McGwire comes clean

[STL FANATIC]

He was the manager of the Oakland A's, a team that's been associated with steroids from his tenure to the present day. He saw his charges every day for about eight months a year for several years. Tell me how in the world he wouldn't know. If you're alleging that Tony La Russa had no idea what was going on in his clubhouse, then you're conceding that Tony La Russa is one of baseball's worst leaders ever. To that end, you're almost better off saying he's full of crap.

That's not what I said. I said he might not have known for a fact.

Everyone's implication is that he really, KNEW this was going on. It might have been a case of "I don't wanna know." As in "yeah, probably, but I didn't SEE it, and nobody TOLD me." That would by definition be not knowing for a fact.

Or he might have known it for a fact, too. I'm open to either. Tony would be stonewalling people either way. That's how he rolls.

[BBTV]

Few things to chime in on as it applies to TLR.

1. Tony La Russa is as loyal to his players as any manager has ever been. When one of his players deserves being called out, HE will handle it, and 9 times out of 10, he will handle it privately. He will not support the media in calling out a player regardless of whether he has or not. In public, he will defend the hell out of his players. To me this creates a case of two rights. The media should continue to call out guys who deserve it, but I think a manager is well served to defend the hell out of those players publically.

I realize that the manager of the Cardinals must be the best, but let's be realistic here - that applies to a lot of managers / head coaches. I can think of two in my own city that it applies to just as much as it probably does to LaRussa. Didn't LaRussa throw Scott Rolen under the bus? Legit question - I don't know, but I thought I remembered that they had a little feud.

By the way, I'm curious how others feel about this.

Yesterday I was listening to an interview on the radio with John Kruk. He talked about knowing that people were using steroids when he played. When asked why he never spoke up, he said things like...

-you knew, but you didn't have proof, and if you were bringing this up to the league/mlbpa, you'd need to name names

-plus you didn't want to be the "snitch"

-you have to remember, these guys who were using were helping us win games

Now, I understand the first reason. I think the second reason shows a lack of character as far as being willing to take a hit to do the right thing, but I still understand that on, too.

But his third reason struck me a bit. I'm not saying playing with teammates who used steroids is half as bad as using them. However, isn't that a little condemning of himself? In some way, doesn't that make him part of it? I knew I had teammates who had to be using, but we were winning?

This isn't sounding nearly as clear as I thought my original reaction was, but I think the discussion from it could still be interesting, so I'm gonna go ahead and post anyways. Thus, Thoughts?

1. it could be argued that "snitching" also shows a lack of character. You're in there with these guys every day, and a lot of times (especially with that '93 Phillies team) every night. It's a terrible situation to be in. Do the "right" thing by your sport, or do the "right" thing by your friends. I certainly can't say what I would do unless I was in that position, and neither can you or anyone else until they're there. It's easy to say when you're simply reading accounts about people you don't know, but when it's your loyal friends (or even family), that certainly complicates matters. I certainly can't blame a guy for making either choice.

2. Winning is a hell of a drug. Every player (well, most) wants to experience that moment of winning the championship of their sport, and running out on to the field to celebrate. That obsession can take over, and you can sometimes compromise a lot of your beliefs / values. How many of us are anti-smoking, yet have dated a smoking hot woman despite the fact that she occasionally lights one up when she's drinking? Well, maybe just me, but you get the point. Again, "we were winning" is certainly not a good reason, but unless you're in that situation, it's really impossible to blame him.

3. Everyone knew that half of the '93 Phillies were on steroids. Hell - Lenny Dykstra joked openly about being on "magic vitamins". Everyone just laughed about it. The media, the other players, the coaches, everyone. Steroids only became a big deal once they became a big deal. I 100% believe that LaRussa knew (and just didn't think it was an issue), but even if he didn't know, he "knew". And I don't think the fact that he knew or "knew" is an issue at all.

[The_Admiral]

How many of us are anti-smoking, yet have dated a smoking hot woman

hoping this double entendre was only like half-intentional

[STL FANATIC]

Few things to chime in on as it applies to TLR.

1. Tony La Russa is as loyal to his players as any manager has ever been. When one of his players deserves being called out, HE will handle it, and 9 times out of 10, he will handle it privately. He will not support the media in calling out a player regardless of whether he has or not. In public, he will defend the hell out of his players. To me this creates a case of two rights. The media should continue to call out guys who deserve it, but I think a manager is well served to defend the hell out of those players publically.

I realize that the manager of the Cardinals must be the best, but let's be realistic here - that applies to a lot of managers / head coaches. I can think of two in my own city that it applies to just as much as it probably does to LaRussa. Didn't LaRussa throw Scott Rolen under the bus? Legit question - I don't know, but I thought I remembered that they had a little feud.

"As any manager has ever been."

I'm willing to allow him to be tied with many others. I'm also willing to admit some might maybe be marginally more loyal. It's a common exaggeration used to emphasize a point. That point be that he is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY loyal.

Tony did somewhat clash with Rolen, but I don't recall him publicly throwing him under the bus (could be wrong). Their attitudes just clashed. Regardless, I said 9 out of 10 for a reason. La Russa has also called out young players (Brendan Ryan a few years back) publicly, probably to send a learning message, but regardless, it does happen.

I apologize for the potential exaggeration. Like I said, my point that La Russa is incredibly loyal and almost never speaks negatively of his players publicly stands.

[STL FANATIC]

BBTV, I also want to make this clear.

In one sense I understand everything Kruk said. I can make no guarantees I wouldn't have done all the same things. Hell, I might have taken steroids myself. Impossible to know, and it's not like I've never compromised my principles before.

I wasn't trying to paint Kruk as a bad guy with a lack of character, nor was I trying to establish my character as greater than his.

I just think you're second paragraph says kind of what I was trying to.

2. Winning is a hell of a drug. Every player (well, most) wants to experience that moment of winning the championship of their sport, and running out on to the field to celebrate. That obsession can take over, and you can sometimes compromise a lot of your beliefs / values. How many of us are anti-smoking, yet have dated a smoking hot woman despite the fact that she occasionally lights one up when she's drinking? Well, maybe just me, but you get the point. Again, "we were winning" is certainly not a good reason, but unless you're in that situation, it's really impossible to blame him.

The same thing can be said about those who chose to take steroids, right?

I'm not saying taking them isn't way worse, I'm just saying that maybe players like Kruk's motivations not to tell on the users weren't so different from the users themselves. I don't have a case to make or a conclusion to draw, but it seems like an interesting point.

[BBTV]

BBTV, I also want to make this clear.

In one sense I understand everything Kruk said. I can make no guarantees I wouldn't have done all the same things. Hell, I might have taken steroids myself. Impossible to know, and it's not like I've never compromised my principles before.

I wasn't trying to paint Kruk as a bad guy with a lack of character, nor was I trying to establish my character as greater than his.

I just think you're second paragraph says kind of what I was trying to.

2. Winning is a hell of a drug. Every player (well, most) wants to experience that moment of winning the championship of their sport, and running out on to the field to celebrate. That obsession can take over, and you can sometimes compromise a lot of your beliefs / values. How many of us are anti-smoking, yet have dated a smoking hot woman despite the fact that she occasionally lights one up when she's drinking? Well, maybe just me, but you get the point. Again, "we were winning" is certainly not a good reason, but unless you're in that situation, it's really impossible to blame him.

The same thing can be said about those who chose to take steroids, right?

I'm not saying taking them isn't way worse, I'm just saying that maybe players like Kruk's motivations not to tell on the users weren't so different from the users themselves. I don't have a case to make or a conclusion to draw, but it seems like an interesting point.

So essentially, it's the old argument that not telling on someone who steals might be just as bad as stealing yourself. It's a tough, tough, tough, tough, tough statement to argue for or against. I think that it varies on a case by case basis, but I understand why some may feel that it's a black and white issue.

For someone in Kruk's position, in addition to the points I made above, he also may have been "telling on the users" to an audience who didn't want to hear it, and it could end up hurting him in the long run. Maybe he should have told anyway, I don't know. I feel that as far as this whole steroids thing goes, the crime commiters are way more in the wrong than the non-tellers. I guess I just contradicted myself, but oh well.

That being said, as I've stated earlier in this thread, I find it really hard to be mad at the users. It was certainly wrong, but I don't think any of us could say 100% that we wouldn't have done it if we were in the position to earn so much more money, not get cut and sent to the minors, or just to stay level with everyone else who was doing it. Had these things been prevelant in the '50s / '60s, Maris and / or Mantle may have given in to temptation themselves (hell - we don't know they weren't taking anything that would have been considered a big deal back then). Players throughout history have always looked for an edge. It just so happened to be that the '90s / '00s edge was steroids / HGH. It'll be something else in the '1Xs.

[Sguse1]

I've been thinking... You know who is the real benefactor of the steroid era? Babe Ruth. I think this further cements the legacy of what he accomplished on the baseball field.

[BBTV]

I've been thinking... You know who is the real benefactor of the steroid era? Babe Ruth. I think this further cements the legacy of what he accomplished on the baseball field.

I'm sure his skeleton is smiling somewhere... unless it's too full of worms to move.

[BBTV]

How many of us are anti-smoking, yet have dated a smoking hot woman

hoping this double entendre was only like half-intentional

Yeah, I guess the fact that I mentioned that she occasionally lights up was completely redundant, if you consider "smoking" as a verb and not an adverb.

[Lee.]

I've been thinking... You know who is the real benefactor of the steroid era? Babe Ruth. I think this further cements the legacy of what he accomplished on the baseball field.

I'm sure his skeleton is smiling somewhere... unless it's too full of worms to move.

It's far too well preserved for worms to be about.

I'm not reading back however many pages there are, but has anyone brought up the players of the 50s through 70s openly taking amphetamines to help them perform better on the field? Dock Ellis pitching a perfect game while tripped out of his head on acid? Ferguson Jenkins being arrested for cocaine and marijuana possession, but still being in the hall?

How do those guys get a pass, but McGwire and Bonds don't?

Let's be clear, I don't care about asterisks or HGH or who took what and when, and I don't particularly care about who gets into the hall (but Dawson was nice, as a Expos/Cubs fan). But why are the modern-era users being held up to this huge standard when Mantle was (allegedly) drunk off his ass from dawn till dusk? How does Ty Cobb, one of the most hateful men in professional sports, get a pass when he went out every game looking to injure an opposing team member?

Can of worms opened.

[BBTV]

That being said, as I've stated earlier in this thread, I find it really hard to be mad at the users. It was certainly wrong, but I don't think any of us could say 100% that we wouldn't have done it if we were in the position to earn so much more money, not get cut and sent to the minors, or just to stay level with everyone else who was doing it. Had these things been prevelant in the '50s / '60s, Maris and / or Mantle may have given in to temptation themselves (hell - we don't know they weren't taking anything that would have been considered a big deal back then). Players throughout history have always looked for an edge. It just so happened to be that the '90s / '00s edge was steroids / HGH. It'll be something else in the '1Xs.

I've been thinking... You know who is the real benefactor of the steroid era? Babe Ruth. I think this further cements the legacy of what he accomplished on the baseball field.

I'm sure his skeleton is smiling somewhere... unless it's too full of worms to move.

It's far too well preserved for worms to be about.

I'm not reading back however many pages there are, but has anyone brought up the players of the 50s through 70s openly taking amphetamines to help them perform better on the field? Dock Ellis pitching a perfect game while tripped out of his head on acid? Ferguson Jenkins being arrested for cocaine and marijuana possession, but still being in the hall?

How do those guys get a pass, but McGwire and Bonds don't?

Let's be clear, I don't care about asterisks or HGH or who took what and when, and I don't particularly care about who gets into the hall (but Dawson was nice, as a Expos/Cubs fan). But why are the modern-era users being held up to this huge standard when Mantle was (allegedly) drunk off his ass from dawn till dusk? How does Ty Cobb, one of the most hateful men in professional sports, get a pass when he went out every game looking to injure an opposing team member?

Can of worms opened.

I kinda sorta said something similar here, and I'm pretty sure I said the same thing you did earlier in the thread, but I'm too lazy to go back.

Exactly. One guy cheats using whatever was available at the time, then the next guy does, now the third guy has to, etc. greenies, steroids, hgh, etc. Mike Schmidt, by most accounts the greatest 3rd baseman ever to play the game, said that he probably would have done steroids if they were common back then. The game (and sports in general) is all about guys trying to get an edge. It's naive to think that they're all going to do "the right thing" when there's so much money, fame, p-ssy, etc. in front of them for the taking.... if they can just hit some more dingers.

[slapshot]

Acid and weed may be enhancing, but not performance-enhancing. Steroids, HGH, etc., are.

[STL FANATIC]

I'm not particularly inclined to make the argument that cocaine and marijuana are the same as steroids (unless you're strictly talking about whether you have to be a "good person" to be in the HOF). As one is a negative against the person and the other is cheating in the game.

However, Greenies and such.. I'm very much in agreement there. Hell, I'll still pull out that while the effect may (or may not) have been greater, a spitballer throwing a spitball after it was illegal is essentially the same to me as a player taken steroids.

If you get caught cheating, you have to deal with the stigma, but greatness shouldn't be judged on how you became great IMO.

Mark McGwire was one of the best, most feared power hitters to ever play baseball, true or false? That should be overwhelmingly true. And to me, that's ultimately what should matter. We can judge how we choose on their methods, but it doesn't change the simple fact that when a player played baseball, they did it greatly.

[dfwabel]

I've been thinking... You know who is the real benefactor of the steroid era? Babe Ruth. I think this further cements the legacy of what he accomplished on the baseball field.

I'm sure his skeleton is smiling somewhere... unless it's too full of worms to move.

It's far too well preserved for worms to be about.

I'm not reading back however many pages there are, but has anyone brought up the players of the 50s through 70s openly taking amphetamines to help them perform better on the field? Dock Ellis pitching a perfect game while tripped out of his head on acid? Ferguson Jenkins being arrested for cocaine and marijuana possession, but still being in the hall?

How do those guys get a pass, but McGwire and Bonds don't?

Let's be clear, I don't care about asterisks or HGH or who took what and when, and I don't particularly care about who gets into the hall (but Dawson was nice, as a Expos/Cubs fan). But why are the modern-era users being held up to this huge standard when Mantle was (allegedly) drunk off his ass from dawn till dusk? How does Ty Cobb, one of the most hateful men in professional sports, get a pass when he went out every game looking to injure an opposing team member?

Can of worms opened.

Because baseball is overly waxed about as nostalgia. A "simpler time"... and all the rest.

Most MLB numbers should not be taken seriously steroids or not as there were other drugs or rule changes/policies which totally change the sport.

1. Drugs: Players of prior generations used dexadrine..."greenies", a stimulant, to perform

2. Rules: Dead Ball Era, Live Ball Era, lowering the mound, adding the DH are all rules which change how the game is played and results.

3. Policies: Robinson entered the NL in 1947 and won the MVP in 1949. Pumpsie Green was not with BOS until 1959, so let's use that as when MLB was fully integrated for argument.

From 1949 (Robinson's MVP year) to 1969 (10 years following full integration), there were 42 league MVP's awarded and 19 of them were won by people of color.

[Campanella (3x), Banks (2x), Mays (2x), F.Robinson (2x), Aaron, Cepeda, Clemente, Gibson, Howard, McCovey, Newcombe, Robinson, Versalles, Wills]

If nearly half of your post-intergration MVPs are of color, would stats be the same if there was more potchers of color?

[NJTank]

Many of baseball era's based entirely on perspective.

What MLB needs to do is to give amnesty to the steroid users blanket forgiveness and turn the page start punishing those who fail test now, and acknowledge that part of the problem was the MLB structure itself from the comish to the owners who looked the other way on steroids to help boost baseball's popularity.

[infrared41]

I've been thinking... You know who is the real benefactor of the steroid era? Babe Ruth. I think this further cements the legacy of what he accomplished on the baseball field.

Not to throw another log on the fire but... Bave Ruth's era was hardly squeaky clean. Not because of PEDs but because Babe wasn't facing the best players in the game. He was facing the best white players in the game. That's a big difference. Let's not forget that. I'm not knocking The Babe by any measure but his legacy has a few problems too. Any record set before 1947 (realistically more like 1959) has it's own problems.

That's the thing with baseball, just about every era has it's issues. So my suggestion is we judge the steroid era the same way we judge the dead ball era or the color line era etc. Let's stop pretending that The Babe's era was perfect or pre-steroids baseball was perfect. This sport has always had some problem or another hanging over it. We just happen to be experiencing the current problem first hand so it seems worse than all the others.

[NJTank]

That's a good point about the Babe, but I think the numbers would not have changed much he was just that good.

Though it would have been awesome to see Satchel Paige face the Babe.

[infrared41]

That's a good point about the Babe, but I think the numbers would not have changed much he was just that good.

Though it would have been awesome to see Satchel Paige face the Babe.

Sure he was. And you're probably right. But my point is we can never be entirely sure how much of a difference facing the very best players in baseball would have made. And as long as we can ask that question it does take away from his legacy...at least a little bit anyway.

I'm not saying he was overrated or anything. I'm just pointing out that every era has a great big question mark. The color line is Babe's.

[FiddySicks]

Many of baseball era's based entirely on perspective.

What MLB needs to do is to give amnesty to the steroid users blanket forgiveness and turn the page start punishing those who fail test now, and acknowledge that part of the problem was the MLB structure itself from the comish to the owners who looked the other way on steroids to help boost baseball's popularity.

Yeah that's a nice idea, but at this point the steroid-era hole has been dug way to deep to just climb out of it that easily. This thing has been blown so far out of proportion that it'd impossible just simply drop it and move on. With as big of a deal this has been made out to be, MLB is going to look even more stupid if they just dropped it after all that.

[Sguse1]

That's a good point about the Babe, but I think the numbers would not have changed much he was just that good.

Though it would have been awesome to see Satchel Paige face the Babe.

I was just thinking about the credibility factor that comes with steroids. Sure the era may not have been clean nor were there people of color playing in the Majors at that point, but his single season home-run record stood until 1961 and his career record for nearly 40 years. People have always claimed him to be the most prolific baseball player in history and I feel that no one has quite the resume to stack up to him especially after this era.