Comments on: Pre-PEDs Roger Clemens is being undersold

By: skarfacci

skarfacci — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:51:18 +0000

He was found guilty in a court of law on all counts. He did not use PEDs. To say he shouldn’t get in b/c of “public opinion” is ridiculous. Clemens proves how idiotically elite the media are. He took all the way to court and won, as if to say what now? He’s clean. He’s a hall of famer, with or without the bust. And he’ll get in anyways, just like the others, just give it time. And honestly, who cares? Sports are business, and long ago lost their credibility in the dawn of free agency. If anyone can tell me there are no NFL guys on PEDs, you’re living in a fantasy land. There is something unnatural about all these behemoths on defense and O-line. It’s not a clean sport but they don’t care b/c they are making money. That’s what matters. It’s the money stupid.

By: joegolfer

joegolfer — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 03:06:37 +0000

Sounds like the old “two wrongs make a right” theory.
If one guy robbed a bank and got away with it, we shouldn’t punish the next guy who robs a bank if we catch him.

By: American of African Descent

American of African Descent — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 23:48:46 +0000

Go ahead and live in ignorance and refuse to acknowledge that arguing (a) Clemens was acquitted in a criminal trial, therefore he is innocent is logically identical to arguing (b) that OJ was acquitted in a criminal trial, therefore he is innocent. (I could say the same thing about Casey Anthony — would it make you happier if I used that example because Casey didn’t allege racism?)

Neither OJ’s acquittal nor Clemens’ acquittal proves that the defendant didn’t do it. The charges against Clemens were not laughed out of court. (That implies that Clemens won on a motion to dismiss, which didn’t happen.) Rather, the jury in Clemens’ case — just like the jury in OJ’s case (and the jury in Casey Anthony’s case) — decided that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof.

Please do me — hell, do the justice system — a favor. If you’re ever called for jury duty, please tell the judge that you are incapable of understanding concepts like “burden of proof,” “not guilty,” and “innocent.” It will make everyone’s life a whole lot easier.

By: makeham98

makeham98 — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:58:59 +0000

Go ahead and live in denial, dwell on OJ as “the same thing”. Clemens defended himself at huge personal risk and was acquitted, the charges laughed out of court. To even compare him to an accused murderer whose defense was racism is ludicrous.

Robert Blake = OJ. Not Clemens. Does that make you happy now? Sheesh, why bother with you.

By: American of African Descent

American of African Descent — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 18:19:48 +0000

Nice red herring. The point is that acquittal in a criminal trial is not the same thing as innocence of the underlying act. That’s why the finder of fact in a criminal trial finds the defendant “not guilty” as opposed to “innocent.”

By: makeham98

makeham98 — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 15:44:45 +0000

There were no eyewitnesses testifying in Simpson’s case, no one who said “I saw him do it.” Clemens’ case was based directly on the accusations of a dirty supplier trying to save his own hide. His trial was based on his nationally televised testimony to Congress.

Other than their being unpopular sports figures, there is no similarity. And I never lost a minute of sleep over OJ anyway.

By: American of African Descent

American of African Descent — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:44:08 +0000

Nice straw man you’ve set up. “Exactly why” home run production increased in the nineties and early aughts is the question. (A question that you seem to answer with “steroids.”) Could the rise in home runs also have something to do with (i) smaller ball parks, (ii) expansion, which diluted the quality of pitching, and (iii) a smaller strike zone?

By: American of African Descent

American of African Descent — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:35:57 +0000

OJ Simpson was also acquitted of murder. People still think he’s guilty . . . wonder why that is?

(And when you jump up and down and say “civil suit” in OJ’s case, I’ll say different burden of proof. The nature of Clemens’ actions means that he won’t have to face a civil suit, so a court will never determine whether the preponderance of the evidence shows that Clemens used steroids. Craig, back me up here.)

By: American of African Descent

American of African Descent — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:32:07 +0000

That’s right . . . steroids turned MLB into the WWE. Because steroids helped sluggers hit a round ball with a round bat, thus making the games “fake.”

By: makeham98

makeham98 — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:18:01 +0000

Clemens was acquitted on all counts in less than 10 hours of jury deliberations. For something he allegedly did live on national tv. He rejected plea offers. His main accuser was a dirty supplier who was essentially blackmailed by inept federal agents.

Where is your evidence beyond “he’s a jerk”? And messing around with Mindy McCready shows a lot better taste than messing around with Margo Adams.

By: louhudson23

louhudson23 — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 09:30:43 +0000

That is silly.No evidence greenies affected the game in remotely the same way that steroids did. Or that anything short of the dead ball era coming to an end ever has. And maybe reading Mr. Aaron’s autobiography more slowly will make his experience with greenies more clear. Straw men combined with false equivalency does not a lucid argument make. Steroids were a distortion of the game. Why and how are unimportant to me. Watching the whole faked mess was like watching wrestling. Good riddance to them and the shitty baseball it produced.

By: louhudson23

louhudson23 — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 09:25:20 +0000

The problem with steroids is how effective they turned out to be for hitters in the sport of baseball. Nothing to do with anything more than the distorted results they produced. Pitchers,like Clemens would appear to have their careers extended,their recovery accelerated. But no 120 mph fastball,no 30 win seasons and witless hitters standing helpless to the onslaught.. No comparison to the enhanced performance of the hitters.The record book shows that the steroids era produced voluminous, heretofore unseen home run production.Exactly why is a question that is secondary at this point. Clearly and extra twenty feet is the difference between “Big Earl” Williams’ warning track power and Barry Bonds of the giant head and tiny testicles.The record book was destroyed and the way the game was played changed dramatically. How defense was played(or not played as it were,how pitchers pitched,how and when people stole bases were all affected). Whatever other listed causes of this offensive explosion,they presumably still exist,but the distortion of the game does not. Home run production is now a product of the field of play and not the laboratory. Greenies,Ty Cobb,segregation did not make 180 pound second basemen into Orlando Cepeda,30 hr seasons into yawn fests and did not turn the Home Run Record Chase into a nightly cartoon with blown up yim yaps playing the hero of Home Run Derby……..steroids did. That is the reason that the records and the players are not worthy of consideration. No more ,no less. Leave that shit to the X-Box crowd. Baseball needs no such artificial enhancement nor does it need the attention of those who fail to see the beauty of it as played without(clearly greatly reduced) steroids use.

By: anxovies

anxovies — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 06:09:36 +0000

If Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, et al. get in the HOF baseball owes Pete Rose a big apology.

By: bozosforall

bozosforall — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 03:30:30 +0000

Clemens never tested positive for nor ever admitted to using. Only the haters online continue to insist that he is guilty, despite zero evidence that he did.

By: jessethegreat

jessethegreat — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 02:50:44 +0000

Unless you’re taking hank Aaron out of the hall, bonds and Clemens have to be enshrined. Aaron has admittedly (in his own autobiography) tried to get the upper hand.

If anything, amphetamines were worse than steroids because they give the added boost without the work put in with steroid use.

By: bozosforall

bozosforall — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 02:00:35 +0000

Given that Boston is the capital of PED usage, either Roger was using his whole career or not at all.

By: opshuns

opshuns — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 01:48:13 +0000

How does one know when these alleged PEDers started using??? Me, I have always been suspicious of the mouthy bloody sock guy with his huffed out chest… Actully, I am suspicous of any player, but it is not my problem. I just love to watch the games and relive my childhood.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 01:35:37 +0000

Oops! Sorry.

By: Charles Gates

Charles Gates — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 00:09:21 +0000

No, I was making the apparently too subtle guess that Torii Hunter would not vote to elect Clemens to the TBCTTOIBMTPBSCWNBCAAOP.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 00:00:48 +0000

Who were you trolling?

By: ezthinking

ezthinking — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:45:41 +0000

It is ironic when folks use “misremember” as a punchline but fail to realize that “misremember” is a word.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/misremember

If the Oxford dictionary isn’t good enough for you, then how about Webster?

http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/Misremember

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:56:36 +0000

Factor out the PED usage & include the normal rate of decline then let’s look at those stats

Here’s the HR king’s OPS+ from age 35 to 40:
177
149
194 (lead league)
147
177
128

He also took PEDs. Yet this person, Hank Aaron, isn’t be vilified like Bonds is. It’s almost like these guys are unbelievable athletes that don’t follow normal aging curves…

By: cur68

cur68 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:38:57 +0000

Rush-Lyric Trolling: the BEST kind of trolling.

By: philsieg

philsieg — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 22:04:29 +0000

Pretension to piety is such an ugly thing to see. You need to keep that engorged morality of yours covered up. Children may be watching.

By: yousuxxors

yousuxxors — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 21:35:35 +0000

Taking PEDs while old is just putting you on the same field as the kids

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 21:29:51 +0000

I didn’t mention the integrity clause because, if you read the post and the linked article, you’d realize that the voter whose ballot inspired this post did not either. His position is clearly — based on his vote for Bonds — that he will not disqualify players via the integrity clause. He will, however, consider only the player’s Hall of Fame candidacy during those years in which he did not use PEDs.

The point of my post, then, was to use the best evidence available to determine when Clemens was no on PEDs and to assess his Hall of Fame case in those years.

By: ramrene

ramrene — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 21:23:01 +0000

Craig,

I’m getting pretty sick & tired of your pro-PED position and your desperate attempt to change public opinion to allow PED users into the Hall. Give it a rest.

Your stats are all cherry pickings that include PED usage. Factor out the PED usage & include the normal rate of decline then let’s look at those stats because that’s exactly what I’m currently doing with Bond’s statistics – figuring out how to factor out his steroid use. Lastly, factor in the character issue that the guy cheated and suddenly Bonds and Clemens aren’t “sure in” HOF’ers. They’re exactly the kinds of guys the Hall needs to keep out.

They can keep their money and their freedom as opposed to going to jail but they can’t have EVERYTHING. Being labeled a cheat, being thought of as sad & pathetic, being ridiculed and having forever tarnished the family name, having to walk down the street and having fingers point at them while hearing whispers, and being excluded from the HOF is the price they have to pay for dancing with the devil.

They’re out and you’re pathetic for even attempting to make a case for including them.

May god have mercy on your soul.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 20:31:42 +0000

Rush references are always welcomed, Craig’s trolling be damned.

By: simon94022

simon94022 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:46:21 +0000

And nobody knows that any particular player was “clean,” do voting only for supposedly clean players is preposterous. Simple math and common sense dictate that are large percentage of the “good guys” in the 1990s were, in fact, PED users at least at some points during their careers.

It all comes down to a bunch of incompetent ex baseball writers who want to vote for mediocrities like Jim Rice and Jack Morris but can’t stand Bonds and Clemens on a personal level.

Sad.

By: Carl Hancock

Carl Hancock — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 18:42:42 +0000

I love how writers seem to be able to predict when a player started using PED’s. Guess what, you can’t. Nobody knows if Clemens and Bonds were only using at the end of their career or for the bulk of their career. You just don’t know. That is why this entire charade is a joke. Either you slow PED users in or you don’t. Picking and choosing based on guesswork is bullshit.