Jump to content

McGwire admits 'roid use


Recommended Posts

Gary how to view his old managers idea to slip Mac in as a pinch hitter at his age and physical condition?  And what reason would that be for?  Only one reason makes any sense...we all know why, and if they are truly interested in moving on and allowing others to judge the past there would have been no mention at all of this idea.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DennisMcFeely

    6

  • LivermushBiscuit

    6

  • ANF grousin

    5

LivermushBiscuit

Sorry Gary, but when it comes to "getting a grip", it looks like your take on the events is the least objective of all those who've weighed in.

What you've quoted me on was my opinion of LaRussa, not what he said or you said.  What you did say was that Pete Rose's problem was that no others were caught doing what he did.  I stand behind what I said.  I believe that Tony LaRussa rationalizes cheating, as a means to an end.  And I think he always has.  And I don't like that, any more than any part of our society that rationalizes away misbehavior.  That was my criticism of what you stated.

Bow out if you like, but you might consider researching your facts a bit.  Rose's All-Star game collision with Fosse was less a sin of commission than of omission.  His headlong slide into home and through Fosse, was an extension of how he played.  Inconsiderate and intentional, yes, but not malicious.  In an inconsequential game, it's hard to say his actions were defensible, but that's just how he played.  Maybe you know Fosse, and maybe he thinks Rose's intent was to inflict harm.  I don't think you and Ray can sell that theory, though.  Not with anyone without an unbiased opinion, anyway.

His gambling on baseball was done when he was managing the Reds, not as a player under the supervision of another manager.  In fact, yes, because Rose was the manager (and more because he betrayed my faith in him) he's definitely a scumbag.

And any feller would have to be mighty obsequious, to stand there on that stump and shout that McGuire is "coming clean" and that LaRussa's "trying his best to help."

McGuire and LaRussa aren't helping anyone other than themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Gary, but when it comes to "getting a grip", it looks like your take on the events is the least objective of all those who've weighed in.

What you've quoted me on was my opinion of LaRussa, not what he said or you said.  What you did say was that Pete Rose's problem was that no others were caught doing what he did.  I stand behind what I said.  I believe that Tony LaRussa rationalizes cheating, as a means to an end.  And I think he always has.  And I don't like that, any more than any part of our society that rationalizes away misbehavior.  That was my criticism of what you stated.

Bow out if you like, but you might consider researching your facts a bit.  Rose's All-Star game collision with Fosse was less a sin of commission than of omission.  His headlong slide into home and through Fosse, was an extension of how he played.  Inconsiderate and intentional, yes, but not malicious.  In an inconsequential game, it's hard to say his actions were defensible, but that's just how he played.  Maybe you know Fosse, and maybe he thinks Rose's intent was to inflict harm.  I don't think you and Ray can sell that theory, though.  Not with anyone without an unbiased opinion, anyway.

His gambling on baseball was done when he was managing the Reds, not as a player under the supervision of another manager.  In fact, yes, because Rose was the manager (and more because he betrayed my faith in him) he's definitely a scumbag.

And any feller would have to be mighty obsequious, to stand there on that stump and shout that McGuire is "coming clean" and that LaRussa's "trying his best to help."

McGuire and LaRussa aren't helping anyone other than themselves.

What a bunch of horse manure.

1). You stated: "I believe that Tony LaRussa rationalizes cheating, as a means to an end.  And I think he always has." You have no clue about the person Tony is, and what he stands for. And again, why do you think it's a manager's responsiblity to test players for steriods?  Name one manager that's ever punished a player for that? Or do you think players should be punished by a manager because of what others suspect he is doing, without any proof? Believe what you wish, but you are totally clueless.

2). Rose got nailed because he got caught doing something the league was ready to deal with. Pro sports has always dealt with gamblers, and he got caught. Steriod usage is something MLB still has not found away to correctly deal with. But when they do, you can bet it isn't going to be the managers who do it.

3). And yes, Rose took out Fosse in a MEANLESS All-Star Game. Stupid.  Undefensible.  A helluva lot more than inconsiderate. If it  was intentional -- as you mentioned --, then doing that in the MEANINGLESS All-Star venue  was malicious. I'm glad that did have an additional  negative effect on him getting onto the HOF ballot. He should have been held responsible for that at the time, and he wasn't.  Scumbug.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary how to view his old managers idea to slip Mac in as a pinch hitter at his age and physical condition?
 

In order to do that, he would have to be on active player list, taking a rooster spot. If MLB and the Cardinal organization said that was OK, then why not, especially if he's been tested by MLB and shown not be on the juice? That's a Team and League decision, not a managers.

And what reason would that be for?  Only one reason makes any sense...we all know why, and if they are truly interested in moving on and allowing others to judge the past there would have been no mention at all of this idea.

I have no idea what "we all know why" represents. If the Cardinal organization and MLB allowed him to play ( after testing and continueing to test non-positive for steriod use), and Tony felt he could help the team win, then why not?

Your confusing what a manager's, MLB's, the Commissioner's, the Cardinal oranizations jobs are.

Once again, IT IS NOT the manager's job to test a player for steriods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to like to go to a Major league game or two every summer.  With all of this BS I have voted with my wallet and no longer choose to do so.  

My loss, yes, their loss yes.  

Too bad, I really liked baseball but no more, they are an overpaid bunch of cheatin whiners!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary the only logical reason to have a mid to late 40 year old man who hasn't played pro ball for years--and is up for consideration for the hall of fame--whose voters went through the era with him and won't vote for him--is to increase his chances to make it into the HOF.  HOF voting starts a set period of time AFTER an active playing career has ended.  The clock starts again if he plays.  Meaning a lot of current voters will be gone by the time his HOF eligibility is near running out in the future--a future further away than it would be if he stayed retired.    

There's just no possibility of justifying it based on talent or ability anymore.  There's no way that wouldn't create a huge controversy either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....

McGwire's dad was one of my instructor's in dental school, and LaRussa is a very close personal friend of over 20 years. We talked about this last Thursday, before the news broke.

Neither of them are scumbags, least of all Tony. He's done a lot of good for  MLB, and will no doubt be a Hall of Famer. His  encouraging Mac to come clean tells what he's all about. Yes, it had something to do with Mark's wanting to get into coaching, but never the less he did come forward.

Anyone who calls these two guys a "scumbag" is a total mis-informed scumbag themselves in my book.

Gary,

I don't know who is misinformed here, but if your version of the events is correct then La Russa has been going all over the St. Louis media lying through his teeth.  The story La Russa is sticking with is that the first he ever talked to Mark about it was on Monday when the news broke.

Here is the L.A. Times where he says that he never asked Mark about it.  Even after the congressional hearings. http://www.latimes.com/sports.....column

Your portrayal of Tony as some kind of hero counselor who coaxed McGwire to come clean, just does not match the story that La Russa and the Cardinals are telling the fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary the only logical reason to have a mid to late 40 year old man who hasn't played pro ball for years--and is up for consideration for the hall of fame--whose voters went through the era with him and won't vote for him--is to increase his chances to make it into the HOF.  HOF voting starts a set period of time AFTER an active playing career has ended.  The clock starts again if he plays.  Meaning a lot of current voters will be gone by the time his HOF eligibility is near running out in the future--a future further away than it would be if he stayed retired.    

There's just no possibility of justifying it based on talent or ability anymore.  There's no way that wouldn't create a huge controversy either.

That is a good point about timing, , Windy.

I think Mac has given up on the HOF, but if he hasn't then I think what he does off the field at this point is far more important than anything he can do on the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The story La Russa is sticking with is that the first he ever talked to Mark about it was on Monday when the news broke.

I mentioned to Tony I thought it was great that he was getting Mark back into the game as a hitting coach. He mentioned that is was going to be good for everyone involved.  Nothing more than that.

My reference to "His  encouraging Mac to come clean tells what he's all about" had nothing to do with that conversation. My comment was  present tense.

Relax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally someone says the same thing I have been saying for years……………from SI.com

Eff you Bonds and McGuire…………your career was a sham, that also goes for Palmeiro, Sosa, Giambi, A-Roid, I-Rod, Juan Gonzalez, heck even Papi and Manny are called into question.

SI: What are some specific ways in which steroids might help a hitter, beyond just making a ball that he would've hit anyway go farther?

Yesalis: As your forearms become stronger, you can react late to a pitch and still hit it out. You have a certain amount of weight in the bat, and that 35-ounce bat now becomes more like a toothpick, so you can snap it more and go through the ball. It's not only what happens when you contact the ball; you can take a bigger bat. And if you're behind on the pitch and swat at it, what would've been a ground ball or fly-out is now an opposite-field home run. That's why these big guys hit opposite-field homers. The line drive to the warning track will now carry to the fence, and the grounder is faster and might get through two infielders. I could never hit a curveball, so steroids won't make me a major leaguer, but when used by people who have that God-given skill, to say they have no impact has no credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LivermushBiscuit

The story La Russa is sticking with is that the first he ever talked to Mark about it was on Monday when the news broke.

I mentioned to Tony I thought it was great that he was getting Mark back into the game as a hitting coach. He mentioned that is was going to be good for everyone involved.  Nothing more than that.

My reference to "His  encouraging Mac to come clean tells what he's all about" had nothing to do with that conversation. My comment was  present tense.

Relax.

Gary, just for the record, have you ever argued over what the definition of "is" is?

Your contentions are the product of your emotions, and that's obvious.  If you had any objectivity, and any clear understanding of the lines separating fact from opinion and hearsay, your argument might have had a chance.  It doesn't matter how loudly or passionately you say the opposite of what is true, doing so doesn't make it any more true.

Believe in your (scumbag) buddy all you like, but if you choose to actually sing his praises, you'll not be doing your credibility any justice, or his, for that matter.  SAY that you believe him, if you like, but don't dare try to convince me of any measure of LaRussa's goodness, regarding him and the use of steroids in MLB.

Sorry if this rankles your sensibilities or offends anyone else, and I really hoped to never find myself in such a contrary debate with a fellow member, but your nonsensical endorsement of cheaters and their enablers hit a nerve, and you don't seem interested in leaving it be.

How about this: we choose to disagree?  You satisfy your heart that Tony-baby never looked behind him, only at the field and batter's box.  No coach or other player or agent or fan or reporter or wife of a teammate or opponent or trainer or medical professional ever planted a seed of mistrust in LaRussa's head regarding the purity of McGuire's competition.  And I'll choose to believe that LaRussa and those like him are the kind of substance I'd rather not step in, and we'll leave it at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your contentions are the product of your emotions, and that's obvious.  If you had any objectivity, and any clear understanding of the lines separating fact from opinion and hearsay, your argument might have had a chance

You need to look up the word objectivity before throwing it around. You don't even know these people, and your only source of information is what you have read.  Your facts are incomplete, and in some cases, totally incorrect.

How about this: we choose to disagree?  

Sounds good to me.

You satisfy your heart that Tony-baby never looked behind him, only at the field and batter's box.  No coach or other player or agent or fan or reporter or wife of a teammate or opponent or trainer or medical professional ever planted a seed of mistrust in LaRussa's head regarding the purity of McGuire's competition.  

What is it about this that you can not grasp that it is not the manager's job to run steriod testing? This is a problem with and for  MLB owners and the Commissioner to deal with, and not Tony La Russa or any other manager.

Or do you believe a manager should suspend a player because he suspects steriods?

Please idenify a situation where ANY manager/coach has ordered steriod testing on any player.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DennisMcFeely

I think the steroid era taints a lot of people in baseball in addition to the guilty players, and that certainly includes many managers.  Certainly Larussa is not alone in that regard, and no, it is not a manager's job to test players for illegal substances.  To say he didn't know before this week however, seems completely disingenuous to me.  In my mind and I'd suspect many fans minds, lots of managers didn't specifically know because they didn't want to know.  And yes, in my mind it's an indictment of all of them.  The league obviously has done nothing of substance to deal with this and the players' union in the interest of protecting the juicers does a disservice to its' members who didn't use, many of whom weren't chasing history as McGwire did.

Obviously this is all very judgemental but it's just my opinion as a fan of the game, and in my view these "entertainers" open themselves up to that and are well compensated for the pressures.  

No hindsight here on what anyone should have done to prevent all this either, it's simply a sad state of affairs that this whole era has brought such shame to a great game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the steroid era taints a lot of people in baseball in addition to the guilty players, and that certainly includes many managers.  Certainly Larussa is not alone in that regard, and no, it is not a manager's job to test players for illegal substances.  To say he didn't know before this week however, seems completely disingenuous to me.  In my mind and I'd suspect many fans minds, lots of managers didn't specifically know because they didn't want to know.  And yes, in my mind it's an indictment of all of them.  The league obviously has done nothing of substance to deal with this and the players' union in the interest of protecting the juicers does a disservice to its' members who didn't use, many of whom weren't chasing history as McGwire did.

Obviously this is all very judgemental but it's just my opinion as a fan of the game, and in my view these "entertainers" open themselves up to that and are well compensated for the pressures.  

No hindsight here on what anyone should have done to prevent all this either, it's simply a sad state of affairs that this whole era has brought such shame to a great game.

Well said, Dennis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a little of Bobby Knight's take on it and got me think, Who are the people making the decision on what drugs are ok and what are not. He used Gatorade, which is an electrolyte replacement and is probably a stretch, but it does aid in performance.

My Beef would be with the pain meds these guys are taking. Some of the guys in the NFL wouldn't be able to suit up every week, if it wasn't for a shot and a shot there. Why is this ok and who decided it was ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...