In Other Words: A-Rod and 'The Legacy' - Part One

Rodriguez Takes His Case to the People – Keeps Mum in Hearings

"I know that I am in a position where I have to earn my trust back. And over time, I am confident that, at the end of my career, people will see this for what it is -- a stupid mistake and a lesson learned for a guy with a lot of baseball to play.” - Alex Rodriguez, during 2009 press conference where he admitted to using PEDs from 2001-03.

JAN 14^th, 2014-Well, well, well.

Everyone's favorite Yankees third baseman is in the news, again. Shockingly, the current situation does not show him in a good light.

Let's take a look back at 2009, when Rodriguez found himself in a similar situation: A-Rod was dealing with the accusation (which he vehemently denied) that he had used PEDs during the 2001-03 seasons while a Texas Ranger. After a great many assertions from both the accused and the accusers, Rodriguez finally came clean (or, at least, as clean as he could be):

"As I discussed with Peter Gammons, in the years 2001, '02 and '03, I experimented with a banned substance that eventually triggered a positive test.”

As he put it initially in an admission that was rather late in coming, he 'experimented' with a banned substance. He doesn't just come out and say 'yes, I purposely used what I knew to be an illegal, banned substance', nor does he state what the aforementioned substance happened to be. More on that, later.

What he does say, however, is every bit as interesting:

"Going back to 2001, my cousin started telling me about a substance that you could purchased over the counter in the DR [Dominican Republic]. In the streets, it's known as 'boli' or 'bole.' It was his understanding that it would give me a dramatic energy boost and [was] otherwise harmless. My cousin and I, one more ignorant than the other, decided it was a good idea to start taking it. My cousin would administer it to me, but neither of us knew how to use it properly, providing just how ignorant we both were.”

In this part of the statement, it seems pretty obvious that he's trying to paint a picture of two naïve young men who were using a substance they didn't fully understand. I guess it's just hard for me to swallow; if I were a pro athlete making 25 mil a year (or more), I think I'd want to know every detail about every 'substance' that went into my body. But I guess that's just me.

Anyway, it almost seems like Rodriguez wants the public to believe that he might not have known just how serious was the situation in which he put himself. But then comes this gem:

“It was pretty evident we didn't know what we were doing.”

To whom, exactly? Moving on:

"I stopped taking it for several reasons: In 2003, I had a serious neck injury and it scared me half to death. I was scared for my career and truly my career after baseball -- my life out of baseball. Secondly, after our voluntary test, all the players voted for a Major League Drug Policy. At that time it became evident to me how serious this all was (emphasis added) . And I decided to stop then. Since that time, I've been tested regularly. I've taken urine tests consistent with Major League Baseball and blood tests for the World Baseball Classic. Before walking in here today, I took a test as part of my physical, and I will take another blood test next week for the Classic.”

“'At that time'”, he is quick to acknowledge, “'it became evident to me how serious this all was.”. So it was only then that you realized just how serious things had become?

He's asking us to believe that he was, essentially, led down this path by an outside influence. The blame lies somewhat more heavily on those who were involved in convincing him to take these substances, right?

And by the way, what was it that he took? Rodriguez says that the street name for the substance is 'boli'. T.J. Quinn of ESPN wrote an analysis of that statement on February 25^th, 2009:

“'If boli refers to Primobolan (a brand name for methenolone), it can't be purchased over the counter in the Dominican Republic (emphasis added). So how did they get it? The black market?'”

I think the emphasis is, in this particular statement, especially important. It seems to me that critics of PED use seem more often to focus on the potential benefit these drugs offer to the players who use them. The fact that obtaining said drugs without a prescription or by methods which don't involve being under a doctor's care is glossed over in favor of shining the spotlight on stats and records.

A transcript of A-Rods news conference was posted on MLB.com on Feb 17^th, 2009. Rodriguez gives a curious response to one question posed to him by the MLB reporter in which he was asked why he stopped using PEDs (supposedly) when he came to the Yankees in 2004:

“'I keep going back to -- I entered the game when I was 18. For a lot of people, if I had a son I would definitely recommend going to college and having an opportunity to grow up. And I didn't. I felt like I said in my statement that after I had my neck injury and after I realized MLB was implementing tests that this was serious business. It was time to grow up. Since, I've realized that I didn't need any of it.'”

Ah, so now we have the reason A-Rod used PEDs: immaturity. In essence, he suggests that entering pro ball as a teenager somehow inhibited his ability to grow into a mature, responsible adult. I don't even know how to respond to that.

He goes on to blame his PED use on being 'young and stupid', which is a point I'm not even going to attempt to refute. He most definitely was, in some ways, young and stupid for being involved with what he himself tells us was something he didn't fully understand. He even says that he didn't KNOW that the substance in question was steroids:

"'I didn't think they were steroids at the time. Again, that's part of being young and stupid. It was over the counter...

OK, that's a lie. If it WAS Primobolan, then it most definitely was not over the counter. But I digress:

“'...it was pretty basic and it was really amateur hour. It was two guys, we couldn't go outside, who couldn't ask anyone, didn't want to ask anyone. We went outside team doctors, team trainers. It was two guys doing a very amateur and immature thing. We probably didn't even take it right. Like I said in my statement, we used to do it about two times a month...'”

To me, this is a veiled attempt at suggesting that he shouldn't be held fully accountable because he was too ignorant to know how to take the drug that (again, I say) he readily admitted to not understanding fully. Moving further on:

“'I don't even know if that is proper. So when this gentleman asked me about how it affected us -- I'm not sure we even did it right to affect us in the right way. All these years, I never thought I did anything that was wrong.'”

In other words, he wants us to believe that what he DID take, in the way he took it, wasn't enough to cast doubt upon his statistics. Are we kids, or what?

A-Rod wants us to believe that he was seeing the professional sports world through the eyes of a child; that he, as I said previously:

1. Didn't know what he was taking
2. Didn't know it was wrong, and
3. Didn't even know if he was taking it properly

Does anyone else find this hilarious? I've been told that I have a quirky sense of humor, but I think it's a laugh riot.

I could go on and on with the farcical sideshow that was Alex Rodriguez in 2009, but I don't see the need. I mentioned all of these statements to set the groundwork for analyzing his most recent attempt at defending his naivete.

It gets even more hilarious from here.

(To Be Continued...)

In Other Words: Jack Clark and 'The Accusation'

AUGUST 9^th, 2013-Well, here we go again.

Former ML outfielder-first baseman Jack Clark, in his first week of co-hosting an afternoon drive show on St. Louis's WGNU (920 AM), decided to stir the PED pot a bit.

After his partner on the show, Kevin Slaten, mentioned the possibility that former Cardinals first baseman, current LA Angels' DL denizen and living legend Albert Pujols had used steroids in the past, Clark responded in the resoundingly affirmative:

“I know for a fact he was. The trainer that worked with him, threw him batting practice from Kansas City, that worked him out every day, basically told me that's what he did.”

The four-time ML All-Star Clark, who played with the Cards from 1985-87, has now twice made this claim in his first week on the show. Slaten didn't even finish his statement about Pujols' alleged use of steroids before Clark jumped in. Commenting on trainer Chris Mihlfeld, who worked with Pujols (as well as Jason Grimsley, who was busted after being caught shipping PEDs directly to his own home), Clark said the following:

“(Mihlfeld) had told me what he was doing with 'Poolie' (Pujols, in lame baseball nickname-speak). He threw him batting practice, worked him out, shot him up, all that stuff.”

OK. Let's start with the character of the man making said statement.

Clark was not one to shy away from expressing his opinions during his MLB career. For that matter, he seemed to engender negative feelings from his teammates from time to time.

In his time with the San Francisco Giants in the early-80's, Clark often complained about the playing conditions at old Candlestick Park. In fairness, I remember The 'Stick: it was cold, windy and damp. Frequently. But this sort of attitude, along with concerns from manager Frank Robinson and the front office that he was, perhaps, 'milking' his injuries, led to his trade to the Cards in 1985 for SS Jose Uribe, pitcher Dave LaPoint and 1B-OFs David Green and Gary Rajsich.

In 1987, Clark had managed to get on SS Ozzie Smith's bad side. In 1988 he had signed a two-year contract with the New York Yankees, but while he enjoyed playing for manager Billy Martin, he didn't much care for Martin's replacement Lou Pinella. At the end of '88, he was on his way out of The Big Apple and heading to San Diego, traded with Pat Clements for Ps Lance McCullers and Jimmy Jones, and OF Stan Jefferson. He took one last shot at NY and the American League, in general, saying “I hate that damn league. Every game lasts 3 ½ to 4 hours. No wonder the fans are bored over there.”

In San Diego, Clark's newest target for criticism was OF Tony Gwynn (of all people). Clark felt that Gwynn was more concerned about his batting average than he was about winning, and that he often bunted in situations which seemed inappropriate in order to preserve said average. “No one bothers Tony Gwynn because he wins batting titles, but the Padres finish fourth or fifth ever year”, said Jack the Ripper, ostensibly a nickname gained from his run-producing talent, though it could just have easily come from his frequent character attacks on other players.

As much as Clark (supposedly) hated the AL, he returned there in 1991 when he signed with the Boston Red Sox. Again, he took aim at one of his former comrades:

“(Padres manager) Greg Riddoch is a bad, bad man, and he's sneaky. He's a snake. Well, not just a snake, but a s-s-s-n-n-n-a-ke.”

...as well as firing off a few rounds at the Padres' fans:

“Everything that they should cheer for, they'd boo for, and everything they should boo for they'd cheer for...Tony, he's perfect for them. He just plays the whole thing up, and the town is so stupid that they can't see (emphasis added).”

It was around this time that Gwynn decided he'd had quite enough:

“Let's talk about him walking 104 times, being a #4 hitter. Let's talk about his not flying on team flights. Let's talk about him getting booted out of games on a called strike three.”

Clark had his own faults, beyond his need to point out the flaws of others. In 1992 his lavish spending habits led him into bankruptcy, driven primarily by his obsession with luxury cars. His bankruptcy filing stated that he was paying on 17 car notes at the same time. Seventeen. He would sometimes get bored with a car and simply get rid of it in favor of a new and different one. In the end, he lost his home (valued at approximately 2.4 million) and his drag-racing business, but was once again financially stable by the late-90's.

This leads us to thirteen years ago. In 2000, he was working as hitting coach for the LA Dodgers. It was in this season that he supposedly was told by the trainer Mihlfeld that he was giving Pujols steroids.

Now, the easiest flaw to point out in Clark's statement is that it's pure hearsay; just because Clark says that someone else said that so-and-so was being given steroids, that doesn't make it true. Granted, Mihlfeld was involved with Grimsley, who was most assuredly using PEDs. But this sort of 'guilt-by-association' strategy is what's being used against a number of former players even now, with reporters and fans alike making reckless assumptions (in some cases).

Beyond Clark's assertion that Mihlfeld said he gave steroids to the Angels first-sacker, what else does he have to offer to back up that claim? Not to mention this little tidbit, where he said:

“...basically told me that's what he did.”

“Basically told me...”. OK, so did Mihlfeld come out and say it, point-blank, or did he simply allude to the possibility that he might be doing so? Either he said it or he didn't. This 'basically' crap is close to slander, the way I see it. At first, Clark says that he was told by Mihlfeld that the trainer was giving Pujols steroids. The follow-up statement says “basically...”. So which is it?

For that matter, why are you bringing this up now? I would have to assume that your concern in this matter is that fair play and a clean game are paramount to the success and reputation of Major League Baseball. But if that's what you believe, then why are you coming out thirteen years after the fact with such an accusation, at a time in which you'd be hard-pressed to prove the the conversation even took place, about one of the biggest stars in the last 50 years? What could your motivation possibly be?

Actually, as I was researching for this post, writer Ray DeRousse had already written an excellent article about Clark's possible motivation for making such a (potentially) reckless comment. In this post, he noted that Clark seemed to be jealous of the success of both proven and suspected PED users, citing Clark's own words:

“They got the money, that's what they went for. But when they get off the juice and that stuff's not around, their body starts breaking down and obviously you start seeing some results go away...The greed...they juice up, they grab the money and it's just a free pass to steal is the way I look at it.”

Well, now. That certainly clears up some things, doesn't it? At least it gives some insight as to why Clark might feel the way he does, as well as the timing in which he's chosen to make his accusations.

Granted, there has been some suspicion about Pujols since his earlier days with the Cards, but never has he even been remotely linked with anything in the way of concrete evidence of PED use. Yes, he was associated with Mihlfeld, who was actually cleared from involvement in PED distribution back in 2006 when Brian McNamee was instead linked to the Grimsley affidavit as the guilty party in question. Deadspin.com, on June 8^th, 2006, also pointed the finger at Mihlfeld, going so far as to name Mihlfeld as the individual who connected Grimsley (and others) to a dealer who provided the players with “amphetamines, anabolic steroids and HGH”.

People in the sports media who play this sort of game, in which they may do no more than insinuate the guilt of a player, are on thin ice as soon as they start. Pujols has already stated in the press that he is planning to sue Clark and WGNU, as well.

Pujols told MLB.com:

“It is irresponsible and reckless for Jack Clark to have falsely accused me of using PEDs. My faith in Jesus Christ and my respect for this game are too important to me. I would never be able to look my wife or kids in the eye if I had done what this man is accusing me of.

"I know people are tired of athletes saying they are innocent, asking for the public to believe in them only to have their sins exposed later down the road. But I am not one of those athletes, and I will not stand to have my name, and my family's name, dragged through the mud."

Of course, these are just words. We've all seen the 'Indignant Major Leaguer' card played many times before, and it's a pretty tired approach at this point. All that will matter in the end is whether or not Pujols used PEDs, and following the progression (or lack, thereof) of the libel suit that Pujols plans to file could tell a great deal as to whether Clark was right. Remember: it's only libel if it isn't true.

And Pujols has, to our knowledge, never failed a drug test. It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.

(UPDATE: Early Saturday morning, insideSTL announced the firing of both Clark and Slaten. The company is doing its best to distance themselves from the former co-hosts, as well as their comments. Best of luck with that. )

PEDS: Are Some Players Innocent, After All?

JULY 29th, 2013-The PED/Steroid/HGH scandal in professional baseball has been raging on for the past 6 years, now, not taking into account the years before it came to light in the public eye. 

In 2007, things came to a Congressional head with the Mitchell Report. MLB stars found themselves in front of a Senate sub-committee defending their actions (or lack, thereof) over recent years in the game. So named for the man who commissioned the report, US Senator from Maine George J. Mitchell, it comprised 409 pages and God-knows-how-many taxpayer dollars when it was finally complete. Released in December of '07 to the press (and eventually the public), it brought to light the misdeeds of many a star player:

Representative Dan Burton (R-Indiana) grilled Brian McNamee, former "trainer" for Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte and (apparently) an avid collector of used gauze pads and needles, over his confusing and sometimes-misleading testimony. Sammy Sosa forgot how to speak English, after what I can only assume was a minor brain hemorrhage affecting the speech centers of his brain. Jose Canseco got his 15 minutes, while various representatives tried to knock that huge chip off his shoulder. 

And former star Rafael Palmeiro wagged his finger sternly when asked if he had ever used performance-enhancing drugs. 

Then we come to New York Yankees pariah Alex Rodriguez. Peter Gammons spoke with A-Rod concerning the lies in which he was caught: 

"Back then, it was a different culture. It was very loose", said the embattled former shoe-in for the Hall, speaking as much truth in that one statement as anyone prior to him had even considered saying. 

He's right. It WAS a different culture. Steroids were used by many, many players, in open defiance of the league's 'regulations' concerning banned substances. Well, that's not entirely true: MLB really didn't have a process in place to address the use of PEDs. It was, in that sense, and in the sense that anyone with a pair of eyes and a functioning brain could see what was going on, encouraged by the powers-that-be. These are the same powers who then came to the game's 'rescue', attacking the epidemic of illegal PED use which had pervaded the game, doing their level best to save face while appeasing the MLBPA at the same time. 

Looking back on A-Rod's interview, something always stuck with me:

"There are substances in GNC right now which could trigger a positive result" on a urine test, he said. I always wondered what it was he meant, specifically. 

Well, as it turns out, and as much as I hate to admit it, he was right. In fact, he was more 'right' than he may have known, at the time. 

The FDA reported on Saturday that a Vitamin B supplement sold by GNC does indeed contain two controlled substances: 

"...Healthy Life Chemistry By Purity First B-50, contains methasterone, a controlled substance, and dimethazine, the Food and Drug Administration said."

Let me clarify that statement: a Vitamin B supplement showed positive (in preliminary tests) for methasterone (an anabolic steroid), and dimethazine, which is essentially a precursor of methasterone. B vitamins. And steroids. 

How many times have we heard that a player didn't take steroids, but actually only took a B vitamin? They then blame their positive test on said vitamin. According to the early reports from the FDA, some of them could be telling the truth. 

Adding to the problem is the fact that vitamins and herbal supplements are not regulated by the FDA. What this means, in short, is that there could be ANYTHING at all in that multi-vitamin or gingko capsule. Like the man said, "You pays yer money and you takes yer chance". This should be the official slogan of any company who produces an unregulated, nebulous (and sometimes dangerous) product for public consumption. 

So what are the legal implications of this latest development for the players who have had to suffer this embarrassment? What recourse do they now have? And how would a player prove that their positive tests were directly related to the use of these 'vitamins'? Even accounting for those who used PEDs knowingly, how would a player who was unknowingly using a banned substance ever clear his name?

While we await the fallout over this latest revelation, there is no doubt that this can and likely will change the current strategies in professional sports' battle against PEDs. 

Bagwell Hosed in HOF Vote

FEB 9th, 2012-OK, I know this is old news now, but I've been thinking about it lately and it's kind of getting under my skin.

The irritant in question: current rationale regarding the (possible) PED use by retired HOF candidate and former Houston Astro Jeff Bagwell.

You hear it everywhere: "Well, everyone else is doing it, so why wouldn't he?", "He's way too big not to be using PED", "He played with users, so of course he did it, too", et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Nowadays, it seems like all it takes is a little suspicion or rumor and suddenly not only is a player on steroids, he also murders kittens, steals his granny's social security checks and was the mastermind behind 9/11. And it's understandable that most fans would take that point of view; after all, the Mitchell Report saw to it that what faith and trust we had in professional baseball and the players in it was quite nearly destroyed completely. But the logic behind the whole "he's a big guy, so he shoots up" argument is beyond laughable.

Here's the thing, and it's pretty simple: either prove it, or vote him in. In my mind, he's a HOF first baseman, and I can't imagine that I'm alone in this.

You already know the numbers. I'm gonna give 'em to you, anyway (thank you, baseball-reference.com)

Not a lot of awards, here. Four All-Star appearances, 1991 NL ROY, 1994 NL MVP and TSN Major League Player of the Year. Not bad, but not outstanding. However, his 162 game average certainly helps his case, as does the .408 career OBP. Not too shabby. In terms of career numbers, he's most definitely worthy of serious HOF consideration. It's a simple equation: he was one of the best at his position from 1994-2003. Off the top of my head, and minus the BA and defense, the first comparable player to come to mind is Johnny Mize.

Despite the decided lack of evidence, it seems that the "We can't prove he didn't use PED" argument has won out among HOF voters. The thing is, anyone can take that stance and it would be near impossible to prove them wrong.

The evidence suggests that Bagwell did not use PED, simply because he's never been officially named in any investigation. In fact, if there is anything going against him now it's basically limited to personal opinion. Well, that and the impression he makes in terms of his physical appearance. But we have to have more than just innuendo and personal bias to go on if we're going to shut him out of the Hall, don't we?

For my part, I say if they can't find any dirt on him, he's a HOFer. No doubt, in my mind. But the voters have no right (from an ethical standpoint) to simply wait for evidence to surface, especially when said evidence might not even exist in the first place.

Despite my humble point of view, there's nothing I can say that would even begin to top Ken Rosenthal's statement on Bagwell's chances:

"When voting, one should only consider the facts at hand. If Bagwell is later revealed to have been a user, maybe I will stop voting for him, if he isn’t already in the Hall. There is little doubt that he is deserving otherwise, unless you’re somehow unimpressed by his .408 on-base percentage and .540 slugging mark, not to mention his baserunning, defense at first base and leadership of the Astros during his 15-year career … For now, all I know is one thing: I’m not withholding votes based on hearsay and innuendo."

Well said, Mr. Rosenthal. And absolutely right. Until and/or unless the voters find proof of Bagwell's malfeasance, I sincerely hope that he receives the respect for his career he so richly deserves.

So to all those who would suggest that Jeff Bagwell has somehow cheated the game and its fans, I have only this to say:

Prove it.

Sosa To Retire, Pharmacology Mourns Loss

Well, well, well.

Does the phrase "circling the wagons" mean anything to you folks?

Former Ranger-Cub-Oriole and freak of nature Sammy Sosa announced recently that he may retire before the start of this season. Sosa's agent cites chronic injury and poor performance as reasons for the seemingly sudden decision of the 37 year old outfielder, also stating that Sosa will become a free agent and will not be designated as officially retired.

Let me be the first to say, SO LONG, SAMMY.

It would be so easy if we fans could simply look the other way when our favorite stars gain 30 pounds of muscle over a couple of months, or in some cases, when they LOSE 30 pounds or more over the same time. Cutting out fast food from your diet? Simply stopped working out? Of course, we believe you. We're just fans, after all. We don't really know any better.

Why don't players like Sosa, Bonds, et al, simply tell us what they think of us: they think we're all idiots. They think we either don't know or don't care what our favorite players do to get to that 60 homer shape. They think that we're a bit too naive to believe that baseball is swimming in performance-enhancers, that when confronted with the truth we simply won't care enough to turn our backs on the game.

They're right. We are all that and more.

How obvious does it have to be? Do you really think that ballplayers can undergo such a dramatic physical change without either steroids or divine intervention? Do you care? If you did, you'd let professional baseball know. You'd stop going to games. You'd stop buying their merchandise. You'd stop begging the players for autographs, just so you might make a few bucks from it.

In other words, you'd stop being a SUCKER.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being a fan. Hey, I'm as big a fan as you're likely to meet. But I don't throw my money at pro baseball like I used to do. To me, pro baseball as it was meant to be died about 20 years ago. I will probably always be a fan, but I can no longer accept the sickening pack of lies that the baseball powers-that-be expect me to swallow. They could see the players balloon like comic book heroes. They saw the turnstiles go crazy. They put 2 and 2 together.

They didn't ignore it. They EMBRACED it.

Now, they want you to embrace it, as well. When Sosa retires, the proof of whether or not he used steroids could be lost forever. Will baseball continue to be allowed to support this blight upon the grand old game? Will players like Sosa continue to get away with blatant cheating and destructive training habits (allegedly, right?)?

Well, that's all up to you.


Clinton Riddle

This site is 100% Steroid Free

Steroids and the Government

Does MLB enjoy a sort of privilege when it comes to the conduct and habits of its employees? After all, the professional ranks of baseball are just that, professional, and thus the Major Leagues should be handled like any large corporate entity that has failed to police its own members and operate within the boundaries of ethical business practices.
What I have not heard mentioned yet, is the fact that the use of steroids or any potentially harmful substance by the pro ballplayer could void any insurance, medical, life or otherwise, that the TEAMS might carry on said player. Many teams hold special insurance plans on their players; reference the Jason Giambi scandal, for a good example. Why do you think that Giambi has not spoken the magic words,"I took steroids"? That kind of admittance could void any disability insurance or related coverage that the Yankees hold on him, and thus cost them a whole heck of a lot of money.
Millions.
Now consider that every team that carries a player who uses steroids, or even a substance more benign than that, theoretically anything that can can affect the long-term health of a player under contract, could cost the Majors AND Minors millions upon millions of dollars, not to mention the possibility that charges of insurance fraud will start to surface; if there can be any question raised as to whether the teams had even a hint that any members of their team had used any harmful substances, the trial lawyers are going to declare a holiday in honor of the years of litigation with which professional baseball will provide for them.
What do you guys think? Does baseball have a responsibility to its fans, or is baseball no longer a sport, but an entertainment?
Is it too late to save the Game from itself?


C.Riddle
The Grand Old Game