Mark McGwire Admits to Steroid Use

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]LarryDavid wrote:
The only really great player from his era that I can think of that probably didn’t use anything of the sort is Ken Griffey Jr… unless rumours about him have popped up…

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I’m a firm believer that they should just fucking end the ban on drugs in professional sports. [/quote]

x2.

[/quote]

I’d buy that. People forgoet how great Griffey really was. Looking through his stats of his first few years it looked like he had the talent to challenge for GOAT status.
[/quote]

No one will ever match Babe Ruth’s numbers. There were a few seasons that Ruth hit more homers than a few other teams did.

Griffey is great and is likely clean seeing as how he started to get much worse after age 34 but he never had the potential to be the best ever.
[/quote]

Yeah, no one dominated the game like Ruth. But at the same time, and we do have to mention this he did play when the league had no black guys playing. I would imagine Babe would have still been the most dominant player of his time anyway, but the gap would have been smaller.

That and, the talent pool back then was really small. I suppose it shouldn’t matter [I mean no one make that complaint when talking about Wilt Chamberlain being one of the best centers in NBA history], but it seems like in sports old enough that dominant leagues were around at the beginning of the previous century that there are a lot of dominant players. For female sports that pattern holds for more recent players, since as recent as a few decades ago it was still a small talent pool for their sports.

I think had he not gotten injured later on, and had the other players on the juice [or suspected] not made numbers like his look slightly more ordinary, he could have at least been in the discussion for the best ever. But yeah, in the end Ruth wins it anyway.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]bignate wrote:
its not really news but by the public just drawing more attention to steriods than there needs to be is what causes kids to want them to some degree
“o my favorite sports star used roids so should i”
if the public wants to do any good they need to let go and just do this privately no need to go public with all this[/quote]

Retarded.

Parents or people with sufficient knowledge should be educating children (and adults) about steroids so they understand why they should not take them until a certain age. You cant just brush something as pervasive as performance enhancing drugs under the rug and hope kids don’t hear about them. And there’s always the internet.

Do you really believe that promoting ignorance is the right way to handle this situation?[/quote]

yeh but alot of parents dont know about them and i think we draw alot of uneccassary attention to them, like this makes it seem like steriods did all the work for mark and that he didnt have to work hard to accomplish his record. I think kids see this and think (without enough research) that they can take steriods and do all these amazing things without harm and its not true

No they shouldn’t be allowed in the HOF. Players that admitted they used PEDs after they retired should no be allowed (those you admitted to use whilst still playing ie a-rod should still be eligible) simply because they broke the rules. This is ideological as many will be on the HOF nominees list and will be eligible for selection by the voters.

They knew when they were taking them that it was against regulation. From that point on they became renegade and malicious even if all they wanted to do was increase their at bat.

Basically you have to analyze what the HOF is. Exciting baseball, great moments and etc like some of you have mentioned doesn’t really correlate with the HOF. Its about collecting the greats of the game where you don’t disrespect the older generation of Babe Ruths and Demaggios and Aarons. PEDs make a player better than his natural abilities. The Sosas, Bonds and McGwires all showed this and produced memorable baseball for the fans. They created a good atmosphere no doubt. But why did they take them if they were already so talented. I haven’t seen anyone mention $$$. Contract extensions, merchandise and w/e could be achieved by improving performance. These guys enjoyed the time they played and they contributed to the game but they did it illegally. They got paid and treated like gods, they don’t need the HOF. If they wanted the HOF then they shouldn’t of done what Ruth didn’t do. They shouldn’t have lied at least.

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Ok here is the big question then;

Do you put them in the HOF or not?[/quote]

Jesus Christ, of course you do. To try and deny entry based on the use of performance enhancing substances or circumventing the rules shows complete ignorance of how baseball is and always has been played.

[/quote]

Then why not put Pete Rose in??

His numbers from his playing days are definately good enough.

Granted what he did as a manager was shitty but were not talking about him going in as a manager only as a player.[/quote]

What? Do you follow baseball history? Rose is not in the Hall because he put himself on the banned list (in exachange for keeping his gambling a secret) and Bart Giamatti died before Rose admitted it. Now no one wants to undermine Giamatti (a lot of politics involved there, obviously) so Rose will never have his name taken off the banned list. It’s not that Rose is eligible and the writers aren’t voting him in; he’s simply not on the ballot.

And yes obviously his numbers are good enough. He kinda has the most hits of all time and won a few rings.

[quote]bignate wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]bignate wrote:
its not really news but by the public just drawing more attention to steriods than there needs to be is what causes kids to want them to some degree
“o my favorite sports star used roids so should i”
if the public wants to do any good they need to let go and just do this privately no need to go public with all this[/quote]

Retarded.

Parents or people with sufficient knowledge should be educating children (and adults) about steroids so they understand why they should not take them until a certain age. You cant just brush something as pervasive as performance enhancing drugs under the rug and hope kids don’t hear about them. And there’s always the internet.

Do you really believe that promoting ignorance is the right way to handle this situation?[/quote]

yeh but alot of parents dont know about them and i think we draw alot of uneccassary attention to them, like this makes it seem like steriods did all the work for mark and that he didnt have to work hard to accomplish his record. I think kids see this and think (without enough research) that they can take steriods and do all these amazing things without harm and its not true[/quote]

Yes, you were clear the first time. You just repeated that people are ignorant and that trying to ignore the situation will make it go away. That has never worked for anything. Education is the only answer. I understand that the overwhelming majority of adults aren’t educated enough to talk about this stuff but it has to start somewhere.

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
No they shouldn’t be allowed in the HOF. Players that admitted they used PEDs after they retired should no be allowed (those you admitted to use whilst still playing ie a-rod should still be eligible) simply because they broke the rules. This is ideological as many will be on the HOF nominees list and will be eligible for selection by the voters.

They knew when they were taking them that it was against regulation. From that point on they became renegade and malicious even if all they wanted to do was increase their at bat.

Basically you have to analyze what the HOF is. Exciting baseball, great moments and etc like some of you have mentioned doesn’t really correlate with the HOF. Its about collecting the greats of the game where you don’t disrespect the older generation of Babe Ruths and Demaggios and Aarons. PEDs make a player better than his natural abilities. The Sosas, Bonds and McGwires all showed this and produced memorable baseball for the fans. They created a good atmosphere no doubt. But why did they take them if they were already so talented. I haven’t seen anyone mention $$$. Contract extensions, merchandise and w/e could be achieved by improving performance. These guys enjoyed the time they played and they contributed to the game but they did it illegally. They got paid and treated like gods, they don’t need the HOF. If they wanted the HOF then they shouldn’t of done what Ruth didn’t do. They shouldn’t have lied at least.
[/quote]

So you think that only players who used PED’s after 1991 should be inelligible? Fay Vincent (the commissioner at the time) said that steroids were against the rules; there was no penalty for using at the time though. So anyone who used steroids from 1990 and prior wasn’t breaking the rules. That’s the earliest steroids were even mentioned. Most people agree that steroids were actually banned when there was a penalty instituted for using them, in 2003.

Since the 1970’s amphetamine use was as widespread as steroid use has been in the last decade. It’s not even like amphetamines were a black market drug. Docs would write prescriptions for them for any number of reasons. Now that amphetamines are banned should all the players that used them be punished? Players have spoken publicly about how there were 2 pots of coffee in the clubhouse; one regular and one with amphetamine in it. So are we going to strike Aaron’s numbers from the record books since he played in the ‘amphetamine era’?

And lastly if you are going to include Sosa and McGwire in a conversation with Bonds it shows you don’t know baseball. The only other person in the same ballpark as Bonds is Ruth. Ignore the power numbers of both men and compare their stats. Then compare those stats to other people who you consider great. Ruth and Bonds are on a different level. Steroids don’t give someone a .600 OBP for a whole season. For someone that doesn’t play baseball that may not be such a significant number. But for those that do understand what it means know that it can easily be argued that it’s one of the greatest single season feats in history.

Sosa isn’t even on the list of the 50 best players ever WITH steroids and you included him in a comparison with Bonds? Come on.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Ok here is the big question then;

Do you put them in the HOF or not?[/quote]

Jesus Christ, of course you do. To try and deny entry based on the use of performance enhancing substances or circumventing the rules shows complete ignorance of how baseball is and always has been played.

[/quote]

Then why not put Pete Rose in??

His numbers from his playing days are definately good enough.

Granted what he did as a manager was shitty but were not talking about him going in as a manager only as a player.[/quote]

What? Do you follow baseball history? Rose is not in the Hall because he put himself on the banned list (in exachange for keeping his gambling a secret) and Bart Giamatti died before Rose admitted it. Now no one wants to undermine Giamatti (a lot of politics involved there, obviously) so Rose will never have his name taken off the banned list. It’s not that Rose is eligible and the writers aren’t voting him in; he’s simply not on the ballot.

And yes obviously his numbers are good enough. He kinda has the most hits of all time and won a few rings. [/quote]

Yes I follow baseball history, this is why I posed the question for thought.

The whole thing about not reversing the decision because it was Giamatti is a load of crap.

And the writers will never vote in Sosa, McGwire or Bonds.

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Ok here is the big question then;

Do you put them in the HOF or not?[/quote]

Jesus Christ, of course you do. To try and deny entry based on the use of performance enhancing substances or circumventing the rules shows complete ignorance of how baseball is and always has been played.

[/quote]

Then why not put Pete Rose in??

His numbers from his playing days are definately good enough.

Granted what he did as a manager was shitty but were not talking about him going in as a manager only as a player.[/quote]

What? Do you follow baseball history? Rose is not in the Hall because he put himself on the banned list (in exachange for keeping his gambling a secret) and Bart Giamatti died before Rose admitted it. Now no one wants to undermine Giamatti (a lot of politics involved there, obviously) so Rose will never have his name taken off the banned list. It’s not that Rose is eligible and the writers aren’t voting him in; he’s simply not on the ballot.

And yes obviously his numbers are good enough. He kinda has the most hits of all time and won a few rings. [/quote]

Yes I follow baseball history, this is why I posed the question for thought.

The whole thing about not reversing the decision because it was Giamatti is a load of crap.

And the writers will never vote in Sosa, McGwire or Bonds. [/quote]

Lol it’s obviously not a load of crap. What other reason is there to keep him on the permanent ban list? People who were close to Giamatti are still involved with baseball. Pete Rose disrespected a lot of people during the 12 years he lied. The people who were close to Giamatti who have the power now don’t want to reward Rose with the chance to make the HOF.

Bonds will definitely make the Hall at some point. Sosa never will because his numbers aren’t close to good enough and McGwire is anyones guess because of his mediocre numbers.

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
No they shouldn’t be allowed in the HOF. Players that admitted they used PEDs after they retired should no be allowed (those you admitted to use whilst still playing ie a-rod should still be eligible) simply because they broke the rules. This is ideological as many will be on the HOF nominees list and will be eligible for selection by the voters.

They knew when they were taking them that it was against regulation. From that point on they became renegade and malicious even if all they wanted to do was increase their at bat.

Basically you have to analyze what the HOF is. Exciting baseball, great moments and etc like some of you have mentioned doesn’t really correlate with the HOF. Its about collecting the greats of the game where you don’t disrespect the older generation of Babe Ruths and Demaggios and Aarons. PEDs make a player better than his natural abilities. The Sosas, Bonds and McGwires all showed this and produced memorable baseball for the fans. They created a good atmosphere no doubt. But why did they take them if they were already so talented. I haven’t seen anyone mention $$$. Contract extensions, merchandise and w/e could be achieved by improving performance. These guys enjoyed the time they played and they contributed to the game but they did it illegally. They got paid and treated like gods, they don’t need the HOF. If they wanted the HOF then they shouldn’t of done what Ruth didn’t do. They shouldn’t have lied at least.
[/quote]

There is so much biased misinformation in this post. You are aware that baseball’s history is littered with cheating and scandal of all different sorts, from the thrown 1919 World Series(of which Shoeless Joe Jackson’s involvement has always been debated), corked bats, pitchers doctoring balls with god knows how many different things. Before a certain point these players didn’t have the option to use steroids, you can’t give them this holier than thou status because it didn’t exist when the opposite is actually the truth(that they would’ve used them then just like people do now).

Even within your own judgement you are fickle, what makes people like Petitte and A-Rod any better, because they got caught before they were done playing? Ya how noble of them. Also how the fuck do you consider the treatment Bonds got as “like gods.” Maybe for that singular season when he hit 73, but the dude basically got blacklisted by the sport in the prime of his career(you could argue that his prime was so because of PEDs but that’s not the point I’m making right now). The only people that cheered him on were his home fans and teammates(at least, after Kent left). The Giants basically left him for dead because they didn’t want to deal with the controversy anymore, that’s fantastic treatment for someone that is arguably the greatest offensive force in the history of the sport.

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

So you think that only players who used PED’s after 1991 should be inelligible? Fay Vincent (the commissioner at the time) said that steroids were against the rules; there was no penalty for using at the time though. So anyone who used steroids from 1990 and prior wasn’t breaking the rules. That’s the earliest steroids were even mentioned. Most people agree that steroids were actually banned when there was a penalty instituted for using them, in 2003.

Since the 1970’s amphetamine use was as widespread as steroid use has been in the last decade. It’s not even like amphetamines were a black market drug. Docs would write prescriptions for them for any number of reasons. Now that amphetamines are banned should all the players that used them be punished? Players have spoken publicly about how there were 2 pots of coffee in the clubhouse; one regular and one with amphetamine in it. So are we going to strike Aaron’s numbers from the record books since he played in the ‘amphetamine era’?

And lastly if you are going to include Sosa and McGwire in a conversation with Bonds it shows you don’t know baseball. The only other person in the same ballpark as Bonds is Ruth. Ignore the power numbers of both men and compare their stats. Then compare those stats to other people who you consider great. Ruth and Bonds are on a different level. Steroids don’t give someone a .600 OBP for a whole season. For someone that doesn’t play baseball that may not be such a significant number. But for those that do understand what it means know that it can easily be argued that it’s one of the greatest single season feats in history.

Sosa isn’t even on the list of the 50 best players ever WITH steroids and you included him in a comparison with Bonds? Come on. [/quote]

Thats interesting I didn’t know that (first paragraph). But still when they were illegal (offically) you still had people deny they used. Thats a blatant fail at sportsmanship and being a good person who doesn’t deserve to be in the HOF. I’m sure steroid use back then was insignificant when you look at ball players back then and the huge dudes we got now. Its a matter of context mostly.

[quote]red04 wrote:

There is so much biased misinformation in this post. You are aware that baseball’s history is littered with cheating and scandal of all different sorts, from the thrown 1919 World Series(of which Shoeless Joe Jackson’s involvement has always been debated), corked bats, pitchers doctoring balls with god knows how many different things. Before a certain point these players didn’t have the option to use steroids, you can’t give them this holier than thou status because it didn’t exist when the opposite is actually the truth(that they would’ve used them then just like people do now).

Even within your own judgement you are fickle, what makes people like Petitte and A-Rod any better, because they got caught before they were done playing? Ya how noble of them. Also how the fuck do you consider the treatment Bonds got as “like gods.” Maybe for that singular season when he hit 73, but the dude basically got blacklisted by the sport in the prime of his career(you could argue that his prime was so because of PEDs but that’s not the point I’m making right now). The only people that cheered him on were his home fans and teammates(at least, after Kent left). The Giants basically left him for dead because they didn’t want to deal with the controversy anymore, that’s fantastic treatment for someone that is arguably the greatest offensive force in the history of the sport.[/quote]

My argument is ideological, I basically know nothing about baseball history. You can’t compare little fixes like that to a constant fix like PEDs. We know about PEDs we don’t know about individual cases of cheating like that. If we did they’d be “highlighted to.”

ARod and Pettite are not better but now they are “clean” so we can judge them “properly.” Didn’t arod have a mean year last year or something?

Y are we even arguing about this? All that matters is reality anyway. Voters will vote “them” in or out…we should wait.

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

So you think that only players who used PED’s after 1991 should be inelligible? Fay Vincent (the commissioner at the time) said that steroids were against the rules; there was no penalty for using at the time though. So anyone who used steroids from 1990 and prior wasn’t breaking the rules. That’s the earliest steroids were even mentioned. Most people agree that steroids were actually banned when there was a penalty instituted for using them, in 2003.

Since the 1970’s amphetamine use was as widespread as steroid use has been in the last decade. It’s not even like amphetamines were a black market drug. Docs would write prescriptions for them for any number of reasons. Now that amphetamines are banned should all the players that used them be punished? Players have spoken publicly about how there were 2 pots of coffee in the clubhouse; one regular and one with amphetamine in it. So are we going to strike Aaron’s numbers from the record books since he played in the ‘amphetamine era’?

And lastly if you are going to include Sosa and McGwire in a conversation with Bonds it shows you don’t know baseball. The only other person in the same ballpark as Bonds is Ruth. Ignore the power numbers of both men and compare their stats. Then compare those stats to other people who you consider great. Ruth and Bonds are on a different level. Steroids don’t give someone a .600 OBP for a whole season. For someone that doesn’t play baseball that may not be such a significant number. But for those that do understand what it means know that it can easily be argued that it’s one of the greatest single season feats in history.

Sosa isn’t even on the list of the 50 best players ever WITH steroids and you included him in a comparison with Bonds? Come on. [/quote]

Thats interesting I didn’t know that (first paragraph). But still when they were illegal (offically) you still had people deny they used. Thats a blatant fail at sportsmanship and being a good person who doesn’t deserve to be in the HOF. I’m sure steroid use back then was insignificant when you look at ball players back then and the huge dudes we got now. Its a matter of context mostly.
[/quote]

Steroid use may have been less significant but, as someone else said, cheating is nothing new. The general public just hates steroids for one reason or another.

Undectable steroids already exist. And there’s no testing being done for hGH. Pharmaceutical enhancement is not going away.

I heard a very interesting quote by Jim Caple, who holds a vote for the Hall of Fame. He has voted yes for McGuire every time and gives this as his reason why:

“I have always voted for McGuire and will continue to do so. The same people demonizing him now are the ones who glorified him in 1998, even though we all had our suspicions then. I view his use of steroids similarly to how I view amphetamines, which were used by players for decades. McGuire did not violate a specific baseball rule - unlike, say, Hall of Famer Gaylord Perry. If you want to make a mention of such use on a Hall of Fame plaque, fine. But let the guy in.”

I think the fact that steroids were not banned by the MLB during a majority of the steroid era is often overlooked, and although some people may have problems with their use, players were not breaking any rules of the league in which they were playing.

In sports, a competitor seeks to gain every possible advantage over an opponent, and if it wasn’t against the rules, how can you refuse to let them into the Hall of Fame?

[quote]KBCThird wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
His lie in deflecting suspicion of his steroid use by letting reports “find” a bottle of androstenedione in his locker and attributing his results to that was the start of the movement against prohormones.

I don’t feel sorry for him. It was snake-like of him to concoct this lie. I am not saying he was obligated to admit to using anabolic steroids – no one is obligated to confess to an illegal act – but that does not exonerate him from that particular deception.[/quote]

Lie? How is it a lie if he believed that it was helping? And if he didnt think it helped then why would he be taking it? Your fears of deception are overblown, and as you say, it’s not as if he coulda said “yeah, it helps, but not as much as the gh”[/quote]

If you think that, when suspected of anabolic steroid use for several reasons, concocting a scheme to make people believe that instead androstenedione was the cause, this does not constitutes a lie, you are entitled to your own opinion.

My definition of a lie is a willful effort to cause people to believe something that you know is not true. Your definition of course can be different.

And if you think that an anabolic steroid user adds things like androstenedione to his cycle, you really don’t know about that sort of thing (which is fine: it’s not as if everyone should be expected to.) Even if he were so stupid that he in fact did that, having it “discovered” in his locker still constituted a willful effort to cause people to believe a thing that was not true: that androstenedione was the cause of his large muscle mass gain, bloated face, and perhaps performance enhancement as well.

Many people did believe this and this was the start of the public turn against prohormones and remained a prime driving factor right up through the ban. No one could name a single example of prohormones contaminating the purity and sanctity of sports, except EVERYONE could name McGwire. But what they believed was not true, and McGwire had to have known it was not: that anabolic steroids were the explanation for those things.

But if you don’t want to call that lying, that’s your prerogative, of course.

[quote]Stay Gold wrote:
Couldn’t resist sorry.

Funniest shit I’ve seen in a while!

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
I heard a very interesting quote by Jim Caple, who holds a vote for the Hall of Fame. He has voted yes for McGuire every time and gives this as his reason why:

“I have always voted for McGuire and will continue to do so. The same people demonizing him now are the ones who glorified him in 1998, even though we all had our suspicions then. I view his use of steroids similarly to how I view amphetamines, which were used by players for decades. McGuire did not violate a specific baseball rule - unlike, say, Hall of Famer Gaylord Perry. If you want to make a mention of such use on a Hall of Fame plaque, fine. But let the guy in.”

I think the fact that steroids were not banned by the MLB during a majority of the steroid era is often overlooked, and although some people may have problems with their use, players were not breaking any rules of the league in which they were playing.

In sports, a competitor seeks to gain every possible advantage over an opponent, and if it wasn’t against the rules, how can you refuse to let them into the Hall of Fame?[/quote]

Okay, you are wrong for a number of reasons.

1 They were illegal. Illegal drugs are implicitly against rules see as we are talking about US laws and a sport that plays in the US.

  1. In 1971 baseball issued to all the players it’s first drug policy. In this it specifically noted that players must abide by all federal and state drug laws.

  2. In 1991 the commissioner released a memo that went out to all teams and the union that laid down baseball’s drug policy. In this, in addition to again repeating that all laws must be followed, the memo specifically banned steroids.

I’m sorry, but just because they didn’t test for them until recently, doesn’t mean they weren’t banned. These guys knowingly violated codified rules of baseball to get ahead. They cheated, 100%, absolutely no if ands or buts about it. I don’t think cheaters should go into the hall.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t think cheaters should go into the hall.[/quote]

Quite a few players need to be removed then…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I don’t think cheaters should go into the hall.[/quote]

Quite a few players need to be removed then…

[/quote]

yup.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
I heard a very interesting quote by Jim Caple, who holds a vote for the Hall of Fame. He has voted yes for McGuire every time and gives this as his reason why:

“I have always voted for McGuire and will continue to do so. The same people demonizing him now are the ones who glorified him in 1998, even though we all had our suspicions then. I view his use of steroids similarly to how I view amphetamines, which were used by players for decades. McGuire did not violate a specific baseball rule - unlike, say, Hall of Famer Gaylord Perry. If you want to make a mention of such use on a Hall of Fame plaque, fine. But let the guy in.”

I think the fact that steroids were not banned by the MLB during a majority of the steroid era is often overlooked, and although some people may have problems with their use, players were not breaking any rules of the league in which they were playing.

In sports, a competitor seeks to gain every possible advantage over an opponent, and if it wasn’t against the rules, how can you refuse to let them into the Hall of Fame?[/quote]

Okay, you are wrong for a number of reasons.

1 They were illegal. Illegal drugs are implicitly against rules see as we are talking about US laws and a sport that plays in the US.

  1. In 1971 baseball issued to all the players it’s first drug policy. In this it specifically noted that players must abide by all federal and state drug laws.

  2. In 1991 the commissioner released a memo that went out to all teams and the union that laid down baseball’s drug policy. In this, in addition to again repeating that all laws must be followed, the memo specifically banned steroids.

I’m sorry, but just because they didn’t test for them until recently, doesn’t mean they weren’t banned. These guys knowingly violated codified rules of baseball to get ahead. They cheated, 100%, absolutely no if ands or buts about it. I don’t think cheaters should go into the hall.[/quote]

Touche. I was not aware of this, thank you for the information.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]KBCThird wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
His lie in deflecting suspicion of his steroid use by letting reports “find” a bottle of androstenedione in his locker and attributing his results to that was the start of the movement against prohormones.

I don’t feel sorry for him. It was snake-like of him to concoct this lie. I am not saying he was obligated to admit to using anabolic steroids – no one is obligated to confess to an illegal act – but that does not exonerate him from that particular deception.[/quote]

Lie? How is it a lie if he believed that it was helping? And if he didnt think it helped then why would he be taking it? Your fears of deception are overblown, and as you say, it’s not as if he coulda said “yeah, it helps, but not as much as the gh”[/quote]

If you think that, when suspected of anabolic steroid use for several reasons, concocting a scheme to make people believe that instead androstenedione was the cause, this does not constitutes a lie, you are entitled to your own opinion.

My definition of a lie is a willful effort to cause people to believe something that you know is not true. Your definition of course can be different.

And if you think that an anabolic steroid user adds things like androstenedione to his cycle, you really don’t know about that sort of thing (which is fine: it’s not as if everyone should be expected to.) Even if he were so stupid that he in fact did that, having it “discovered” in his locker still constituted a willful effort to cause people to believe a thing that was not true: that androstenedione was the cause of his large muscle mass gain, bloated face, and perhaps performance enhancement as well.

Many people did believe this and this was the start of the public turn against prohormones and remained a prime driving factor right up through the ban. No one could name a single example of prohormones contaminating the purity and sanctity of sports, except EVERYONE could name McGwire. But what they believed was not true, and McGwire had to have known it was not: that anabolic steroids were the explanation for those things.

But if you don’t want to call that lying, that’s your prerogative, of course.[/quote]

So your position is that he planted the andro bottle in his own locker, hoping the press would find it all so that he could say “that’s it, that’s why I got big, it was the andro, but I’ll stop using it now” … is that correct? If so, you’re even more cynical than I am, and I don’t mean that as an insult.

Maybe I underestimate people’s deception, or maybe you underestimate their stupidity, but to me, it just seems more likely that he had the andro bottle there because he was using it, and when it was seen, started mumbling, hemming and hawing and put everything on the andro. Occam’s razor, and all that.

As far as whether an experienced steroid user would add andro to his cycle, I have heard enough now to believe that andro does nothing (although I do have friends who SWORE that it helped), but the bottom line is this: you are absolutely right that I dont know as much about that sort of thing as you do. My only point though, would be that most athletes have a ‘kitchen sink’ mentality of “throw it in and lets see if it helps.” I realize there are gurus, but I’m just not sure that we are always dealing with a brain trust here.

As far as hastening the ban, I absolutely agree with you that the average schmuck had never heard of andro before mcgwire came along, and congress would’ve been fuddling over it for longer than they wound up doing before eventually banning a wide range of PH. That said, I do think that you’re letting your personal stake in this color your judgment, and I dont think that his actions were as malicious and pre-conceived as you seem to think they were. That said, I suppose there’s no way to be certain and we just have to agree to disagree.