June 09, 2006

How could the Commissioner let baseball get so out of control? The bigger question is, Can he get it back under control or should he resign and let someone else clean up his mess?

posted by dbt302 at 08:44 AM on June 09, 2006

Deadspin is reporting that Albert Pujols' long-time personal trainer may be one of the names on the affidavit thus dragging the poster boy for the NEW ERA into all this... UH OH!

posted by hb74147 at 09:20 AM on June 09, 2006

I appreciate how carefully Deadspin reported that story, and believe me, I'm in the same boat about hoping to hell Pujols doesn't get dragged down into this. That said, this is totally freakin' terrible. Dan Patrick said on his radio show (I think it was Tuesday?) that the names being mentioned were huge. Even then, Pujols just didn't cross my mind (I was thinking Clemens, possibly against my better judgement). Man. What a bummer.

posted by rocketman at 09:36 AM on June 09, 2006

The best thought I saw on this was that they will save all samples from drug tests and, as more complex testing becomes available, those samples will be retested and there is no statute of limitations in baseball (among other things). Grimsley, what a appropriate name if he's going to be dragging alot of names through the mud on his way to infamy. They did a rundown of all the stars Grimsley's played with, it is extensive and depressing. I hope Pujols is clean too. And I think its pathetic that they are still trying to pin this whole steroid thing on Bonds. dbt302, Selig was making alot of money off the "Long Ball Era", he looked the other way because he was part of the problem and now he's trying to keep the "taint" from getting to him by singling out Bonds.

posted by fenriq at 09:47 AM on June 09, 2006

What bperk said. dc, you don't have to create a post to continue the discussion; I think it leads to a clearer conversation if everything is in one thread (unless it's a week apart or something).

posted by yerfatma at 10:55 AM on June 09, 2006

Let them all cheat and see who wins? Huh?

posted by jerseygirl at 11:16 AM on June 09, 2006

"Let them all do it and see who wins." That kind of sucks if you're a clean player. It really is the league & PA's fault for not whole-heartedly embracing all necessary testing -- how many players are plain old cheaters and how many would rather not, but cave b/c they feel they can't compete with the other cheaters otherwise? Don't know myself, but I'd like to think there's more of the latter.

posted by hb74147 at 12:01 PM on June 09, 2006

Selig must go!! Has anyone seen him lately?

posted by INOALOSER at 01:11 PM on June 09, 2006

I hope Pujols is named. I'm curious to see if all the media and fans will rail him the way they have bonds. You already know they won't. Pujols is (basically) universally liked, a good guy, and media friendly. Bonds would be pretty much the polar opposite to all of that. Nobody I know wants the Pujols connection to amount to anything (though deep down we know it probably will). Bonds elicits anger, with Pujols it will largely be disappointment.

posted by pivo at 01:50 PM on June 09, 2006

Two things. A) I have yet to see a breakdown of exactly how many names Grimsley gives in the affidavit. There are, by my count, 29 black redactions in the document (including some that are quite long and/or split lines, some of which may have more than one name underneath). Here is my breakdown, including best guesses: 1. The person(s) who told G. about his positive test. This blank could easily be up to three names. Deadspin has reported from a source that it is one name -- Allard Baird. There is one long blank. 2. G. named two former players as users of PED's. One of them told G. about a doc in Florida who distributes HGH. There are six blanks total, but likely only two names, one of which Deadspin reports may have been Sammy Sosa. 3. In the paragraph related to the question (essentially), "Who else?" there are seven blanks. Basically, the answer goes: blank, blank (who was blank), blank (who had bad back acne), and blank. One of these guys was tied to a doctor in Colorado who distributed amphetamines. There are seven blanks here. The parenthetical blank could be a revealing occupation or another name related to the preceding blank, so we are looking at four to five names here. 4. Blank was a former teammate who always had amphetamines. 1 blank, one name. 5. There is the conversation among four people, including G., discussing how they were ever going to live without amphetamines. There is a strong indication by the wording that they were teammates of his on the Orioles last year. 3 blanks, 3 names. 6. Another teammate from last year "talked openly" about amphetamine use. Four blanks, likely only one name. 7. A former employee of blank and now a personal fitness trainer to many players referred G. to a source of amphetamines. G. got all sorts of stuff from this source. There are 4 blanks, but likely only one name, reported by Deadspin to be Chris Mihlfeld. 8. One of G's better friends, a former ballplayer, used HGH. 3 blanks, one name. So what do we got? I've got 14-17 names. If Deadspin has Baird right, and he's the only one listed in issue #1, then it's 14-15 names. 1. Baird (#1) 2. Sosa (if Deadspin is right)(#2) 3. Chris Mihlfeld (again, Deadspin) (#7) 4 & 5. Unnamed former ballplayers. (#2, #8) 6-9. Teammates on the Orioles last year. (#5, #6) 10. A player with a connection to a Colorado doctor, whom one site is willing to guess is Nate Field. (#3) 11. One unknown name labeled as a former teammate. (#4) 12 on. A group of 3, maybe 4 guys who may or may not have been teammates. (#3) My own personal guess here is that this list includes a mix of the usual suspects (Palmeiro, Canseco, etc.) and a bunch of Nate Fields. I really don't believe that this list is going to blow the doors quite as wide as a lot of people would like to think. B) That the feds are going after Bonds so hard is weird. I could see a concerted effort to nail Palmeiro since it is so easy to make a perjury connection, but what is the strong federal interest in Bonds? Sosa and McGwire are out there as well. Is this really so pointed an investigation, or is it just that the questions being asked are about Bonds, so the answers are as well?

posted by BullpenPro at 02:09 PM on June 09, 2006

Nice comment, BPP. what is the strong federal interest in Bonds Perjury, tax evasion, etc.

posted by jerseygirl at 02:22 PM on June 09, 2006

That the feds are going after Bonds so hard is weird. I could see a concerted effort to nail Palmeiro since it is so easy to make a perjury connection, but what is the strong federal interest in Bonds? It's not weird at all. Palmeiro had a positive test. Bonds has a paper trail a mile long, connections to everyone in this mess, a lot of people who would testify against him, and his own admittance that he did the cream and clear but didn't know it was steroids. And this is just what we know. The feds could have much more.

posted by justgary at 02:38 PM on June 09, 2006

If they had all of that, then what would be the point in getting Grimsley to wear a wire? Because they want to know it all. They want no stone left unturned. Remember, for some reason that totally escapes me, the political establishment has made this an issue. I'm guessing this has something to do with it.

posted by rocketman at 03:04 PM on June 09, 2006

They might be trying to get Bonds and then Palmeiro. Two birds, one stone? The speculatory aspect of this is endless.

posted by jerseygirl at 03:36 PM on June 09, 2006

I believe in quitting, trying is the first step towards failure.

posted by HATER 187 at 03:52 PM on June 09, 2006

Jim Leyritz. Why would Leyritz come clean? Well, he was a teammate of Jason Grimsley's in 1999 and 2000. He could be in the group in my #3, or he could be #8.

posted by BullpenPro at 04:24 PM on June 09, 2006

"Bonds admitted to using something, but he didn't think it was what it might have been." Correction. It should read "Bonds admitted to using something, but HE SAID he didn't think it was what it might have been." A minor quibble, I know, but a material distinction nonetheless.

posted by garfield at 04:39 PM on June 09, 2006

Sorry, this is misleading. Bonds has never admitted using steroids. He has admitted using stuff that looks just like the steroids that were being distributed, given to him by the guy who was distributing steroids that looked just like the stuff he was using. Jesus, whatever. His trainer got the 'cream and clear' from the same guy that sold a 'cream and clear' steroid. What do you think the chances are that it wasn't a steroid? Bonds, trying to stay out of trouble, like a child, said he had no idea what it was. Of course, with the paper trail and witnesses, there's little doubt. This is so old, and I'll be glad when it blows over, and I keep telling myself to just let it go, but the way people play with words to allow bonds an 'out' is almost as funny as those that credit his entire career to steroids. Bonds did steroids. How much? Who knows. But we know there's a ton of evidence. There is no doubt. Or, for there to be doubt, you have to believe someone was framing bonds. We don't know Palmeiro's paper trail, connections, or the willingness of people to testify against him because nobody has been hounding him and writing books about it. You're right. We don't know. Which means there could be nothing, while we know at least some of what they have on bonds, which is a lot. Those are facts. I'll let others deal with the conspiracy theories.

posted by justgary at 07:08 PM on June 09, 2006

We don't know? We don't know what about Palmeiro? That he FAILED a drug test? I thought that was perfectly clear. That is a FACT. Sheesh, everybody gets a free pass except for Bonds. THAT is what I'M tired of. DC, you need to take a deap breath and read the thread again. Your comment has nothing to do with the conversation, nor anything I said (no matter how much bold you use), so I can't really respond. You're arguing with yourself.

posted by justgary at 07:34 PM on June 09, 2006

Sorry you can't respond justgary. Guess that shows what I'm saying is true. Thanks. And by the way, I read the thread. So don't try to deflect what you said.

posted by donnnnychris at 02:26 PM on June 10, 2006

Huh, dude, you-vs-me agression is so not welcome around here. I'll 2nd that.

posted by commander cody at 04:55 PM on June 10, 2006

Sorry you can't respond justgary. Guess that shows what I'm saying is true. Thanks. Geez that was the worse attempt at a comeback I've ever seen. Anyway, failing a drug test does not mean that it was steroids. There are many banned substances in the MLB, but not every single one of them is a steroid. What justgary was saying that there is a lot less to work with in Palmeiro's case then there is in Bonds' case. And the reason for that is probably because the media and everyone else hasn't been hounding him. In addition, Palmeiro did not get a free pass. His reputation has been tarnished and in case you haven't noticed, he isn't playing major league baseball anymore.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:27 PM on June 10, 2006

Disagree with me, will you, justgary? I will just have to administer a little justice and pop some bold all over you. Okay, maybe no bold. There has been a lot of parsing here, though, and as careful as I have tried to be with my semantics, I'm clearly not doing that well with accuracy or getting my point (which is less a point than a question) across. I could see a concerted effort to nail Palmeiro since it is so easy to make a perjury connection My words, and I stand by them. It is easy to make a perjury "connection," not a perjury "conviction." Palmeiro said he never used steroids, and has a positive test for steroids. (Ying Yang: Anyway, failing a drug test does not mean that it was steroids. "Rafael Palmeiro's positive steroid test was for stanozolol, a powerful anabolic steroid that is not available in dietary supplements, according to a newspaper report."[Story]) No line straighter than that. Bonds said he may or may not have done something, but if he did he didn't know it, and since then there has been no connection so direct that he may not have been telling the truth. And it seems to me it's a lot easier to get a perjury conviction from a black-and-white statement like Raffy's than from a very gray one like Bonds'. They may only have the drug test on Palmeiro, and nothing else. Justgary's words, and I don't disagree. But why? Is it because none exist, or does Raffy have just as much of a paper trail as Bonds that has been totally overlooked in the Bonds-focused witch hunt? My question, and my issue, is this: Is the media driving this investigation by doing the feds' work for them? If so, I have an issue with that. Maybe it's just Bonds first because of what they have, and Raffy later -- I have less of a problem with that, so it remains to be seen how this plays out. But, if the purpose here is just to get Bonds out before he breaks anymore records, then this isn't a federal issue, it's a baseball issue, and it makes me wonder who is sleeping with who here. That's all.

posted by BullpenPro at 12:22 PM on June 11, 2006

You already know they won't. Pujols is (basically) universally liked, a good guy, and media friendly. Let me quote the comment about Dwight Gooden (#76 pitcher of all time) from "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" (2001): "When a young player comes to the major leagues and has success right away, writers will almost always write about what a fine young man he is as well as a supreme talent. Never pay any attention to those articles or those descriptions. Albert Pujols is going through this now...people who didn't know Albert Pujols from Jack the Ripper six months ago and have never talked to him more than six feet from his locker are writing very sincerely about what an exceptional young man he is. Doc Gooden, his first three years in baseball, was supposed to be mature beyond his years, polite to everybody, and kind to stray kittens. Rickey Henderson was routinely described, from 1980 through 1982, as "a Jack Armstrong type kid"." "Sportswriters, despite their cynicism or because of it, desperately want to believe in athletes as heroes, an will project their hopes onto anyone who offers a blank slate. The problem with this is that, when the palyer turns out to be human and fallible, people fee betrayed. It is a disservice to athletes to try to make them more than they really are."

posted by grum@work at 08:25 PM on June 11, 2006

donnnnnnnny, as the board is expanding and membership increasing by the day, we're trying to build a sense of decorum and order, regardless of happenings in the past either here or elsewhere. I am sure as you were posting that comment you gave some thought to perhaps your position was incorrect, seeing how everyone disagreed with you. I'm sorry this was a cause of frustration for you. I am certainly disappointed that you disapprove of our high road attempts, and think we're immature brats. I'd actually classify the actions in here as anything but immature and bratty. As members and moderators, we're all taking a personal stake in SpoFi and we're trying to make this a great little flourishing community. It won't be easy, and there are bound to be hiccups here and there. I certainly hope you'll want to stick around to contribute to the ongoing process of improvement. So yeah, please cut the schoolyard crap.

posted by jerseygirl at 09:36 AM on June 12, 2006

It is easy to make a perjury "connection," not a perjury "conviction." Palmeiro said he never used steroids, and has a positive test for steroids. O.K. Thanks for explaining further. I think I understand what you're getting at now. And I too am curious. Is there nothing except the failed test for Palmeiro because he hid it so well, or they just didn't look very hard? I doubt we'll ever know.

posted by justgary at 12:32 AM on June 14, 2006