Sources: Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003
- Thread starter uolj
- Start date
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Steroids have been notorious as a cheat since the 80s at least -- we all knew many who used, knew it was cheating, and even knew of the dangers decades ago (because of my natural bulk I was accused a few times when I was young, but never touched the stuff). Its straightforward cheating, which ruins the entire premise of an athletic competition. The most blatant, most ridiculous, most perverse and most direct cheat you can have athletically (perhaps excepting blood doping in an endurance sport) -- it gives you a body and physical abilities you cannot ahcieve on your own. Not one athlete who has taken steroids has competed fairly, not one of them has been as good an athlete as they appeared to be. There is no excuse. People making excuses for it are...either self-interested (either have used themselves or wish to make excuses for favorite people or sports who have), or just need to reconenct to their moral compass.
The thing that really rotted baseball was the people who run it, both the league and the union. Other sports have had this problem and have moved against it long ago. Baseball's powers that be not only turned a blind eye and sacrificed everything to petty interests, they actually LIKED it so they could play up all these records being broken.
The thing that really rotted baseball was the people who run it, both the league and the union. Other sports have had this problem and have moved against it long ago. Baseball's powers that be not only turned a blind eye and sacrificed everything to petty interests, they actually LIKED it so they could play up all these records being broken.
I know you're on dial up, but it is available to Netflix subscribers for online streaming if anyone else is interested.
Monty'sBiggestFan
Starter
That will always be why baseball sinks compared to the other major sports. The leadership is so inept at the top both from the players union and ownership. Plus the junta they installed to run it after the Fay Vincent overthrow.
uolj
Starter
I honestly don't think it's that straightforward. And I think that's part of the problem.
A guy wants to do everything he can to perform better. He sees list A with all the things he can do and take that is legal, and list B with all the stuff that is illegal (and list C which has things that are quite similar to list B but aren't directly on that list yet). He doesn't see much difference between the two lists, so he does whatever he can to increase his performance, including things from both lists.
The players aren't scheming in the corner about how to cheat the system, they're obsessed with performing as well as possible to maximize their achievements/money/fame and the ones that use steroids are the ones that don't understand or don't care why those are in list B and not list A and aren't morally opposed to breaking rules to gain an advantage.
All forms of cheating bother me, personally. But breaking the rules to gain an advantage has been an accepted part of sport for a long time. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that such an attitude continues here. And since that's the case, what is so different from the player's perspective between taking creatine and caffeine pills then spitting on a ball versus taking creatine and Primobolan and testosterone?
Rodriguez admits to using PEDs from 2001-03
His voice shaking at times, Alex Rodriguez met head-on allegations that he tested positive for steroids six years ago, telling ESPN on Monday that he did take performance-enhancing drugs while playing for the Texas Rangers during a three-year period beginning in 2001.
"I did take a banned substance. For that, I am very sorry and deeply regretful."
Sources who know about the testing results told SI that Rodriguez tested positive for testosterone and Primobolan, an anabolic steroid. In his ESPN interview, Rodriguez said he did not know exactly which substance or substances he had taken. In 2003, there were no penalties for a positive result.
"I did take a banned substance. For that, I am very sorry and deeply regretful."
Sources who know about the testing results told SI that Rodriguez tested positive for testosterone and Primobolan, an anabolic steroid. In his ESPN interview, Rodriguez said he did not know exactly which substance or substances he had taken. In 2003, there were no penalties for a positive result.
uolj
Starter
Assuming what he's saying is completely true, that's about the best reaction you can hope for. It certainly doesn't excuse anything, but that's a heck of a lot better than a couple other steroid users' reactions.
It should also be a huge help in allowing baseball to get over this story for the 2009 season.
It should also be a huge help in allowing baseball to get over this story for the 2009 season.
I have to agree. And it's not an acceptance by me of what these guys were (are) doing. The thing that makes it hard to condemn anyone during the Steroid Era is that Major League Baseball did nothing about it until a few years ago. What good is having a banned substances policy if you don't have a testing policy to accompany it? It's tantamount to CA lowering the highway speed limits, then laying off all CHP traffic officers.
The fact of the matter is that people look for any possible way to gain an advantage, to bend, if not break, the rules. This is especially true when it comes to competitive sports. I can't honestly fault any particular individual for breaking the rules if those rules are not being enforced.
Again, I'm not being dismissive about this. It's just kind of hard to fault the players when Baseball willingly let it happen. Truth be told, the Steroid Era (spearheaded by Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds) saved Baseball. I wasn't into baseball during the home run chase, but I sat down and watched the entire series between the Cubs and Cardinals when McGwire broke the record. It excited people who weren't baseball fans, and bred a new generation of fans like myself. It also alienated a generation of historians and purists who will never return, and it's tainted hundreds of careers, all-time greats like Bonds who would have been Hall of Famers even before their alleged steroid use.
Because MLB wasn't serious about stopping it from happening (the tape-measure homerun made owners and shareholders a lot of money), this thing has taken over the sport. The players share the blame, of course, but I understand it. I can't honestly say that I wouldn't have been using illegal PEDs had I been a baseball player in the late '90s or early 2000s.
Section 101
All-Star
Saved it? You mean let it continue on only for a bigger upcoming crash. The owners and players are both to blame. For the strike and not having a drug testing policy sooner. They created the whole mess in the first place.
It's a lot easier to do when guys like Bonds have already taken all of the heat from everyone. This ***hole gets no sympathy from me. There's a poll over at RealGm asking whether this will affect A-Rod getting into the HOF and the majority of the voters voted no, while the same ****ing poll was up when Bonds was going through this and it was the complete opposite. What a bunch of bs. I really hope they release the rest of that list soon. Expose the rest of the cowards that let one man's entire career go down in flames for something that a **** load of other players were doing. How about this from now on. If you're caught using steriods from here on out, you will be banned from the MLB forever. Easy as that.
uolj
Starter
Bonds and Clemens and others put a heck of a lot more heat on themselves by not admitting their steroids use. It's amazing how much a little contrition (whether heartfelt or contrived) will do.
And all of their careers and legacies should be and are going down in flames. In case you missed it Clemens, McGwire and Sosa are being outcasted as much as Bonds.
And all of their careers and legacies should be and are going down in flames. In case you missed it Clemens, McGwire and Sosa are being outcasted as much as Bonds.
Section 101
All-Star
Bonds is still lying about it. That's the big difference.
While the publicity over steroids is harming baseball, I do agree with Supes that their use saved it. Steroids built the NFL into what it is today, and despite the fact that Slim doesn't care for it, it has become the highest grossing team sport in the nation. I don't believe that they are as clean as people think, they've just created a better perception that they are. The recent allegations about the 2006 Steelers were largely swept under the rug.
I really do believe it is the strike and the lack of salary cap and in particular the way one team and one agent have abused it that are the true reason for baseball's demise with the fans. This has lead for the press to turn on the players, and more than any other sport the baseball press dictates popular opinion.
I disagree with your assumption that this is going to kill Major League Baseball. It hasn't so far. The Mitchell Report didn't hurt ratings or attendance. A-Rod plays for the Yankees, who are already the most popular sports franchise in the world without him, and are opening a brand new stadium this season. Barry Bonds home run chase hasn't hurt baseball either.
If baseball takes a dip this season, it's likely because the economy has caused a lot of baseball fans to cut back.
The big difference is that the NFL instituted a testing policy before any other major professional sports league did. For 20 years, there's been no "first offense warning", unlike baseball until a few years ago.
Anyone arguing that PEDs aren't a problem in the NFL is being naive, but the fact that the NFL took a stand against them long before any scandals were able to plague the league gives them a measure of goodwill from the fans and the press that MLB does not and will not ever have. The NFL was proactive; MLB was reactive.
So when an allegation comes out about the Steelers trainer buying illegal PEDs, the automatic assumption is that the NFL is all over it and will do what needs to be done, then the story goes away. That's because the NFL has established a track record of taking care of these issues, and hasn't capitulated to the players' union on these things (like with the Vikings suspensions last season). MLB, on the other hand, is guilty of sweeping these things under the rug, resisting any improvement to the policies and testing procedures, and Bud Selig really has no credibility.
Good ol' Sox fan...
Baseball really does need a salary cap, but the fact is that the sport is more compelling because of the Yankees. And if they were winning every year as a result of their spending, there would have already been some changes made. (The grumblings have become louder in the past two seasons; the Mets GM openly criticized the Yankees spending a few weeks ago.)
uolj
Starter
Fact is if I weren't a Sox fan I'd probably be gone by now. They are one of the few teams that has shown a willingness to spend and yet the Yankees payroll makes them look like the Oakland A's in comparison.Good ol' Sox fan...
But I hold Boras in far higher contempt. The Yankees have a legal advantage and they are exploiting it. Good on them, but the league really ought to fix it for the benefit of the 20 or so teams that are barely treading water year in and year out.
Well, I think the numbers support that assertion. The Yankees are good for baseball the same way the Lakers are good for basketball. It's a bigger deal when the Yankees are in the World Series than when it's the Phillies and the Rays, just like the Lakers vs. anybody is better than Cavs vs. Spurs, or Heat vs. Mavs.Fixed it for you.
Hard part about that is there are certain teams that have no obvious desire to compete on a regular basis. The Marlins immediately come to mind.
uolj
Starter
I don't really want to get into that debate in this thread but the numbers can't support that assertion when you have no numbers regarding the opposing option to compare to. The question isn't whether the Yankees doing well within the natural cycle of the sport is good, it's whether having them and other big market teams consistently dominate the tops of the standings is good. That's why the Lakers one is a bad analogy, because they have a relatively small advantage over small market clubs. Another bad analogy is the NFL, but if you looked at that example you'd say parity is great for a sports league.
And they can point to the salary cap, etc. and say they can't compete with the big market teams so they have to build through the farm and then sell off players that achieve. They have won twice and immediately dismantled and I'm sure they cry that they have become victims of success. There should be a minimum salary to go with the cap, and if you won't pay it then sell the team or have it contracted.
But look at a team like the Rays, they've finally got a bunch of young studs and have shown willingness to spend in the past, but how long can it last if the Yankees start bidding after them? They proved they could beat the Sox, something the Yanks haven't done in 5 years
Big market teams carry sports leagues. Every MLB team benefited from the Yankees last season, on the front end and the back end. The natural cycle of the league notwithstanding, if the major market teams are in the crapper for any extended period of time, that's bad for the league. Even the NFL, where parity is more of a reality than any other major sports league, both in terms of personnel and championships (consider the Cardinals playing in the Super Bowl), when the major market teams are bad, it's bad for the league.
I don't know why you think the Lakers have a small advantage over small market clubs. I mean, the salary cap minimizes their advantage to a certain extent, but you don't see the Milwaukee Bucks signing aging free agents for a chance to win a championship like the Lakers did in 2004. There won't ever be a player with a rider clause in an endorsement contract that pays him more if he signs with the Denver Nuggets, the way LeBron's Nike contract would pay him more for playing in New York or LA.
And regardless of that fact, the Lakers are a ratings machine. When they're winning, it's good for the NBA. Now we all know how I feel about the Lakers, and I'm no Yankee fan either, but both teams are unparalled in their ability to draw crowds and ratings.
Meh; they sell their guys off because they don't want to pay for them. The Marlins would be a lot better if they still had Josh Beckett, Dontrell Willis and Miguel Cabrera. They didn't want to keep them. Didn't even try. And that's part of the reason no major free agent will ever sign with the Marlins: they're not committed to winning.
I'm not sure you can force an owner to sell or be contracted, but you can keep them from making money off of the teams that are willing to spend. If you don't meet that minimum threshold, you don't receive any luxury tax money.
But look at a team like the Rays, they've finally got a bunch of young studs and have shown willingness to spend in the past, but how long can it last if the Yankees start bidding after them? They proved they could beat the Sox, something the Yanks haven't done in 5 years
In fairness, they haven't played in four years, so...
When Carl Crawford's contract was up, the Rays actually spent a considerable amount of money to keep him. They signed Troy Percival as a free agent. Guys like Kazmir, Shields, Garza have reason to be hopeful that they'll be retained. Now we all know that the Rays aren't going to throw around $400 million every offseason like the Yankees, we know they're going to be committed to building the team through the draft. But they're also showing some commitment to winning.
The Marlins, on the other hand, fire sale their homegrown talent every five years.
uolj
Starter
Sorry Superman, I don't think you're getting it. Of course big market teams doing well is good for leagues. But big market teams with major competitive advantages is bad for leagues.
Pittsburgh vs Phoenix was the most watched Super Bowl (TV show?) of all time. The question (for another thread) is whether the sport is more compelling because of the Yankees. I say no, if there was more parity rather than one team with a humonguous payroll taking most of the best players, the sport would be more compelling. It's difficult to give examples to back up these assertions because baseball isn't doing it the other way. But I think the other sports that don't have the same imbalances are more compelling and are doing better, so take that for what it's worth.
Pittsburgh vs Phoenix was the most watched Super Bowl (TV show?) of all time. The question (for another thread) is whether the sport is more compelling because of the Yankees. I say no, if there was more parity rather than one team with a humonguous payroll taking most of the best players, the sport would be more compelling. It's difficult to give examples to back up these assertions because baseball isn't doing it the other way. But I think the other sports that don't have the same imbalances are more compelling and are doing better, so take that for what it's worth.
Well, the inherent flaws in the way MLB does things can't just be ignored. There's no hard salary cap in baseball, so any team that wants to can spend as much as they want, as long as they're willing to pay the tax. The Yankees are that team. And since MLB won't do anything about it, it needs the Yankees to be good. Parity isn't going to be a reality in baseball until ownership does something about it. You're right; it's difficult to argue because there's no opposing data. MLB isn't a parity driven league.
And as pdx was saying, it has to tackle the problem from both angles, otherwise you'll have $15 million payroll teams who don't care to be competitive as long as they can make money off the other teams.
By the way, this year's Super Bowl wasn't the most watched. It was second behind last year's. And Super Bowl XL (Steelers vs. Seahawks) was third. Besides, Arizona isn't exactly a small market. Not like the Rays or the Bucks. And the Steelers are one of the most popular franchises in sports. The NFL can handle two small market teams in the Super Bowl much better than the NBA or MLB in their Finals. Neither basketball nor baseball has been friendly to parity in recent years, which is evidenced by their ratings in the Finals and World Series.
We can argue for parity and equality all we want, but the NBA and MLB do much better when they have popular, big market teams at the top than when they have small market teams competing for a championship. Yankees vs. Dodgers would have outgrossed Rays vs. Phillies two-fold.
uolj
Starter
I guess I inferred from your statement that having the Yankees always in contention was better than having a more level playing field, which I think is incorrect and far from fact. You seem to be arguing something else in defense of that statement so I guess my inferrence was wrong. Either way... not in this thread!
By the way, this super bowl was the most watched: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs2008/news/story?id=3882060
By the way, this super bowl was the most watched: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs2008/news/story?id=3882060
I guess I inferred from your statement that having the Yankees always in contention was better than having a more level playing field, which I think is incorrect and far from fact. You seem to be arguing something else in defense of that statement so I guess my inferrence was wrong. Either way... not in this thread!
This thread has certainly "evolved". Sorry for derailing it.
Anyways, my point was simply that the Yankees are good for Baseball, level playing field or not.
Fair enough.
uolj
Starter
Ok. I think the Yankees would be good for baseball if there were a more level playing field. Since there isn't, I say they're not.
Section 101
All-Star
Lets see what happens when the other 104 names are released and who they are.
Barry Bonds home run chase would have been much greater if roids weren't over his head.
The Mitchel report also wasn't from a drug test. It was based off testimony of people.
Section 101
All-Star
Kind of a dubious stat. Since there are more people watching TV now than in the past.
