PeterDavid.net

So, can we assume, with such great results, you are still taking them, right?

did your doctor give you steroids or chuck norris?

Yes, but can you touch you elbow with your tongue?

Do you find that you get stronger when you're angry? Did your skin take on a greenish hue?

PAD:

I think you need to go back to the doctor, if for no other reason than it sounds like you are having erections last more than 4 hours.

Have you talked to Kathleen about what type of costume you're going to wear to protect your secret identity?

So now we know the truth. The reason why we have not seen an NEW FRONTIERS novel is due to Peter's abuse of steroids. :-)

Hey! Where can I get me some of those? Can you help a sister out?????

Steroid use has been rampant in baseball and other sports all the way back in the 60s, maybe even earlier. Cortisone is a steroid.

(So is prednisone, which is often given to reduce the rash and inflammation caused by poison ivy, oak, and sumac.)

That they are making such a big deal of it now should be obvious. It is a distraction to take our thoughts away from the real news.

My problem with the accusations is that there's no way to prove a negative. If the players in question have never tested positive for steroids, then there's no way for them to prove that they've never taken them. But their reputations are permanently smeared regardless. And, as my admittedly tongue in cheek posting indicates, using steroids for specific medical conditions is common and even positive.

PAD

Now, my only question is did you do all of these things at one time?

make love to my wife for thirty seven hours straight,

So they made you Irish now did they?

Poor Pete Rose. If he'd just used steroids, the bozos would have allowed him in the Hall of Fame by now.

1 Just remember Peter that with Great Power comes Great Responsibility.

Now to get back and finish cooking dinner. We're having Uncle Ben's rice.

Hurricane Heeran

So......where can I sell you my cow, you'll give me a few of these magical beans :)?

I agree with your thoughts on it, and really this bit is getting nuts on how many people it's snaring.

"My problem with the accusations is that there's no way to prove a negative. If the players in question have never tested positive for steroids, then there's no way for them to prove that they've never taken them. But their reputations are permanently smeared regardless"

Agreed but boy do I really suspect Clemens of juicing. Bulking up. Had some of his best seasons after he was 40. Classic symptom of 'roid rage? When he went after Piazza! I still don't get what brought that outburst on..

Even if I'm wrong I do find it interesting that the press didn't go after Clemens nearly as hard as they did Bonds even though their careers show a striking similarity when you look at the stats..

As a non-baseball fan, I'm most interested in how many fans already accept the allegations as fact. No one's claiming they're out to get a player or out to ruin the sport -- most of the reaction I've heard is "I knew it!" or "That makes sense." Heck, people are listing the moments when their players first showed signs of sterid abuse.

I'm also surprised that the baseball officials seem to be taking a Bush administration approach to the consequences of anyone proved to having doped up -- "we'll see what happens on a case-by-case basis." Huh? They can't come up with a universal penalty for anyone who cheated? They can't boot someone who's been playing under the influence, or keep someone out of the Hall of Fame who got there thanks to 'roids?

As a non-baseball fan, I'm most interested in how many fans already accept the allegations as fact.

I am slowly slogging my way through the report.

I don't know if I accept all the accusations as fact. However, in the case of Clemens, the timing given in the report does tie to events that had me wondering at the time in question what was going on with him.

Take more, Peter. I miss my "Daily" dose of Jon Stewart.

The whole thing is out of whack.

To me, steroids MUST be eliminated from pro sports, simply because their usage forces other players, even young kids coming up from high school, to ingest chemicals that will cause serious long-term health issues and likely early death, just to be able to get and maintain their spot in the roster. No livelihood should require that.

I think Congress is going to have to get involved. These are illegal drugs, and they may have to levy penalties and exert pressure on MLB (threatening their trust-exempt status, for example) in order to get stricter testing policies. This will have to include monthly blood tests for all players. There's just no other way to ensure they are clean.

The Mitchell Report isn't going to do much by itself, and it's unfortunate it was biased against NY since they released it with only the testimony of people who had worked for NY teams (there's also the questionable conflict of interest of Mitchell being a director of the Red Sox). If they'd been able to get a comprehensive cross-section of steroid use across baseball, I could see the value in releasing names, because it would give people an idea of how widespread it is. But as it is, it really served nothing other than tabloid gossip.

That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long while.

What the Hell? Don't comics have mandatory drug testing to catch this crap? To think that all those stories written by PAD must now bear an asterisk, because certainly they wouldn't have been as funny, dramatic, or entertaining had PAD not been on the juice.

I think the release of the Mitchell report is reprehensible, and I hope those players implicated through hearsay evidence get large cash payments from MLB for the damage done to their careers and reputations.

Posted by: Rob Thornton at December 14, 2007 08:38 PM

Poor Pete Rose. If he'd just used steroids, the bozos would have allowed him in the Hall of Fame by now.

The acid test will be when it's McGwire's time. As you know if you watched him testify before Congress, when asked whether or not he had taken steroids he refused to answer, saying something lame like "I don't want to talk about the past."

Now, I respect a man who considers a promise he makes sacred, and I respect McGwire for at least having enough of a conscience to not lie under oath. I respect him a helluva lot more than Rafael Palmeiro, who said flat out that he'd never juiced after taking the same oath and then got caught shortly after.

But the things McGwire's refusal to answer implies...those are things that I cannot respect him for. It was a simple "yes" or "no" question, and he would have nothing to lose by saying "no." It's logical to conclude that he was using performance enhancing drugs of some type (in addition to the androstenedione, which was public knowledge in the '98 season).

The people who will decide whether or not he gets into the Hall will remember that as well. I'm holding out hope that they won't admit him.

Posted by: Peter David at December 14, 2007 06:25 PM

My problem with the accusations is that there's no way to prove a negative. If the players in question have never tested positive for steroids, then there's no way for them to prove that they've never taken them. But their reputations are permanently smeared regardless. And, as my admittedly tongue in cheek posting indicates, using steroids for specific medical conditions is common and even positive.

If there's no evidence that they've used steroids, and I mean irrefutable evidence instead of just some guy saying "I say him shooting up one day in the locker room", then they shouldn't be accused, I agree.

If there is irrefutable evidence that they've taken steroids or HGH or something else, I say throw the fucking book at them.

For one thing, they're cheating.

For another, they're making a mockery of the records set by Maris and Aaron (that's assuming that Aaron didn't have pharmaceutical aid, since accounts of players taking one thing or another go back to before he set the home run record, but I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt). You might as well have an adjustable fence that moves 100-200 feet closer to the batter when he steps up to the plate; the effect on his home run numbers would be the same.

I don't buy the argument that says "if these players weren't good to begin with, no amount of drugs would make them good or great." I mean, yes, to a certain extent it's true, but how often have you seen a fly ball caught near the warning track, where if the fence had just been a little further in, or if the ball had been hit just a little harder or higher, it would've been a home run instead of an out? The drugs turn those fly balls into homers. I believe there's also stuff that makes a player react quicker, boosts his reflexes (and that is invaluable if you're at the plate, of course).

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at December 15, 2007 11:41 AM

I think the release of the Mitchell report is reprehensible, and I hope those players implicated through hearsay evidence get large cash payments from MLB for the damage done to their careers and reputations.

Yeah, like they need more goddamned money and they're really gonna suffer. Come on.

What would you suggest for the players implicated through more than just hearsay?

All of these arguments about steroids in baseball mean nothing. It was not against the rules.

Many ballplayers have been enhanced for decades. DECADES. They have been using speed, uppers. It was common for the longest time for the clubhouse manager to hand them out to the players that wanted them.

Posted by: Alan Coil at December 15, 2007 04:09 PM

All of these arguments about steroids in baseball mean nothing. It was not against the rules.

And yet corked bats and doctored balls are illegal. Tad inconsistent, doncha think?

If it's as simple as "it wasn't against the rules, therefore we have nothing to feel guilty about," MLB or the players' union should just make a public statement to that effect and admit they've used this stuff. Part of why this pisses me off is because of how much they are lying to us.

As long as this scandal doesn't touch pro wrestling I don't care.

The acid test will be when it's McGwire's time.

McGwire went on the ballot last year.

And, not surprisingly, he got enough to remain on the ballot, but nowhere near enough to guarantee that he'll ever make it to the HoF.

But then, I think an argument could be made for keeping McGwire out for reasons other than simply his Andro & possible steroid use.

"Yeah, like they need more goddamned money and they're really gonna suffer. Come on."

That's not the point. The point is, you can't just come out and make accusations against someone that negatively impacts their public image, especially when their livelihood depends in part on that image. Sure, players like Clements and Petit don't need more money, and should be fine for the rest of their lives if they never get another MLB paycheck. But what about the non-superstar? Just because someone makes a lot of money, that's no excuse to allow someone else ot reduce their income potential because of what amounts to anecdotes.

Show me purchase orders, receipts, something more concrete than some guy telling stories, and maybe I'd have less against the Mitchell report.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at December 15, 2007 09:12 PM

But what about the non-superstar? Just because someone makes a lot of money, that's no excuse to allow someone else ot reduce their income potential because of what amounts to anecdotes.

I see your point. It might mean they don't get endorsement deals, true. Would a club release somebody over an accusation like this, though?

Show me purchase orders, receipts, something more concrete than some guy telling stories, and maybe I'd have less against the Mitchell report.

I'm no fan of circumstantial evidence either, so I understand where you're coming from. Perhaps my reaction was more emotional than logical, and naming names in the media without proof for all of those names is going too far. But I'm all in favour of there being an investigation to find out for sure who's using.

I don't trust MLB to police itself, and one recommendation of the Mitchell report I can totally get behind is for an independent entity to conduct the testing in the future.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at December 15, 2007 08:51 PM

McGwire went on the ballot last year.

Oh.

And, not surprisingly, he got enough to remain on the ballot, but nowhere near enough to guarantee that he'll ever make it to the HoF.

I hope not.

Yeah, like they need more goddamned money and they're really gonna suffer. Come on.

In one case, it could have unexpected ramifications. Clemens has a son in the minor leagues. If the stain of the accusations against his father rub off on him, that could keep him ever reaching the big leagues.

I should have suspected as much when you started bowling overhand.

Thank you, Peter, for both a dose of perspective and for encouraging a open, fair debate.

Can I add that were Captain America alive, he might be in trouble, too, since the Super Soldier Formula was sort of a steroid. (Then again, having just read the origin of the 1950s Cap and Bucky, maybe 'roid rage is a legitimate concern?)

Can I add that were Captain America alive, he might be in trouble, too, since the Super Soldier Formula was sort of a steroid.

Yeah, that was explored in the "Streets of Poison" arc written by Mark Gruenwald, sometime in the early '90s I believe.

Cap discovered that one of the Avengers' support staff was a junkie hooked on a new designer drug that was making him delusional, and he decided to find out who was supplying the drug to NYC and shut them down. When Cap confronts the guy and tells him he needs to get help, the guy asks "isn't the Super Soldier Serum a drug too?" Cap tells him that it's different, but that observation causes him to question how different it really is. I'm pretty sure he also wonders what kind of role model he is for kids, whether his being a super hero and the way he became Captain America being public knowledge might encourage kids to use steroids or something else.

Can I add that were Captain America alive, he might be in trouble, too, since the Super Soldier Formula was sort of a steroid.

I'm reading a lot of arguments along these lines, and frankly, to me it seems like a lot of people are doing nothing more than trying to legitimize the steroid use in baseball.

One I saw the other day was trying to compare steroid use to cortisone shots or Tommy John surgery. Never mind that cortisone shots & surgery are legal, steroid abuse isn't.

With great steroids come great responsibility.

How many other comic book writers are using steroids?

From what I've heard the reported names in the Mitchell report all had documentation like voided checks. But if anyone out there thinks players before the steroid age wouldn't have jumped at the chance to use them if they knew the results I can find the lease to a few bridges you might want to buy. It wasn't until the late 70's early 80's that coaches actually began to realize that weightlifting wouldn't make you muscle bound but could help you hit harder or throw farther.
4 or 5 years ago steroids were no more illegal than any other prescription drug. Yet on the basis of hearsay* and wanting to "protect our children" steroids were put in the same class of drugs as heroin and crack. Meanwhile kids are abusing drugs with proven side effects like oxycotin never mind alcohol.
Many side effects of steroids are temporary while others like 'roid rage were first brought up by lawyers trying to get clients off not by doctors in studies. In fact there have been no studies of steroids and now because of the classification it is impossible in the US to to do such a study legally.

"All of these arguments about steroids in baseball mean nothing. It was not against the rules."

US law is a rule. If they were caught with that stuff by the cops, they would have been arrested for possessing them without a prescription. Saying "It was not against the rules" means baseball should have a rule that states "No team should place snipers on the roof to take out opposing batters". It's against the law. Of COURSE it's against the "rules."

Holey crap!! PAD if your on roids and we get these stories of yours what in the hell is Bendis on?
I dont want to start any rumors....

4 or 5 years ago steroids were no more illegal than any other prescription drug. Yet on the basis of hearsay* and wanting to "protect our children" steroids were put in the same class of drugs as heroin and crack.

You might want to do some serious research into the history of steroids and their affect on the human body.

For starters, steroids have been on the list of Controlled Substances since 1990 - that's 17 years, not 4 or 5. Also, they're given the same status as codeine, two Schedules below heroin and a Schedule below cocaine.

Drug abuse is drug abuse. And professional athletes who have no medical need for steroids or HGH are abusing them, plain and simple.

Much of the evidence levied in the report is circumstantial and would not hold up in court. Are there some in the report that are probably innocent? There's a definite possibility. However, where there is smoke there is usually fire. I would wager that a majority of the names on the list probably are guilty. But there is no way of ever knowing for certain. I have to agree with Ken Rosenthal the results of the Mitchell report have accomplished nothing other than giving out names for tabloid gossip since Mitchell's investigation lacked the teeth of the power to subpoena players.

An example of a player who was never any good before taking steroids (a fact I believe he admitted in his book) is the original poster child for steroids in baseball Jose Canseco.

One other thing I don't understand cortisone (which is a steroid) injections are legal under a doctor's care but other steroids that would promote healing are not. The other thing is cortisone actually destroys tissue instead of healing it, which is why you're only allowed so many injections a year. It's really only a temporary fix.

PAD if your on roids and we get these stories of yours what in the hell is Bendis on?

A performance-diminishing drug, no doubt.

(Sorry. I may never get over what was done to Wanda, and I'm not much of a fan of the Illuminati concept either.)

"US law is a rule. If they were caught with that stuff by the cops, they would have been arrested for possessing them without a prescription. Saying "It was not against the rules" means baseball should have a rule that states "No team should place snipers on the roof to take out opposing batters". It's against the law. Of COURSE it's against the "rules.""

I think the point trying to be made is that, if it wasn't against the rules of baseball, their use should not have any impact in baseball terms. Meaning no affect on a player's liklihood of getting inducted into the Hall of Fame, having records taken away from them, or contracts invalidated or such. Players that beat their wives/girlfriends...acts clearly against the law...generally aren't kept out of such things. Maybe a team will suspend a player involved in such, but that's a team decision.

The thing is, bobb, is that unlike the NFL HoF (I am unsure about NBA & NHL) the BBWAA *are* allowed to take into account a person's character when voting on them for the Baseball HoF.

And now, whether you use steroids or not, or even were suspected of it, it's going to be a knock against the character of many players.

The doctor put me on steroids. Not only did the steroids clear up the pneumonia, they also caused me to gain thirty pounds of solid muscle, regrow hair on my head, enabled me to hit a 96 MPH fastball, throw a no-hitter, make love to my wife for thirty seven hours straight, and lift a Buick over my head.

Not to mention, you turned yourself invisible, RAN to my house, shovelled my sidewalks and front steps, and RAN back home again, laughing in the face of a mere 580-mile round trip.

[well, somebody shovelled me out and didn't let me catch them at it, for which I'm very grateful. But I still think it was you, PAD.]

"I think the point trying to be made is that, if it wasn't against the rules of baseball, their use should not have any impact in baseball terms. Meaning no affect on a player's liklihood of getting inducted into the Hall of Fame, having records taken away from them, or contracts invalidated or such. Players that beat their wives/girlfriends...acts clearly against the law...generally aren't kept out of such things. Maybe a team will suspend a player involved in such, but that's a team decision."

I don't see why baseball would have to explicitly make illegal performance enhancing drugs AGAINST their rules. McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, Bonds or anybody else who may have taken steroids knew they were illegal and knew they shouldn't have taken them and that's why their use was hidden until people starting turning over rocks. They took illegal drugs in order to boost their performance. It's no excuse to say "But the rulebook doesn't say we couldn't" any more than I would be justified to say I shouldn't get terminated for say, setting my office on fire, because the handbook doesn't mention it.

I don't see why baseball would have to explicitly make illegal performance enhancing drugs AGAINST their rules. McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, Bonds or anybody else who may have taken steroids knew they were illegal and knew they shouldn't have taken them and that's why their use was hidden until people starting turning over rocks.

Perhaps they are saying that instead of baseball doing something about it if a player takes illegal performance enhancers, it should fall to the authorities.

And if they end up throwing Bonds' ass in jail, as well as the asses of others who used steroids or HGH or whatever, I think I might be okay with that.

TGWSS---

To be more specific, baseball can do nothing about the times before they had rules against steroids. Why? Because it wasn't in their rules AND the players have a Union to back them up. Another case where someone (you?) could argue that Unions are bad, but what having a Union does for you is that the rules can't change at any time just because your boss says so, and that you can't be punished unjustly or unequally. If 6 players use corked bats (first offense) and all 6 get suspended for 7 games, that is fair, but they can't suspend 5 of them for 7 games and the other 1 for 100 games. Union power is important.

There were no rules for steroids in baseball until recently, so baseball can do nothing to those players who used steroids before that time.

If a governmental agency can prove charges against any particular player, then perhaps baseball could suspend them under a clause in the contract pertaining to the "greater good of the game" or an ethics clause.

Until then, it is just hot air being thrown about by the powers that be in order to distract us from the real important things in life, such as an illegal war, thousands of our young men and women dead, many-many thousands of our young men and women maimed for life both physically and mentally, global climate change, the burgeoning national debt ($3000 of each person's taxes this year going just to INTEREST), and the failing economy, among many other things more important than "who used steroids" or "who saw Britney's crotch".

How about decency clauses? Do baseball contracts have anything written about illegal acts in general?

It's hard to say, Jason.

A couple of years back, the Yankees were considering trying to cut Jason Giambi for a breach of contract because of his half-ass admission of steroids use, but it never really went anywhere. If they had tried, the Player's Association would've fought it tooth and nail, even if the Yankees were in the right.

And so far, it's Mitchell Report Fallout Admissions: 3 (Pettite, Vina, Roberts), Denials: 1 (Clemens).

Missed some Fallout:
Admissions: 4 (Pettite, Vina (HGH use), Roberts, Bennett)
Denials: 3 (Clemens, Justice, Cabrera)

I'm sure the number of excuses that HGH was used only for recovering from injuries will rise, as Pettite and Vina have already gone that route.

In the end, the teams aren't even bothering to consider not signing guys or cutting them, as the Yankees did with Giambi.

Jose Guillen signed with the Royals the day he was suspended 15 games for HGH use. And now Bennett has signed with the Dodgers after he admitted his HGH use.

In an uncharacteristic moment of sympathy for these guys, I'm wondering if they'd feel as much of a need to rely on drugs if they had a shorter schedule.

Of the four major sports, baseball's got the most games in a regular season schedule (162 over six months), with games on almost every day of a month if you don't count the All-Star break.

So they're tiring themselves out in games every day and don't have many days off to recover. I wonder how many players decided to take something just to help them last the full six months (or if they get to the playoffs, more) without running out of gas.

Having said that, I will now resume calling for their heads.

For starters, steroids have been on the list of Controlled Substances since 1990 - that's 17 years, not 4 or 5. Also, they're given the same status as codeine, two Schedules below heroin and a Schedule below cocaine.
A quote I got from a legal website " Congress and many states (including Connecticut, by regulation) have listed anabolic steroids under Schedule III." The thing is the DEA, FDA and AMA all advised congress not to do so. If you watch the media it is demonized overall where much more serious and 'legal' prescription drugs and their abuse is shoved under the carpet.
During the Chris Benoit news cycle every time people brought up his depression and other drug use anchors quickly drew the conversation back to steroids. Nothing is ever said about injured athletes playing through injuries thanks to doses of highly addictive painkillers.
An HBO story on the steroid subject.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=z0LEj8IPHGU

BTW Sen. Chuck Schumer(sp?) announced he wants to add HGH as a schedule 3 drug

If you watch the media it is demonized overall where much more serious and 'legal' prescription drugs and their abuse is shoved under the carpet.

Sports are big money, and thus, draw big attention. But, in the end, the government doesn't really care about what individual players are doing; they want to catch the suppliers, not only of steroids, but other drugs that are being abused.

I'm all for demonizing jokers like Rush Limbaugh who go after the drug abuse of others, then gets caught himself. :)

Nothing is ever said about injured athletes playing through injuries thanks to doses of highly addictive painkillers.

If they're abusing any drug, then something should be said and done.

But in the end, it's abuse: steroids and HGH are prescribed for certain conditions and situations. Healthy athletes, even if injured, are not among those situations.

Painkillers, on the other hand... well, that's where healthy debate comes in on how those are used.

But I don't think simply comparing steroids to codeine and trying to wash our hands of the situation is the way to go.

Craig J. Ries:I'm all for demonizing jokers like Rush Limbaugh who go after the drug abuse of others, then gets caught himself. :)

and Rush did this when?

and Rush did this when?

To use the dreaded Wikipedia, which uses an MSNBC article as its source for the following quote:

On Oct 5, 1995, he said on his television show, "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

He also said "too many whites are getting away with drug use."

And he's now among those 'whites' getting away with it.

To use the dreaded Wikipedia, I like that

Im sure he has a somewhat different opinion now 10 years later or at least I hope so.

make love to my wife for thirty seven hours straight

They call those Viagroids.

So now you're Hulk!