11/21/24
April 27, 2007
Meet the Mets, Greet the Mets, Sell Steroids to the Mets...: Former New York Mets batboy Kirk Radomski, who worked as an equipment manager and clubhouse assistant for the Mets from 1985-95, admitted to selling banned drugs, including anabolic steroids, amphetamines and human growth hormone from 1995 through 2005. He also laundered the money from those transactions.
posted by The_Black_Hand to baseball at 08:32 PM - 21 comments
It just seems like someone in the front office should've known something was up. "Mr. Cashen, are you aware our bat boy is driving a nicer car than Keith Hernandez? And he's been wearing lots of gold chains and fur coats for some reason...."
posted by cybermac at 12:46 AM on April 28, 2007
Of course people in the front office knew what was up. That's the hypocricy of all of this steroid bull s---. Bud Selig LOVES the fact that much of the league has been juicing for the past 10 years. He still has his job because of it. Most of the people who are so judgemental about the players who have abused these different substances would do the exact same thing if put into those shoes. The problem is that we (read: the media) don't talk frequently enough about how this is (and has been) a league-wide situation. You can sell a lot more papers (and ESPN can get a lot more viewers) by running one or two guys up the flag pole, rather than indict the entire system. In fact, the only reason that Selig now seems to care about the steroid problem is that the dam has begun to break. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to not indict the whole system. Which, of course, is bad for business. Humorously, Barry Bonds represents Selig's best dream and worst nightmare. He simultanously exists as the perfect "bad guy" whom the media adores isolating with their wrath, as well as a man who is about to shatter a record that to many represents the system as a whole. At the end of the day, it's the company that's corrupt. While employees are always at fault in a situation of this nature, it's truly the bosses that are to blame. Anyway, that's how I see it.
posted by DudeDykstra at 01:18 AM on April 28, 2007
I also find it hilarious that one of the ads on the right of this page reads: "Legal steroids buy now. See Results in 7 days or money back." What a world we live in....
posted by DudeDykstra at 01:20 AM on April 28, 2007
Batboy, clubhouse assistant, equipment manager, and steroid provider? Man, this kid is very useful to have on the team. Every club should have someone like him around.
posted by Bonkers at 06:16 AM on April 28, 2007
Batboy, clubhouse assistant, equipment manager, and steroid provider? A true multi-tasker. What the whole steroid debate comes down to is that it seems to be practically everywhere in the sport. From marginal players to top stars, the only thing that stands in the way of finding out how really wide-spread the problem has been is how deep anyone is willing to dig. Tying into a previous thread, if Barry Bonds did use steroids, I guess you have to say he's at least done it better, and with more success (if you want to call it that) than some of the other clowns throughout the league.
posted by dyams at 07:53 AM on April 28, 2007
What the whole steroid debate comes down to is that it seems to be practically everywhere in the sport. From marginal players to top stars, the only thing that stands in the way of finding out how really wide-spread the problem has been is how deep anyone is willing to dig. What is your definition of "wide-spread"? 5% of MLB players? 25% of MLB players? 75% of MLB players?
posted by grum@work at 09:54 AM on April 28, 2007
Thing that gets me is: Wasn't it the Mets beat writers who were fueling the Bonds/Sweeney anphetemine rumor? Probably hard to get your foot out of your mouth when your head is still wedged up your...
posted by jls_king at 09:58 AM on April 28, 2007
What is your definition of "wide-spread"? Without a decent testing procedure or real focus on the issue in the past, who really knows? MLB can't even get Bonds nailed down on anything, so most players understand they should keep their mouths shut. I haven't put a actual percentage or number on "wide-spread," but I do believe the true number, if it could possibly be determined, would make people's jaws drop.
posted by dyams at 02:30 PM on April 28, 2007
Put it this way, it's wide spread enough that the players all have each other's backs (for the most part). Honestly, do you really think it's realistic that only 5% of the league uses stimulants? That's about 1 or 2 guys on each team. There is zero chance the number is that low. I'd say 35% minimum, and my jaw would not drop if it was twice that.
posted by DudeDykstra at 03:05 PM on April 28, 2007
Federal agents also seized shipping records, financial records, correspondences and contact lists that detailed the distribution of drugs to major league baseball players. (From the NY Times article) I'm not sure, from reading the article, whether or not these records have found their way to the MLB offices. If they ever do, how many heads might roll? The concensus above appears to think that Bud Selig will somehow keep it all low key.
posted by Howard_T at 05:47 PM on April 28, 2007
Honestly, do you really think it's realistic that only 5% of the league uses stimulants? That's about 1 or 2 guys on each team. There is zero chance the number is that low. I'd say 35% minimum, and my jaw would not drop if it was twice that. I wouldn't say a zero chance of it being 5%. Low, maybe, but considering only 15 MLB players (or so) have tested positive so far, it's not beyond the realm of possibility. I think 35% is a GROSS overstatement. That would suggest that over 250 players in MLB are using steroids. 70% would almost be laughable as that suggests over 500 players would be on the juice. At that point, it would be the entire starting rotation, the starting 8 fielders, the DH (or top PH in the NL) and two more players on EVERY SINGLE TEAM in order to reach the 70% mark.
posted by grum@work at 06:39 PM on April 28, 2007
There was some miscommunication, Grum. If you read my post, I never said steroids. There are many different substances players take to enhance performance. Many are undetectable by the tests you refer to. Also, players are more careful than ever now, so the percentage has likely decreased. Additionally, techniques for fooling a drug test have never been more advanced. Anyway, a cousin of mine plays baseball at a university in Texas and he told me that it's difficult NOT to get involved with some sort of enhancer. More players than not use something and since everyone seems to be fine the temptation is huge. And this is at a COLLEGE. Not minor leagues, certainly not major league. College. The problem runs deep. And if college kids can hide that they're on something, I certainly think professionals have some good tricks up their sleeves.
posted by DudeDykstra at 11:21 AM on April 29, 2007
I think it's safe to say that 95% of major league baseball players were using drugs illegally before baseball started testing in 2004. Re steroids, the number is probably about one-third of major leaguers
posted by spira at 05:33 PM on April 29, 2007
I think it's safe to say that 95% of major league baseball players were using drugs illegally before baseball started testing in 2004. That's crazy. I think your version of "safe" is the same version as this.
posted by grum@work at 06:48 PM on April 29, 2007
Uh oh. I'm going to apologize to DudeDykstra and retract my snarky comments about 35%, and tone down my comments about 70%. However, I still think that 95% is way too high. If we are talking about ANY kind of pharmaceutical enhancement (amps, PED, painkillers), then the number is much higher than I expected. However, in a very odd way, this might actually help McGwire's chances of getting into the HOF in the near future.
posted by grum@work at 11:37 PM on April 29, 2007
nice pic grum.
posted by Debo270 at 09:28 AM on April 30, 2007
For additional pieces on the prevalence of illegal drug use in mlb - and why I think 95% is a perfectly reasonable estimate. http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/baseball/20070415-9999-1n15bbdrugs.html and http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=farrey_tom&id=2852405&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab4pos2
posted by spira at 12:31 PM on April 30, 2007
spira: Your second link is the same as my "uh oh" link, hence the retraction I made. However, 95% is still much too high. There are quite a few people (players, regular "joes", etc) who won't take any kind of drug, regardless of the supposed benefits. As well, there are those that won't take an illegal drug for moral reasons. Also, pain killers aren't "illegal", and some of the items mentioned by McRae (creatine, for example) are completely legal and acceptable in modern sports.
posted by grum@work at 05:42 PM on April 30, 2007
Grum - I was careful about my wording so as to say "illegal drug use" and not "use of illegal drugs." If you are using oxycodone without a prescription without a prescription, that's illegal drug use. Rush Limbaugh can certainly testify to that. And I don't think too many regular joes make the majors; they don't have the attitude necessary to succeed, an attitude that requires players to do whatever it takes Even when they a regular joe does make it, unless they make sure they never ever drink out of another player's coffee cup or anything similar, they'll probably end up taking drugs illegally without even knowing about it.
posted by spira at 01:29 PM on May 01, 2007
Well, at least according to the accusations -- it seemed he started selling this stuff after leaving the Mets. Although I would hardly be surprised if he started his business before that.
posted by dolukhanova at 12:40 PM on May 03, 2007
Shit, those were such nice teams back then, never got in any trouble. But it does explain Mr. Met's head, so I believe it all, regardless of whether they convict someone.