just like no one was surprised when injuries drove Bob Horner from the game at an early age, a suggestion that injuries would quickly reduce Nomar to journeyman status would not have been ridiculous in 2003

This is irrelevant to the Gumbel discussion, but he wasn't "chronically injury prone." After he broke in, he had at least 595 PAs every year between 97-03, other than 01, in which (I think) he had wrist surgery. There was no comparison whatever, in preparation, training rigor, diet, dedication, and physical condition between 97 to 03 Nomar and Bob Horner. Nomar was a training freak highly dedicated to his craft and greatness. Bob Horner was chubby, perpetually satiating his soap-opera viewer's hunger, as indifferent to training as Dial and Ray are to steroid use, and chronically lazy.(**) They're night and day.

If he went from a bloat to a midget, how did he hit more doubles, more triples, and only 4 fewer HR? His drop in slugging percentage was almost entirely batting average.


He also had way fewer RBIs and way fewer (11) walks. He was nowhere near the hitter in 05 that he was in 03 and 04, had nowhere near the bat speed, nowhere near the eye, and nowhere near the pop. He swang where before he would have taken and could still get by. There's an obvious break between 04 and before, and 05 and after, coinciding with the shrinkage.

(**) Horner was hanging on in spring training 1988 (1989, maybe) with the Orioles and the late, great George Michael was covering spring training for TV. He sat for an interview in the cafeteria with Horner, who was all on about how he'd changed his ways, he was eating better, training harder -- all the cliches. George doesn't press anything; it's Florida in the sunshine after all. A technical glitch ensues in breaking away from the report and five seconds after the interview, the camera accidentally's still on Horner -- both cheeks distended, ingesting the largest fried turkey leg in Florida, his tray buckled by a pile of mashed potatoes and gravy that Refrigerator Perry couldn't have handled. WRC-TV 4 in DC probably still has the tape; my friends and I still have the memories.

"Strong inferential evidence" from the fact that he didn't answer the question? My god.

and

I appreciate your willingness to re-write history, but Mac didn't "retract his denials". He just said he wasn't talking about it anymore.

But that's okay - for you, someone refusing to talk about it (say, if Bagwell does tomorrow), then he becomes a juicer in your mind.

wait, are you both saying you didn't think McGwire had used some type of PED (likely illegal) after his testimony in front of congress? What other inference did you make? I'm not particularly clever but I thought that by not directly answering questions about whether or not he had used in the past, he was basically admitting he had. If I were on a jury, and this was some sort of case about whether McGwire did or did not take illegal steroids, I surely would not have voted for his guilt based on this "evidence", but what I believe to be the case and what I would do as a juror are not necessarily the same thing.

He hit more than 30 once in his career. That is not a big time home run hitter.

Misirlou, at this point SugarBear is seeing dirty pictures in ink blots. If you showed him Ralph Kiner's b-r page and told him it was David Ortiz, SugarBear would cry steroids.

He also had way fewer RBIs

Almost certainly due to the drop in batting average.

and way fewer (11) walks.

So in Pudge's case, steroids had virtually no effect on home runs, but had a massive effect on walks? That's a new one.

If you showed him Ralph Kiner's b-r page and told him it was David Ortiz, SugarBear would cry steroids.

Let's not even get him started on Carl Yastrzemski, who hit 40 HR three times in four years from 1967-70, then averaged 15 over the next 5 years.

I mistakenly used BB-ref's per 162 game figure. You're right.

Alright then. You admit you were wrong on Nomar. You've already admitted you were wrong on Bagwell. Now all you have to do is admit you were wrong on Pudge.

He also had way fewer RBIs and way fewer (11) walks. He was nowhere near the hitter in 05 that he was in 03 and 04, had nowhere near the bat speed, nowhere near the eye, and nowhere near the pop. He swang where before he would have taken and could still get by. There's an obvious break between 04 and before, and 05 and after, coinciding with the shrinkage.

In 2005 he hit 1 more double, 3 more triples, and 4 fewer HR in 50 fewer AB. If he lost pop, he had a strange way of showing it.

Alright then. You admit you were wrong on Nomar. You've already admitted you were wrong on Bagwell. Now all you have to do is admit you were wrong on Pudge.

I didn't admit I was wrong on either. Try reading better, Fanboy, if you're able. Most people leave this kind of "argumentation" behind when they leave junior high. If you need help with some of the words, I can give you a hand.

If he lost pop, he had a strange way of showing it.

No, the normal way. Lost bat speed and pop. Evident to anyone who watched the games. And confirmed with the continual decay in his abilities as a hitter. You should get out of the spreadsheets -- which you have trouble interpreting anyway(**) -- and watch some games.

(**) Bat speed and pop obviously impact whether or not hit balls become singles -- an utterly elementary observation. And Nomar Garciaparra was nothing like Bob Horner -- another elementary observation.

was wildly lauded as one of the best players in baseball, then broke double figures one time after that. He hit 9, 9, 20, 7, 8, 3. If a person had suggested in spring training 2004 that that was how his HR totals would unfold and that he'd be a journeyman at 34 or 35, 100 out of 100 people on this board would have suggested that person be fitted for a rubber room.

Only if those 100 people knew nothing about baseball. Nomar was chronically injury prone, and anyone following his career through age 29 would have known that. In addition to his lost 2001, he missed 20 games in 1998, 30 in 1999, and 20 in 2000. Just like no one was surprised when injuries drove Bob Horner from the game at an early age, a suggestion that injuries would quickly reduce Nomar to journeyman status would not have been ridiculous in 2003.

Yes. Baseball Prospectus provides an unbiased historical account of what some of those "100 people" thought through the years. I don't have their comment from prior to the 2004 season handy, but I do have their comment from prior to the 2005 season. Granted this comes on the heels of the 2004 season in which he only played 81 games, but, FWIW:

Garciaparra received a warm welcome in Chicago, and there were none of the clubhouse malcontent rumors that helped to hasten his exit from Boston. That being said, the worry about his defense is legitimate, if a bit overblown, as is the concern about his disposition to injury: There is inertia to injuries, in that players who are healthy tend to stay healthy, and players who are hurt tend to stay hurt. Good health is also a strong predictor of a player's aging pattern into his 30s, and Nomar's injury history and declining isolated power suggest that he might be on the outside looking in while the other members of the Holy Trinity receive their Hall of Fame plaques. Given these risks, getting him to agree to a one-year contract was a real coup, and presents the possibility of an interesting platoon arrangement, in which Neifi Perez fills in on days when groundballer Carlos Zambrano is pitching, giving Nomar some regular days off in the process.

Also, FWIW here's their comment prior to the 2003 season. Injury was an ongoing concern with him, especially after the wrist injury:

"Is Garciaparra’s wrist 100% recovered? In the two years prior to his injury, he was a significantly better hitter. In contrast, his 2002 season more closely approximates his line from 1998 at the age of 24. Nomar is unusual in that he has become less selective as he has matured, drawing only 41 walks last year while seeing only 3.06 pitches per plate appearance. He has also become more of a flyball hitter, dropping from a 1.25 G/F ratio in his youth to a 0.71 ratio last year. More so than Jeter, he remains an asset as a shortstop and as a hitting shortstop."

wait, are you both saying you didn't think McGwire had used some type of PED (likely illegal) after his testimony in front of congress?

No, I am not saying anything of the sort.

I don't have their comment from prior to the 2004 season handy, but I do have their comment from prior to the 2005 season. Granted this comes on the heels of the 2004 season in which he only played 81 games, but, FWIW:

It's not W anything. 2004 was an injury-filled year. Go with the thought that he was better than Jeter, expressed in the '04 version which, by the way, comments only on his wrist, not his overall susceptibility to injury. Also remember the "rubber room" line was a complete throwaway that added nothing to how loudly the numbers scream.

In checking whether "the groin injury" was in '04 or '05, the first thing I came across was this link. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2042685. There's a picture there of Nomar clutching in pain, confirming the date 2005.

For those that can't stomach their precious heroes being ridiculed by the press, I'll pass along the caption of the photo so you can avert your tender eyes: "Speculation over steroid use continues to surround Nomar Garciaparra." That date again was April 22, 2005.

wait, are you both saying you didn't think McGwire had used some type of PED (likely illegal) after his testimony in front of congress?

No.

What other inference did you make?

I drew the inference that I didn't have enough to form a conclusion.

At the time we basically had Canseco's accusation, which McGwire had denied -- and still does -- and we had McGwire's non-statement.

Canseco's accusation was certainly evidence, but I can't form a strong conclusion from that, and frankly, I still don't know what to make of it. Joe Magrane was on MLB tv on the night of the McGwire confession and Magrane said that he flat doesn't believe Canseco's story since the bathroom stalls in the clubhouse are simply too small to fit two huge guys who are injecting themselves.

I'm not particularly clever but I thought that by not directly answering questions about whether or not he had used in the past, he was basically admitting he had.

And I thought that by not directly answering questions, he was basically not directly answering questions.

No, the normal way. Lost bat speed and pop. Evident to anyone who watched the games. And confirmed with the continual decay in his abilities as a hitter.

You've got to be ####### kidding. Pudge peaked as a hitter in his age 27 and 28 seasons, began to slowly decline, and then the decline accelerated after his age 32 season, after 14 years as a major league catcher. Maybe he was using, maybe he wasn't - but his career arc is as normal a one as you could find for a player of his initial capabilities. You can't be basing it on his stats - and if you pretend that it's based on him looking like he had a slower bat - well, hate to point this out, but aging players lose bat speed. It's normal, and it would have been surprising if he didn't.

He averaged 31 HRs a year up to age 29, was wildly lauded as one of the best players in baseball, then broke double figures one time after that.

This isn't true. Nomar didn't average 31 HRs a year up to age 29; he averaged 31 HRs per 162 games up to age 29, which is a very different thing. And when you're as injury-prone as Nomar, it's an extremely different thing.

And if you keep measuring him on a per-162 game basis, the cliff disappears altogether. For the next three seasons after his age-29 year, Nomar averaged 24 homers per 162 games. Then after that, he more or less stopped hitting altogether. But there's as much of a cliff at age 33 as there was at age 30.

You can't be basing it on his stats - and if you pretend that it's based on him looking like he had a slower bat - well, hate to point this out, but aging players lose bat speed.

I'm not basing on his stats, though his stats, properly interpreted, confirm it. I'm able to watch baseball players play baseball and make judgments from that. I have no idea whether or not you can, you probably can, but that's not my problem.

Maybe he was using, maybe he wasn't - but his career arc is as normal a one as you could find for a player of his initial capabilities.

The point as to career arc may or may not be true. That has nothing to do with what happened to him as a player (and as to size) between 2004 and 2005, which was viewable by anyone with two functioning eyes (the size), and by anyone with a practiced eye (the bat speed and hitting ability).

This is friggen' hysterical.

This is friggen' hysterical.

It reminds me a lot of this thread.

DB

I'm not basing on his stats, though his stats, properly interpreted, confirm it.

Only if you believe that absent getting off of steroids aging catchers don't decline. And in terms of watching his play, oh boy - you could see he wasn't as good. Which would be a shock IF an age related decline wasn't already happening and then accelerated as he approached 2000 games caught in his career. Seeing a decline AS HE DECLINED isn't the problem. It's judging that it was likely steroid related, instead of the normal decline expected given his age and the large number of games he'd caught.

In terms of size - so what? Seriously, we know he wanted to stay catching for years. Bulking up likely helped him as a hitter - but certainly was making it less likely to be able to stay in the lineup as a catcher. 25 extra pounds is hard enough to carry, much less if you spend all game squatting. At some point of time he was going to need to lose weight or just be a part time catcher. Again, drawing conclusions on something THAT WAS TO BE EXPECTED for other reasons is the problem here. Maybe he was using - but since we know he wanted to stay a catcher as long as possible, changing his conditioning routine to make that more likely is not a shock.

And I thought that by not directly answering questions, he was basically not directly answering questions.

All right. Not much I can argue with there. I'm not one of those people who embraces the witchhunt aspect of this whole thing, but I guess I occasionally jump to conclusions.

Just because I have it handy, here's the 2004 comment:

"Although well off the rarified peak of 1999-2000, Garciaparra is still a fine player. He is entering the last year of a seven-year, $44.5 million contract, one that has been a relative bargain for the Red Sox. The way these things work, his next deal will likely overpay him for his wonderful past. 'Nomah' is still beloved in Boston, but he seemed to grow wary of the oppressive local media in 2003, raising some doubt that he and Mia will be raising their gifted progeny in the Hub."

Seems like more of a comment on the inefficiency of overpaying veterans than anything specific about Nomar.

Only if you believe that absent getting off of steroids aging catchers don't decline. And in terms of watching his play, oh boy - you could see he wasn't as good. Which would be a shock IF an age related decline wasn't already happening and then accelerated as he approached 2000 games caught in his career. Seeing a decline AS HE DECLINED isn't the problem. It's judging that it was likely steroid related, instead of the normal decline expected given his age and the large number of games he'd caught.

In terms of size - so what? Seriously, we know he wanted to stay catching for years. Bulking up likely helped him as a hitter - but certainly was making it less likely to be able to stay in the lineup as a catcher. 25 extra pounds is hard enough to carry, much less if you spend all game squatting. At some point of time he was going to need to lose weight or just be a part time catcher. Again, drawing conclusions on something THAT WAS TO BE EXPECTED for other reasons is the problem here. Maybe he was using - but since we know he wanted to stay a catcher as long as possible, changing his conditioning routine to make that more likely is not a shock.

It's not a 100/0 proposition and you've made the not-attributable-to-steroids case very well. I simply don't agree that Gumbel needs to be 100% sure before he renders his opinion.

So if Jeff Bagwell responds that he's not going to talk about his past, then he *did* use?

It's no use, Chris. Andy doesn't understand the very concept of a hypothetical. It completely eludes him. You can say, "What if X happens?" 'til you turn blue in the face, and he will be incapable of giving any answer other than "X didn't happen. That's just hypothetical."

SBB,

Here are Nomar's AB/HR from 1996-2006, not necessarily in order and excluding his 81-game off-year in 2004: 21.8, 22.8, 17.3, 19.7, 25.2, 20.8, 26.5, 23.5, 25.6, and 23.5. Which years are the ones that provide evidence of his going off steroids and losing his power?

The way these things work, his next deal will likely overpay him for his wonderful past. 'Nomah' is still beloved in Boston, but he seemed to grow wary of the oppressive local media in 2003, raising some doubt that he and Mia will be raising their gifted progeny in the Hub."

I always liked Nomar. How are his "gifted prodigy" doing? Are they athletes?

How are his "gifted prodigy" doing? Are they athletes?

The twins have their third birthday in March. So I'm guessing not yet.

I'll answer SBB's more substantive points after dinner, but for now I'll just reply to this double play combo from Chris and David:

So if Jeff Bagwell responds that he's not going to talk about his past, then he *did* use?

It's no use, Chris. Andy doesn't understand the very concept of a hypothetical. It completely eludes him. You can say, "What if X happens?" 'til you turn blue in the face, and he will be incapable of giving any answer other than "X didn't happen. That's just hypothetical."

Of course I wouldn't have expected you to bother to read what I wrote in #37, but what part of this second paragraph below eludes you?

Again with the pointless hypotheticals. Bagwell has never clammed up on the subject, unlike McGwire.

Sure, IF Bagwell had retreated into silence, then sure, I would have assumed he was hiding something. But of course Bagwell hasn't retreated into silence, and your hypothetical remains just that---a pointless hypothetical.

So now all you have to do to get me to equate Bagwell to McGwire is to get Bagwell to retract his denials and say that upon the advice of his lawyer, he'll have nothing further to say about the subject. With a bit of luck, that task should keep you occupied for the next few years.

"Strong inferential evidence" from the fact that he didn't answer the question? My god.

Hilarious. You think McGwire's 2005 testimony, in which he didn't say anything at all, was "concrete evidence."

You don't believe Bonds's statements because there was "evidence to the contrary" -- but what "evidence to the contrary" was there with McGwire at the time? You had only his statement.

Which, curiously enough, pretty much everyone in the world outside the usual suspects here interpreted exactly as I did---a de facto admission of guilt.

-------------------------

Well, that's Gumbel's argument, which I find both stupid and slanderous. I hope that on this one you agree with me.

That's not really his argument. There's no way to make this point other than by being picky, and quibbly, and lawyerly, but Gumbel's argument is that (i) McGwire's now confessed; (ii) McGwire's template of public apology, in Gumbel's opinion, was ineffective and unsatisfactory; (iii) I have a suggestion for a better template; (iv) others in the same boat -- of having used steroids -- would be well-served using that template; and (v) Bagwell, Nomar, and Pudge are three guys I think might be in need of it.

I have no problem with any of that except the last part. The other four parts would have stood on their own just as well without it, and he (Gumbel) could have avoided the cheap innuendo about those three players.

--------------------------------

Worst case scenario, Gumbel accused Bagwell of using steroids. Big deal. (**)

(**) I'd submit that Andy's motivations are twofold -- first, genuine concern about journalism becoming so gossipy and opinionating issuing forth, in the age of the Internet, from so many thousand logorrheic sources; second, the natural bias that ensues from believing steroid users deserve automatic exclusion from the Hall of Fame. If you believe that, you're naturally going to snarl at evidence that isn't something approaching airtight. A 55/45 or 60/40 is a tough case with Andy's philosophy; accordingly, he bristles when people talk in public about 55 and 60 percent probabilities.

Well, you've got the first part completely right, though my concerns about sleazeball journalism long predates the internet.

But the second part you cite follows quite naturally from the first part. If I am, as you correctly point out (though not in these exact words), a "steroid (HoF) disqualifier," but at the same time equally opposed to players being tarred with the steroids brush with no real evidence, then of course I'd react rather strongly when I think that any specific player gets his name thrown out there on no other basis than hunches and a fairly commonplace statistical quirk. Why shouldn't someone as opposed to steroids as I am---and more to the point, as Gumbel is---be equally opposed to implying steroid use to players with no real evidence at all to back him up? Why should steroids hardliners have looser standards of evidence than anyone else?

And this has zero to do with any "hero worship" on my part. None of the three players Gumbel named are ones I've ever rooted for in my life, with the brief exception of the few months when Pudge played for the Yankees. Whereas of the seven main players about whom I would say were users, three of them I (Clemens, Pettitte, and A-Rod) are (or were) Yankees whom I always rooted for; and two others (Palmiero and Manny) were always among my favorite non-Yankee players. That doesn't change the fact that there's far more evidence against the latter players (a group that also includes Bonds and McGwire) than there is against the three whom Gumbel named.

And this has zero to do with any "hero worship" on my part. None of the three players Gumbel named are ones I've ever rooted for in my life, with the brief exception of the few months when Pudge played for the Yankees. Whereas of the seven main players about whom I would say were users, three of them I (Clemens, Pettitte, and A-Rod) are (or were) Yankees whom I always rooted for; and two others (Palmiero and Manny) were always among my favorite non-Yankee players. That doesn't change the fact that there's far more evidence against the latter players (a group that also includes Bonds and McGwire) than there is against the three whom Gumbel named.


Points taken.

Who's on your permanent ineligible list now?(**) Do you require a public confession or positive drug test (or, in McGwire's case pre-confession, I guess, a public silence in a reputable forum clearly suggesting use)?

I ask because I'm genuinely interested, but also because I'm wondering if there's any role for press reports. Can something like a well-sourced expose in the Times with on-the-record players saying, "I used with Player X, Player Y, and Player Z from 1999-2001" count?

(**) Of serious and accomplished players; no reason to opine on the Neifi Perezs and Larry Bigbies of the world.

And this has zero to do with any "hero worship" on my part. None of the three players Gumbel named are ones I've ever rooted for in my life, with the brief exception of the few months when Pudge played for the Yankees. Whereas of the seven main players about whom I would say were users, three of them I (Clemens, Pettitte, and A-Rod) are (or were) Yankees whom I always rooted for; and two others (Palmiero and Manny) were always among my favorite non-Yankee players. That doesn't change the fact that there's far more evidence against the latter players (a group that also includes Bonds and McGwire) than there is against the three whom Gumbel named.

Points taken.

Thank you, SBB. That rather obvious point seems to elude some of our other esteemed Primates on occasion.

Who's on your permanent ineligible list now?(**) Do you require a public confession or positive drug test (or, in McGwire's case pre-confession, I guess, a public silence in a reputable forum clearly suggesting use)?

I'll put it this way: I'd vote for Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, A-Rod, Palmeiro, and Manny for the Hall of Merit. Of those seven, the only one at this point I'd vote into the Hall of Fame would be Sosa. Just to remind you, prior to the BALCO revelations I would have said (and may have said, though I don't remember the thread) the same thing about Bonds. The two biggest Bonds fans I've ever seen on this site (BBC and Gambling Rent) both have acknowledged that other than steroids, I've never said much of anything against Bonds.

I ask because I'm genuinely interested, but also because I'm wondering if there's any role for press reports. Can something like a well-sourced expose in the Times with on-the-record players saying, "I used with Player X, Player Y, and Player Z from 1999-2001" count?

It would depend upon the details of the charges, but of course I'd consider something like that to be rather damning, since you hypothesize that multiple players would be on the record with first hand testimony. Which of course has nothing to do with the three players singled out by Gumbel, who haven't been named by anyone.

Of course I wouldn't have expected you to bother to read what I wrote in #37, but what part of this second paragraph below eludes you?

Of course, I wouldn't have expected you to bother to read what I wrote in #43, but what part of this first paragraph below eludes you?

I appreciate your willingness to re-write history, but Mac didn't "retract his denials". He just said he wasn't talking about it anymore.

But that's okay - for you, someone refusing to talk about it (say, if Bagwell does tomorrow), then he becomes a juicer in your mind.

I wish that could speak to you, and hopefully it is speaking to others reading your position.

But that's okay - for you, someone refusing to talk about it (say, if Bagwell does tomorrow), then he becomes a juicer in your mind

I guess I'm dense but I think the context in which Mac refused to talk about it matters a whole lot. So why aren't you changing the hypothetical to: "if Bagwell refuses to talk about it in a place where there are legal consequences, then he becomes a juicer in your mind"? Wasn't that the important aspect of Mac's silence, that he was in a place where he was compelled to not purjure himself? Why are you not presenting that in your hypothetical? I'm obviously missing something. Plus, I have shingles and it's brutal!

Of course, the flipside to that Zuvella! is that Mac was in a place where Congress was focusing on the past for political reasons, while MANY people preferred that they focus on what should be done going forward, rather than doing a witch-hunt for something that was not actually against the rules of baseball at the time - and going on a fishing expedition for relatively minor non-political crimes was vastly inappropriate. I didn't know at the time, and I don't care now, whether Mac did steroids. I DID care that congress was intervening for blatant political reasons in baseball, while ignoring vastly more serious issues. Mac ##### slapping the committee drew my cheers, just because he reminded them that IF they had a reason for the hearings, it had to be forward facing.

Still waiting for Clemens to be indicted as we come up on two years...

Still waiting for Clemens to be indicted as we come up on two years...

Which of the two things that Kevin/Sock insisted were imminent happens first -- Clemens gets indicted or Bonds goes to jail?

"if Bagwell refuses to talk about it in a place where there are legal consequences, then he becomes a juicer in your mind"? Wasn't that the important aspect of Mac's silence, that he was in a place where he was compelled to not purjure himself? Why are you not presenting that in your hypothetical? I'm obviously missing something.

Because it is the denial that mattered, not the setting. I mean, look at Palmeiro.

akrasian, you're basically preaching to the converted except I don't think Mac's line was a knowing rebuke to those opportunistic grandstanders. Anyway, I feel I'm arguing a very small point in the grand scheme of things. For me, the larger thing is that I don't care if Mac juiced.

I don't think Mac's line was a knowing rebuke to those opportunistic grandstanders.

Even though he went to USC*, I think at least part of it was a slap at Congress. There were other ways he could have gone to just avoid testifying. He chose the way to make it clear except to the rabid hounds that Congress was overstepping its bounds. Even though it hurt himself with those who don't care about constitutional protections.


*Sorry, cheap shot. Many of my family members went to UCLA, although I didn't, and it's sort of engrained.

Because it is the denial that mattered, not the setting. I mean, look at Palmeiro.

That wasn't a denial! That was a grammar lesson. You always end a sentence with a period! Or not...

Or does a ! count as a .?

And do ... count as a .?

Ok, Chris, I think I'm starting to understand the syllogistic processes at work. But I guess I'm still not quite sure how anyone thought his refusal to talk was anything but a tacit admission of PED use. So maybe I'll move on.

Even though he went to USC, I think at least part of it was a slap at Congress.

:)USC people are good at the film stuff, but not the legal crap. Just my experience.

Of course, I wouldn't have expected you to bother to read what I wrote in #43, but what part of this first paragraph below eludes you?

I appreciate your willingness to re-write history, but Mac didn't "retract his denials". He just said he wasn't talking about it anymore.

Okay, Chris, why don't you then clarify what you meant when you wrote this:

Isn't that what McGwire did? Why do you choose to believe Bagwell's denials, but not McGwire's 2005 version?

That last statement of yours was precisely what I was alluding to when I wrote this:

So now all you have to do to get me to equate Bagwell to McGwire is to get Bagwell to retract his denials...

So what exactly did McGwire have to say about his steroid use before 2005? Did he deny it? That's what I inferred from your "McGwire's 2005 version" remark.

But perhaps I misinterpreted that comment of yours, and in fact McGwire didn't say anything about his steroid use one way or the other prior to January of 2010.

So which is it? Did he deny it up until 2005, and then clam up? Or did he just clam up from Day One, going back to the first time he was ever asked about it by a reporter?

But either way, we're not going to agree on the more central point of dispute: To you, McGwire's silence before congress implied nothing about his steroid use, whereas to me and about 95% of the rest of the world, it was a de facto admission of guilt.*** There's really no point arguing about that, since it's a matter of interpretation, but I'm sure you'll try to drag it out for yet another round of nitpicking. I can always rely on that.

***And yes, I'm completely aware of the legal point that Zuvella! makes, and that Nieporent has made about 6,006 times; that McGwire's refusal to testify stemmed merely from a lack of immunity, thanks to (we now know) good old Alberto Gonzalez's refusal to grant it.

And sure, that's a very good reason why McGwire wouldn't testify---but it's no reason why we should have assumed he was innocent.

The main congressmen (Tom Davis) who said that he sympathized with McGwire's refusal to testify, also said that he knew all along that McGwire was guilty. If McGwire had been innocent, there would have been no plausible reason for him to keep quiet---and if there had been, it sure wasn't brought up by either McGwire in his recent statement, or by Rep. Davis.

And of course Bagwell has always denied steroid use, and nobody has ever produced the slightest bit of evidence that he ever juiced. That doesn't stop you, though. Nothing seems stop you in your mad "equivalency" crusade to lump together every player from here back to about 1945 when it comes to drug use and "cheating"---Mantle, Aaron, Bonds, McGwire, Gaylord Perry, Bagwell, Nomar, they're all peas in a pod to you. And yet I'm the one who's "irrational."

***And yes, I'm completely aware of the legal point that Zuvella! makes, and that Nieporent has made about 6,006 times; that McGwire's refusal to testify stemmed merely from a lack of immunity, thanks to (we now know) good old Alberto Gonzalez's refusal to grant it.

Wait, Andy, I thought I was on your side. Am I on Nieporent's side as well?! Jesus, I'm dumb!

Sorry, Zuvella, I was responding to what you wrote about Mac's refusal to testify being tied to his lack of immunity. Once I read your subsequent posts I now realize that you weren't reading the same thing into that refusal that Nieporent has been peddling for the last 5 years. And he's not dumb, either, just hopelessly obsessed with the idea that I'm Kevin.

So what exactly did McGwire have to say about his steroid use before 2005? Did he deny it? That's what I inferred from your "McGwire's 2005 version" remark.

But perhaps I misinterpreted that comment of yours, and in fact McGwire didn't say anything about his steroid use one way or the other prior to January of 2010.

I don't know what bearing this has on this latest tiff between you and Chris (I've only skimmed your exchange here and haven't really been following), but just to answer the above in isolation, this is from a March 1998 SI story:

For instance, the gym he frequents is a busy but ordinary family fitness center tucked in a strip mall near a sushi joint and a dry cleaner. Mothers in spandex lug their toddlers to the baby-sitting room, and off-duty policemen and firemen want to know the secret for developing forearms like his. "Genetics," he tells them. "You should see my father."

...

In '91 McGwire hit 22 home runs, drove in 75 runs—and didn't ask for a raise. That year he also hit .201, quit lifting weights out of sheer laziness, suffered through a miserable live-in relationship and finally telephoned the A's employee-assistance department and said, "I want to get some help." He found a therapist, learned to like himself, rededicated himself to year-round iron pumping and showed up at camp the next season with 20 pounds of new muscle.

Though McGwire did smash 42 home runs in that comeback year, it was also the first of five consecutive seasons in which he could not stay off the disabled list. He missed 40% of his team's games during that stretch; his enormously muscled body seemed to be too big for the rigors of playing baseball. A rib-cage strain, a torn left heel muscle, a sore lower back, a left heel stress fracture, a torn right heel muscle...hose seemed to many observers to be the natural consequences of a body made unnaturally large. Many, including opposing players, believe he uses steroids. He denies the charge. Vehemently.

"Never," says McGwire, though he admits he'll "take anything that's legal," meaning dietary supplements. "It sort of boggles my mind when you hear people trying to discredit someone who's had success. Because a guy enjoys lifting weights and taking care of himself, why do they think that guy is doing something illegal? Why not say, 'This guy works really, really hard at what he does, and he's dedicated to being the best he can be.' I sure hope that's the way people look at me."

So yes, McGwire did deny using steroids, at least once, before 2005. Though if neither of you knew that in 2005 (I certainly didn't know that until SI opened up its Vault a couple years ago and I later looked), I don't know what bearing it would have on your current exchange.

And of course Bagwell has always denied steroid use, and nobody has ever produced the slightest bit of evidence that he ever juiced.

Yes, I produced the evidence that Bagwell used a couple weeks ago. It's from an August of 1998 SI story:

Finally, it's not as if McGwire is alone. He says at least nine or ten St. Louis Cardinals teammates use andro (as it's known to muscleheads), and Houston Astros star Jeff Bagwell told The Houston Chronicle, two weeks before the McGwire storm erupted, that he had taken it. Logic says that at least a few other major leaguers have it in their lockers.

Yes, that's only an admission of andro use, but judging by the standards of evidence set out by the anti-steroids zealots, that more than qualifies.

And we can add creatine too, which was enough to point fingers at Sammy Sosa. Quoting now from a July of 1999 story:

What happened? Take a look at Bagwell, your basic protein-packing, iron-pumping, creatine-chugging, andro-popping, body-armor-wearing '90s kind of slugger, who is 25 pounds of muscle heavier than he was as a Red Sox prospect.

...

Always an avid weightlifter, Bagwell hired a bodybuilder to train him after that '95 season. The trainer, Herschel Johnson, suggested a program to make Bagwell stronger for baseball without adding too much bulk, which might cause a loss in flexibility. "I don't care about that," Bagwell retorted. "I need to get as big as I can and be as strong as I can."

He added 20 pounds that winter through intense weightlifting and a high-protein, low-fat that (heavy on egg whites, tuna, turkey and steak). Bagwell hit 108 dingers over the next three seasons, including a career-high 43 in 1997. His off-season regimen now includes not only Johnson's training but also creatine, the nutritional supplement, and the controversial testosterone-boosting androstenedione. "It may help your workout, but it doesn't help you hit home runs," he says.

Given where Bagwell plays his home games, the extra muscle comes in handy.

So we've got avid weight lifting, sudden weight gain, andro, creatine, an increase in home runs, and the McGwiresque statement that andro "may help your workout, but it doesn't help you hit home runs."

More than enough evidence. Just ask SugarBear.

Sorry, Zuvella, I was responding to what you wrote about Mac's refusal to testify being tied to his lack of immunity. Once I read your subsequent posts I now realize that you weren't reading the same thing into that refusal that Nieporent has been peddling for the last 5 years. And he's not dumb, either, just hopelessly obsessed with the idea that I'm Kevin.

Having seen you and Kevin in the same place at the same time (as has David), I can attest that you are not Kevin. Unless you've assumed his identity. You're certainly giving his zeal against steroids a run for its money.

***And yes, I'm completely aware of the legal point that Zuvella! makes, and that Nieporent has made about 6,006 times; that McGwire's refusal to testify stemmed merely from a lack of immunity, thanks to (we now know) good old Alberto Gonzalez's refusal to grant it.

As an aside (and this is unrelated to any of Andy's points, but it's a fact he mentions: Tom Davis claims that McGwire wanted immunity, that he wanted to give McGwire immunity, but that Gonzale<u>s</u> (*) refused to grant it. But a Congressional committee can grant immunity for testimony on its own (with the approval of a court); it doesn't need the AG to do so. I would guess that Waxman and/or several other committee members didn't want to, and Davis was covering for him/them.



(*) Like Rene, not Juan.

Ray,

Thanks for retrieving that SI article, but the distinction still remains:

Sosa and Bagwell have both denied steroid use, and nobody has come forth with any substantive evidence to contradict them. Andro and creatine are not the substances in question, and the other factors you mention, while interesting, are not of the sort that would cause me to go around making statements like Gumbel's.

McGwire, when questioned under oath, was clearly afraid of opening himself up to perjury charges if he denied his own steroid use, and beat a hasty retreat. It was at that point, and only at that point, that I concluded that he had been juicing.

The common strand to this, and I hope you realize it, is that I consider an accusation (or public implication) of steroid use to be far too serious and reputation-threatening, to make such a charge lightly. I doesn't mean that I exclude the possibility of changing my mind at some later point, but at this time I fail to see any reason to put Bagwell in the McGwire category.

Now IF---IF---Bagwell were now to back off from his denials, and refuse to testify under oath about his steroid use, that would change my mind. But once again, that's strictly a hypothetical question.

(And BTW it works the other way, too. If it turns out that the Bonds indictment was based on fraudulent evidence, I'd obviously change my mind about Bonds's use and hope that he became the first unanimous HoF selection.)

-------------------

David, thanks for the elaboration about congress's ability to grant immunity independent of the AG's office. And of course I did lazily misspell Gonzales' last name.