This is from a review by Alan Thurston that I found on good reads about the new Jackson book. I found it well articulated and explained and will contrast as I listen to the book.
The transcript is an invaluable addition to Black Sox Scandal historiography that contains material that bolsters Jackson's case. To his supporters, Pomrenke writes in the Afterword, what happened to Joe is a "story of injustice". As Gene Carney, the highly esteemed founder of the SABR Black Sox Scandal Research Committee and author of the landmark book BURYING THE BLACK SOX wrote, "scapegoating Joe was part of the Comiskey cover-up."
Pomrenke also writes, "The transcript sheds new light on Jackson's participation in the plot to fix the World Series." It contains an exchange of letters that were presented in evidence between Comiskey and Joe written in November 1919 in which the ballplayer, responding to the owner's offer to pay his expenses if he wished to return to Chicago to discuss the Series, wrote that he wanted to return to clear his name and tell what he knew. As Carney wrote, Comiskey "brushed him off." Joe's detractors have expressed skepticism about his claim that he went to Comiskey's office the day after the Series ended to show him the bribe money and had the door slammed in his face. The transcript shows that Comiskey testified that he never asked Joe to come to his office after the Series, but later admitted on the stand that he did come, waited for an hour and the owner did not see him. When asked about his oft-quoted grand jury comment that he was ashamed of himself, Joe answered that he so testified at the "suggestion" of Alfred Austrian, evidence that he was coached by Comiskey's attorney, who represented the owner's interests, not Joe's. As Richard Ofshe and Richard Leo write in "The Decision to Confess Falsely", "An investigator can capitalize on the subject's anxiety, fear and emotional turmoil by calling it remorse, and by urging him to respond to his emotions and express his remorse by confessing."
Grand Jury testimony is often quoted in the transcript. Jackson's attorney, James Shaw, skillfully exposes the incompetence of Assistant State's Attorney Hartley Replogle during the proceedings. Replogle is reported to have told Joe prior to his testifying, "You know you are not the smartest man in the world" to which he replied, "I know it." The slugger would have been justified had he shot back, "and you are not the smartest attorney." Not only did Replogle make no attempt to clear up the contradiction between Joe's testimony that he was part of the plot and yet he always played to win, but he also failed to ask the ballplayer obvious questions that could have exposed the Comiskey cover-up. While he did ask Joe what he said to Chick Gandil when he saw him in Comiskey's office the morning after the Series, Replogle failed to inquire why Jackson wanted to see the owner in the first place. Did he want to talk about the Series? The fix? Was he summoned to the office or did he go on his own? Was he surprised to see Gandil, the ringleader of the plot, in the waiting room? Did he ask him why he was there or what he intended to say to Comiskey? Instead of asking these obvious questions, Replogle astoundingly asked eleven straight questions about their drinking habits! Had he been asked, I believe Joe would have said that he wanted to show the owner the bribe money he had received from Lefty Williams.
Joe startlingly testified that he "offered to come here last fall in the investigation, I would have told it last fall if they would have brought me in", clearly referring to his November 1919 letter. Replogle failed to ask him to explain his offer, to whom it was made, how it was made, what he planned to tell them and what was the response. Brigham, the grand jury foreman, testified that he felt there was no reason to investigate Comiskey. Had he known about the exchange of letters the foreman might have felt differently, would have wanted to see the letters and would have wanted Comiskey to testify to explain why he reneged on his offer to bring Joe back to Chicago.
The Index to the Trial Transcript indicates there were "discussions" between the players and the gamblers. The only "discussion" Joe had was with Bill Burns the morning of Game 1, when he told the gambler that he did not know what the players were planning. Replogle did not seek to clarify how Joe could have been part of the plot, as he testified, and yet did not know what they were plotting. Had he asked Joe why he said he was a plot participant, the ballplayer might have answered that it was what Austrian "suggested" he say, and that after speaking with Burns he was so alarmed that he went to Comiskey's hotel room and asked to be suspended.
Was Replogle really such an inept interrogator or was there something more sinister at work? As Carney writes, "powerful figures and the establishment of baseball were interconnected with politics, the legal system and the press." Comiskey, Austrian and Judge Charles McDonald, who presided over the grand jury hearing, were "powerful figures" who had been cronies for decades. The owner may have hoped that his friend, McDonald, would be named the first baseball commissioner and, while his players might be punished, they would not be banished from the game for life. Replogle might have realized that if he exposed the Comiskey cover-up he would provide the Old Roman's mortal enemy, Ban Johnson, with the ammunition he would use to destroy Comiskey and he would not ingratiate himself with these influential men.
Pomrenke writes of Joe's "own changing account about his role in the conspiracy." The transcript shows Comiskey, Austrian and Harry Grabiner, the Sox team secretary, having questionable memory lapses and/or changing their accounts and appearing to be less than truthful in their testimony. While admitting he wrote Joe in November of 1919, Comiskey initially stated that he did not receive a letter from him shortly after the World Series. When asked if he would swear he received no letter, Comiskey responded, "I could swear that I didn't--maybe I did, I don't know." He later admitted that Joe did write to him.
Joe has been criticized for frequently testifying at his civil trial that he could not remember or did not say the things he said during his grand jury testimony. Comiskey also has memory problems stating, "I can't remember all those things" and "Do you want a man to remember every little thing for years and years and years?". The Old Roman's attorney stated, "Nobody could testify just what they testified to because it is so long ago." Comiskey alleged he did not know Joe had the highest batting average in the Series or whether he had his detectives interview Joe in Georgia after the World Series. Comiskey and his good friend, baseball writer Hugh Fullerton, appear to be guilty of false testimony. Fullerton testified that he did not tell the owner that he had a conversation with the gambler Burns before Game 1 where he was told, "the Reds were already in." Comiskey testified he was told prior to Game 2 "that somebody had got to my ballclub." He later admitted in an article published in 1930 he was made aware of the rumors the morning of Game 1 before a pitch had been thrown in the World Series during a conference in his hotel room with Fullerton.
While admitting he was shown the November 1919 letter Comiskey sent to Joe offering to pay his expenses if he wanted to return to Chicago to discuss the Series, Austrian testified that he did not recall what it stated claiming, "My memory is not that good." He also alleged that Comiskey did not tell him about Joe's letter accepting his offer to return "and give all the information that he wanted regarding dishonest playing in the 1919 World Series." Grabiner testified that he could not remember receiving a letter from Joe offering to return to tell what he knew. He later changed his story testifying that he did remember receiving the letter and that it had (conveniently) been "misplaced". When asked if he discussed the terms of Joe's contract with Comiskey prior to travelling to Georgia to sign the slugger, Grabiner responded, "I don't think so." It is very difficult to believe that he would offer Joe a three-year contract without the owner's approval and that Comiskey, as he testified, was not "apprised of the terms of that contract before Jackson signed it." In addition, Grabiner stated that he did not talk about the 10-Day Clause with Joe despite letters previously received from the ballplayer demanding the Clause not be included.
The transcript includes the testimony of Judge McDonald who claims Joe told him in his chambers that "he was approached... by Gandil in New York at the Ansonia Hotel...Jackson said he wouldn't accept $5000, that that wouldn't be sufficient for a common laborer to do a dirty trick...that would require $20,000...and that he did not play his best." Joe emphatically denied saying this. McDonald told Joe during a telephone conversation that he did not believe him when the ballplayer insisted he was innocent. The Judge said he was testifying from memory and not from notes. He clearly is confusing Joe with Lefty Williams who, in his grand jury testimony, said he was approached by Gandil in New York outside the Ansonia and that, "for $5000 I wouldn't throw no World Series. That is not enough money for an ordinary working man to do a dirty trick." Williams also said he could have pitched harder during the World Series.
Judge Gregory jailed Joe for perjury believing he was lying during the civil trial while telling the truth before the grand jury. Had he known the extent of Austrian's coaching, he may have ruled differently. I think that Joe panicked after he was told by McDonald that he did not believe him. As Ofshe and Leo write, "both guilty and innocent suspects can be made to say...'I did it'", especially if they are told, as I believe Joe was by Austrian, that they "will be unable to convince a prosecutor, judge or jury of their innocence", and the innocent can be led "to believe that their situation, though unjust, is hopeless and will only be improved by confessing", and that "an innocent individual may become more progressively distressed, confused and desperate as he is told of evidence that incriminates him." Ofshe and Leo also write, "once a suspect fully appreciates his dismal situation, the investigator can influence him to admit guilt if he is led to believe that making an admission will improve his position...(and) offer to support or personally help only if he confesses." I believe that Austrian may well have told Joe that he and Comiskey would look out for him, that they would keep him out of jail, protect his wife and him from gangsters and gamblers. As Alan Dershowitz has written, "Jackson told two diametrically opposed stories, one confessing his guilt and the other protesting his innocence. Logic leads us to believe the first story was probably Austrian's, the second Jackson's."
At the trial closing, Judge Gregory stated, "It is undisputed that the plaintiff (Jackson) received $5000 from a source traceable to those interested in the conspiracy." Joe did not deny that he took the money from the floor where it had been thrown by Williams during an argument about Jackson's name being used with the gamblers without his permission. The transcript shows that Katie Jackson in her deposition stated she deposited the cash on December 1, 1919. This has been known for years. Carney wrote about Joe's wife putting the bribe money "in large bills" in the bank in his book published in 2007. I included it in my book published in 2020 where I wrote, "It is significant that he waited almost two months before making the deposit. He had tried to show the $5000 to Comiskey the day after receiving it and, I am also convinced, he would have brought it with him to Chicago if the owner had responded to his November 15, 1919 letter. Because he received no response, Joe decided in December that he may as well bank it." As the transcript shows, Joe testified at the civil trial that, "He (Williams) didn't want the damn stuff...since that lousy so-called gambling outfit had used my name, I might as well have their money as for him." He may have thought he could put the money to good use by paying his sister's medical bills. Was it a mistake to put the bribe money in the bank and make withdrawals for whatever reason? Yes, but in the context described, I believe an understandable one, and one for which the punishment, banishment from baseball for life and exclusion from the Hall of Fame, does not fit the crime.
As you continually ignore, what I have yold you, is amphetamines do not improve performance they merely stimulate you and can decrease performance as well. Bouton discusses it in his book "Ball Four".
Amphetamines & Are they performance enhancing?
They could help a player stay on the field and perform at a higher level. Amphetamines reduce fatigue, enhance alertness, and produce a measurably faster reaction time. This is referred to as the ergogenic effect of stimulants. Caffeine produces a similar, shorter-lasting, vastly reduced effect and is a helpful mechanism of explaining the effect that amphetamines have for those who are not familiar.
>
Amphetamine usage changed the game of baseball. We don't talk about Cocaine usage in baseball either. Shhh.
You're listing the negative effects. I'm not manufacturing scientific results here. I do love the internet, but it's dangerous because I can ask any question and get an answer which supports my position regardless if it's true, correct, meaningful.
For example.
"Do dolphins commit crimes?"
Yes. Murder, Rape... Dolphins are obviously terrible. Just going to read this first link and then tell everyone!
There's absolutely no benefit to an occasional or one time injection of steroids. Is it cheating? Sure. So's bringing the wrong answers to the big math test and not getting a better score, shows you're a cheater, but doesn't change the outcome.
This isn't correct, but for anabolic steroids. occasional, periodic, and even one-time usage of steroids has therapeutic purpose.
Nobody's talking about therapeutic use.
So are we only talking about anabolic steroids then for a particular subset of individuals with an established medical condition where a type of steroid is part of a peer-reviewed treatment? People do use steroids for all types of things -- not just the purpose of anabolism. There are actually a lot of MLB players who are allowed to use banned substances because of other medical conditions. Methylphenidate for example. Some of the "side-effects" of this particular stimulant are:
Power
Stength
Stamina
This is a drug that may be prescribed for anyone with a ADD/ADHD diagnosis, and is available to many MLB players with a TUE.
There's a lot of literature available via NIH which supports my statements. If you want some appropriate links I'm happy to provide, but I'll assume anyone interested will seek out their own information.
You posted (only) the benefits of amphetamines, I added the negatives.
I can also add that from personal experience they don't help.
As a young man, I worked the midnight to 8 AM shift for several years and used them to help me stay awake. At first they did the job, but soon my body needed more, then I had to get "better" uppers and finally all they did for me was make me jittery, have headaches, and become anxious. Finally, just quit using them and just tried to get more sleep.
Anabolic steroids injected into the body, coupled with a heavy work out program, makes you a stronger person. Some studies say it also improves hand eye coordination.
I don't consider "greenies" to be a PED. Maybe for a few games, but they can hurt your performance just as easily.
Getting back to Sosa, he used, his slugging % went from a 9 year average of .470 to a 5 year average of
.649. Oh yeah. I'm sure it was because he changed his swing. Laughable.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
As you continually ignore, what I have yold you, is amphetamines do not improve performance they merely stimulate you and can decrease performance as well. Bouton discusses it in his book "Ball Four".
Amphetamines & Are they performance enhancing?
They could help a player stay on the field and perform at a higher level. Amphetamines reduce fatigue, enhance alertness, and produce a measurably faster reaction time. This is referred to as the ergogenic effect of stimulants. Caffeine produces a similar, shorter-lasting, vastly reduced effect and is a helpful mechanism of explaining the effect that amphetamines have for those who are not familiar.
>
Amphetamine usage changed the game of baseball. We don't talk about Cocaine usage in baseball either. Shhh.
You're listing the negative effects. I'm not manufacturing scientific results here. I do love the internet, but it's dangerous because I can ask any question and get an answer which supports my position regardless if it's true, correct, meaningful.
For example.
"Do dolphins commit crimes?"
Yes. Murder, Rape... Dolphins are obviously terrible. Just going to read this first link and then tell everyone!
There's absolutely no benefit to an occasional or one time injection of steroids. Is it cheating? Sure. So's bringing the wrong answers to the big math test and not getting a better score, shows you're a cheater, but doesn't change the outcome.
This isn't correct, but for anabolic steroids. occasional, periodic, and even one-time usage of steroids has therapeutic purpose.
Nobody's talking about therapeutic use.
So are we only talking about anabolic steroids then for a particular subset of individuals with an established medical condition where a type of steroid is part of a peer-reviewed treatment? People do use steroids for all types of things -- not just the purpose of anabolism. There are actually a lot of MLB players who are allowed to use banned substances because of other medical conditions. Methylphenidate for example. Some of the "side-effects" of this particular stimulant are:
Power
Stength
Stamina
This is a drug that may be prescribed for anyone with a ADD/ADHD diagnosis, and is available to many MLB players with a TUE.
There's a lot of literature available via NIH which supports my statements. If you want some appropriate links I'm happy to provide, but I'll assume anyone interested will seek out their own information.
You posted (only) the benefits of amphetamines, I added the negatives.
I can also add that from personal experience they don't help.
As a young man, I worked the midnight to 8 AM shift for several years and used them to help me stay awake. At first they did the job, but soon my body needed more, then I had to get "better" uppers and finally all they did for me was make me jittery, have headaches, and become anxious. Finally, just quit using them and just tried to get more sleep.
Anabolic steroids injected into the body, coupled with a heavy work out program, makes you a stronger person. Some studies say it also improves hand eye coordination.
I don't consider "greenies" to be a PED. Maybe for a few games, but they can hurt your performance just as easily.
Getting back to Sosa, he used, his slugging % went from a 9 year average of .470 to a 5 year average of
.649. Oh yeah. I'm sure it was because he changed his swing. Laughable.
I am not saying that these guys didn't use PEDs. I think that it is very obvious who was using, and pretty obvious when. The prevailing thought is that somewhere in the 40-80 percent of players were using during the "Steroid Era". What I am saying is that cheating has always been part of the game, and more specifically, PEDs have always played a part in some meaningful way. What I would do is, rather than dismiss their careers to adjust our view and put the right guys into the Hall of Fame.
Guys like.
Bonds
Clemons
Ramierez
Rodriguez
Palmeiro
and discuss guys like Sosa, McGwire, Sheffield.
I'm curious what happens now with Nelson Cruz. A PED guy, but timing is everything.
Amphetamines are not the right stimulant for everyone. Many people have the "jitters" and worse, as you describe. In the book "I had a hammer" Aaron discusses his experience with amphetamines. The data is clear though overall on the use of amphetamines, their purpose, and the desired effect.
I believe that in the next 10-30 years people will look back on the Steroid Era with clearer vision and handle it appropriately and the sentiment of the fans and journalists which have whipped this debate up into the maelstrom it was will follow along with the new conventional wisdom. The over-reaction to the "epidemic" has already subsided... it's well on it's way and it's inevitable.
2004 age 35 OPS+ 114
2005 age 36 OPS+ 78
2007 age 38 OPS+101
That actually looks like a pretty incremental increase with very normal jumps as he aged and improved and an incremental decrease as the end.
Also, when you consider he had raw home run power from the begining, and top of the league type home run power before he broke out in 1998 already, that adds even more credence.
Where was the steroid jump? If he was taking them in 1998 he was most certainly taking them in 1997 because he was just as big in 1997 as he was in 1998. He was even better than 1997 in the three previous years and had elite HR power.
Clearly he jumped in 1998 and that was from a major change in how he hit. For those just dismissing that you are showing ignorance on how a mechanical change he did could matter that much. It was not from steroids because he was just as big in 1997 as he was in 1998 as he was in 1996 and 1995.
2001 was his ultimate career year. Was he taking them that year but not the years prior?
Kirby Puckett
Age 24 and 25 OPS+ 86 with a total of FOUR home runs in 1,327 Plate Appearances.
Age 26-28 OPS+ 142 with a total of83 home runs in 2,082 Plate Appearances.
That seems far more fishy especially the home runs. He was no youngster when he had absolutely no power in MLB. Then all of a sudden, boom.
Sosa always had power even at age 21. Elite power before he broke out. A hitting change that made a more modern power swing and he broke out.
2004 age 35 OPS+ 114
2005 age 36 OPS+ 78
2007 age 38 OPS+101
That actually looks like a pretty incremental increase with very normal jumps as he aged and improved and an incremental decrease as the end.
Also, when you consider he had raw home run power from the begining, and top of the league type home run power before he broke out in 1998 already, that adds even more credence.
Where was the steroid jump? If he was taking them in 1998 he was most certainly taking them in 1997 because he was just as big in 1997 as he was in 1998. He was even better than 1997 in the three previous years and had elite HR power.
Clearly he jumped in 1998 and that was from a major change in how he hit. For those just dismissing that you are showing ignorance on how a mechanical change he did could matter that much. It was not from steroids because he was just as big in 1997 as he was in 1998 as he was in 1996 and 1995.
2001 was his ultimate career year. Was he taking them that year but not the years prior?
Kirby Puckett
Age 24 and 25 OPS+ 86 with a total of FOUR home runs in 1,327 Plate Appearances.
Age 26-28 OPS+ 142 with a total of83 home runs in 2,082 Plate Appearances.
That seems far more fishy especially the home runs. He was no youngster when he had absolutely no power in MLB. Then all of a sudden, boom.
Sosa always had power even at age 21. Elite power before he broke out. A hitting change that made a more modern power swing and he broke out.
this is very compelling statistical evidence you have presented here. to add, players are normally in their prime years somewhere around 28-32 or so. That would be right in the middle of Sammy's best seasons. Other than his penultimate 2001 season, his OPS+ are very very good, but not otherworldly.
I think another factor to Sammys huge raw numbers are the huge amount of PA's he had in those prime seasons. He averaged almost 160 games and over 700 PA's per season. can you imagine what McGwire or bonds would have done had they had as many plate appearances when they were raking?
I don't think it is a huge stretch to say that when sammy hit his prime athletic years he was very available and had a better approach at the plate.
this has been debunked many times before. these testing "results" were leaked. no original copy. The leaked copy actually had more players on it than the amount of players who actually tested "positive" according to the mlbpa.
the actual testing procedures used back during when the 2003 samples were taken were not even up to WADA standards. over the counter supplements triggered false positives.
no one takes the leaked 2003 "samples" seriously. it was nothing more than a hit piece.
and again, it would not have mattered if every player in MLB tested positive then. IT WAS NOT AGAINST THE RULES.
again, you do not KNOW Williams did or did not use Steroids. we KNOW he used Amphetamines. You delve into hyperbole trying to defend Williams, but you cannot. holding your breath and jumping up and down will not strengthen your argument. Isnt it amazing that he had probably his second best season at age 38?
If Amphetamines were not a performance enhancer, why were they taken? and taken to excess. we have all heard the Willie Mays stories.
I don't believe Sosa either admitted or was caught.
that is the "ONE" injection Mantle got that we know of. it is like the guy pulled over for DUI, blows a .16 and tells the cop "officer, this is the first time I have ever done this..."
So, is all cheating bad? or just one type of cheating? or is some cheating acceptable if you only do it a few times?
is it cheating if there is no rule against it?
What about admitted cheaters Rogers Hornsby and Hank Greenberg? was their cheating an "acceptable" kind?
Rafael Palmeiro was only caught cheating once. just one failed test. how is that different than a player getting caught with an illegal bat once? He also was not a guy who added 20-30 pounds of muscle and was certainly not musclebound.
again, while for some reason you do not want to acknowledge it, PED was NOT against the rules until 2005. it just was not.
Joe, you still have not addressed any of my counterpoints...
Using steroids was illegal beginning in 1990. Illegal, anyone with an ounce of common sense knew that you couldn't use an illegal drug while playing baseball. Steroids were illegal.
Was it legal to paint a hand grenade white and pitch it to a batter? Nothing in the rule book against it.
I've clearly stated my opinion on MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY occasions.
Sosa had 8 seasons to figure out how to hit and was an average hitter. Then he starts hitting 60hr every year.
Yeah, he made an adjustment all right....... with his body chemistry.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Using steroids was illegal beginning in 1990. Illegal, anyone with an ounce of common sense knew that you couldn't use an illegal drug while playing baseball. Steroids were illegal.
Was it legal to paint a hand grenade white and pitch it to a batter? Nothing in the rule book against it.
I've clearly stated my opinion on MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY occasions.
Sosa had 8 seasons to figure out how to hit and was an average hitter. Then he starts hitting 60hr every year.
Yeah, he made an adjustment all right....... with his body chemistry.
I think that the technical term is 'controlled substance'. They cannot be legally sold over-the-counter. I get cortisone injections occasionally to deal with inflammation in my elbows -- I have two 'detached from the bone' UCL ligaments and cortisol, which is a steroid, can help reduce the inflammation and allow for healing when I exacerbate the injury -- throwing kids in the pool is dangerous in your 40s.
I think that I have over an ounce of common sense, if just barely, but I disagree that Steroids were banned in baseball before 2005. Being a controlled substance, they could still be used with a prescription legally, and within baseball, until they were banned in 2005, barring a player receiving a TUE -- which has been allowed for banned substances many times.
If you split the hairs on when they were banned vs. the memo from Vincent and the supporting memo from Selig from use under the agreement from the 1970s barring any MLB player from using a prescription medication without a valid prescription. So As soon as the act was passed in 1990 making AAS a controlled substance they would have been banned in baseball. However. Fay Vincent also made a statement that this could not be enforced until there was a new collective bargaining agreement in place. This I would say occurred in 2002, not 2005. I had to look up the agreements to find this. The language was only strengthened in 2004, effective in 2005.
Prohibited Substances: Under a Joint Drug Agreement, testing for “Schedule III” anabolic androgenic steroids only. No testing for recreational or over-the-counter drugs. All players are randomly tested for illegal steroids in 2003 as a “survey.” If 5 percent or more test positive in any survey year, mandatory random testing for illegal steroids is implemented for 2004 and 2005. If 2.5 percent or fewer test positive in consecutive years, mandatory random testing is stopped. In any year in which there is not mandatory random testing, players will be tested on a survey basis. The first time a player tests positive during mandatory random testing, he is placed in a treatment program. For subsequent positive tests, penalties range from a 30-day suspension to a two-year suspension. (JDA was re-opened and strengthened in 2004 and 2005.).
It doesn't matter for me though because I also look at other periods of baseball and there was PEDs and cheating and I just accept that it's part of the culture of baseball... It's part of the culture of people... I consider what I would have done. Does anyone think that MLB in 1998 when we were in the heat of Long Gone Summer was oblivious? Really? MLB created the environment where 40 to 80 percent of the players had to take a PED just to keep their job... because the next guy in line would have taken it because he was willing to cheat -- and this is not a concocted story - this is first-hand. Trainers knew. Coaches knew. Owners knew. Fans, Journalists... it was a big joke no one talked about while some dude named after a popular fast-food sandwich mashed balls 500+ feet every night. And wow... we just threw the players under the bus... not all the players. Just the ones with bad luck I suppose.
Anyways. I think I've expressed my opinion on it the best I can. Maybe it influences some people... Maybe not. I do appreciate the discussion on it and I reserve my right to change my opinion at any time.
Steroids without a Drs prescription were made illegal in 1990. they were not made against the rules of MLB until 2005 per the collectively bargained agreement. HGH was added to the banned list in 2011. Andro was added later on as well. the 2003 list you mention was a "test" run to see if steroids were something that MLB and MLBPA wanted to look into banning. that is all it was, a survey. those players who were found using (we still don't have the official list) were not punished or made public.
earlier you mentioned that lumping players who were caught using corked bats once and caught using PED was "ludicrous"
"To lump them in with players who "might" have cheated, or were caught with an illegal bat one time is ludicrous."
What about the case of Rafael Palmiero? He was not a huge musclebound athlete. he was caught once, during his last season with a positive test for PED. He denied the test was accurate. What is the difference between getting caught once for a corked bat and getting caught once for PED?
what about Albert Pujols? he was found using an illegal bat in 2011. the diameter of the barrel was too large. instead of punishing him, they "grandfathered" his bat. he used it for the next 12 seasons!!!! but no one else could. was he "cheating" in the 2022 playoffs, he let martin maldonado use his bats. when MLB found out after game one, they disallowed maldonados use of the bats because they were illegal.
from 2011 until he retired, Pujols hit almost 300 home runs with these illegal bats. was he "cheating"
What about admitted cheaters Rogers Hornsby and Hank Greenberg? they admitted cheating, and a lot!! should they have been let into the hall of fame under the sportsmanship/integrity clause?
@JoeBanzai said:
Using steroids was illegal beginning in 1990. Illegal, anyone with an ounce of common sense knew that you couldn't use an illegal drug while playing baseball. Steroids were illegal.
Was it legal to paint a hand grenade white and pitch it to a batter? Nothing in the rule book against it.
I've clearly stated my opinion on MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY occasions.
Sosa had 8 seasons to figure out how to hit and was an average hitter. Then he starts hitting 60hr every year.
Yeah, he made an adjustment all right....... with his body chemistry.
Not correct. He was well above average by age 24 overall and an elite HR hitter. You are simply not accurate.
Was Sosa taking steroids in 1997 or before? Yes he did make a mechanical change in his hitting in 1998 and that was a big effect. So did he take them for 1998? Then take a bigger dose in 2001? Then stop taking them shortly after?
When did Sosa start taking steroids since you know?
Puckett was the guy who was a below average hitter and had zero power up until age 25 and then all of a sudden was a HR hitter and excellent hitter overall. Hmmm.
Sosa
1989-1992 age 20-23 OPS+ 85
1993-1996 age 24-27 OPS+ 121
1997 age 28 OPS+ 99
1998-2000 age 29-31 OPS+ 157
2001 age 32 OPS+ 203
2002-2003 age 33-34 OPS+ 147
2004 age 35 OPS+ 114
2005 age 36 OPS+ 78
2007 age 38 OPS+101
That actually looks like a pretty incremental increase with very normal jumps as he aged and improved and an incremental decrease as the end.
Also, when you consider he had raw home run power from the begining, and top of the league type home run power before he broke out in 1998 already, that adds even more credence.
Where was the steroid jump? If he was taking them in 1998 he was most certainly taking them in 1997 because he was just as big in 1997 as he was in 1998. He was even better than 1997 in the three previous years and had elite HR power.
Clearly he jumped in 1998 and that was from a major change in how he hit. For those just dismissing that you are showing ignorance on how a mechanical change he did could matter that much. It was not from steroids because he was just as big in 1997 as he was in 1998 as he was in 1996 and 1995.
2001 was his ultimate career year. Was he taking them that year but not the years prior?
Kirby Puckett
Age 24 and 25 OPS+ 86 with a total of FOUR home runs in 1,327 Plate Appearances.
Age 26-28 OPS+ 142 with a total of83 home runs in 2,082 Plate Appearances.
That seems far more fishy especially the home runs. He was no youngster when he had absolutely no power in MLB. Then all of a sudden, boom.
Sosa always had power even at age 21. Elite power before he broke out. A hitting change that made a more modern power swing and he broke out.
Steroids without a Drs prescription were made illegal in 1990. they were not made against the rules of MLB until 2005 per the collectively bargained agreement. HGH was added to the banned list in 2011. Andro was added later on as well. the 2003 list you mention was a "test" run to see if steroids were something that MLB and MLBPA wanted to look into banning. that is all it was, a survey. those players who were found using (we still don't have the official list) were not punished or made public.
>
>
You keep pounding away at the collective bargaining agreement, it has NO BEARING on this debate. Steroids were illegal to purchase and use without a doctor's prescription. End of story. As I have said multiple times (are you reading my replies?) you don't need to go in and renegotiate the bargaining agreement whenever something is deemed illegal to own or use. In fact, the players caught using could have (and perhaps should have) been prosecuted for possession of controlled substances and jailed.
With Sosa, the leaked report coupled with his muscle growth and especially his TREMENDOUS increase in SLG and OPS are enough to convince me.
>
>
>
earlier you mentioned that lumping players who were caught using corked bats once and caught using PED was "ludicrous"
"To lump them in with players who "might" have cheated, or were caught with an illegal bat one time is ludicrous."
>
Yes, I did say that.
>
>
What about the case of Rafael Palmiero? He was not a huge musclebound athlete. he was caught once, during his last season with a positive test for PED. He denied the test was accurate. What is the difference between getting caught once for a corked bat and getting caught once for PED?
>
>
>
Both are cheating. Corked bats may help with bat speed, but if inspected are easy to detect and often fail on their own. The punishment and fines are established. Steroids are an entirely different advantage and were much harder to detect. The player gets his advantage every single time he is on the field and his abilities are effected by such a large amount, it's a MUCH more unfair advantage. In fact, players were taking other substances to mask their steroid use.
Palmierio was caught using stanozolol. Canseco also said in his book he injected Palmiero himself. If I am not mistaken, every player (none of whom sued Canseco for libel) mentioned in Jose's book as people he KNEW used, were caught at one point.
>
>
>
what about Albert Pujols? he was found using an illegal bat in 2011. the diameter of the barrel was too large. instead of punishing him, they "grandfathered" his bat. he used it for the next 12 seasons!!!! but no one else could. was he "cheating" in the 2022 playoffs, he let martin maldonado use his bats. when MLB found out after game one, they disallowed maldonados use of the bats because they were illegal.
>
>
I wasn't aware of this. Apparently, if the bats were eventually allowed, they must have been OK. George Brett cheated by using too much pine tar and not only was he not punished, they replayed the game. The rule was clear, he had too much pine tar, but MLB decided it was OK.
>
>
>
from 2011 until he retired, Pujols hit almost 300 home runs with these illegal bats. was he "cheating"
>
>
Again, not familiar with this, but if MLB said the bats were OK, then no, he wasn't cheating.
>
>
>
What about admitted cheaters Rogers Hornsby and Hank Greenberg? they admitted cheating, and a lot!! should they have been let into the hall of fame under the sportsmanship/integrity clause?
>
>
>
Can't answer those comments. Not enough information.
>
>
>
As I have explained to you on MANY OCCASIONS, cheating is wrong, but a certain amount is always going on. Throwing a scuffed ball a couple of times a game or using a corked bat once (?) is not the same as taking an illegal drug that not only gets you back on the field faster, but increases (with training) the size and strength of your muscles and possibly even your hand eye coordination.
There are different levels of cheating and different levels of crime. Taking a pencil home from work supplied by your employer is not the same as stealing a thousand dollar piece of equipment.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
Using steroids was illegal beginning in 1990. Illegal, anyone with an ounce of common sense knew that you couldn't use an illegal drug while playing baseball. Steroids were illegal.
Was it legal to paint a hand grenade white and pitch it to a batter? Nothing in the rule book against it.
I've clearly stated my opinion on MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY occasions.
Sosa had 8 seasons to figure out how to hit and was an average hitter. Then he starts hitting 60hr every year.
Yeah, he made an adjustment all right....... with his body chemistry.
I think that the technical term is 'controlled substance'. They cannot be legally sold over-the-counter. I get cortisone injections occasionally to deal with inflammation in my elbows -- I have two 'detached from the bone' UCL ligaments and cortisol, which is a steroid, can help reduce the inflammation and allow for healing when I exacerbate the injury -- throwing kids in the pool is dangerous in your 40s.
>
>
Cortisol and Cortisone are not artificial testosterone. Your prescription is legal and monitored by a doctor, I assume.
>
>
I think that I have over an ounce of common sense, if just barely, but I disagree that Steroids were banned in baseball before 2005. Being a controlled substance, they could still be used with a prescription legally, and within baseball, until they were banned in 2005, barring a player receiving a TUE -- which has been allowed for banned substances many times.
If you split the hairs on when they were banned vs. the memo from Vincent and the supporting memo from Selig from use under the agreement from the 1970s barring any MLB player from using a prescription medication without a valid prescription. So As soon as the act was passed in 1990 making AAS a controlled substance they would have been banned in baseball. However. Fay Vincent also made a statement that this could not be enforced until there was a new collective bargaining agreement in place. This I would say occurred in 2002, not 2005. I had to look up the agreements to find this. The language was only strengthened in 2004, effective in 2005.
Prohibited Substances: Under a Joint Drug Agreement, testing for “Schedule III” anabolic androgenic steroids only. No testing for recreational or over-the-counter drugs. All players are randomly tested for illegal steroids in 2003 as a “survey.” If 5 percent or more test positive in any survey year, mandatory random testing for illegal steroids is implemented for 2004 and 2005. If 2.5 percent or fewer test positive in consecutive years, mandatory random testing is stopped. In any year in which there is not mandatory random testing, players will be tested on a survey basis. The first time a player tests positive during mandatory random testing, he is placed in a treatment program. For subsequent positive tests, penalties range from a 30-day suspension to a two-year suspension. (JDA was re-opened and strengthened in 2004 and 2005.).
>
>
If you want to use these "loopholes" fine, the players should have been prosecuted for drug use, dealing and distribution and sent to prison. What they were doing was against the law. Last time I looked, there's no Federal law against using a scuffed baseball or corked bat in a game.
>
>
It doesn't matter for me though because I also look at other periods of baseball and there was PEDs and cheating and I just accept that it's part of the culture of baseball... It's part of the culture of people... I consider what I would have done. Does anyone think that MLB in 1998 when we were in the heat of Long Gone Summer was oblivious? Really? MLB created the environment where 40 to 80 percent of the players had to take a PED just to keep their job... because the next guy in line would have taken it because he was willing to cheat -- and this is not a concocted story - this is first-hand. Trainers knew. Coaches knew. Owners knew. Fans, Journalists... it was a big joke no one talked about while some dude named after a popular fast-food sandwich mashed balls 500+ feet every night. And wow... we just threw the players under the bus... not all the players. Just the ones with bad luck I suppose.
>
>
Nobody got "thrown under the bus", the players knew EXACTLY what they were doing, that it was wrong and chose to do it.
>
>
>
Anyways. I think I've expressed my opinion on it the best I can. Maybe it influences some people... Maybe not. I do appreciate the discussion on it and I reserve my right to change my opinion at any time.
>
>
>
So, in anutshell, creating an exploding baseball and throwing it to a batter is just fine as long as there's no rule in the collective bargaining agreement specifically saying you can't.
Then after it happens, you guys can say "Hey it's no different than Mickey Mantle getting a shot".
Alrighty then!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I don't have a prescription, but it is administered by a orthopedist. I assume that's basically the same thing as being prescribed.
Androsterone isn't the same thing as testosterone either. It's also not an artificial testosterone.
Anyways. I see your viewpoint. I'm not saying anything about Mickey Mantle's bad injection in '61. Maybe that meant something... maybe it didn't.
I don't know if anyone has looked into where the "Steroid Guys" were getting their steroids. It could have been legal. I'm just saying that I don't really care because Steroids were so pervasive in baseball that it was just the baseline for the era for me.
@bgr said:
I don't have a prescription, but it is administered by a orthopedist. I assume that's basically the same thing as being prescribed.
Androsterone isn't the same thing as testosterone either. It's also not an artificial testosterone.
Anyways. I see your viewpoint. I'm not saying anything about Mickey Mantle's bad injection in '61. Maybe that meant something... maybe it didn't.
I don't know if anyone has looked into where the "Steroid Guys" were getting their steroids. It could have been legal. I'm just saying that I don't really care because Steroids were so pervasive in baseball that it was just the baseline for the era for me.
>
>
>
Have you read Canseco's book "Juiced"? You can get it for $4.00 delivered on ebay.
How pervasive were steroids? How many players were willing to find a supplier, inject themselves, and then do the exercise required to gain big performance gains?
"Andro" is not what I talk about when discussing steroids. The main ones I refer to are Winstrol, Deca-durabolin, the clear, the cream and Stanizol, there are many others of course.
Canseco had juicing down to an art. He didn't want to just get big, he wanted to do it "right". Not everyone was looking to get huge.
My feelings are around 10% of the players actually took the time and effort to get big gains.
I wouldn't doubt that 50% "dabbled" and didn't achieve much improvement.
My comment on Mantles injection was not directed to you, but it was most likely a one time experiment that went wrong. My point was confusing anabolic steroids with other drugs is foolish. In Jim Bouton's book "Ball Four" ( fantastic read) Jim talks about amphetamines and says they could help or hurt your performance.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@bgr said:
I don't have a prescription, but it is administered by a orthopedist. I assume that's basically the same thing as being prescribed.
Androsterone isn't the same thing as testosterone either. It's also not an artificial testosterone.
Anyways. I see your viewpoint. I'm not saying anything about Mickey Mantle's bad injection in '61. Maybe that meant something... maybe it didn't.
I don't know if anyone has looked into where the "Steroid Guys" were getting their steroids. It could have been legal. I'm just saying that I don't really care because Steroids were so pervasive in baseball that it was just the baseline for the era for me.
>
>
>
Have you read Canseco's book "Juiced"? You can get it for $4.00 delivered on ebay.
How pervasive were steroids? How many players were willing to find a supplier, inject themselves, and then do the exercise required to gain big performance gains?
"Andro" is not what I talk about when discussing steroids. The main ones I refer to are Winstrol, Deca-durabolin, the clear, the cream and Stanizol, there are many others of course.
Canseco had juicing down to an art. He didn't want to just get big, he wanted to do it "right". Not everyone was looking to get huge.
My feelings are around 10% of the players actually took the time and effort to get big gains.
I wouldn't doubt that 50% "dabbled" and didn't achieve much improvement.
I have read Juiced. The talk about steroids wasn't even the best part in that book -- probably not even top 5. I think he would have been believed more if he didn't exaggerate so much. Maybe he wasn't even exaggerating everything about steroids... who knows... but when he's talking about how he's the fastest man alive and then he's saying how we'll all be interbreeding with dolphins. It's the best book ever -- hands down! Must Read.
I don't know how many were using.. There is a wide range on estimates, but I've not heard 'as low as 10%' for a long time.
Here's how I followed the theme of the conversation on steroids.
No Cheaters should be in the Hall of Fame. Period.
<< What about corked bats or manipulated balls.. or other forms of cheating that were mentioned?
That is OK, but not PEDs.
<< What about PEDs other than steroids?
Those are not performance enhancing enough.
Further.
If a player was caught cheating (non-steroid) once, it's OK because it most likely never happened before. We don't assign any cheating coefficient to their season or career statistics.
If a player was caught cheating (steroids) once, it's not OK because they were always on steroids. We dismiss their career because entirely.
Certainly this is an over-simplification of the discussion, but the whole debate is an over-simplification in my mind. Why do we want to partition steroid guys so specifically and why do we need to treat them differently? Was their cheating different in some way?
Is it based on the perceived effect being larger than other forms of cheating?
I can wrap my mind around either of these options.
Anyone caught cheating (proven with fact) in any form is ineligible for the hall of fame. We remove any that meet this criteria. Keep all the cheaters out.
We measure each individual and make a determination. This might seem like an inefficient process, but there are not that many players each year that are eligible so we can manage.
@dallasactuary For me, this is enough to wipe away any 'character' flaw in relation to steroids in a league where everyone was doing them. We could use more of this right now.
@JoeBanzai it is too hard to be judge, jury, and executioner. You can say you suspect Sosa did it, but you don't know. You certainly don't know when he did, and what percentage it helped in relation to all the other things that were in play for improvement for a MLB hitter. Also, anything you say about Sosa can also be applied to Puckett.
@dallasactuary For me, this is enough to wipe away any 'character' flaw in relation to steroids in a league where everyone was doing them. We could use more of this right now.
@JoeBanzai it is too hard to be judge, jury, and executioner. You can say you suspect Sosa did it, but you don't know. You certainly don't know when he did, and what percentage it helped in relation to all the other things that were in play for improvement for a MLB hitter. Also, anything you say about Sosa can also be applied to Puckett.
NO!
While I can't say for sure Puckett didn't use, (he was very muscular). He never tested positive, he career started a little before the steroid use came on strong, and he was good, but not incredibly good. Even before he started to hit home runs he was a superb hitter. He only hit over 30 once.
The story here is, Tony Oliva worked with him on a leg kick that improved his power.
Choose to believe what you want, but these two are NOT that similar.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
And this is exactly why we need to let the statistical record speak for itself. for the most part, we don't know who used PED and who did not. unless we have a failed test or an admission, we do not know. we may have suspicions or think we know, but it is simply conjecture. I don't know if kirby used. or sammy. or nolan ryan, ripken, griffey, thomas, johnson, clemens, cecil fielder, mcgriff, gwynn...
we don't know. before 2005, with steroids and andro, it didn't matter. 2006 for amphetamines (greenies). before 2011 for HGH. there will be a time in the future where substances that are now in common common use will be considered PED and will be banned.
we know many players who admitted to PED use going as far back as the 1950's. while some people don't want to include amphetamines into the PED category, as of 2006 MLB sure does.
"cheating" has been going on in baseball since probably the 2nd game ever played. it will continue to go on. to be consistent, we need to accept the statistical record as it stands. otherwise, we delve into the sliding scale of morality in which there are no more player comparison threads or the like.
under the sliding scale of morality we would have to have arbitrary markers for performance. ie. if someone is caught stealing signs, we discount 18.5% of their production. Greenies, 38.7% of production, HGH, 28.2% of production. Testosterone, 41.1%. doctoring baseballs, 29.9%. illegal bats, 15.3%. and on and on and on..... and everyone would have a different scale for performance.
some players admittedly cheated: Rogers Hornsby, Gaylord perry, hank Greenberg, whitey ford.
some were caught cheating: Ruth, Manny Ramirez, ARod.
then we have players who weren't cheating until they were: Piazza and bagwell both admittedly used andro before it was a banned substance.
then we have players who used PED unknowingly: Sheffield used the cream unknowing that it was a steroid.
the host of players who heavily used amphetamines before they were banned in 2006.
how do we deal with all of this? I will tell you how. players have ALWAYS looked for ways to get better. ALWAYS. and they always will. If we try to be the morality police and toss out the statistical records of every player who "cheated" even if it was before their actions were considered cheating by the league, we will not have very many players to compare/contrast.
perhaps the only one we would have left would be the old evangelist Billy Sunday and Christy Matthewson who about everyone believes was as pure as the driven snow.
Comments
Bummer it’s not in print. I’m a Spotify guy but this one looks worth using kindle. Thanks
This is from a review by Alan Thurston that I found on good reads about the new Jackson book. I found it well articulated and explained and will contrast as I listen to the book.
The transcript is an invaluable addition to Black Sox Scandal historiography that contains material that bolsters Jackson's case. To his supporters, Pomrenke writes in the Afterword, what happened to Joe is a "story of injustice". As Gene Carney, the highly esteemed founder of the SABR Black Sox Scandal Research Committee and author of the landmark book BURYING THE BLACK SOX wrote, "scapegoating Joe was part of the Comiskey cover-up."
Pomrenke also writes, "The transcript sheds new light on Jackson's participation in the plot to fix the World Series." It contains an exchange of letters that were presented in evidence between Comiskey and Joe written in November 1919 in which the ballplayer, responding to the owner's offer to pay his expenses if he wished to return to Chicago to discuss the Series, wrote that he wanted to return to clear his name and tell what he knew. As Carney wrote, Comiskey "brushed him off." Joe's detractors have expressed skepticism about his claim that he went to Comiskey's office the day after the Series ended to show him the bribe money and had the door slammed in his face. The transcript shows that Comiskey testified that he never asked Joe to come to his office after the Series, but later admitted on the stand that he did come, waited for an hour and the owner did not see him. When asked about his oft-quoted grand jury comment that he was ashamed of himself, Joe answered that he so testified at the "suggestion" of Alfred Austrian, evidence that he was coached by Comiskey's attorney, who represented the owner's interests, not Joe's. As Richard Ofshe and Richard Leo write in "The Decision to Confess Falsely", "An investigator can capitalize on the subject's anxiety, fear and emotional turmoil by calling it remorse, and by urging him to respond to his emotions and express his remorse by confessing."
Grand Jury testimony is often quoted in the transcript. Jackson's attorney, James Shaw, skillfully exposes the incompetence of Assistant State's Attorney Hartley Replogle during the proceedings. Replogle is reported to have told Joe prior to his testifying, "You know you are not the smartest man in the world" to which he replied, "I know it." The slugger would have been justified had he shot back, "and you are not the smartest attorney." Not only did Replogle make no attempt to clear up the contradiction between Joe's testimony that he was part of the plot and yet he always played to win, but he also failed to ask the ballplayer obvious questions that could have exposed the Comiskey cover-up. While he did ask Joe what he said to Chick Gandil when he saw him in Comiskey's office the morning after the Series, Replogle failed to inquire why Jackson wanted to see the owner in the first place. Did he want to talk about the Series? The fix? Was he summoned to the office or did he go on his own? Was he surprised to see Gandil, the ringleader of the plot, in the waiting room? Did he ask him why he was there or what he intended to say to Comiskey? Instead of asking these obvious questions, Replogle astoundingly asked eleven straight questions about their drinking habits! Had he been asked, I believe Joe would have said that he wanted to show the owner the bribe money he had received from Lefty Williams.
Joe startlingly testified that he "offered to come here last fall in the investigation, I would have told it last fall if they would have brought me in", clearly referring to his November 1919 letter. Replogle failed to ask him to explain his offer, to whom it was made, how it was made, what he planned to tell them and what was the response. Brigham, the grand jury foreman, testified that he felt there was no reason to investigate Comiskey. Had he known about the exchange of letters the foreman might have felt differently, would have wanted to see the letters and would have wanted Comiskey to testify to explain why he reneged on his offer to bring Joe back to Chicago.
The Index to the Trial Transcript indicates there were "discussions" between the players and the gamblers. The only "discussion" Joe had was with Bill Burns the morning of Game 1, when he told the gambler that he did not know what the players were planning. Replogle did not seek to clarify how Joe could have been part of the plot, as he testified, and yet did not know what they were plotting. Had he asked Joe why he said he was a plot participant, the ballplayer might have answered that it was what Austrian "suggested" he say, and that after speaking with Burns he was so alarmed that he went to Comiskey's hotel room and asked to be suspended.
Was Replogle really such an inept interrogator or was there something more sinister at work? As Carney writes, "powerful figures and the establishment of baseball were interconnected with politics, the legal system and the press." Comiskey, Austrian and Judge Charles McDonald, who presided over the grand jury hearing, were "powerful figures" who had been cronies for decades. The owner may have hoped that his friend, McDonald, would be named the first baseball commissioner and, while his players might be punished, they would not be banished from the game for life. Replogle might have realized that if he exposed the Comiskey cover-up he would provide the Old Roman's mortal enemy, Ban Johnson, with the ammunition he would use to destroy Comiskey and he would not ingratiate himself with these influential men.
Pomrenke writes of Joe's "own changing account about his role in the conspiracy." The transcript shows Comiskey, Austrian and Harry Grabiner, the Sox team secretary, having questionable memory lapses and/or changing their accounts and appearing to be less than truthful in their testimony. While admitting he wrote Joe in November of 1919, Comiskey initially stated that he did not receive a letter from him shortly after the World Series. When asked if he would swear he received no letter, Comiskey responded, "I could swear that I didn't--maybe I did, I don't know." He later admitted that Joe did write to him.
Joe has been criticized for frequently testifying at his civil trial that he could not remember or did not say the things he said during his grand jury testimony. Comiskey also has memory problems stating, "I can't remember all those things" and "Do you want a man to remember every little thing for years and years and years?". The Old Roman's attorney stated, "Nobody could testify just what they testified to because it is so long ago." Comiskey alleged he did not know Joe had the highest batting average in the Series or whether he had his detectives interview Joe in Georgia after the World Series. Comiskey and his good friend, baseball writer Hugh Fullerton, appear to be guilty of false testimony. Fullerton testified that he did not tell the owner that he had a conversation with the gambler Burns before Game 1 where he was told, "the Reds were already in." Comiskey testified he was told prior to Game 2 "that somebody had got to my ballclub." He later admitted in an article published in 1930 he was made aware of the rumors the morning of Game 1 before a pitch had been thrown in the World Series during a conference in his hotel room with Fullerton.
While admitting he was shown the November 1919 letter Comiskey sent to Joe offering to pay his expenses if he wanted to return to Chicago to discuss the Series, Austrian testified that he did not recall what it stated claiming, "My memory is not that good." He also alleged that Comiskey did not tell him about Joe's letter accepting his offer to return "and give all the information that he wanted regarding dishonest playing in the 1919 World Series." Grabiner testified that he could not remember receiving a letter from Joe offering to return to tell what he knew. He later changed his story testifying that he did remember receiving the letter and that it had (conveniently) been "misplaced". When asked if he discussed the terms of Joe's contract with Comiskey prior to travelling to Georgia to sign the slugger, Grabiner responded, "I don't think so." It is very difficult to believe that he would offer Joe a three-year contract without the owner's approval and that Comiskey, as he testified, was not "apprised of the terms of that contract before Jackson signed it." In addition, Grabiner stated that he did not talk about the 10-Day Clause with Joe despite letters previously received from the ballplayer demanding the Clause not be included.
The transcript includes the testimony of Judge McDonald who claims Joe told him in his chambers that "he was approached... by Gandil in New York at the Ansonia Hotel...Jackson said he wouldn't accept $5000, that that wouldn't be sufficient for a common laborer to do a dirty trick...that would require $20,000...and that he did not play his best." Joe emphatically denied saying this. McDonald told Joe during a telephone conversation that he did not believe him when the ballplayer insisted he was innocent. The Judge said he was testifying from memory and not from notes. He clearly is confusing Joe with Lefty Williams who, in his grand jury testimony, said he was approached by Gandil in New York outside the Ansonia and that, "for $5000 I wouldn't throw no World Series. That is not enough money for an ordinary working man to do a dirty trick." Williams also said he could have pitched harder during the World Series.
Judge Gregory jailed Joe for perjury believing he was lying during the civil trial while telling the truth before the grand jury. Had he known the extent of Austrian's coaching, he may have ruled differently. I think that Joe panicked after he was told by McDonald that he did not believe him. As Ofshe and Leo write, "both guilty and innocent suspects can be made to say...'I did it'", especially if they are told, as I believe Joe was by Austrian, that they "will be unable to convince a prosecutor, judge or jury of their innocence", and the innocent can be led "to believe that their situation, though unjust, is hopeless and will only be improved by confessing", and that "an innocent individual may become more progressively distressed, confused and desperate as he is told of evidence that incriminates him." Ofshe and Leo also write, "once a suspect fully appreciates his dismal situation, the investigator can influence him to admit guilt if he is led to believe that making an admission will improve his position...(and) offer to support or personally help only if he confesses." I believe that Austrian may well have told Joe that he and Comiskey would look out for him, that they would keep him out of jail, protect his wife and him from gangsters and gamblers. As Alan Dershowitz has written, "Jackson told two diametrically opposed stories, one confessing his guilt and the other protesting his innocence. Logic leads us to believe the first story was probably Austrian's, the second Jackson's."
At the trial closing, Judge Gregory stated, "It is undisputed that the plaintiff (Jackson) received $5000 from a source traceable to those interested in the conspiracy." Joe did not deny that he took the money from the floor where it had been thrown by Williams during an argument about Jackson's name being used with the gamblers without his permission. The transcript shows that Katie Jackson in her deposition stated she deposited the cash on December 1, 1919. This has been known for years. Carney wrote about Joe's wife putting the bribe money "in large bills" in the bank in his book published in 2007. I included it in my book published in 2020 where I wrote, "It is significant that he waited almost two months before making the deposit. He had tried to show the $5000 to Comiskey the day after receiving it and, I am also convinced, he would have brought it with him to Chicago if the owner had responded to his November 15, 1919 letter. Because he received no response, Joe decided in December that he may as well bank it." As the transcript shows, Joe testified at the civil trial that, "He (Williams) didn't want the damn stuff...since that lousy so-called gambling outfit had used my name, I might as well have their money as for him." He may have thought he could put the money to good use by paying his sister's medical bills. Was it a mistake to put the bribe money in the bank and make withdrawals for whatever reason? Yes, but in the context described, I believe an understandable one, and one for which the punishment, banishment from baseball for life and exclusion from the Hall of Fame, does not fit the crime.
You posted (only) the benefits of amphetamines, I added the negatives.
I can also add that from personal experience they don't help.
As a young man, I worked the midnight to 8 AM shift for several years and used them to help me stay awake. At first they did the job, but soon my body needed more, then I had to get "better" uppers and finally all they did for me was make me jittery, have headaches, and become anxious. Finally, just quit using them and just tried to get more sleep.
Anabolic steroids injected into the body, coupled with a heavy work out program, makes you a stronger person. Some studies say it also improves hand eye coordination.
I don't consider "greenies" to be a PED. Maybe for a few games, but they can hurt your performance just as easily.
Getting back to Sosa, he used, his slugging % went from a 9 year average of .470 to a 5 year average of
.649. Oh yeah. I'm sure it was because he changed his swing. Laughable.
I am not saying that these guys didn't use PEDs. I think that it is very obvious who was using, and pretty obvious when. The prevailing thought is that somewhere in the 40-80 percent of players were using during the "Steroid Era". What I am saying is that cheating has always been part of the game, and more specifically, PEDs have always played a part in some meaningful way. What I would do is, rather than dismiss their careers to adjust our view and put the right guys into the Hall of Fame.
Guys like.
Bonds
Clemons
Ramierez
Rodriguez
Palmeiro
and discuss guys like Sosa, McGwire, Sheffield.
I'm curious what happens now with Nelson Cruz. A PED guy, but timing is everything.
Amphetamines are not the right stimulant for everyone. Many people have the "jitters" and worse, as you describe. In the book "I had a hammer" Aaron discusses his experience with amphetamines. The data is clear though overall on the use of amphetamines, their purpose, and the desired effect.
I believe that in the next 10-30 years people will look back on the Steroid Era with clearer vision and handle it appropriately and the sentiment of the fans and journalists which have whipped this debate up into the maelstrom it was will follow along with the new conventional wisdom. The over-reaction to the "epidemic" has already subsided... it's well on it's way and it's inevitable.
Again, to add...
until 2005, PED were NOT against the rules, and thus, not "cheating"
altering balls, bats stealing signs etc WERE against the rules.
there seems to be a disconnect amongst some.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Sosa
1989-1992 age 20-23 OPS+ 85
1993-1996 age 24-27 OPS+ 121
1997 age 28 OPS+ 99
1998-2000 age 29-31 OPS+ 157
2001 age 32 OPS+ 203
2002-2003 age 33-34 OPS+ 147
2004 age 35 OPS+ 114
2005 age 36 OPS+ 78
2007 age 38 OPS+101
That actually looks like a pretty incremental increase with very normal jumps as he aged and improved and an incremental decrease as the end.
Also, when you consider he had raw home run power from the begining, and top of the league type home run power before he broke out in 1998 already, that adds even more credence.
Where was the steroid jump? If he was taking them in 1998 he was most certainly taking them in 1997 because he was just as big in 1997 as he was in 1998. He was even better than 1997 in the three previous years and had elite HR power.
Clearly he jumped in 1998 and that was from a major change in how he hit. For those just dismissing that you are showing ignorance on how a mechanical change he did could matter that much. It was not from steroids because he was just as big in 1997 as he was in 1998 as he was in 1996 and 1995.
2001 was his ultimate career year. Was he taking them that year but not the years prior?
Kirby Puckett
Age 24 and 25 OPS+ 86 with a total of FOUR home runs in 1,327 Plate Appearances.
Age 26-28 OPS+ 142 with a total of83 home runs in 2,082 Plate Appearances.
That seems far more fishy especially the home runs. He was no youngster when he had absolutely no power in MLB. Then all of a sudden, boom.
Sosa always had power even at age 21. Elite power before he broke out. A hitting change that made a more modern power swing and he broke out.
this is very compelling statistical evidence you have presented here. to add, players are normally in their prime years somewhere around 28-32 or so. That would be right in the middle of Sammy's best seasons. Other than his penultimate 2001 season, his OPS+ are very very good, but not otherworldly.
I think another factor to Sammys huge raw numbers are the huge amount of PA's he had in those prime seasons. He averaged almost 160 games and over 700 PA's per season. can you imagine what McGwire or bonds would have done had they had as many plate appearances when they were raking?
I don't think it is a huge stretch to say that when sammy hit his prime athletic years he was very available and had a better approach at the plate.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
this has been debunked many times before. these testing "results" were leaked. no original copy. The leaked copy actually had more players on it than the amount of players who actually tested "positive" according to the mlbpa.
the actual testing procedures used back during when the 2003 samples were taken were not even up to WADA standards. over the counter supplements triggered false positives.
no one takes the leaked 2003 "samples" seriously. it was nothing more than a hit piece.
and again, it would not have mattered if every player in MLB tested positive then. IT WAS NOT AGAINST THE RULES.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Joe, you still have not addressed any of my counterpoints...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Using steroids was illegal beginning in 1990. Illegal, anyone with an ounce of common sense knew that you couldn't use an illegal drug while playing baseball. Steroids were illegal.
Was it legal to paint a hand grenade white and pitch it to a batter? Nothing in the rule book against it.
I've clearly stated my opinion on MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY occasions.
Sosa had 8 seasons to figure out how to hit and was an average hitter. Then he starts hitting 60hr every year.
Yeah, he made an adjustment all right....... with his body chemistry.
I think that the technical term is 'controlled substance'. They cannot be legally sold over-the-counter. I get cortisone injections occasionally to deal with inflammation in my elbows -- I have two 'detached from the bone' UCL ligaments and cortisol, which is a steroid, can help reduce the inflammation and allow for healing when I exacerbate the injury -- throwing kids in the pool is dangerous in your 40s.
I think that I have over an ounce of common sense, if just barely, but I disagree that Steroids were banned in baseball before 2005. Being a controlled substance, they could still be used with a prescription legally, and within baseball, until they were banned in 2005, barring a player receiving a TUE -- which has been allowed for banned substances many times.
If you split the hairs on when they were banned vs. the memo from Vincent and the supporting memo from Selig from use under the agreement from the 1970s barring any MLB player from using a prescription medication without a valid prescription. So As soon as the act was passed in 1990 making AAS a controlled substance they would have been banned in baseball. However. Fay Vincent also made a statement that this could not be enforced until there was a new collective bargaining agreement in place. This I would say occurred in 2002, not 2005. I had to look up the agreements to find this. The language was only strengthened in 2004, effective in 2005.
It doesn't matter for me though because I also look at other periods of baseball and there was PEDs and cheating and I just accept that it's part of the culture of baseball... It's part of the culture of people... I consider what I would have done. Does anyone think that MLB in 1998 when we were in the heat of Long Gone Summer was oblivious? Really? MLB created the environment where 40 to 80 percent of the players had to take a PED just to keep their job... because the next guy in line would have taken it because he was willing to cheat -- and this is not a concocted story - this is first-hand. Trainers knew. Coaches knew. Owners knew. Fans, Journalists... it was a big joke no one talked about while some dude named after a popular fast-food sandwich mashed balls 500+ feet every night. And wow... we just threw the players under the bus... not all the players. Just the ones with bad luck I suppose.
Anyways. I think I've expressed my opinion on it the best I can. Maybe it influences some people... Maybe not. I do appreciate the discussion on it and I reserve my right to change my opinion at any time.
@JoeBanzai
Steroids without a Drs prescription were made illegal in 1990. they were not made against the rules of MLB until 2005 per the collectively bargained agreement. HGH was added to the banned list in 2011. Andro was added later on as well. the 2003 list you mention was a "test" run to see if steroids were something that MLB and MLBPA wanted to look into banning. that is all it was, a survey. those players who were found using (we still don't have the official list) were not punished or made public.
earlier you mentioned that lumping players who were caught using corked bats once and caught using PED was "ludicrous"
"To lump them in with players who "might" have cheated, or were caught with an illegal bat one time is ludicrous."
What about the case of Rafael Palmiero? He was not a huge musclebound athlete. he was caught once, during his last season with a positive test for PED. He denied the test was accurate. What is the difference between getting caught once for a corked bat and getting caught once for PED?
what about Albert Pujols? he was found using an illegal bat in 2011. the diameter of the barrel was too large. instead of punishing him, they "grandfathered" his bat. he used it for the next 12 seasons!!!! but no one else could. was he "cheating" in the 2022 playoffs, he let martin maldonado use his bats. when MLB found out after game one, they disallowed maldonados use of the bats because they were illegal.
from 2011 until he retired, Pujols hit almost 300 home runs with these illegal bats. was he "cheating"
What about admitted cheaters Rogers Hornsby and Hank Greenberg? they admitted cheating, and a lot!! should they have been let into the hall of fame under the sportsmanship/integrity clause?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Not correct. He was well above average by age 24 overall and an elite HR hitter. You are simply not accurate.
Was Sosa taking steroids in 1997 or before? Yes he did make a mechanical change in his hitting in 1998 and that was a big effect. So did he take them for 1998? Then take a bigger dose in 2001? Then stop taking them shortly after?
When did Sosa start taking steroids since you know?
Puckett was the guy who was a below average hitter and had zero power up until age 25 and then all of a sudden was a HR hitter and excellent hitter overall. Hmmm.
Sosa
1989-1992 age 20-23 OPS+ 85
1993-1996 age 24-27 OPS+ 121
1997 age 28 OPS+ 99
1998-2000 age 29-31 OPS+ 157
2001 age 32 OPS+ 203
2002-2003 age 33-34 OPS+ 147
2004 age 35 OPS+ 114
2005 age 36 OPS+ 78
2007 age 38 OPS+101
That actually looks like a pretty incremental increase with very normal jumps as he aged and improved and an incremental decrease as the end.
Also, when you consider he had raw home run power from the begining, and top of the league type home run power before he broke out in 1998 already, that adds even more credence.
Where was the steroid jump? If he was taking them in 1998 he was most certainly taking them in 1997 because he was just as big in 1997 as he was in 1998. He was even better than 1997 in the three previous years and had elite HR power.
Clearly he jumped in 1998 and that was from a major change in how he hit. For those just dismissing that you are showing ignorance on how a mechanical change he did could matter that much. It was not from steroids because he was just as big in 1997 as he was in 1998 as he was in 1996 and 1995.
2001 was his ultimate career year. Was he taking them that year but not the years prior?
Kirby Puckett
Age 24 and 25 OPS+ 86 with a total of FOUR home runs in 1,327 Plate Appearances.
Age 26-28 OPS+ 142 with a total of83 home runs in 2,082 Plate Appearances.
That seems far more fishy especially the home runs. He was no youngster when he had absolutely no power in MLB. Then all of a sudden, boom.
Sosa always had power even at age 21. Elite power before he broke out. A hitting change that made a more modern power swing and he broke out.
>
>
You keep pounding away at the collective bargaining agreement, it has NO BEARING on this debate. Steroids were illegal to purchase and use without a doctor's prescription. End of story. As I have said multiple times (are you reading my replies?) you don't need to go in and renegotiate the bargaining agreement whenever something is deemed illegal to own or use. In fact, the players caught using could have (and perhaps should have) been prosecuted for possession of controlled substances and jailed.
With Sosa, the leaked report coupled with his muscle growth and especially his TREMENDOUS increase in SLG and OPS are enough to convince me.
>
>
>
>
Yes, I did say that.
>
>
>
>
>
Both are cheating. Corked bats may help with bat speed, but if inspected are easy to detect and often fail on their own. The punishment and fines are established. Steroids are an entirely different advantage and were much harder to detect. The player gets his advantage every single time he is on the field and his abilities are effected by such a large amount, it's a MUCH more unfair advantage. In fact, players were taking other substances to mask their steroid use.
Palmierio was caught using stanozolol. Canseco also said in his book he injected Palmiero himself. If I am not mistaken, every player (none of whom sued Canseco for libel) mentioned in Jose's book as people he KNEW used, were caught at one point.
>
>
>
>
>
I wasn't aware of this. Apparently, if the bats were eventually allowed, they must have been OK. George Brett cheated by using too much pine tar and not only was he not punished, they replayed the game. The rule was clear, he had too much pine tar, but MLB decided it was OK.
>
>
>
>
>
Again, not familiar with this, but if MLB said the bats were OK, then no, he wasn't cheating.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Can't answer those comments. Not enough information.
>
>
>
As I have explained to you on MANY OCCASIONS, cheating is wrong, but a certain amount is always going on. Throwing a scuffed ball a couple of times a game or using a corked bat once (?) is not the same as taking an illegal drug that not only gets you back on the field faster, but increases (with training) the size and strength of your muscles and possibly even your hand eye coordination.
There are different levels of cheating and different levels of crime. Taking a pencil home from work supplied by your employer is not the same as stealing a thousand dollar piece of equipment.
>
>
Cortisol and Cortisone are not artificial testosterone. Your prescription is legal and monitored by a doctor, I assume.
>
>
>
>
If you want to use these "loopholes" fine, the players should have been prosecuted for drug use, dealing and distribution and sent to prison. What they were doing was against the law. Last time I looked, there's no Federal law against using a scuffed baseball or corked bat in a game.
>
>
>
>
Nobody got "thrown under the bus", the players knew EXACTLY what they were doing, that it was wrong and chose to do it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
So, in anutshell, creating an exploding baseball and throwing it to a batter is just fine as long as there's no rule in the collective bargaining agreement specifically saying you can't.
Then after it happens, you guys can say "Hey it's no different than Mickey Mantle getting a shot".
Alrighty then!
I don't have a prescription, but it is administered by a orthopedist. I assume that's basically the same thing as being prescribed.
Androsterone isn't the same thing as testosterone either. It's also not an artificial testosterone.
Anyways. I see your viewpoint. I'm not saying anything about Mickey Mantle's bad injection in '61. Maybe that meant something... maybe it didn't.
I don't know if anyone has looked into where the "Steroid Guys" were getting their steroids. It could have been legal. I'm just saying that I don't really care because Steroids were so pervasive in baseball that it was just the baseline for the era for me.
>
>
>
Have you read Canseco's book "Juiced"? You can get it for $4.00 delivered on ebay.
How pervasive were steroids? How many players were willing to find a supplier, inject themselves, and then do the exercise required to gain big performance gains?
"Andro" is not what I talk about when discussing steroids. The main ones I refer to are Winstrol, Deca-durabolin, the clear, the cream and Stanizol, there are many others of course.
Canseco had juicing down to an art. He didn't want to just get big, he wanted to do it "right". Not everyone was looking to get huge.
My feelings are around 10% of the players actually took the time and effort to get big gains.
I wouldn't doubt that 50% "dabbled" and didn't achieve much improvement.
My comment on Mantles injection was not directed to you, but it was most likely a one time experiment that went wrong. My point was confusing anabolic steroids with other drugs is foolish. In Jim Bouton's book "Ball Four" ( fantastic read) Jim talks about amphetamines and says they could help or hurt your performance.
I have read Juiced. The talk about steroids wasn't even the best part in that book -- probably not even top 5. I think he would have been believed more if he didn't exaggerate so much. Maybe he wasn't even exaggerating everything about steroids... who knows... but when he's talking about how he's the fastest man alive and then he's saying how we'll all be interbreeding with dolphins. It's the best book ever -- hands down! Must Read.
I don't know how many were using.. There is a wide range on estimates, but I've not heard 'as low as 10%' for a long time.
Here's how I followed the theme of the conversation on steroids.
<< What about corked bats or manipulated balls.. or other forms of cheating that were mentioned?
<< What about PEDs other than steroids?
Further.
If a player was caught cheating (non-steroid) once, it's OK because it most likely never happened before. We don't assign any cheating coefficient to their season or career statistics.
If a player was caught cheating (steroids) once, it's not OK because they were always on steroids. We dismiss their career because entirely.
Certainly this is an over-simplification of the discussion, but the whole debate is an over-simplification in my mind. Why do we want to partition steroid guys so specifically and why do we need to treat them differently? Was their cheating different in some way?
Is it based on the perceived effect being larger than other forms of cheating?
I can wrap my mind around either of these options.
@dallasactuary For me, this is enough to wipe away any 'character' flaw in relation to steroids in a league where everyone was doing them. We could use more of this right now.
@JoeBanzai it is too hard to be judge, jury, and executioner. You can say you suspect Sosa did it, but you don't know. You certainly don't know when he did, and what percentage it helped in relation to all the other things that were in play for improvement for a MLB hitter. Also, anything you say about Sosa can also be applied to Puckett.
NO!
While I can't say for sure Puckett didn't use, (he was very muscular). He never tested positive, he career started a little before the steroid use came on strong, and he was good, but not incredibly good. Even before he started to hit home runs he was a superb hitter. He only hit over 30 once.
The story here is, Tony Oliva worked with him on a leg kick that improved his power.
Choose to believe what you want, but these two are NOT that similar.
And this is exactly why we need to let the statistical record speak for itself. for the most part, we don't know who used PED and who did not. unless we have a failed test or an admission, we do not know. we may have suspicions or think we know, but it is simply conjecture. I don't know if kirby used. or sammy. or nolan ryan, ripken, griffey, thomas, johnson, clemens, cecil fielder, mcgriff, gwynn...
we don't know. before 2005, with steroids and andro, it didn't matter. 2006 for amphetamines (greenies). before 2011 for HGH. there will be a time in the future where substances that are now in common common use will be considered PED and will be banned.
we know many players who admitted to PED use going as far back as the 1950's. while some people don't want to include amphetamines into the PED category, as of 2006 MLB sure does.
"cheating" has been going on in baseball since probably the 2nd game ever played. it will continue to go on. to be consistent, we need to accept the statistical record as it stands. otherwise, we delve into the sliding scale of morality in which there are no more player comparison threads or the like.
under the sliding scale of morality we would have to have arbitrary markers for performance. ie. if someone is caught stealing signs, we discount 18.5% of their production. Greenies, 38.7% of production, HGH, 28.2% of production. Testosterone, 41.1%. doctoring baseballs, 29.9%. illegal bats, 15.3%. and on and on and on..... and everyone would have a different scale for performance.
some players admittedly cheated: Rogers Hornsby, Gaylord perry, hank Greenberg, whitey ford.
some were caught cheating: Ruth, Manny Ramirez, ARod.
then we have players who weren't cheating until they were: Piazza and bagwell both admittedly used andro before it was a banned substance.
then we have players who used PED unknowingly: Sheffield used the cream unknowing that it was a steroid.
the host of players who heavily used amphetamines before they were banned in 2006.
how do we deal with all of this? I will tell you how. players have ALWAYS looked for ways to get better. ALWAYS. and they always will. If we try to be the morality police and toss out the statistical records of every player who "cheated" even if it was before their actions were considered cheating by the league, we will not have very many players to compare/contrast.
perhaps the only one we would have left would be the old evangelist Billy Sunday and Christy Matthewson who about everyone believes was as pure as the driven snow.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.