So saith the New York Times. He joins Barry Bonds.
No doubt some find investigations like this a waste of government time all around. But lying to grand juries and Congressional committees is vigorously frowned on regardless.
As for the Hall of Fame, I expect there will be a sufficient number of voters who flatly refuse to vote for any player who has been prominently and credibly linked to PEDs that they will not go in.
It will be tough to prove. It will be his word against many others who say he used. I don’t think they have evidence like tests and paperwork. I hope they do. Otherwise they may waste a lot of time.
I don’t know the date McNamee first came forth with his allegation but I suspect the day before was the last good one in Roger’s life. he’s gone from making tens of millions, cheering crowds (not everyone certainly, but many) and numerous commercial endorsements to a dismissive public and file photos of courtroom appearances. A precipitous fall, to be sure.
Clemens shoulda kept his damn mouth shut. That’s what the 5th Amendment is for. If he was granted immunity, (I don’t remember if he was or not), all he had to do was tell the truth. Testifying without immunity would be stupid. Lying with immunity is batshit insane.
Mark McGwire (who was lambasted at the time) is looking like the smartest one there that day…
Didn’t McNamee have blood-stained cotton balls or needles or somesuch? That might not prove anything but it gives him a lot of credibility.
I thought the chain of evidence was weak on them. I hope not. I want it proven to the deniers.
Hank Aaron was smart enough not to admit his PED use until after the voting.
My understanding was that Aaron only admitted to using amphetamines (“greenies”), not any other PED, and only during the 1968 season, two years before they were banned.
ETA: Banned by the federal government, that is. MLB didn’t start testing until 2006.
Nevertheless, he used PEDs. Is it your belief that the HOF voters will not vote for PED users because they broke the law? Or is it more reasonable to assume that they won’t vote for them because it is perceived to be cheating?
I suspect that plenty of players have broken the law and still been voted in.
Yes.
Aren’t you the guy that raised this same red herring in another baseball thread recently? Amphetamines are not in the same zip code as steroids/hgh in terms of performance enhancement. I’m not even satisfied that they’d count as PEDs at all. Seems to me just an attempt to smear the heroes of the past with something…anything…to make the current crop of roid monkeys somehow less despicable.
EPIC FAIL.
I don’t care if Hank Aaron was snorting blow off a hooker’s ass right before he parked number 715 in deep left center field. He’s a better player and a finer human being than Bonds ever dreamed about being.
I was under the impression federal indictments are very difficult to beat.
After some Googling, seems that
"95 percent of federal criminal defendants plead guilty. Of the remaining few who fight in court, nearly nine of 10 are convicted, according to national statistics. "
It doesn’t look good for Rocket.
I’ve yet to see any evidence that steroids have a greater impact than amphetamines re: performance in baseball.
Some moderately interesting data and opinion here: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/
That said, as stupid as taking steroids may be, lying to Congress is significantly stupider.
I see now that Miguel Tejada chose that option a while back, and escaped with a token (for him) fine and some community service time.
Tejada faced one count; Clemens has five on him now.
Nope, I was. And you’re still unbelievably wrong, regardless of the fact that you never even tried to bring any evidence whatsoever to the discussion (other than “I’m from the South! Aaron was a Brave!”). If you want to dig up the thread and actually respond to the points you ignored, I’d be happy to continue how wrong you were over there.
I have trouble bothering to read anything where the first paragraph is completely wrong.
Strength can certainly effect batting average not just power. It takes muscles to overcome the rest inertia of the bat. And stronger muscles can overcome that inertia quicker allowing for a slightly longer read on the ball before before you have to start the swing. It also allows larger adjustments of the bat during the swing, and increased ability to stop a swing on a check without getting the strike.
I havn’t done research so I can’t say if there is an actual effect on batting average, there are a lot of other factors. But you can’t just wave it away and say “on power, and only on power”
Please read on. I think you might have skipped over the word “discernable”. Yes, increased strength is going to have an effect on bat speed/stoppage, etc. But that is going to be minor, especially for someone who’s been taking PEDs on the assumption he’s going to become a monster HR hitter, and is swinging for the fences. If Ichiro took PEDs, it probably would help his check swings. But then, no one would care if Ichiro took PEDs, because only power hitters and power pitchers receive the brunt of the modern PED backlash.
Are you saying that players of other types have not been investigated and linked to PEDs, or that when they have, this has not resulted in backlash? And by backlash, do you mean official sanctions or fan opprobrium or both?
What would you think of the proposition that the brunt of backlash has simply been borne by the best players to have been investigated and linked?
There is statistical evidence demonstrated by the power records slaughtered during the steroid era. Records that existed for a long time were clobbered by several people at the same time. Sosa, McGwire, Bonds and others were creaming power standards.