Skip to content

Why on earth is Craig Biggio above steroid suspicion?

Dec 2, 2012, 11:49 PM EDT

Craig Biggio AP

Here we have Bill Madden’s latest gem of a column, which contains enough strawmen to fill up Citi Field. In it, he promotes Jack Morris and Craig Biggio for the Hall of Fame, and while he doesn’t unequivocally state that they are the only two players he is voting for, the column certainly suggests it.

I’ve tackled Morris before and will again tomorrow, but let’s concentrate on Biggio for a moment. Biggio is being promoted by Madden and others as this year’s clean candidate, whereas his longtime Astros teammate, Jeff Bagwell, has had his candidacy tainted by steroids.

What I don’t get is why one if not the other?

The case against Bagwell is that he showed little power as a youngster, befriended noted steroids user Ken Caminti, got a lot stronger in the majors and then turned into one of the game’s best players.

And that differs from Biggio how? Biggio hit four homers in 555 at-bats at age 24, four homers in 546 at-bats at age 25 and six homers in 613 at-bats at age 26 before turning in the first of seven 20-homer campaigns at age 27.  His career high of 26 homers came at age 39.

Furthermore, Bagwell and Biggio were good friends who spent 15 years as teammates. I have my doubts that the training methods of one were a secret to the other. If Bagwell was on something, one would think there’s a more than slight chance that Biggio was on it, too.

So why does Biggio get trumped up as clean? Because he was a middle infielder? Because he hit 20 homers per year rather than 40? I’ll give you that Biggio wasn’t quite as stacked as Bagwell in his prime, but the guy had some muscles.

Personally, I’m very much in favor of putting Biggio into the Hall, just as I’m in favor of Bagwell’s candidacy. Part of Biggio’s power spike can be attributed to him leaving the Astrodome for Enron Field/Minute Maid Park. Towards the end of his career, once he realized he could no longer cover the entire plate, he made a conscious decision to become more of a pull hitter and take aim at the shallow left field porch at Enron.

Biggio was a favorite of mine, and I’d like to think he spent his entire career steroid-free. My point here isn’t to label Biggio a cheater. It’s simply to say that we don’t know, and that anyone that would go to lengths to promote him as the clean candidate is either naive or stupid.

  1. thomas2727 - Dec 2, 2012 at 11:57 PM

    It is always laughable that guys that are viewed as home run hitters arouse more suspicion as PED users then guys that are not.

    I don’t remember F.P. Santangelo, Marvin Bernard or Randy Velarde hitting many homers.

    • 78mu - Dec 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM

      Or Fernando Vina.

    • dcfan4life - Dec 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

      While i strongly agree that literally anyone could have been a steroid or HGH user, especially since many used HGH to heal, without evidence we cannot assume anything. Biggios power numbers increasing after a few years are not uncommon. He is being associated because he played on a team full of known and highly suspected users. But does anyone think Cal Ripken Jr used? Cuz he played with Palmeiro, Albert Belle, Brady Anderson, and a number of other known and suspected users. Guilty by association. Is that what the HOF voting has come down to? If so, no one is getting in.

      • barrancefong - Dec 4, 2012 at 1:24 PM

        You just contradicted your own argument in your statement; “a number of other known and suspected users”. If you have evidence of steroid use, then you are a user (e.g. Palmeiro). If you do not have evidence, you cannot assume or “suspect” that one is a user. What evidence do you have on Brady Anderson? That he all of a sudden hit 50 HR one year? Unlikely as it may seem, does that constitute evidence? Albert Belle? Where was his positive test?

        If you (in general, not you dcfan4life, specifically) cannot assume anything, then only the guys that tested positive can be called cheaters. Otherwise, you’re then “biased” towards guys that are big or guys that hit lots of HR. Take a look at the Mitchell report. I would say more than half the guys there don’t fit the stereotypical ‘roider. Hell, A-Rod averaged 40HR for years before and after his positive test and no one suspected he was a juicer until he actually tested positive.

        Bottom line is, this whole era was a mess and there is no way to sort out who was doing what.

  2. vallewho - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:06 AM

    right on!

  3. Stiller43 - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:10 AM

    Enron…hilarious

  4. Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM

    My favorite baseball player, on a human level, allegedly took LSD before pitching a no-no, so these arguments don’t make much sense to me.

    Plenty of guys took whatever drugs they could get their hands on before the steroid era. The media, owners, league office, and fans encouraged steroid powerball, and pinning the blame on the players seems foolish to me.

  5. Carl Hancock - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:21 AM

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the majority of players were using PEDs in the 90’s and even in the 80’s. How the writers can claim a player is dirty and yet defend another is B.S. It’s time for the writers to either let these guys in the HOF or don’t allow any of them. Picking and choosing based on PED usage is just plain stupid. All or nothing.

    • gigib1226 - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:35 AM

      Let me say this. I know a trainer in the midwest very well who has dealt with many athletes. You have NO IDEA what is going on out there in the PED world. People think users are around 25 to 30% and that is a JOKE. Baseball, football, basketball, hollywood, nascar, bowling, golf, etc, etc, etc. There are users in EVERYTHING because there are kinds of PEDs that help you in different situations. I’ll tell you this. If you have any suspicion that a current pro athlete or hollywood star is doing something illegal, I’d say 99% chance is they are. If you are 100% certain that a pro athlete is not taking PEDs, you are probably wrong. Trust me when I say almost EVERYONE uses. It’s a big inside joke that everyone knows about, but is afraid to say anything.

      The most hilarious thing is no one ever mentions the NBA for PEDs. But that may be the highest percentage of users…..

      • albertmn - Dec 3, 2012 at 10:04 AM

        While I would believe that the percent of users may be higher than many think it is, I refuse to believe it is 99%. You and others (like Colorado voters) may have a laid back attitude toward drug use in general. But, many of us don’t. If I used some substance that helped me stay awake and focus more, could I be better at my job? Sure. But, I am not going to use any illegal substances, nor take a chance with my health. While I am not a professional athlete, I have the same desires to be the best at my job, and I am sure there are substances that would make me get more done. I just get the feeling you may be a user and are assuming that everyone shares your viewpoint. Meanwhile, I am pretty sure a certain percentage (likely a minority these days, but higher than 1%) would share my viewpoint and are not users.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM

        While I am not a professional athlete, I have the same desires to be the best at my job, and I am sure there are substances that would make me get more done.

        Probably b/c the money isn’t that significant. Let’s be generous and say you are making $100K a year at your job. What if you could take a pill that may or may not have some side effects 20-30 years down the road, but could get you a promotion where you cna earn $10M a year? Would you think about it then? Doing something illegal to set you and your family up for life?

      • Chris Fiorentino - Dec 3, 2012 at 11:24 AM

        Yes. In a heartbeat.

      • Cris E - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

        @albertmn

        The difference between you and your job vs a professional sport is that you can hold a job and be a top performer without resorting to artificial aids. (I don’t know you, but you sound like you could do this.) But MLB (and the NFL and NBA et al) have a finite number of spots and there’s an army of others doing whatever it takes to get those spots. I’m assuming your job is mostly cerebral? These jobs have a huge physical aspect where PEDs can make a big difference.

        This isn’t a case of being better at your job, for many it’s a case of getting and holding a job. It’s likely not 99% who are cheating, but at the height of the 90s it was probably much higher than the general public would like to know. I too have friends who have worked in D1 training rooms and the stuff works. Guys will do what works.

    • Cris E - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:59 PM

      I’m not sure about all or none, as I’d like to put in a category for Caught.

      If you did cheat I can see an argument for putting a thumb on the scale. But guys that weren’t caught should be treated as though they did not cheat, not as if they’d gotten away with something. I’m no PED Warrior, but since it’s become a real rule you should be held accountable for rules you break.

  6. thejotapee - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:30 AM

    Either you let them all in, steroids or not, or you don’t let anyone from the steroid era in. But it’s not fair for guys like Greg Maddux, Craig Biggio, Ken Griffey Jr, etc. to get in just because no one suspects them of using steroids because they’ve never failed a test and keep out guys like Piazza, Bagwell, and even Barry Bonds when they haven’t ever actually tested positive for steroids either. If we’re using the old fashioned eye test to determine whether someone is using steroids or not in order to be voted into the HOF then there is a HUGE problem with the voting system. Some of the baseball writers really don’t deserve a vote.

  7. randygnyc - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:41 AM

    And then we have the common sense eye test. It can’t be quantified, per se. It’s more like, you know it when you see it. Kinda how most people fall in love. Anyway, Biggio followed the patterns of Bonds, clemens and Sosa. They all got bigger. More importantly, they got better. A lot better at a stage where most player’s skills’ are diminishing. Their late 30’s. this is my red flag. If I had a vote, I’d vote with a pretty high confidence level that these folks took PEDs. Knowing that means different things for different people. For me, it means they cheated. I wouldn’t vote for anyone who failed a drug test, or my eye/gut test. Although, at this particular time, I wouldn’t say that the ban should be for life. Just this year. Who knows what science might tell us next year, or the year after. And ultimately, we might get comprehensive admissions from these players that if true show that their wasn’t that great a difference between ped years and clean years. Who knows. Worst case scenario, we can always put these players in posthumously. No on should feel compelled to vote in a known cheater who disregarded the integrity of the game, on the first ballot. Info and perception just might change in the future.

    • ireportyoudecide - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:15 AM

      To call someone a cheater is to say they broke a rule. Please tell me what rule any of those guys are accused of breaking?

      • schrutebeetfarms - Dec 3, 2012 at 2:04 AM

        They broke federal and state laws. How do people keep making the “it wasn’t illegal then arguments?”

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 3, 2012 at 5:11 AM

        So are greenies, so are DUIs, so is bearing your wife, or doing cocaine, or avoiding taxes, yet no one uses those “crimes”against them.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 3, 2012 at 5:18 AM

        Sigh beating, damn phone

      • mrznyc - Dec 3, 2012 at 8:46 AM

        It has always been against Major League rules to take a prescription drug without the proper prescription. That is the end of the argument that these players took PEDs before MLB outlawed them.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Dec 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM

        Than how do you reconcile the literal “bowl of greenies” set out in clubhouses across MLB until a few years ago? Not a prescription in sight, and pretty much everyone using. If you ban every player from the HoF, is there still a HoF?

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Dec 3, 2012 at 9:47 AM

        * “Then…”

    • paperlions - Dec 3, 2012 at 7:23 AM

      Randy, do us all a favor and go find a list of guys that have failed steroid tests in MLB, then find pictures of them…..almost ALL of those guys would pass your “common sense eye test”….because there is nothing sensible about it.

    • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM

      What about Fernando Vina? Gary Bennett? Kevin Brown? Brian Roberts? Do your “common sense eyeball test” catch all of them too?

    • schlom - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

      Is your eye test something like this?

  8. greatdayfortwo - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:51 AM

    Let’s assume he is steroid free, a super nice guy, and gives money to the puppies and kitties at the humane society – I am still shocked anyone views him as a Hall of Famer. He was a darn good player for a surprising number of years.

    The power numbers in his later years also came with a serious drop in batting average, so just from that, it might be argued that his approach at the plate had changed some. His post-season performances were disappointing. His fielding was good, but he won Gold Gloves during a fairly depressed time for 2B in the NL.

    What is it exactly that people see in him that makes him Hall of Fame worthy? And, please, don’t tell me the compiled 3,000 hits is suddenly the most significant factor here.

    • djpostl - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:08 AM

      Dismiss 3K hits all you want but when only 20+ guys have done that it is a HUGE reason why he should get Hall of Fame votes.

    • Matthew Pouliot - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:15 AM

      The case for Biggio? 15th all-time in runs scored, 21st in hits and 33rd in total bases. He led the NL in doubles three times, runs scored twice, steals once. Four top 10s in OBP. WAR rates him as the NL’s 2nd best player in ’97, 3rd in ’95, 7th in ’94 and 8th in ’98.

      He has the career stats and a six-year run as one of his league’s best players. WAR rates him tied for 4th with Piazza from 93-98 behind Bonds, Griffey and Bagwell. He hit .304/.399/.476 with averages of 18 homers, 74 RBI, 115 runs scored and 35 steals per year in those six seasons.

      • jeffa43 - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:35 AM

        Well said, let’s not forget….

        Most doubles for a right handed hitter in hiistory.

      • Matthew Pouliot - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:51 AM

        That’s a good one! Pujols is probably going to overtake him someday though. He’s at 505, while Biggio finished at 668.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Dec 3, 2012 at 9:54 AM

        Does he still have the HBP record also? Gamer. He’ll do whatever it takes, baby!

    • shynessismyelguapo - Dec 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM

      This is just crazy talk.

      If you were comparing him to say…corner outfielders….then yes, he is not incredibly great (though I should point out, *still probably hall worthy*!), but you aren’t. His competition is other second baseman, a much lighter hitting group since it requires much better defensive abilities.

      So, what second baseman were better than Biggio during his era? The only contemporary who was close was Roberto Alomar. Biggio played nearly 500 more games, scored 336 more runs, hit 80 more homers, grounded into 50 fewer double plays… At his peak, the guy was hitting .300/.400/.500 with 40 steals and winning gold gloves in the toughest hitters park in the game.

      He is easily one of the 10 best second baseman of all time, was the best second baseman of his era. Not only is he a Hall of Famer, but he should be a Hall of Famer whose place in that hall isn’t never even questioned.

    • greatdayfortwo - Dec 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM

      Still, most of these arguments are based on statistical accumulation. The fact that he is one of only 20+ people who have accumulated as many hits to me is not all that significant other than to say he had good luck with injuries and his career was long. To me, long career does not translate into a Hall of FAME-worthy career.

      When discussing his accumulated hits, why is the rate at which it is done not part of the conversation? A guy like Rod Carew approaching it at a blistering pace – that’s Hall of Fame worthy, for sure. Traipsing along at a .278 clip is better than most, but not all that impressive for his era.

      I don’t argue the few statistical categories he ever led the NL in, but it’s hard to say he was the best player of his era. He was the best at his position for the few years of his prime. If you want to compare him to his contemporaries, let’s look at players who had their careers overlap with Biggio’s. Look at all the Gold Gloves Robby Alomar took home. The MVP award Jeff Kent or Ryne Sandberg has. Or, the 10 or more All-Star appearances of Sandberg or Alomar. Sure, Biggio is notable as being one of the top 4 second basemen, but I’m not convinced he was better than any of them just based on their trophy cabinets.

      And, maybe, all of this is irrelevant to debate. Perhaps we just have a different bar to which we feel members of the Hall of Fame should achieve to. That’s fair too. There’s no true qualifier for who is worthy and who is not.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Dec 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM

        You aren’t making much sense when you say a guy doesn’t belong in the hall of fame when you compare him to contemporaries that are either in the hall of fame(Sandberg, Almoar) or a guy who is going to get into the Hall someday(Kent). OK, so he was not as good as the other 3 Hall of Fame second basemen during his era. Does that mean he’s not a Hall of Famer???

        There’s small-hall guys, and then there are guys like you…micro-hall guys. If not Biggio, then who gets into the hall in the next few years?

  9. Tim's Neighbor - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:22 AM

    Wait. This argument is routinely torn apart (guilty by association) on this website. And rightly so as its a noted logic fail. Yet, you’re endorsing it?

    I get the point of why lay off of Biggio as opposed to others. However, laying off is a good thing. There’s no proof here as in other areas. Why are you endorsing bs like guilty by association and then calling others stupid, Internet tough guy?

    • raysfan1 - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:36 AM

      No, he’s actually questioning why some players, including Bagwell, are judged guilty by association and others aren’t. It compounds the logic failure to condemn Bagwell and endorse Biggio when their associations are the same.

    • cur68 - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:44 AM

      Mr. Neighbor: No one’s claiming Biggio is a PED user. Merely that the argument for why Bagwell is a PEDs user could be applied to Biggio. Hence if Baggs is guilty then so too must Biggio be guilty. The evidence for both as PEDs users is very similar: all a lot of circumstantial hooey but you can’t make a case for one as a clean player and the other a PEDs taker with the same evidence pile. Ultimately promoting one or the other as clean or dirty is foolish: we don’t know. Just don’t go around claiming one thing for Biggio and the converse for Bagwell when they had very similar production spikes at similar ages and were close friends and teammates all those years.

  10. raysfan1 - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:39 AM

    Well, there is at least one writer willing to suggest Biggio may have used steroids based largely on being Ken Caminiti’s teammate:

    http://www.themorningsun.com/article/20121201/SPORTS03/121209975/caputo-hall-of-fame-votes-for-ped-users-not-going-to-happen

    He seems to feel all players of the past 20 years should be excluded from the Hall of Fame unless they can prove their innocence.

    • A.J. - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:44 AM

      At least that idiocy would be consistent.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Dec 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM

        Have they also condemned the entire Giants team from the late 9os/early 00’s? After all, if you had the same employer as Barry Bonds, you must have done exactly everything he did.

      • raysfan1 - Dec 3, 2012 at 11:25 PM

        Except that it is much harder to prove a negative. If someone has to be able to account for every minute of their professional careers, then nobody is getting into the HoF…ever.

  11. jeffa43 - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:44 AM

    Between this story and your anti Bagwell story on Friday, it is obvious you live in your mothers basement and wear a Cardinal jersey.

    The headline is bush league.

    It’s obvious you don’t like them, but if you are going to write a story, have some real context. This is fluff writing borderline fantasy.

    I bet you never played the game!

    • cur68 - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:45 AM

      Wow, Mathew! Your own troll. You gots the Blog Cred, eh?

      • Matthew Pouliot - Dec 3, 2012 at 1:54 AM

        I’m sure stlouis1baseball and a few others will get a good chuckle out of me being accused of being a Cardinals fan.

      • cktai - Dec 3, 2012 at 2:03 AM

        I’m not sure if this is a badly executed troll, or a badly executed meta-troll.

      • paperlions - Dec 3, 2012 at 7:37 AM

        Yeah, I thought it was pretty funny.

        Man, if anyone can read the text about Bagwell from that posting and thing it was anti-Bagwell instead of making fun of the ability of HOF voters to twist an argument to fit their preferred narrative…you have some serious mental gymnastic skills.

      • umrguy42 - Dec 3, 2012 at 11:22 AM

        I laughed. jeffa, you must be new here, having missed the Great Dipwad Incident of a few months past…

    • A.J. - Dec 3, 2012 at 2:05 AM

      I assume you didn’t read beyond the headline. His whole point is that singling out guys as “did steroids” “didn’t do steroids” based on zero evidence is stupid.

      Also this is the same guy that spent MONTHS of the past season trolling the hell out of the Cardinals on a daily basis. I kind of hate the Cardinals and thought it was ridiculous.

      He also said in the article that Biggio was one of his favorite all-time players.

      Also, do tell about how great of a high school player you were! I’m sure you learned a lot about steroids and HOF voting in your big win against your cross town rivals.

      And before you question my credentials, I’ll help out. I caught the last out in the city championship when I was 11.

      • A.J. - Dec 3, 2012 at 2:06 AM

        Oh damn. That had to be a troll.

        Got me.

      • paperlions - Dec 3, 2012 at 7:40 AM

        I think it was honest trolling.

  12. edrusch - Dec 3, 2012 at 2:11 AM

    Great post, is anybody from the late 90’s above suspicion?

    • kardshark1 - Dec 3, 2012 at 2:36 AM

      Thank goodness most HoF voters are morally superior than most of us, or so they claim.

      I will admit; If a drug was available that would vastly increase my chances to earn many more millions a year, not harmful as long as properly taken and supervised by a doctor and not against the rules, I would take it in a second – and I got news for ya, most anybody would. If 70-80% of the players during that era, before it was against the rules or even frowned upon, at least experimented or entertained the idea of taking PEDs, then 70-80% of us and those morally superior HoF voters and legends of the game would have done so as well in the same situation.

      • paperlions - Dec 3, 2012 at 7:47 AM

        Plus you have to put steroids into context….they were just the next thing, generations of players were using whatever they thought would help, as has be cited many times, for decades every clubhouse had a bowl of greenies for people to help themselves, SI had a cover story on steroid use in baseball in 1969….baseball’s entire history is full of players doing anything possible (including taking all kinds of risky “supplements”) to get better….no one cared…until suddenly, everyone did…and the tipping point for caring wasn’t anything important (death of a player), it was a record being broken.

      • raysfan1 - Dec 3, 2012 at 11:30 PM

        …it was a record being broken for the second time in 3 years and this time by someone most people didn’t like.

  13. vicvega422 - Dec 3, 2012 at 2:57 AM

    Get off the steroid kick dude.

  14. waybright25 - Dec 3, 2012 at 3:11 AM

    Enough with the b.s. speculation. This article is as rediculous as 911 conspiracy theorists. You can make an argument that any player after 1987 used steroids. Go by facts and not hearsay or paranoid speculations.

    • cktai - Dec 3, 2012 at 4:55 AM

      “Personally, I’m very much in favor of putting Biggio into the Hall, just as I’m in favor of Bagwell’s candidacy. Part of Biggio’s power spike can be attributed to him leaving the Astrodome for Enron Field/Minute Maid Park. Towards the end of his career, once he realized he could no longer cover the entire plate, he made a conscious decision to become more of a pull hitter and take aim at the shallow left field porch at Enron.

      Biggio was a favorite of mine, and I’d like to think he spent his entire career steroid-free. My point here isn’t to label Biggio a cheater.”

  15. Tim's Neighbor - Dec 3, 2012 at 5:04 AM

    I understand his point, but it’s a dumb point. “Hey, people are using faulty logic to pick on some ball players! They should use faulty logic to pick on all ball players!”

    Why? Why spend a post arguing that Biggio is probably a cheater to make the point that anyone could have cheated? The fact that anyone could have cheated is out there and recognized by reasonable people. Instead, Biggio’s name is dragged through the mud.

    I’ve seen so many sport writers get killed by those on this website for making the “they were probably cheaters so let’s treat them as such” argument. Hell, there was a suspected plagiarism joke going around as well. This argument says that those sport writers are correct in their logic. They’re not. Guilty by association is still faulty logic.

    This is just a poorly executed piece based on a faulty premise with a dash of pretentiousness. It was inflammatory and unnecessary. This is the best baseball site around and I consistently dread reading it on the weekends because of garbage like this. If Mr. Short wasn’t around, I’d definitely not stop in.

    Also, I’d love to reply directly to the comments, but the app doesn’t allow for such exotic conveniences.

    • paperlions - Dec 3, 2012 at 7:48 AM

      You might want to look behind you, you’ll probably see the actual argument there.

    • Alex K - Dec 3, 2012 at 9:12 AM

      He’s not saying that they should use faulty logic to pick on some player, though. It’s really wondering why one and not the other when their career arcs are pretty similar and every reason that people use to suspect Bagwell they ignore when it comes to Biggio.

  16. mj1818 - Dec 3, 2012 at 6:43 AM

    Gigib that’s funny because just a few years ago I know a couple guys that played at the minor league level and oddly enough said similar things.

  17. thetruth702 - Dec 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM

    You are a straight jack ass. Bc he was friends with someone who did you assume he used to? And in the steroid era pretty sure someone on roids with biggio’s ability would put out more than 26. And you act like peoples primes for athletes isnt 26-30. You’re a joke.

    • bozosforall - Dec 5, 2012 at 5:02 AM

      Like David Ortiz? Who is still in denial that he got caught in 2003.

  18. thetruth702 - Dec 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    And if he hasnt been accused or proven or suspected why in the hell would you bring it up? Leave it alone if it isnt their. Bitch

  19. jfisher00 - Dec 3, 2012 at 10:05 AM

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/steroids-and-our-assumptions-about-them/

  20. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Dec 3, 2012 at 10:05 AM

    Dear Soapboxers, Football is a sport that needs real help. I read somewhere that the life expectancy of an NFL player is 55. Concussions, mental health issues, rampant and egregious steroid use, gun and gang violence and other issues are seriously harming the players. The sport is doing fine financially, however, and most of the suffering players are minorities and/or anonymous linemen as opposed to those charming white quarterbacks with commercial deals, so there is little incentive for change.

    Maybe some guys on the Astros gave each other shots in the butt, and maybe they didn’t. If you are looking for a banner to carry with your righteous indignation, perhaps you should take a peek at the other big American professional sports league.

  21. pkers - Dec 3, 2012 at 10:20 AM

    Silver-ish lining: if Biggio gets in on this ballot and Bagwell continues to be snubbed, we might get a speech from Biggio next August excoriating the voters who have “suspicions” about Bagwell and steroids, thus shaming them into not being idiots.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 3, 2012 at 11:21 AM

      Wouldn’t it be great if Biggio admitted he took ‘roids, tried to get Bagwell to take them but Bagwell refused? And then the writers acted all higher-than-thou about the wrong person?

  22. mrchainbluelightning - Dec 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

    Another example of Pouliot being the #1 troll here

  23. bozosforall - Dec 5, 2012 at 5:04 AM

    MLB looking the othe way for so many years is the biggest travesty here. Based upon that alone, Bud Selig had better never end up on any HOF ballot ever.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Patience finally paying off for Royals fans
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3460)
  2. G. Stanton (2672)
  3. H. Ryu (2430)
  4. A. Rizzo (2416)
  5. J. Hamilton (2251)
  1. M. Trout (2207)
  2. N. Arenado (2158)
  3. C. Kershaw (2034)
  4. E. Gattis (2032)
  5. D. Ortiz (1943)