another dose from the needle

by lboros on Mar 7, 2006 3:59 PM EST in St. Louis Cardinals News

the cards lost 3-1 to los angeles this afternoon; jeff suppan gave up all three runs. is'hausen, brad thompson, blaine neal, jeff nelson, and josh hancock were scheduled to follow, and those who got into the game held the dodgers scoreless for 6 or 7 innings. the cardinals punished the dodger pitching staff to the tune of four hits . . . .

but who really cares. it's march, crysakes . . .

barry bonds used steroids? i would never have guessed. sports illustrated's got an excerpt from the upcoming book Game of Shadows --- which was not authored by jose canseco, by the way. a lot of screamin' and hollerin' is sure to ensue.

one of these ballplayers (not bonds) is gonna wise up some day and stop denying the obvious, which not only makes them look stupid and selfish but, worse yet, perpetuates the "controversy" surrounding steroids. all they have to say is: here's the truth. i used steroids. the management of my team knew about my habit and did nothing to discourage it; on the contrary they tacitly endorsed and encouarged my usage. ditto my union; ditto the league office; ditto the commissioner's office.

the big kerfuffle won't end until these guys stop trying to wish it away.

and please don't respond that whoever tells the truth will be going to jail. if they haven't gone after canseco --- an easy mark who is broke and already a convicted felon --- they're not going to go after a well-funded, well-defended star ballplayer. whoever tells the truth will be lauded for his guts, not hauled into court.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

San Francisco fans in denial

I saw the link on mlbtraderumors.com and printed it out to show to the Giants fans that surround me (I don't do much work as you can tell).

Their reaction was: there's no story. A couple of guys who no one paid attention to while writing in the Chronicle, so they go write a book. Big deal.

And to address me, an avowed Cardinal fan (coffee cups, figurines, books from the 82, 85 and 87 seasons, as well as a signed Musial poster in my office), their comment is McGwire did the same thing.

I guess I shouldn't expect any different from loyal SF Giant fans, especially working in downtown SF. And especially from one of my employees who uses the moniker One Flap Down. (it's his favorite Giants memory and it irritates me to no end.)

Long story short, SF fans will continue to be Barry apologists. And the delusion continues.

by BozCardsFanSF on Mar 7, 2006 4:45 PM EST reply actions

I'm not a Bonds apologist,

I don't even like the guy, but I couldn't really care less about the Steroids Controversy<sup>TM</sup>, it's a lot of sound and fury, signifying a bunch of sports columnists trying to pretend they're relevant.

by DanUpBaby on Mar 7, 2006 4:52 PM EST reply actions

no doubt there are

journalistic cheap-shot artists riding on the coattails of this story. but that doesn't mean it's a non-story.

when the record book is found to have been distorted by players using questionable performance enhancements, it's a story --- no?

by lboros on Mar 7, 2006 5:44 PM EST up reply actions

wow

Couldn't disagree with you more on this one, DanUp. First of all, the guys writing this book aren't sports columnists but investigative reporters who've done some very impressive digging.

More fundamentally, the SI story underscores how physically dangerous steroids can be. Among other things, the book talks about Bonds having wild mood swings -- he allegedly threatened to kill his girlfriend -- that probably were the product of his steroid use.

When guys like Bonds (and McGwire) use steroids, they gain an unfair advantage over every player who doesn't want to put his own health at risk.

DCGreg

by DCGreg on Mar 7, 2006 8:24 PM EST up reply actions

not going away....

unfortunately, i disagree that this thing is going away even if admission comes. after all, giambi admitted it and the story continues. problem is that you are dealing with the biggest ego(s) in the world. they've probably already convinced themselves that they actually didn't do it. no way they are coming clean (pun intended).

honestly, i think this is another black sox thing. it's going to be talked about when our kids have kids. only difference, baseball kicked those dudes out of baseball with little more than circumstantial evidence. short of video of a player juicing, baseball now-a-days would never kick someone out. the union is just too strong.

by busch league on Mar 7, 2006 5:05 PM EST reply actions

Black Sox

Not to jump onto a different tangent completely, but there was a heck of a lot more than circumstantial evidence against the 1919 White Sox - including a signed confession from Shoeless Joe himself, not to mention Joe Jackson admitting to it, under oath, in grand jury testimony.

by Robb on Mar 7, 2006 5:26 PM EST up reply actions

A parallel to be drawn?

From the SF Chronicle piece about the upcoming book:

Team management wondered what exactly he had done to so strikingly reshape his body, but the excerpt suggests owner Peter Magowan and other Giants officials "had no interest in learning" whether he was using steroids.
"By pursuing the issue," the excerpt reads, "the Giants ran the risk of poisoning their relationship with their touchy superstar -- or, worse, of precipitating a drug scandal the year before the opening of their new ballpark, where Bonds was supposed to be the main gate attraction."

So... Giants officials cast a blind eye toward Bonds' alleged steroid use because they liked the piles of cash he was generating.

Ignoring the part about the new ballpark, one could theoretically substitute "Cardinals officials" sted "Giants," and "McGwire" for "Bonds."

The 26th Man

by 26thMan on Mar 7, 2006 7:34 PM EST reply actions

throw bud selig

and the fox TV network and the players' union onto that list too. they all knew, and they all looked the other way in the name of almighty profit.

by lboros on Mar 7, 2006 10:30 PM EST up reply actions

barry bonds

where the heck is the creditebility in a sports illistrated publication thats oviously just out there to bring in the bucks. there is going to be NOTHING you haven't heard in there, and if there was it would be in the newspaper, all over the news-stations.

it's the same deal as Palmiero's trainor cashing in on his own player through his own book about rafy doing um.

ok, all we know fo-sure, is that he has passed all drug testing on him, and the only things that has been said other wise has been rumors.

quit frankly i just don't care about this book...

~P-Dissle

by fox22 on Mar 7, 2006 7:47 PM EST reply actions

Bring in the bucks?

For whom? SI is excerpting a book written by two reporters from the San Francisco Chronicle. It's standard procedure, dude. Magazines excerpt books all the time; it's called "advance publicity." Magazines advance books to drum up interest so people will by the book so the PUBLISHER will make money.

Don't blame Sports Illustrated. And to all the steroids apologists out there: Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.

The 26th Man

by 26thMan on Mar 7, 2006 7:56 PM EST up reply actions

The thing that annoys me the most

is the assumption that "if barry had retired in 1999 rather than become 'roids barry", he would have been a HOFer anyway. Up to 1999, he was a .288/.386/.558 batter with 445 HR and 460 SB and 2010 hits. That's very good, but I would hardly consider it "HOF lock." Maybe with a couple of decline years tacked on, to get him to 500 HR, I could see it as more of a lock, but not if he had just retired after the 1999 season.

The most telling thing I can think of in all this, was when he went FA after the 2002 season and there were abslolutely no teams interested. At the time, I thought it was weird, and indicative that something was up with Barry. Now, I don't really doubt that most teams were in on the knowledge regarding what was up with Mr. Bonds.

by Valatan on Mar 7, 2006 9:58 PM EST reply actions

excellent point

about the complete lack of interest in bonds on the '02 free-agent market.

i had chalked it up at the time to the "anti a-rod effect." this was 2 years after a-rod got his $250m deal, and people had figured out how that contract actually hurt the rangers ---- it hogged all the payroll and forced texas to carry a bunch of replacement-level players.

the rockies were suffering similarly for their unwise investment in mike hampton, and it seemed as if that explained the lack of interest in barry --- teams were wary of taking on a destructive contract. indeed, it was thought that bonds might go for even more per year than a-rod.

i still think that might have been a factor. but the lack of interest was absolute --- teams didn't even call his agent, didn't even float lowball offers to see what number bonds would counter at. they shunned the guy --- and that suggest, in retrospect, some special knowledge that the general public didn't have at the time.

i don't think he got a single offer

by lboros on Mar 7, 2006 10:28 PM EST up reply actions

Sorry, but I think

'roids in baseball have been painfully obvious since at least '98. I think Canseco is basically telling the truth: everyone knew or should have known.

by Zubin on Mar 7, 2006 11:48 PM EST up reply actions

"hardly consider it "HOF lock."

Yes he was. He had 3 mvps. No other player has more than 3 and the only other players with 3 mvps:
# Yogi Berra
# Roy Campanella
# Joe DiMaggio
# Jimmie Foxx
# Mickey Mantle
# Stan Musial
# Mike Schmidt
and was the only member of the 400-400 club.
Not to mention
5 OPS titles,
8 gold gloves
over 1000 RBI's,
over 1000 runs,
over 400 doubles
in just 14 seasons.
He would have been first ballot even with just 2000 hits. Also he had just had a great year in 1998 and I would think could have continued to put up very good numbers for a few years.
I don't like the guy either but he is a clear HOF. No pun intended.

by dnh0a9 on Mar 8, 2006 8:43 AM EST up reply actions

Tom Verducci of SI

said on ESPN Radio today that when Bonds comes up for the HOF, he will not vote for him. What I want to see when the time comes is the same indignance towards Bonds from the voters that is being shown towards Mac. If they continue to kiss his ass, then everything they will have said up to that point will be bullshit.

by cardsrul on Mar 8, 2006 12:02 AM EST reply actions