Skip to content

Curt Schilling: “There isn’t a team in the last 20 years that has won clean”

Jul 7, 2011, 12:25 PM EST

Schilling

You may be shocked to hear this, but someone put a microphone in front of Curt Schilling yesterday and he decided to say some stuff that made him sound all authoritative and above it all. Crazy, I know!

Anybody who ever says performance-enhancing drugs didn’t help players produce offensive numbers is full of crap.” And with those numbers came championships that Schilling claims were tainted. “There isn’t a team in the last 20 years that has won clean,” he said.

And as soon as the interview was over, Schilling turned in his 2001, 2004 and 2007 World Series rings at Major League Baseball headquarters and had his name removed his World Series MVP plaque.

Just kidding!  You get a trophy for winning the World Series MVP! Not a plaque!

  1. ballou0254 - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:31 PM

    Hey Curt, is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

  2. halladaysbiceps - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM

    I heard the interview live the other day here in Philly on The Phanatic. I agree 100% with Schilling. He said it is obvious that the reason run production was down is due to the decline of steroids in baseball. He also suspected that there were guys from the 93′ Phillies, as well as Arizona and Boston, were doing steriods. Especially when he came to spring training and noticed someone had gained 40lbs. of muscle from the prior winter.

    • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

      I don’t disagree with what he is saying, it is just that Schilling comes off that a jerk most of the time. I’m sure he is aware of it and doesn’t care which is cool by me. Can’t be afraid to voice a minority opinion.

    • The Common Man - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

      “Suspected” there were guys using in 1993? Lenny Dykstra used to talk openly about the “Flintstone Vitamins” he was taking in the offseasons. Curt is either really stupid or really disingenuous here.

      • halladaysbiceps - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM

        I belive the word he used was “knew”. Schilling knew but said that not much was said about it.

      • mgp1219 - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:16 PM

        he’s both

    • thomas2727 - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:56 PM

      The thing about lower run production I have heard that makes the most sense to me is the Amphetamines are not being used anymore.

      Starting pitchers still pitch pretty much every 5 day so they get to rest. But the everyday position players are grinding it out day in and day out without greenies.

      What can they use to replace greenies? Red Bull? Who knows? Something less potent than Amphetamines for sure.

    • ditto65 - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

      Ummm, I believe it was “25 lbs” – not 40.

    • marshmallowsnake - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:56 PM

      Wait…when did you get let back in, and how big was the fine?

      • halladaysbiceps - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:59 PM

        Yesterday. Craig was gracious enough to do so. The fine was 1 billion dollars.

      • marshmallowsnake - Jul 7, 2011 at 3:03 PM

        Can I please have some cash if you can afford that fine? :)

      • trevorb06 - Jul 7, 2011 at 3:37 PM

        Well ‘cepts I hope you come back with a whole new outlook on commenting and keep the garbage in your can at home.

      • halladaysbiceps - Jul 7, 2011 at 3:42 PM

        trevorb06,

        Agreed. Sorry I crossed the line with you in the past. Hopefully, we can talk some good baseball.

  3. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:36 PM

    Hey Curt, pitchers used PEDs too. It is not just for offense anymore. You know, pitchers who had late career resurgences, or pitched through injuries, that kind of thing. Improbable results when they were past their prime age wise. You know what I’m talking about, don’t you Curt? Know what I mean? Nudge…say no more…

    • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:45 PM

      So, you are implying that Curt was on steroids? Amazing, imply Bautista is juicing and the entire message board freaks out, but imply Shilling was using and get a pat on the ass.

      • bigxrob - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM

        The difference is that Bautista is tested, playersduring the era Curt is refering to were not.
        (I’m not implying shilling used)

      • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:55 PM

        See below about “lab rats” and “rogue chemists”. It is a cat and mouse game. The scientists are usually one step ahead. Same goes with illicit drugs of abuse.

      • bigxrob - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:01 PM

        good point. Testers can only find it if they know what ther are looking for.

    • ryanmallettsbluntwrap - Jul 9, 2011 at 9:10 AM

      Curt schilling , Manny , Ortiz , and then the whole entire Yankee staff , didn’t you hear Curts supplier was Andy Petitte and Roger Clemens ?

  4. ditto65 - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM

    It’s refreshing that a ballplayer is freely admitting he used PEDs, rather than ducking questions or lying to Congress.

    • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM

      I don’t think Schilling is admitting to PED use. In fact, I am pretty sure he is accusing previous teammates of juicing.

      • halladaysbiceps - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:45 PM

        Here’s what I don’t get. When Schilling, who is fairly intelligent (he operates his own software company) says something, people automatically throw him under the bus for his comments. People need to realize that he is asked onto radio stations all the time to give his opinions. It’s not the other way around. In this instance, he is correct.

      • ditto65 - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM

        I don’t think so either. But being a veteran that played on championship teams he could be talking about himself. Guess I should have used a sarcasm tag. As the kids say, “My Bad”.

      • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:49 PM

        It is the messenger not the message. He comes off as abrasive and “holier than thou”. I don’t mind him though. On this topic I think he is right.

      • halladaysbiceps - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM

        You know what, Doctor. That’s what I like about Schilling. He tells you his opinion and he sticks to it. When I hear other players speak, most of them say what they think you want to hear. If you want to say that’s a holier than thou philosophy, then I guess that’s what you can call it.

      • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM

        I don’t have a problem with it. In fact, I seldom have a problem with people speaking their minds whether I agree or not. I’m just saying that is why people get on his case. There are a handful of players past and current that get a lifetime pass from me (unless illegal activity is involved) and Schilling in one of them. Lidge also gets a lifetime pass.

      • halladaysbiceps - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:02 PM

        Agreed, Doctor. Besides Carlton and Doc, Schilling was the greatest Phillies pitcher I’ve seen in my lifetime. He lives a clean life, is a successful bussinessman, and has a pretty good head on his shoulders. He’s nothing like someone else who has been in the media for the last few years in a negative spotlight (Roger Clemens).

      • FC - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:19 PM

        Personality wise he may be more of an ass. But hey, the man plays table-top war-games and video-games. That’s cool. It’s kind of like Vin Diesel playing Dungeons & Dragons.

      • paperlions - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:51 PM

        Schilling could always decline the interview request. The fact is that Schilling simply loves to hear himself speak.

      • deathmonkey41 - Jul 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM

        “Agreed, Doctor. Besides Carlton and Doc, Schilling was the greatest Phillies pitcher I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

        How does Adam Eaton not make that list???

  5. The Common Man - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:41 PM

    That’s a point I believe we’ve been pretty clear on at The Platoon Advantage, with the revelation that every World Series winner since 1995 has had at least one accused steroid user playing for them: http://www.platoonadvantage.com/2011/04/fifteen-years-of-tainted-titles.html. It would absolutely not surprise me if it reached back further than that. Certainly, we know the ’89 A’s had users on them, and Lenny Dykstra played for the ’86 Mets.

    • dlevalley - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:57 PM

      When I was six, the A’s beat my Giants. I knew that the Bash Bros were on something. I kept asking everyone why Candy Maldonado wasn’t as big or hit as many home runs as the A’s did.

      I was six.

    • dcg13 - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:51 PM

      Except for the 2005 White Sox. No one on that team has been linked to steroids.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Jul 7, 2011 at 2:10 PM

        “Pablo Ozuna, a member of the ’05 Sox, tested positive in 2009, so officially no World Series winners have been “clean” from 1995-2010″

  6. kopy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM

    Well, if you count this year, the last real champs are my 1991 Minnesota Twins!

  7. ThatGuy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

    I wonder who was the last team to win without PEDS (not counting Greenies) My thoughts are prob. 91′ Twins or 92/93 Blue Jays. The Twins did have Knoblauch and Neagle, but Knob was a rookie and likely not using yet and Naegle was the same and not on the post season roster. No one stood out on the Blue Jays at all, but I could be missing someone.

    • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM

      In my book Amphetamines definitely count as performance enhancers.

      • ThatGuy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:50 PM

        I’m not disagreeing, but I am more specifically talking about Steriods/HGH type stuff. We would have to go to probabably the 40’s or 50’s to find a team without Greeny users.

    • The Common Man - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM

      “Clean” is such a relative term though. Amphetamine use was still relatively rampant at that point, from what I understand. It would not surprise me to see that members of the ’91 Twins used some substances to improve their performance, even if those substances were not steroids.

      • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:51 PM

        Agree 100%. Presumably steroids were used to increase bat speed and power. Amphetamines used to increase focus, awareness, and quickness. Not much difference in my book.

      • kopy - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:05 PM

        I don’t know that amphetamines actually have those performance enhancing attributes. From what I’ve always heard, players liked them so they could stay in the lineup during a long stretch when they were feeling “down” after too many games in a row.

      • kopy - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:06 PM

        I guess you’re right in a sense, dr, but for me the difference is amphetamines allow you to perform at 100% when you’re tired, but steroids bring your body to 110%.

      • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:10 PM

        I see what you are saying and I don’t disagree. I am thinking more about the mental aspect of the game; the ability to concentrate and focus when tired, etc.

      • halladaysbiceps - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:14 PM

        Players not doing speed may have contributed to 40% of a drop in run production. The other 60% is due to the decline in steroids.

        These are not factual numbers, of course. Just trying to illustrate a point.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM

        I don’t know that amphetamines actually have those performance enhancing attributes. From what I’ve always heard, players liked them so they could stay in the lineup during a long stretch when they were feeling “down” after too many games in a row.

        that’s where the issue of what a “performance enhancer” actually is (spare the viagra jokes). Let’s say everyone on opening day is healthy, so that’s their baseline ability. As the season wears on, players used to take amphetamines to get back to that baseline ability, maybe slightly above. Is that a performance enhancer because it got them back to their normal ability? This is similar to HGH which most studies have shown only helped people get back to their normal baseline (aka doesn’t help normal, healthy individuals).

        Contrast that with steroids which, i think we can all agree, took players well beyond their baseline ability.

      • The Common Man - Jul 7, 2011 at 4:16 PM

        “These are not factual numbers, of course. Just trying to illustrate a point.”

        Halladaysbicepts has been getting his figures from John Kyl, apparently.

      • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 4:54 PM

        Kopy,
        Amphetamine salts (Adderall) or Methylphenidate (Ritalin) are commonly abused by college students because it enables them to focus on the material and study longer. Often described as being “zoned in”. I would assume that baseball players who are non ADD or ADHD would display similar effects….increased concentration, focus, etc. That would be a means to artificially enhance performance in my opinion.

    • deathmonkey41 - Jul 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM

      Kirby Puckett was definately using. You don’t get an Adonis body like that naturally.

  8. danberman4 - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:50 PM

    Funny how if anyone speaks out about the use of steroids in baseball they are crucified by the media and fans. Jose Canseco, for instance. Unfortunately, I think Schilling is probably right. And I think there’s no way to get these substances out of sports. The lab rats are always working to bet the testers. For me, it’s hard to get to whipped up by individual accomplishments any longer.

    http://pinetarandbrickbats.blogspot.com/2011/05/bautistas-amazing-run.html

    • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM

      I agree. I had this argument with our Canadian friend Cur68 a month or two ago. I proposed the idea of rogue chemists and was scoffed at.

      • cur68 - Jul 7, 2011 at 2:02 PM

        Still scoffing, buddy. Nice idea with the chemist but touch improbable, I think. Isn’t the truth often the simplest answer? A highly motivated, non-law abiding, no attention seeking, small reward, non nobel prize winner vs hard work, a ton of talent, opportunity and the right team? Plenty of MLB guys fit the latter profile vs. only a very small number of people in the world would qualify for ‘rogue chemist’ status.

        I ask myself; what would this ‘rogue chemist’ be like? Why, such a person would likely be young (for a scientist) and in a position to come in contact with lots of drugs. He’d probably bill himself as something innocuous but medically related. Perhaps as a humble young pharmacist on an open message board (the open message board of course because he would have to have some way of telling if people were on to him yet; sort of a litmus test of opinion). Such a ‘pharmacist’ would display certain key attributes; a distinct antipathy for sabermetrics, a non-conformist attitude (probably has tattoos; like LOTS), demonstrate a huge amount of knowledge of drugs, be a hard core, knowledgeable baseball fan, and be enamored of a specific team which is lights-out best in MLB. Such people don’t exist…right?

      • deathmonkey41 - Jul 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM

        “I ask myself; what would this ‘rogue chemist’ be like?”

      • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 4:49 PM

        Haha…that is funny Cur. I guarantee you that I am not a rogue chemist or pharmacist. My days of being a rouge anything have long since passed.

  9. mgp1219 - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:14 PM

    Schilling is a blowhard

  10. paperlions - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:59 PM

    In the 1960’s Sports Illustrated was doing cover stories on PEDs in sports, including baseball. If SI was reporting on it in the 1960s, it is highly likely that a lot of players were already using whatever was available (and at the time legal) all the way back then. As most now realize, journalists rarely get out in front of such stories. It typically takes a while before they are even aware of the situation, much less able to report on it. It is highly likely that the last “clean” WS champion was over 40 yrs ago.

  11. deathmonkey41 - Jul 7, 2011 at 1:59 PM

    I think he had to come out and say this because everyone knows that the teams he were on were juiced to the hilt and all he’s been doing is ripping players who weren’t part of those teams for the same thing. Maybe he was getting tired of being called a hypocrite. Of course, he also said that Luis Gonzalez was the best “clean” hitter that he’s ever played with, so his word isn’t exactly scripture.

    • paperlions - Jul 7, 2011 at 2:13 PM

      There are a number of reasons that Schilling comes off poorly in interviews, but one is that he is always pointing fingers in a fashion that singles out particular individuals. Did Schilling also mention that he didn’t any team in the last 20 years lost clean? By singling out “winners” he is suggesting that the won because they cheated, which is patently false. Every team had PED users, the playing field was pretty even, and you won or lost playing on that same field.

  12. Chris Fiorentino - Jul 7, 2011 at 2:15 PM

    Here’s what is totally dumb about this whole article and this whole concept. If you want to compare a steroid user to a non-steroid user, that’s OK. It’s apples and oranges and you can say “apples” did it “clean” while “oranges” did it “dirty. However, to say that “There isn’t a team in the last 20 years that has won clean” means nothing. So what? Who cares? MUCH OF BASEBALL WAS DIRTY THE LAST 20 YEARS!!! So when it is “dirty” vs. “dirty” who really gives a crap which “dirty” team won??? Again, if you want to say Hank Aaron is the “clean” home run champion, then that makes sense and actually MATTERS. If you want to say the last 20 WS winners were “dirty”…so what…so was most of baseball.

    How about an article on teams that were 100% clean the last 20 years…I’d like to see THAT list.

    • halladaysbiceps - Jul 7, 2011 at 2:22 PM

      Agreed.

      “How about an article on teams that were 100% clean the last 20 years.”

      You will never see it because it can never be proven and the article itself would not get enough internet hits.

    • ditto65 - Jul 7, 2011 at 2:22 PM

      Good point – the non-champions of the last 20 years were also dirty.

  13. ditto65 - Jul 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM

    Schilling “knew” PED use was taking place.
    Schilling did nothing to stop it.
    Schilling was complicit.

    It does not matter that Schilling “played during the steroids and HGH era and I never did either.”
    He benefitted from those who did (perhaps a stable mate in the rotation, reliever helping the rotation, or a batter improving run support).

    Get off your pedestal, Schilling.

    • dan1111 - Jul 7, 2011 at 6:53 PM

      If Schilling, as he says, didn’t take steroids, then he made a significant sacrifice by refusing to get take advantage of an edge that others were getting. And yet, he was “complicit” because he didn’t also tattle on all of his teammates?

      That is asking an awful lot of him. Think about what that would have done to his career.

  14. thefalcon123 - Jul 7, 2011 at 3:20 PM

    I mean, it’s obvious there were a ton of roiders for every team. For me, the most obvious users were the ones who peaked super late.

    Consider this guy:
    Age 25-33: 127 ERA+, 8.3 K/9 IP

    and then
    Age 34-37: 151 ERA+, 9.9 K/9 IP

    Oh wait…that guy is Curt Schilling, isn’t it?

    (note: not actually accusing Schilling of using steroids. Merely commenting on the people who constantly make the late peak/steroids connection)

    • drmonkeyarmy - Jul 7, 2011 at 5:15 PM

      I think that is a skewed way of looking at things. Wouldn’t it be more apt to compare his numbers from 29-32 with the numbers from 34-37? I mean, Schilling was dominant the last 4 years in Philadelphia. He had a rough year when he was traded but then was dominant the next 4 years again. Not an apt comparison at all. It isn’t like he just started being super awesome in his mid 30’s.

    • dan1111 - Jul 7, 2011 at 6:42 PM

      The peak argument is an argument made about batters. Batters follow a typical pattern of peak and decline. Pitchers don’t, because the pitching skill set is different. Lots of pitchers have peaked later in their careers or had other unusual career progressions.

  15. pisano - Jul 7, 2011 at 6:54 PM

    I’ll bet this scumbag is as dirty as the people he’s accusing.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (3230)
  2. J. Kang (3083)
  3. C. McGehee (2805)
  4. W. Middlebrooks (2779)
  5. J. Upton (2767)
  1. D. Ross (2495)
  2. T. Tulowitzki (2332)
  3. J. Shields (1848)
  4. M. Kemp (1798)
  5. M. Prado (1774)