MVP in 1996 says taking steroids wasn't a mistake

Very interesting. Thoughts/comments, anyone?

I don’t know if I would really dig the idea of having my testosterone levels shot to hell.

I don’t mean to be rude, but Ken Caminiti is an alcoholic and a crackhead. When considering his opinions on the use of drugs you may want to consider the source.

What I’d really like to know about this whole thing is why MLB does not test for steroids. It would seem like they’re a little bit behind the times.

They don’t test for steroids, because doing so would require ratification by the Player’s Association. I think you can fill in the gpas on why that might be tricky.

As for Caminiti, it’s easy to see why he thinks it wasn’t a mistake. 1. He’s a drug addled idiot. 2. His MVP year kept him at a salary level that really outdid his performance level.

Because there’s no rule against it, so why would they?

They’re grown men; let them take steroids if they want.

There’s no rule against it for the same reason the NBA doesn’t test for marijuana. The amount of people getting busted would be sky-high (sorry about the pun).

So Caminetti’s a "crackhead? What does that have to do with his taking steroids? NOTHING.

Anyway, the fact that Kenny Rogers said that he thinks that more then 50% of the players today use steroids would account for the “gaudy” numbers that have been put up in the last few years.

And who the fuck really cares if barry Bonds/Mar5k McGuire/Sammy Sosa is/was on steroids. They are playing a fucking GAME. Which when you really get down to it, is utterly pointless and useless.

This coming from someone who was at the game when Cal Ripken Jr. broke gehrigs record. And I actually cried.:stuck_out_tongue:

WSLer, your post would be appropriate for the BBQ Pit, but IMHO is for stating your opinion without fear of being attacked, thus the name. Please try to watch the language.
Thank you.

Just to note, if we are talking about anabolic steroids, then we are talking about controlled substances that, if not prescribed for medical reasons, are illegal to be possessed or sold.

I understand that players are adults. I also understand that there’s no rule that they can’t use certain things, or that they must be tested for them. That’s what I don’t understand.

We hold our Olympic athletes to a higher standard than we would our baseball players? Lots of other sports have substances that are verboten and are tested for. I’m just not sure why MLB wouldn’t have it.

I guess I’m just a goofball who thinks that performance enhancing drugs don’t have a place here. But what the heck do I know?

I agree with you, for one, Scout.

In case someone missed it, we’re talking about an actual crime, here, not a couple of guys taking a lot of aspirin. Whether or not it should be a crime can be a discussion for another day, but the fact the MLB has no rule against something that is illegal speaks to the strange state of affairs in that sport nowadays.

Also, as a lifelong baseball fan, I do care about whether Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, or Mark McGwire are using steroids. Half of the fun of being a baseball fan, to me and to many I know, is engaging in utterly pointless, painfully emotional debates on the relative merits of various players, utilizing statistics complex enough to make John Nash weep. Those statistics cease to mean anything if half the guys are juiced - how can anyone convincingly argue that Barry Bonds belongs in a class with Willie Mays if Bonds is using steroids and Mays never did?

As for Caminiti… I suspect he’ll lose his arrogant attitude about the whole thing right about the time his genitals shrink to the size of cocktail franks… or, perhaps, the time when he’s carted to the hospital with massive cardiac arrest before his 50th birthday.

  • FCF

Arguments for not testing players:

  1. Players on roids hit more home runs = more excitement = more fans (yes, I know you like a pitchers duel, but there are a lot of fans that want to see the long ball – mass marketing)
  2. The owners are not giving out steroids, they simply aren’t testing for it. Some employers do, some don’t. Some sports do random drug testing, some don’t. Baseball doesn’t. Not doing random drug testing of employees isn’t unusual.
  3. I’ve heard people complain about being subjected to random drug testing. Baseball players (people) don’t like to have their privacy invaded, either.
    Arguments for testing players:

To keep the game viable. Nothing else.

It isn’t up to the owners to make sure players aren’t do anything illegal just as much as it isn’t up to your employer to make sure you aren’t doing anything illegal. It is up to the police to enforce those laws. The owners are selling something and trying to sell A LOT of it. If the fans are still buying it, why should the owners try and stop steroid use? To protect the players for their own good? Bah. The players are adults.

You can argue it hurts the integerity of the game and whatever else… The bottom line is that the only good reason to test players is to protect the game and keep it viable. If you think steroid use will erode that, fine. That is a different argument.

I think you’re definitely right, cmosdes, people love the excitement of home runs, and that’s probably the A-1 reason that MLB won’t start doing testing. Then we’d probably find out that our great longball hitters aren’t free from various substances.

I just find it interesting that I’ve had to take urine tests in order to get a job as a financial analyst making less than $50K a year, and a superstar that gets millions doesn’t have to pee in a cup.

But the fact of the matter is, yes, money talks. And so does the players’ union. :: sigh ::