McGwire comes clean

[BBTV]

Well attendance wouldn't have gone up except for the games in which McGwire, Sosa, or Griffey were playing (until Griffey bowed out.)

I just know that a lot of guys I was in college with who otherwise couldn't have given a sh t about baseball were watching every night.

Did it "save" baseball? I wouldn't go that far. Did it drum up a lot more interest... at least for that season? Yes.

[STL FANATIC]

There's some things in here I don't agree with or that don't add up, but this is an interesting take on this whole thing.

http://thephrontiersman.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/on-the-hall-of-fame-and-why-juicing-is-kind-of-a-good-thing/

[Saintsfan]

I think they are different crimes, but to my mind the crimes of McGwire and ARod and any other steroid user are worse than Rose's crime, whatever the MLB or anyone else says. My argument is not that the MLB should banish McGwire, more that this should lead them to a rapprochement with Rose.

Not even close. McGwire and A-Rod did steroids to help improve their performances. Pete Rose may have hindered performances to influence the outcome of a game to his liking. It's entirely possible that Pete Rose used a pitcher he knew had a lousy record against a hitter or a team. Or he may have sent up a pinch hitter who he knew couldn't hit the guy on the mound. And so on. All with the hopes of determining the outcome of the game in order to win a bet. If you can find me a steroid user who took steroids so they could play worse to maybe win a bet then you've got an argument. Until then, it's ridiculous to say steroid use is worse than betting on a game over which you have influence.

I can't wait to see how you rationalize this one.

Is there any evidence that Rose's betting on a game affected the result? Any suggestion anything he did was odd (any evidence for instance of Rose changing his pitching rotation in an odd way? As far as I am aware there is no evidence. Just supposition that perhaps it was a possibility. Whether or not McGwire was taking steroids to enhance his performance, he was doing it to give himself an false advantage, there is no other reason to take steroids.

If there was any evidence that Rosa had specifically thrown a game to win a bet your argument would hold. I am not aware of such evidence.

[BBTV]

I think they are different crimes, but to my mind the crimes of McGwire and ARod and any other steroid user are worse than Rose's crime, whatever the MLB or anyone else says. My argument is not that the MLB should banish McGwire, more that this should lead them to a rapprochement with Rose.

Not even close. McGwire and A-Rod did steroids to help improve their performances. Pete Rose may have hindered performances to influence the outcome of a game to his liking. It's entirely possible that Pete Rose used a pitcher he knew had a lousy record against a hitter or a team. Or he may have sent up a pinch hitter who he knew couldn't hit the guy on the mound. And so on. All with the hopes of determining the outcome of the game in order to win a bet. If you can find me a steroid user who took steroids so they could play worse to maybe win a bet then you've got an argument. Until then, it's ridiculous to say steroid use is worse than betting on a game over which you have influence.

I can't wait to see how you rationalize this one.

Is there any evidence that Rose's betting on a game affected the result? Any suggestion anything he did was odd (any evidence for instance of Rose changing his pitching rotation in an odd way? As far as I am aware there is no evidence. Just supposition that perhaps it was a possibility. Whether or not McGwire was taking steroids to enhance his performance, he was doing it to give himself an false advantage, there is no other reason to take steroids.

If there was any evidence that Rosa had specifically thrown a game to win a bet your argument would hold. I am not aware of such evidence.

If you don't understand how Rose's betting on a game had an affect on the results, then there is no point having any further discussion with you because you're obviously not functioning on the level needed to have an intelligent conversation.

Seriously. He had control over the lineups and in-game moves. You don't think that he could have left guys in there too long when they obviously needed a break just because he really needed to win the game by 2 runs to win his bet? Sure, a guy may have come through and won the game for him, but then what if that guy has to miss a start or two, or just doesn't perform as well as he would have if he had the proper rest. That might have cost them a few games later on down the line. It is beyond absurd, bordering on insane to think that a manager betting on the games, whether for or against his team, didn't have an impact on results.

[Saintsfan]

But my point is that is there clear evidence, not just hearsay and speculation that Rose's betting affected his managing? I am not aware of any?? And that's the point to me, what McGwire did clearly must have corrupted the game, in Rose's case there is no certainty, just speculation. To me steroid use= clear cheating betting = possible, but not certain cheating.

I understand the clear paranoia in Baseball about gambling, but perhaps it's time the game was seen to take other threats to the game as seriously.

[BBTV]

But my point is that is there clear evidence, not just hearsay and speculation that Rose's betting affected his managing? I am not aware of any??

HOW COULD IT NOT AFFFECT HIS MANAGING????? Think for a minute here. And by a minute, I mean 59 more seconds than you usually think when you post your "if I was commissioner of..." threads. Seriously. I'm done.

I hope I have the restraint to refrain from replying to any more of your posts. I'm not sure that I do, but I really hope so.

[The_Admiral]

But my point is that is there clear evidence, not just hearsay and speculation that Rose's betting affected his managing?

You don't need it. Just having grounds to speculate that the games are fixed, not enhanced but manipulated to reach a desired outcome, is enough to undermine the game and keep Rose out for life. I'm all for throwing the book at users, but certainly not at the expense of maintaining the big rule.

Saintsfan, look what you did. You broke BringBackTheVet and that was the only one we had.

[Saintsfan]

Seriously is there any evidence that Rose's gambling directly affected how he managed, I am actually asking, serioisly. Any hard evidence.

Because if there isn't it seems perfectly plausible that Rose was just an addicted gambler who was not trying to manipulate the game for profit, but betting because he wanted the buzz. Given the amount of money he was losing why is that not a plausible explanation? And that's the point to me in this, in Rose's case there is plausible deniability, that does not exist for anyone taking steroids. They were doing it to cheat end of period!

[The_Admiral]

Seriously is there any evidence that Rose's gambling directly affected how he managed, I am actually asking, serioisly. Any hard evidence.

Ask Major League Baseball, since they used their resources to build up enough of a case against him that he cried "uncle" and settled before they could fully bust him. Here's the Dowd Report, maybe this will have what you're looking for.

Because if there isn't it seems perfectly plausible that Rose was just an addicted gambler who was not trying to manipulate the game for profit, but betting because he wanted the buzz. Given the amount of money he was losing why is that not a plausible explanation? And that's the point to me in this, in Rose's case there is plausible deniability, that does not exist for anyone taking steroids.

None of that matters. All that matters was that by being involved in betting on Reds games while controlling the outcomes, there was a conflict of interest that threatened the legitimacy of the games, and that's completely utterly impermissible to a sports league that has to sell an honest product not only to keep its customers but indeed to keep the federal government from putting them out of business. We're going in circles here; add me to this list of people who've checked out of this whole song and dance.

They were doing it to cheat end of period!

haha oops

[Saintsfan]

Seriously is there any evidence that Rose's gambling directly affected how he managed, I am actually asking, serioisly. Any hard evidence.

Ask Major League Baseball, since they used their resources to build up enough of a case against him that he cried "uncle" and settled before they could fully bust him. Here's the Dowd Report, maybe this will have what you're looking for.

Because if there isn't it seems perfectly plausible that Rose was just an addicted gambler who was not trying to manipulate the game for profit, but betting because he wanted the buzz. Given the amount of money he was losing why is that not a plausible explanation? And that's the point to me in this, in Rose's case there is plausible deniability, that does not exist for anyone taking steroids.

None of that matters. All that matters was that by being involved in betting on Reds games while controlling the outcomes, there was a conflict of interest that threatened the legitimacy of the games, and that's completely utterly impermissible to a sports league that has to sell an honest product not only to keep its customers but indeed to keep the federal government from putting them out of business. We're going in circles here; add me to this list of people who've checked out of this whole song and dance.

They were doing it to cheat end of period!

haha oops

I am not trying to say that what Rose did was acceptable, but I still cannot see how what Rose did is worse than what McGwire did, and I think it shows a dangerous double standard on behalf of the MLB to treat them differently.

[Gothamite]

Setting aside what I see as a willful obtuseness on Rose's gambling affecting his managing (not to mention affecting the gambling habits of others as a result), Rose's crime is still far worse for one simple reason.

Baseball players have known, for nearly 90 years, that there is only one "death penalty" crime in baseball. It's posted in every clubhouse. There is no appeal, no leniancy in sentencing, no forgiveness.

Rose knew all that, and he bet on baseball anyway. He willfully and repeatedly broke the one rule designed to protect the integrity of the sport. How can we not, therefore, hold him in the strongest contempt?

What McGwire and the others did was reprehensible. It may even have been illegal. And yes, they ought to face sanctions from it. But to elevate their offense above that of Rose is just ludicrous.

[infrared41]

I think they are different crimes, but to my mind the crimes of McGwire and ARod and any other steroid user are worse than Rose's crime, whatever the MLB or anyone else says. My argument is not that the MLB should banish McGwire, more that this should lead them to a rapprochement with Rose.

Not even close. McGwire and A-Rod did steroids to help improve their performances. Pete Rose may have hindered performances to influence the outcome of a game to his liking. It's entirely possible that Pete Rose used a pitcher he knew had a lousy record against a hitter or a team. Or he may have sent up a pinch hitter who he knew couldn't hit the guy on the mound. And so on. All with the hopes of determining the outcome of the game in order to win a bet. If you can find me a steroid user who took steroids so they could play worse to maybe win a bet then you've got an argument. Until then, it's ridiculous to say steroid use is worse than betting on a game over which you have influence.

I can't wait to see how you rationalize this one.

Is there any evidence that Rose's betting on a game affected the result? Any suggestion anything he did was odd (any evidence for instance of Rose changing his pitching rotation in an odd way? As far as I am aware there is no evidence. Just supposition that perhaps it was a possibility. Whether or not McGwire was taking steroids to enhance his performance, he was doing it to give himself an false advantage, there is no other reason to take steroids.

If there was any evidence that Rosa had specifically thrown a game to win a bet your argument would hold. I am not aware of such evidence.

You never disappoint.

[The_Admiral]

Still waiting for the horn to signal "end of period"

[Jigga]

Still waiting for the horn to signal "end of period"

Just look for a week's worth of tampons...that's a pretty good signal, too.

[Saintsfan]

Setting aside what I see as a willful obtuseness on Rose's gambling affecting his managing (not to mention affecting the gambling habits of others as a result), Rose's crime is still far worse for one simple reason.

Baseball players have known, for nearly 90 years, that there is only one "death penalty" crime in baseball. It's posted in every clubhouse. There is no appeal, no leniancy in sentencing, no forgiveness.

Rose knew all that, and he bet on baseball anyway. He willfully and repeatedly broke the one rule designed to protect the integrity of the sport. How can we not, therefore, hold him in the strongest contempt?

What McGwire and the others did was reprehensible. It may even have been illegal. And yes, they ought to face sanctions from it. But to elevate their offense above that of Rose is just ludicrous.

I don't personally buy that argument. It's like saying the Founding Fathers didn't care about abortion because they didn't mention it in the Constitution. What McGwire and others did was reprehensible, and cheating. There is no doubt about that. They knew they were cheating. The only reason not to be as heavy handed is that it would apply to a whole generation of players rather than one guy. But to deny the crime is as bad is just plain denying the obvious as far as I am concerned.

[infrared41]

Setting aside what I see as a willful obtuseness on Rose's gambling affecting his managing (not to mention affecting the gambling habits of others as a result), Rose's crime is still far worse for one simple reason.

Baseball players have known, for nearly 90 years, that there is only one "death penalty" crime in baseball. It's posted in every clubhouse. There is no appeal, no leniancy in sentencing, no forgiveness.

Rose knew all that, and he bet on baseball anyway. He willfully and repeatedly broke the one rule designed to protect the integrity of the sport. How can we not, therefore, hold him in the strongest contempt?

What McGwire and the others did was reprehensible. It may even have been illegal. And yes, they ought to face sanctions from it. But to elevate their offense above that of Rose is just ludicrous.

I don't personally buy that argument. It's like saying the Founding Fathers didn't care about abortion because they didn't mention it in the Constitution. What McGwire and others did was reprehensible, and cheating. There is no doubt about that. They knew they were cheating. The only reason not to be as heavy handed is that it would apply to a whole generation of players rather than one guy. But to deny the crime is as bad is just plain denying the obvious as far as I am concerned.

Well then that settles it I guess. May as well move on. Cheerio and all that.

[The_Admiral]

http://www.stltoday....3B?OpenDocument

A lot of them should be banned from baseball, including Mark McGwire," Clark said. "All those guys are cheaters ?A-Rod (Alex Rodriguez). Fake, phony. Rafael Palmeiro. Fake, a phony. (Roger) Clemens, (Barry) Bonds. (Sammy) Sosa. Fakes. Phonies. They don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. They should all be in the Hall of Shame. They can afford to build it. They've all got so much money. And they could all go there and talk about the next way to rub something on your skin. The whole thing is creepy. They're all creeps. All these guys have been liars," Clark said.

Clark criticized McGwire's initial statements that McGwire's swing and mechanics were good enough that they would have allowed him to hit the record-setting 70-homer total he achieved in 1998 without the aid of steroids.

As if he were speaking to McGwire, Clark said, "No, because your hand-eye coordination was not good enough. You're kind of a big goof. You had one thing. If you uppercut a ball, you might hit it.

Clark said the steroids abusers and suspected users "are all lucky they didn't end up in jail. It's all comical to a certain point. It's a three-ring circus. It really is.

"From (commissioner) Bud Selig to Tony (La Russa) to A-Rod to Manny Ramirez to Palmeiro ... what a joke."

Clark insists that Selig and La Russa, among others, knew more about the use of steroids 10 to 20 years ago than they were letting on.

"(McGwire's) own manager never knew that (Jose) Canseco and McGwire and anybody else ever had taken steroids?" Clark said.

Now THAT is a Cardinal.

[STL FANATIC]

I love Jack Clark and he won't hold back on any topic. And as columnist Bernie Miklasz points out, as an analyst on Cardinal Post-games, he actually has something to lose, so I can respect that.

But what he's saying here is just stupid. So many people would be banned from the game, and it would need to extend beyond those that used steroids. Anybody that took greenies. Anybody that doctored a baseball. Used too much pinetar. Corked their bat. Threw illegal spitballs. It's all cheating.

There's a tiny bit of legitimacy to the idea that steroid users shouldn't get into the HOF because of how their numbers might have been affected, but the idea that they should be outright banned from the game of baseball? That's shear lunacy.

Additionally, the fact that he's unwilling to shake the guys hand when they cross paths is just bitter nonsense. Grow up, Jack Clark. I'm sorry you didn't get paid like the players of the 90s and now did. Deal with it.

[BBTV]

I love Jack Clark and he won't hold back on any topic. And as columnist Bernie Miklasz points out, as an analyst on Cardinal Post-games, he actually has something to lose, so I can respect that.

But what he's saying here is just stupid. So many people would be banned from the game, and it would need to extend beyond those that used steroids. Anybody that took greenies. Anybody that doctored a baseball. Used too much pinetar. Corked their bat. Threw illegal spitballs. It's all cheating.

There's a tiny bit of legitimacy to the idea that steroid users shouldn't get into the HOF because of how their numbers might have been affected, but the idea that they should be outright banned from the game of baseball? That's shear lunacy.

Additionally, the fact that he's unwilling to shake the guys hand when they cross paths is just bitter nonsense. Grow up, Jack Clark. I'm sorry you didn't get paid like the players of the 90s and now did. Deal with it.

I think that the important thing isn't necessarily the literal interpretation of what he said (saying they should be banned, etc.), but rather the sheer fact that this shows that an ex player is incredibly outraged by the whole steroid era, and that he likely represents a rather large subset of ex players who may have been clean (though maybe they weren't clean, but they just don't consider whatever they did to be as dirty as steroids.)

What it shows is that there could be a divide in the fraternity, which really means nothing to us, but it means a lot to a lot of the players. Maybe. Or maybe it doesn't.

[pcgd]

http://www.stltoday....3B?OpenDocument

A lot of them should be banned from baseball, including Mark McGwire," Clark said. "All those guys are cheaters ?A-Rod (Alex Rodriguez). Fake, phony. Rafael Palmeiro. Fake, a phony. (Roger) Clemens, (Barry) Bonds. (Sammy) Sosa. Fakes. Phonies. They don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. They should all be in the Hall of Shame. They can afford to build it. They've all got so much money. And they could all go there and talk about the next way to rub something on your skin. The whole thing is creepy. They're all creeps. All these guys have been liars," Clark said.

Clark criticized McGwire's initial statements that McGwire's swing and mechanics were good enough that they would have allowed him to hit the record-setting 70-homer total he achieved in 1998 without the aid of steroids.

As if he were speaking to McGwire, Clark said, "No, because your hand-eye coordination was not good enough. You're kind of a big goof. You had one thing. If you uppercut a ball, you might hit it.

Clark said the steroids abusers and suspected users "are all lucky they didn't end up in jail. It's all comical to a certain point. It's a three-ring circus. It really is.

"From (commissioner) Bud Selig to Tony (La Russa) to A-Rod to Manny Ramirez to Palmeiro ... what a joke."

Clark insists that Selig and La Russa, among others, knew more about the use of steroids 10 to 20 years ago than they were letting on.

"(McGwire's) own manager never knew that (Jose) Canseco and McGwire and anybody else ever had taken steroids?" Clark said.

Now THAT is a Cardinal.

Anyone catch this line: "This thing stretches a long way back and it's really ugly and just really shocking. ..."

Jack Clark played from 79 to 92, pre "steroids era" (but right in the coke era!)

He's saying it stretches a long way back, the way he talks, I think he saw it himself.

I bet there's a hall of famer that used steroids at some point...